The relationship between strategic leadership and strategic alignment in

high-performing companies in South Africa

by

LORRAINE WENDY LEAR

submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS LEADERSHIP

at the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS LEADERSHIP

PROMOTER

PROFESSOR ERNST NEULAND

FEBRUARY 2012

i
 Declarations

Student number: 638-969-4

I declare that ”THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

AND STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT IN HIGH-PERFORMING COMPANIES IN
SOUTH AFRICA” is my own work and that all sources that I have quoted have
been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.

________________________ _______________________

Signature Date

(Ms L.W. Lear)

ii
Abstract

In the global economy of the 21st century, competition is complex, challenging

and fraught with competitive opportunities and threats. Strategic leadership is
increasingly becoming the main focus for business and academics alike and is
the key issue facing contemporary organisations. Without effective strategic
leadership, the capability of a company to achieve or sustain a competitive
advantage is greatly constrained.

More than 30 years of Harvard Business School research have shown that
aligned and integrated companies outperform their nearest competitors by
every major financial measure. The organisational effectiveness emanating
from alignment is a significant competitive advantage. Alignment is that optimal
state in which strategy, employees, customers and key processes work in
concert to propel growth and profits. Aligned organisations enjoy greater
customer and employee satisfaction and produce superior results.

Can leadership make a difference? Some leaders do, some do not - and many
more could.

Effective strategic leadership can thus help organisations enhance performance

while competing in turbulent and unpredictable environments. However, there
has been little empirical evidence of the effects of strategic level leadership on
organisational processes that have distinctive strategic significance.

A greater understanding of the criteria that influence success in organisations

will enable organisations to take positive action to become more successful.

iii
This study examines the importance of critical leadership criteria and the degree
of alignment in high-performing organisations. A quantitative research design
was used in this study to assess the impact of strategic leadership on strategic
alignment of business organisations in South Africa. The research instruments
to test the research questions comprised two questionnaires. The first was
used to establish the value top leadership place on selected critical leadership
criteria, and the second to establish the level of alignment in the organisations
under investigation. The population selected for this study consisted of the
companies included in the 200 top-performing organisations which appeared in
the 2007 Financial Mail. Six companies participated in the research.

The data was electronically collated into a database and the results were then
analysed using the statistical inferential techniques of correlation and linear
regression analysis.

The study proposes that strategic leadership will positively influence strategic
alignment which, in turn, will have a beneficial effect on organisational
performance.

Keywords: strategic leadership, strategic alignment, critical criteria,

organisational performance, strategic direction, core competencies, human
capital, corporate culture, ethical practices

iv
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the following individuals and

institutions for their invaluable assistance in this research project:

1. Professor Ernst Neuland (my promoter)

for taking over from Professor Nkomo on her departure from the
School of Business Leadership halfway through the study

for advice and guidance on the completion of this study

2. Moya Joubert

for her professional language editing

3. Telkom Marketing Intelligence

for conducting a validity and reliability test of the research instruments

4. The companies that participated in this research project

for those leaders who believe that they need to make a contribution to
the future knowledge in this critical field

for being willing to take the time to participate in this project when the
majority of companies declined

in particular, the leadership in those companies, for their willingness

to take time out of their busy schedules to participate

their coordination of the participants and distribution of the

questionnaires

5. The support and encouragement of my family, friends and colleagues

v
 Table of contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............................. .................1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................1
1.2 Background ...................................................................................................2
1.3 Clarification of concepts ................................................................................5
1.3.1 Strategic leadership....................................................................................5
1.3.2 The critical criteria of leadership .................................................................6
1.3.3 Strategic alignment .....................................................................................6
1.4 Progression of the study of strategic leadership ............................................8
1.4.1 Leadership theories: a historical perspective .............................................8
1.4.2 Leadership and strategy ...................................................................................... 9
1.4.3 Background to the development of strategic leadership .............................9
1.5 Research problem .......................................................................................10
1.5.1 Aim and objectives of the research ..........................................................11
1.6 Research design and methodology .............................................................12
1.7 Justification for the research .......................................................................14
1.8 Significance of the research ........................................................................16
1.9 Delimitation and scope of the research .......................................................18
1.10 Limitations of the study ..............................................................................18
1.11 Chapter layout ...........................................................................................19
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEMES .................22
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................22
2.2 Leadership and strategic leadership............................................................23
2.2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................23
2.2.2 New directions in leadership and organisational effectiveness ................23
2.2.3 Leadership themes and theories ..............................................................26
2.2.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................26
2.2.3.2 The upper echelons theory ....................................................................27
2.2.3.3 Emergent theories .................................................................................29
2.2.3.4 Summary ...............................................................................................32

vi
2.2.4 The paradox of leading and managing: strategic, visionary and
managerial leadership ............................................................................33
2.2.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................33
2.2.4.2 Strategic leadership ...............................................................................33
2.2.4.3 Visionary leadership ..............................................................................37
2.2.4.4 Managerial leadership ...........................................................................40
2.2.4.5 Summary ...............................................................................................42
2.2.5 Strategic leadership..................................................................................45
2.2.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................45
2.2.5.2 Leadership in the competitive landscape ..............................................46
2.2.5.3 Defining strategic leadership .................................................................48
2.2.5.4 Leadership behaviours and innovation ..................................................50
2.2.5.5 Strategic leadership in the organisation ................................................52
2.2.5.6 Summary ...............................................................................................62
2.2.6 Criteria of effective strategic leadership ..................................................62
2.2.6.1 Introduction............................................................................................62
2.2.6.2 Critical criteria of strategic leadership ....................................................63
2.2.6.3 Hagen et al.’s (1998) study of strategic leadership criteria ....................64
2.2.6.4 Determining strategic direction: vision and strategic intent ....................66
2.2.6.5 Exploiting and maintaining core competencies......................................70
2.2.6.6 Developing human capital .....................................................................72
2.2.7 Summary ..................................................................................................76
2.3 The strategic importance of corporate culture .............................................77
2.3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................77
2.3.2 Sustaining effective corporate culture ......................................................78
2.3.3 The impact of culture on performance ......................................................78
2.3.4 Characteristics of organisational culture ...................................................80
2.3.5 Emphasising ethical practices ..................................................................81
2.3.6 Ethical behaviour in organisations ............................................................84
2.3.7 Establishing strategic control ....................................................................87
2.3.8 Summary ..................................................................................................89
2.4 Strategic alignment.....................................................................................90

vii
2.4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................90
2.4.2 What is strategic alignment? ....................................................................90
2.4.3 The strategic alignment model .................................................................95
2.4.4 Vertical and horizontal alignment .............................................................98
2.4.5 Strategic alignment and organisational performance .............................101
2.4.6 Summary ................................................................................................102
2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................103
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...........................107
3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................107
3.2 Research paradigm ...................................................................................107
3.2.1 Problem statement and objectives of the study ......................................109
3.3 Research proposition and hypotheses ......................................................112
3.4 Variables and measures ............................................................................112
3.4.1 Independent and dependent variables ...................................................113
3.4.2 Measurement of key variables ...............................................................114
3.5 Research methods ...................................................................................116
3.5.1 Research instruments ............................................................................116
3.5.1.1 Measurement of strategic leadership ..................................................117
3.5.1.2 Measurement of strategic alignment ...................................................121
3.5.1.3 Validity and reliability of the strategic alignment testing instrument .....123
3.5.2 Rating scales ..........................................................................................129
3.6 Sampling frame .........................................................................................130
3.7 Data collection procedures .......................................................................133
3.8 Ethical considerations ..............................................................................134
3.9 Data analysis ............................................................................................135
3.10 Research analysis methodology..............................................................135
3.10.1 Measuring and predicting relationships ................................................135
3.10.2 Correlation ............................................................................................136
3.10.3 Scatterplots ..........................................................................................136
3.10.4 Regression analysis .............................................................................137
3.10.5 Statistical tests applied to the proposition and hypotheses ..................138
3.11 Summary and conclusions ......................................................................140

viii
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS.........................................................141
4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................141
4.2 Profile of the population and population sample .......................................141
4.3 Analysis of the results ..............................................................................144
4.4 Nature of the results .................................................................................144
4.5 Proposition 1 ............................................................................................145
4.6 Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................149
4.6.1 Vertical alignment ...................................................................................155
4.6.2 Horizontal alignment...............................................................................156
4.7 Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................157
4.7.1 Q1: Determining strategic direction – strategy .......................................157
4.7 2 Q2: Exploiting and maintaining core competencies – customers ...........158
4.7.3 Q3: Developing human capital – people.................................................159
4.7.4 Q4: Sustaining an effective corporate culture – people ..........................159
4.7.5 Q5: Emphasising ethical practices – processes .....................................160
4.7.6 Q6: Establishing strategic control – processes .......................................161
4.7.7 Scatterplot depicting the relationship between the X and Y variables ....161
4.8 Conclusion ...............................................................................................162
4.9 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................164
4.10 Summary and conclusions ......................................................................166
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .167
5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................167
5.2 Empirical findings ......................................................................................169
5.3 Findings on strategic leadership ...............................................................170
5.3.1Proposition 1 ...........................................................................................170
5.3.1.1 Analysis of the highest-rated criterion: determining strategic
direction ..............................................................................................170
5.3.1.2 Analysis of the lowest-rated criterion: emphasising ethical
practices and establishing strategic controls ........................................171
5.3.1.3 Exploiting and maintaining core competencies....................................173
5.3.1.4 Developing human capital ...................................................................173
5.3.1.5 Sustaining an effective corporate culture ............................................174

ix
5.3.1.6 Mean score rating for each company in the sample ............................176
5.3.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................176
5.4 Strategic alignment....................................................................................177
5.4.1 Hypothesis 1...........................................................................................177
5.4.2 Vertical and horizontal alignment ...........................................................178
5.5 Comparison of strategic leadership and strategic alignment:
hypothesis 2 .........................................................................................180
5.5.1 Q1: Determining strategic direction – strategy .......................................183
5.5.2 Q2: Exploiting and maintaining core competencies – customers ...........183
5.5.3 Q3: Developing human capital – people.................................................184
5.5.4 Q4: Sustaining an effective corporate culture – people ..........................184
5.5.5 Q5: Emphasising ethical practices - processes ......................................185
5.5.6 Q6: Establishing strategic controls – processes .....................................186
5.5.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................186
5.6 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................188
5.6.1 Comparison of the critical criteria scores in the most and least
aligned companies ................................................................................189
5.6.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................192
5.7 Contributions of the study ..........................................................................196
5.8 Limitations of the study..............................................................................197
5.9 Recommendations for further research .....................................................199
5.10 Conclusion ..............................................................................................199
LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................201
APPENDIX A: STUDY ON RANKING OF CRITICAL COMPONENTS ...........218
APPENDIX B: STUDY OF THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP IN
EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................220
APPENDIX C: STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
ON THE OPERATIONAL STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE OF BUSINESS
ORGANISATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA ..........................................................226
APPENDIX D: STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF CEOS ON FIRM
PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................228

x
APPENDIX E: LETTER OF INVITATION TO CEOS OF ORGANISATIONS
IN THE SAMPLE .............................................................................................229
APPENDIX F: BRIEF TO CEOS .....................................................................230
APPENDIX G: HOW STRATEGY SHAPES STRUCTURE .............................232

xi
 List of tables

Table Name Page no

2.1 Strategic, visionary and managerial leadership 42

3.1 Defining independent and dependent variables 113

3.2 Independent and dependent variables 115

3.3 Strategic leadership questionnaire 118

3.4 Definition of critical criteria 119

3.5 Employee questionnaire 122

3.6 Factor analysis: forced four factors 126

3.7 Total variance 127

3.8 Rotated component matrix 127

3.9 Case processing summary 128

3.10 Reliability statistics 129

3.11 Statistical tests applied to the proposition and hypotheses 139

4.1 Summary of descriptive statistics for the critical criteria 146

4.2 Correlation matrix for critical criteria 147

4.3 Mean scores of critical criteria for each organisation 148

4.4 Summary of descriptive statistics for strategic alignment 150

4.5 Pearson correlation for strategic alignment indicating P-

151
values

xii
4.6 Mean scores for strategic alignment for each organisation 153

4.7 Correlation for the critical criteria and strategic alignment 163
of strategy, customers, people and processes

4.8 Multiple regression analysis for the X and Y variables 165

5.1 Strategic alignment and strategic leadership criteria 178

5.2 Comparative responses of the independent and 182

dependent variables

Comparison of the highest and lowest scores for the two

5.3 190
variables

xiii
 List of figures

Figure Name Page no

2.1 Strategic leadership: critical criteria 63

2.2 Instrument out of alignment and in alignment 95

2.3 Model of strategic alignment 96

2.4 Strategic leadership - researcher’s compilation 106

4.1 Mean scores for strategic alignment 150

4.2 Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for the 152

sample mean of alignment constructs of strategy,
customers, processes and people

Bar diagram showing mean scores for strategic

4.3 153
alignment for organisations A to F

Radar diagrams illustrating the alignment means for

4.4 154
organisations A to F

Scatterplot depicting vertical alignment: strategy –

4.5 155
people

Scatterplot depicting horizontal alignment: customers –

4.6 156
processes

4.7 Scatterplot depicting Q1 – strategy 158

4.8 Scatterplot depicting Q2 – customers 158

4.9 Scatterplot depicting Q3 – people 159

4.10 Scatterplot depicting Q4 – people 160

4.11 Scatterplot depicting Q5 – processes 160

4.12 Scatterplot depicting Q6 – processes 161

4.13 Scatterplot depicting the X and Y variables 162

xiv
5.1 Graphical representation of the highest and lowest 191
organisational scores for the two variables

5.2 Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for 193

organisation B

5.3 Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for 193

organisation E

xv
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Superior organisational performance is not a matter of luck. It is determined

largely by the choices leaders make. Strategic leadership is one of the most
critical issues facing organisations today. Strategic leadership means the ability to
anticipate and envision the future, maintain flexibility, think strategically and initiate
changes that will create a competitive advantage for the organisation in the future.
(Daft, 2011: 350). Despite the long history of research on leadership, only recently
have the organisation behaviour scholars started to single out strategic leadership
as a focus of attention (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 380).

Leadership at strategic level is one of the principal issues facing organisations in

the 21st century – nevertheless, little empirical evidence has emerged on the
effects of leadership at strategic level on organisational processes with distinct
strategic importance (Elenkov, 2008: 37).

Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 518) pose the following questions: Does strategic
leadership matter? Under what conditions? Where? How? According to what
criteria?

Wheeler, McFarland and Kleiner (2007: 2) state the following: “Indeed the quality
of individual leadership matters.”

Sanders and Davey (2011: 41) identify strategic leadership that links leadership
effectiveness and organisational effectiveness in a new paradigm of strategic
leadership. The dynamic cognitive and behavioural complexity of the causal chain
of mediators and moderators suggests the reason for the difficulty in attaining and
maintaining leadership effectiveness (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 45).

1
The significance of strategic leadership is clearly acknowledged, but the question
of what criteria are critical for leadership success and how these criteria are
manifested in the organisation has been less clearly defined and not empirically
investigated. These questions give rise to the problem statement and objectives
addressed in this study.

1.2 BACKGROUND

In a rapidly changing world, strategic leaders face incredible pressure to deliver

immediate results, do more with less and manage an ever-increasing personal
workload, the pace and urgency of daily demands can make it difficult to be more
than a step ahead into the future. However, in a world of changing conditions and
priorities, leaders and individual contributors alike should be able to look beyond
their approach to their work and responsibilities (Wheeler et al., 2007; Serfontein,
2009). The global economy has created a new competitive landscape, in which
events change constantly and unpredictably (Ireland & Hitt, 1999) and where
competition is complex, challenging and fraught with competitive opportunities and
threats (Drucker, 2002).

Can leadership make a difference in this competitive landscape? It would seem

that some leaders definitely do influence organisational performance (Smith,
Carson & Alexander, 1984: 765).

In this competitive landscape, strategic leadership is increasingly becoming the

main focus for business and academics alike. Leadership at strategic level is the
key issue facing 21st-century organisations (Hitt, Keats & DeMarie, 1998: 26;
Elenkov, 2008: 37). Without effective strategic leadership, the capability of a
company to achieve or sustain a competitive advantage is greatly constrained
(Elenkov, 2008). However, there has been little empirical evidence of the effects of
strategic level leadership on organisational processes that have distinctive
strategic significance (Ireland & Hitt, 1999; Elenkov, 2008: 37; Serfontein, 2009).

2
Defining strategic leadership poses a challenge because the scope of strategic
leadership is broad and complex. The strategy is the plan, while strategic
leadership is the thinking and decision making required to develop and effect the
plan. Supervisory leadership is about leaders “in” organisations, whereas strategic
leadership is concerned with leadership “of” organisations (Boal & Hooijberg,
2001). The study of strategic leadership focuses on executives with the overall
responsibility for an organisation (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996) and includes not
only the titular head of the organisation but also members of what is referred to as
the top management team (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001). Through their leaders,
organisations make strategic choices about the strategies they adopt to enhance
their competitive advantage. From a strategic management standpoint,
organisational effectiveness is the degree to which the composite outputs an
organisation produces align with the demands of its environment in order to
achieve a competitive advantage, and strategic leadership is a primary
determinant of this set of outputs. Identifying these outputs and the process
through which they contribute to effectiveness is the key to understanding the
organisational effectiveness construct (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 43-44).

The role of the leader appears to be fundamental to the success of organisations.

Hence identifying the criteria that leaders require to make their organisations
successful will greatly enhance the possibility of leadership achieving this goal in
organisations. Strategic leadership is the ability to influence others to voluntarily
make day-to-day decisions that enhance the organisation’s long-term viability,
while at the same time maintaining its short-term financial viability (Rowe, 2001).

Elenkov’s (2008: 46) empirical study on strategic leadership concludes that top
managers who wish to influence innovations should not rely on their hierarchical
position alone, but that they also need to possess relevant strategic leadership
skills that appear critical to their power base.

3
According to Waldman, Ramírez, House and Puranam (2001: 134), strategic
management theory has become increasingly concerned with top-level managers
and their effects on strategy formulation and organisation performance.

Furthermore, House and Aditya (1997: 441) argue that since the study of effective
organisational policies and strategies has been one of the most prominent foci of
business school education since the founding of the earliest business schools, the
relative neglect of strategic leadership as a subject of empirical investigation is
ironic.

Over the past few years, considerably more attention has been paid to the
significance of strategic leadership in organisations. Some studies have focused
on what strategic leaders actually do in their day-to-day environment (Nyabdza,
2008; Kotter, 2001).

In the past 20 years, the field of strategic management has become increasingly
concerned with top-level managers and their effects on strategy formulation and
organisation performance (Waldman, Javidan & Varella, 2004: 356). Prior to the
mid-1980s, however, there were few empirical studies on the influence of the
strategic leadership process on a strategic leader’s behaviour (House & Aditya,
1997: 31). There is now a growing interest in the field of strategic leadership of
organisations.

According to Fiedler (1996: 243, 246), the most important lesson we have learnt
over the past 40 years is probably that the leadership of groups is a highly
complex interaction between an individual and the social and task environment.
He further postulates that it seems safe to predict that managers who can
capitalise on their cognitive resources will substantially improve their
organisation’s performance.

Elenkov (2008: 37) maintains that there is little empirical evidence of the effects of
leadership at strategic level on organisational processes that have distinctive

4
strategic significance that can help companies achieve sustainable competitive
superiority.

Other research has examined critical leadership components (Hagen, Hassan &
Amin, 1998; Ireland & Hitt, 1999; Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2001), and the results
of such studies would indicate the contribution of these components to
organisational success. However, few studies have examined the relationship
between strategic leadership and the organisation’s performance (Kathuria &
Partovi, 2000: 215; Raymond & Croteau, 2009: 192, Serfontein, 2009).

According to Labovitz (2004: 30), more than 30 years of Harvard Business School
research has shown that aligned and integrated companies outperform their
nearest competitors on every major financial measure and that the organisational
effectiveness that derives from this alignment is a significant competitive
advantage. Alignment may be defined as that optimal state in which strategy,
employees, customers and key processes work in concert to propel growth and
profits. Hence aligned organisations enjoy greater customer and employee
satisfaction and produce superior returns for shareholders.

Strategic alignment has been a key focus area, particularly in the information
technology (IT) environment. In terms of this environment, the majority of the
studies were initially focused on aligning IT with strategy, but strategic alignment is
now becoming increasingly the focus of a range of management studies (Avison,
Jones, Powell & Wilson, 2004; Campbell, Kay & Avison, 2005; Iman & Hartono,
2007).

1.3 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS

1.3.1 Strategic leadership

Ireland and Hitt (1999: 43) define strategic leadership as a person’s ability to
anticipate, envision, maintain flexibility, think strategically and work with others to
initiate changes that will create a viable future for the organisation.

5
According to Wheeler et al. (2007: 4), great management practices are not
replicable in a recipe fashion, but companies can develop a design for strategic
leadership. This is an integrated group of practices that builds a company’s
capacity for change. In order to develop and maintain this capacity, these authors
define four critical elements that need to be integrated: (1) commitment to the
company’s purpose; (2) the make-up of the top management team; (3) the
capabilities and motivation of people throughout the organisation; and (4) a
sequence of focused, well-chosen strategic initiatives that can take the company
forward.

Strategic leadership is the ability to influence others to voluntarily make day-to-day

decisions that enhance the long-term organisation’s viability (Rowe, 2001: 81).

1.3.2 The critical criteria of leadership

Hagen et al. (1998) explored the six critical criteria for strategic leadership
identified by Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson (1995) among American CEOs in terms of
their perceptions and ranking of these criteria in relation to strategic leadership.

According to Hagen et al. (1998: 41), Hitt et al. (2001: 500) and Jooste and Fourie
(2009: 52, 53), the six critical criteria of strategic leadership are as follows: (1)
determining strategic direction; (2) exploiting and maintaining core competencies;
(3) developing human capital; (4) sustaining an effective corporate culture; (5)
emphasising ethical practices; and (6) establishing strategic controls. These
components are critically examined in chapter 2.

1.3.3 Strategic alignment

According to Khadem (2008: 29), alignment is crucial to success. Alignment is

that optimal state in which strategy, employees, customers and key processes
work in concert to propel growth and profits. Aligned organisations enjoy greater
customer and employee satisfaction and produce superior returns for shareholders
(Labovitz, 2004: 30).

6
Alignment matters and produces dramatic benefits for organisations. It is therefore
critical if enterprises are to achieve synergies through their business and support
units (Kaplan & Norton, 2006: 3, 26–27). An enterprise’s key focus is therefore on
aligning strategy with the business, but it should also align its employees and
management processes with the strategy. However, even if the organisation’s
strategies are aligned and integrated in all organisational units, little will be gained
unless employees are motivated to help their organisational unit implement these
strategies. According to Fonvielle and Carr (2001: 5), alignment involves common
agreement about goals and means, and these two authors concur with Labovitz’s
(2004) statement that alignment is a necessary condition for organisational
effectiveness.

Strategic alignment provides a means for measuring the effectiveness of

organisations (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997; Labovitz, 2004). These authors
maintain that alignment gives managers at every level of the organisation the
ability to rapidly deploy a coherent business strategy, be totally customer focused,
develop world-class people and continuously improve business processes – all at
the same time. Fonvielle and Carr (2001) underscore the view that alignment is a
necessary condition for organisational effectiveness. Khadem (2008) and Kim and
Mauborgne (2009) concur with these views and cite alignment as the critical factor
in successful strategy implementation.

In light of the preceding definition of alignment, economic performance may be

enhanced by alignment, by finding the right fit between external positioning and
internal arrangements (Ciborra, 1997: 68). By concentrating on the alignment of
strategy and infrastructure, organisations will not only achieve synergy and
facilitate the development of business plans, but also increase profitability and
efficiency.

The purpose of this research was to determine how the six selected critical criteria
of strategic leadership correlate with strategic alignment within the context of high
performance organisation in South Africa.

7
1.4 PROGRESSION OF THE STUDY OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

Since the 1970s, the study of leadership has experienced both rejuvenation and
metamorphosis. According to House (1977), rejuvenation, in the study of
leadership, seemed like an old friend in which the field of management had lost
interest. At the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, leadership as a field
of study had reached an impasse: little new theory was being developed, and
serious scholars were asked not where the field should go next, but whether
leadership even matters. Notable exceptions included the early work of House
(1977), on charismatic leadership, and Lord (1977), on implicit theories of
leadership. By the mid-1980s, however, a metamorphosis away from the study of
“supervisory” leadership (House & Aditya, 1997: 410) towards the study of
strategic leadership had begun. With this change in emphasis came a newfound
sense of excitement initially centring on the upper echelons theory and the study
of top management teams (TMTs), and what Bryman (Hunt, 1999) has labelled the
“new” leadership theories (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 515).

1.4.1 Leadership theories: a historical perspective

Supervisory theories of leadership are about leadership “in” organisations, while

strategic theories of leadership are concerned with leadership “of” organisations
and are focused on the organisation as a whole (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 516).

Leadership theory has evolved from the original upper echelons theory developed
by Hambrick and Mason (1984) to focus on new leadership theories. These
include charismatic theories of leadership, transformational theories of leadership
and visionary theories of leadership to strategic leadership. Strategic leadership
focuses on the people who have overall responsibility for the organisation, which
includes not only the titular head of the organisation but also its top leadership,
referred to as the TMT or dominant coalition (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 516).

8
1.4.2 Leadership and strategy

In recent years, the attention of leadership scholars has shifted to top executives
who are in a position to exert a strong influence on the strategy and performance
of organisations (Sosik, Jung, Berson, Dionne & Jaussi, 2005: 47).

Strategic leadership is the leader’s ability to anticipate, envision and maintain

flexibility and empower others to create strategic change as necessary (Hitt et al.,
2001: 500; Serfontein, 2009; Jooste & Fourie, 2009: 52, 53). The phrase “strategic
leadership” emerged from work on strategic management and involves the
following: (1) determining strategic direction; (2) exploring and maintaining unique
core competencies; (3) developing human capital; (4) sustaining an effective
organisational culture; (5) emphasising ethical practices; and (6) establishing
balanced organisational controls (Hitt, et al., 1995; Hagen et al., 1998; Hitt et al.,
2001: 500; Jooste & Fourie, 2009). According to Sosik et al. (2005: 47),
outstanding strategic leaders are those executives who display key behaviours
that enable the organisation to execute its strategy effectively. In essence, they
are “strategy-focused leaders”. This view confirms the criteria identified in previous
studies (Hitt et al., 1995; Hagen et al., 1998).

Understanding strategic leadership involves spotlighting what effective top leaders

actually do to produce a strategy-focused organisation (Sosik et al., 2005: 48).

1.4.3 Background to the development of strategic leadership

The topics of leadership and strategy have attracted a great deal of interest over
the years, with a substantial body of literature on each subject generating
confidence in the existence and study of these subjects.

Both strategy and leadership are being redefined by change, and both concepts
are therefore looking increasingly the same. Hence the continued pressure to
focus on change has resulted in the merging of both leadership and strategy
(Abell, 2006: 310). In future, change will drive increasing congruence of strategy
and leadership in practice, as well as merge the two fields in academia. Increasing

9
attention is being paid to the role fulfilled by top leaders and their impact on
organisations. There is thus a shift away from focusing on the leader/follower to
looking at the leader and TMTs.

The focus on strategic leadership is gaining momentum as the subject gains

recognition.

1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Research has confirmed that leader behaviour influences group and organisational
behaviour (O’Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz & Self, 2010: 104,112), but less is
known about how top leadership ensures that group and organisational members
implement their decisions. It is the alignment across hierarchical levels that really
matters.

This section deals with the problem statement for this study. The positive
relationship between strategic leadership and strategic alignment in high
performing companies has not been empirically investigated in South Africa. More
specifically, the focus of this study was to establish the importance of the strategic
leadership criteria and the extent of the relationship between the strategic
leadership criteria and strategic alignment in high-performing companies.

Figure 2.4 in chapter 2 depicts the intended relationship between strategic

leadership and strategic alignment in high-performing companies.

The following questions were addressed in this study:

1. What level of importance do the top leadership team assign to the selected
critical leadership criteria identified for this study?
2. What level of strategic alignment exists between the four constructs of
strategy, processes, customers and people?

10
3. Is there a relationship between the critical leadership criteria and strategic
alignment in these top-performing companies?
4. If so, what is the relationship?

1.5.1 Aim and objectives of the research

The aim of this study was to establish whether effective strategic leadership will
result in strategic alignment. According to Ireland and Hitt (1999), this is indeed the
case. The view that being able to exercise strategic leadership in a competitively
superior manner facilitates an organisation’s performance is gaining increasing
support.

In order to further examine the relationship between strategic leadership (the

independent variable) and strategic alignment (the dependent variable), an
empirical research study was conducted on high-performing companies. More
specifically, the objectives of this study were to establish the importance of the
strategic leadership criteria and the extent of the relationship between the strategic
leadership criteria and strategic alignment in high-performing companies in South
Africa.

In order to address these objectives, the following proposition and hypotheses

were formulated:

Proposition 1:
The six selected critical criteria, namely determining strategic direction, exploiting
and maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining
effective corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing
strategic controls are important for strategic leadership.

Hypotheses:
H01 There is no relationship between the following strategic alignment
constructs: strategy, customers, processes and people.
H11 There is a relationship between the following strategic alignment constructs:
strategy, customers, processes and people.

11
H02 There is no relationship between the four strategic alignment constructs
and the six critical criteria of strategic leadership.
H12 There is a relationship between the four strategic alignment constructs and
the six critical criteria of strategic leadership.

H03 Strategic leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high
performance companies.
H13 Strategic leadership positively influences strategic alignment in high
performance companies.

1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The methodology of a research study specifies the way in which it will be

conducted in order to achieve the objectives that have been formulated. In the
current study, this involved examining the relationship between the independent
variable strategic leadership and the dependent variable strategic alignment in
selected high performance listed companies in South Africa. The research design
and methodology are dealt with in detail in chapter 3.

A research design is a plan or blueprint of how the researcher intends conducting

the research, and focuses on the end product: What kind of study is being planned
and what kind of result is aimed at? Research methodology, however, focuses on
the actual research process and the kind of tools and procedures to be used
(Mouton, 2003: 65–66).

A thorough literature study was conducted, which gave rise to the formulation of
thinking that formed the basis of this research in general and the empirical study in
particular. This literature review is presented in chapter 2 and includes an analysis
of relevant theory and previous research published in books, journals, working
papers, articles and relevant internet sources that focus on the topic of strategic
leadership. The sampling design is discussed in chapter 3.

12
A quantitative research design was used in this study to measure the value placed
by top leadership on the selected critical criteria in the company and the degree of
strategic alignment as measured by a cross-section of its employees. An analysis
of the results provides a view of the responses to these research questions.

The research was conducted at a two-tier level – that of the TMT and a cross-
section of participants in the organisation.

The research instruments used in this study to test the research questions
comprised the following two questionnaires:

(1) The first questionnaire consisted of six statements testing the value placed by
the TMTs on the six critical criteria.
(2) The second questionnaire, which measured strategic alignment across the
organisation as perceived by its employees, comprised 16 questions
measuring the respondents’ view of the importance of strategy, customers,
operations and people in the organisation. The questionnaire, which was
tested for reliability and validity by means of Cronbach’s alpha and factor
analysis respectively, was found to be both reliable and valid for the purpose
of the study.

The data for the empirical study were collected by means of email requests to the
chief executive officer (CEO) of each company, outlining the objectives of the
study and attaching the two questionnaires, namely the top leadership
questionnaire and the employee alignment questionnaire. This followed a direct
approach to the CEO requesting his or her commitment to participation in the
study, which was given, complying with ethical considerations relating to this
study.

The population selected for this study consisted of the companies included in the
200 top-performing organisations, which appeared in the 2007 Financial Mail. In
this survey, the performance of all listed companies was measured over a five-
year period to ensure that there was consistency in their performance. In terms of
this survey, the respondents were the CEOs or a member of the senior executive

13
group. The figures in the tables used to establish the top 200 companies were
provided by the McGregor Bureau for Financial Analysis (BFA) and were
published in the Financial Mail in 2007 (Williams, 2007). These were calculated
according to the standardisation definition summarised in chapter 3, which
established the ranking of the companies listed in the Financial Mail survey.

Six companies participated in the current research, with a total of 35 valid

responses received from the top leaders and 350 responses from employees. The
response rate was positive when compared with that in other studies. Serfontein
(2009: 156) cites a series of surveys by Fortune 1000 companies in 1990, 1993
and 1996, conducted by the Centre for Effective Organisations which had
response rates of 32%, 28% and 22% respectively (Lawler, Mohman & Ledford,
1998). Information on financial performance was supplied by the companies at the
time of their participation in the study.

The data for the empirical study were collected through the electronic distribution
of the questionnaire and the responses to the questions therein.

1.7 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH

An in-depth literature review was conducted and reported in chapter 2. Despite the
long history of research on leadership, social scientists, primarily organisation
behaviour scholars, have only recently begun to single out strategic leadership as
a focus of attention. In the meantime, the practice of “strategic leadership”
appears to be animated by persistent myths, sometimes created by the trade
press, other times by the personal experience of leaders. These myths, as
Hambrick (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 380) suggests, invite critical scholarly
scrutiny.

Narayanan and Zane’s (2009: 381) work offers an epistemological vantage point
for theory development in the case of strategic leadership and fuelled by the
metaphor of inventing a future for strategic leadership focused less on reviews of

14
the existing literature and more on the possibilities of generating insights. The
literature on leadership has typically conceptualised the construct in terms of
leader style and behaviour and leader-follower relations. Cumulatively findings
from this research stream are far from convergent, but more importantly, the
applicability of leadership functions articulated by them to strategic levels is yet to
be demonstrated.

Recent studies include one by Mackey (2008), who examined the effect of the
CEO on organisation performance. This study tracked the impact of turnover in
CEOs on organisation performance as opposed to actual CEO effectiveness in
managing the organisation. Serfontein (2009) examined the impact of strategic
leadership on the operational strategy and performance of business organisations
in South Africa (Appendix C), while Jooste and Fourie (2009) studied the role of
strategic leadership in effective strategy implementation (Appendix B). Both these
studies concluded that strategic leadership does impact on organisational
performance.

However, the major limitation of the studies by Serfontein (2009) and Jooste and
Fourie (2009) is that they were based on responses from only the CEO, in the
former, and the board directors, who have no executive responsibility in
organisations, in the latter. These were limited studies based on the response
from only one person in each organisation in the first study and a sample of up to
five board members representing the organisations in the second study. There
was no investigation in the organisation to verify the responses of the leadership at
other levels in the organisation and to test the impact of leadership in the
organisation.

Leadership at strategic level has been identified as one of the primary issues
facing organisations in the 21st century, and that without effective strategic
leadership, the capability of a company to achieve or sustain competitive
advantage is greatly constrained (Rowe, 2001: 81). Nevertheless, little empirical
evidence has been provided on the effects of leadership at strategic level on
organisational process with distinctive significance (Elenkov, 2008: 37).

15
As mentioned above, this study can be justified on the strength of the importance
of and need to build empirical evidence on the effects of leadership at strategic
level and the criteria that impact on organisational performance.

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

Organisational performance is a key concern for business executives. In this

regard, the focus on strategic alignment was ranked as one of the principal issues
faced by executives (Avison et al., 2004: 223, 224). Over the past few years, there
has been a significant increase in the focus on strategic alignment in
organisations. Organisations cannot be competitive if their business and strategies
are not aligned. However, achieving strategic alignment continues to be a major
concern for business executives. Accordingly, identifying the criteria that leaders
should meet in order to make their organisations successful would greatly
enhance leadership’s ability to be more successful, as well as making it possible to
select the right leaders for organisations.

In the South African context, only seven doctoral studies have been completed on
strategy and leadership in South Africa and none of these studies has focused
particularly on the direct and indirect impact of strategic leadership on the
operational strategy and performance of business organisations in the country
(Serfontein, 2009: 22). Some of the studies that are related to this study include
that of Van Schalkwyk (1989), entitled “Leadership and strategic management in
organisational development”; a study by Serfontein (2009) entitled “The impact of
strategic leadership on operational strategy and performance of business
organisations South Africa”; and “The role of strategic leadership in effective
strategy implementation: perceptions of South African strategic leaders” by Jooste
and Fourie (2009). Other research by South African researchers has been mainly
of a theoretical, conceptual nature and of limited scope, for example, MCom and
MBA dissertations. Except for the above-mentioned studies, no empirical research

16
has been done on strategic leadership in a South African context envisaged in this
study (Serfontein, 2009: 22).

Freedman (Serfontein, 2009) postulates that no organisation can hope to succeed

in today’s hostile world without a strong leadership team in place and a clear
strategy process that enables them to set, implement and update their strategy.
According to Drucker (2002), organisations need to innovate and improve their
existing practices in order to cope with the challenges of the knowledge economy.
With reference to the importance of strategic leadership in this regard, in a study
on the effect of CEOs on organisational performance (Appendix D), Mackey
(2008: 1362) concludes that CEO effects on corporate performance are fairly
substantial (29.2%) – almost four times larger than the corporate effect (7.9%) and
almost five times larger than the industry effect (6.2%).

The need for further research on strategic leadership in the South African context
has been clearly stated. This study focused on building on the body of knowledge
to enhance understanding of strategic leadership whereby leaders impact on their
organisations. As an exploratory study, this research attempted to measure the
relationship between the two variables of strategic leadership and strategic
alignment in high performance organisations. The knowledge gained should
therefore help organisations to improve their effectiveness.

The contribution of this study is to expand on existing research on strategic

leadership by measuring the significance of critical leadership criteria and strategic
alignment in high-performing organisations in South Africa, and then to provide
insight into the relationship in order to advance organisational performance.

The results of this study should lead to further research in the field of strategic
leadership and organisational performance, which would undoubtedly contribute to
the further development of knowledge of strategic leadership.

17
1.9 DELIMITATION AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

As discussed previously, there has been little empirical evidence concerning the
effects of strategic leadership on organisational processes that are deemed to be
of distinctive strategic importance (Elenkov, 2008: 37).

Whilst it is recognised that economic and industry factors influence the

performance of a business, the role of strategic leadership is to achieve the
strategic objectives of the business in whatever economic climate prevails –
hence, economic and industry factors are not the primary consideration in this
study.

The companies investigated in this study represent diverse industries and

economic sectors, including manufacturing, transportation, construction,
communication and industrial. From a hierarchical perspective, the study focused
on the TMT and a sample of employees across other organisational levels from
senior management level to operational levels. A random sample was drawn from
the 200 top-listed companies published in a Financial Mail Survey (2007).

All of the organisations are large, publicly listed companies on the Johannesburg
Securities Exchange. Small, medium and private companies of all sizes were not
included in the study sample. The findings of this research can thus not be
generalised or extrapolated to private companies and organisations of all sizes. It
is possible that a study comprising a larger number of organisations from different
size organisations might yield other results.

1.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The intention of this study was to examine the relationship between strategic
leadership and strategic alignment in high-performing companies in South Africa.
More specifically, the focus of this study was to establish the importance of the

18
strategic leadership criteria and the extent of the relationship between the strategic
leadership criteria and strategic alignment in high-performing companies. While it
can be argued that economic factors might vary in different business sectors and
influence organisational performance, an in-depth study of the environmental and
economic sector conditions was not conducted as part of the study.

A random sample of six organisations was used to participate in this study, which
enabled the researcher to conduct an in-depth study in which the alignment of the
organisation was explored in relation to the importance placed by the TMT on the
critical leadership components. The inherent delimitations of the survey research
design were applicable to the study. Since an in-depth study into each
organisation was conducted, data were collected from a large number of
employees in each organisation in the sample.

1.11 CHAPTER LAYOUT

The layout of the chapters is as follows:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This chapter introduced the study, formulated the research problem, questions,
objectives, proposition and hypotheses. It then explained the scope and limitations
of the study and outlined the research design and methodology.

This chapter also provided an overview of new directions in leadership and

organisational effectiveness and progress in the study of strategic leadership,
including the upper echelons theory and emergent theories. The paradox of
leading and managing was discussed and strategic leadership in the new
competitive landscape explored. Six critical criteria for strategic leadership were
presented and strategic alignment discussed.

19
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEMES
This chapter presents a review of relevant literature in order to provide a
theoretical background for the study and to justify the research objectives,
proposition and hypotheses that were formulated.

The literature review encompasses perspectives on strategic leadership, strategic

alignment and organisational performance. The chapter commences with a
definition of strategic leadership. It then discusses the development of thinking on
this subject and explores the critical components of strategic leadership. In
conclusion, the concept of strategic alignment and its impact on organisational
performance is examined.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the stages in and the elements of the research process,
focusing on the primary data collection methodology and the measures of
performance. The chapter provides a discussion of the research design, research
methodology, sampling design, research measurements and analysis methods
applied in this study.

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

In this chapter, the data are presented and analysed. In addition, the sample is
described, the nature of the results examined and an overview of the results
presented.

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discusses the results presented in chapter 4. The discussion covers
the key findings of the study, the conclusions drawn and the recommendations
made.

The chapter commences with the results of the TMTs’ rating of the critical criteria
and shows that the TMTs regard these as critical components of strategic
leadership. The responses to each criterion are examined and discussed.

20
The results of the strategic alignment survey are examined and discussed and the
correlation with the critical criteria explored.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of the contributions of this study to the
field of study and the literature, as well as its limitations. It also indicates areas for
possible further research.

21
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEMES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Superior organisational performance is not a question of luck. It is determined

largely by the choices leaders make (Daft, 2011: 350). The purpose of this
literature review is to define the concept of strategic leadership and investigate the
relationship between strategic alignment in high-performing companies in the
context of this study.

This chapter accordingly presents a review of the literature on the subject of

strategic leadership and strategic alignment and provides a theoretical background
to the study in order to develop a framework/guidelines for considering the
objectives of this study, namely to establish whether

the critical criteria of leadership are important

strategic alignment is important
alignment indicates positive implementation of the critical criteria by
leadership
strategic leadership positively influences strategic alignment in high
performance companies based on the importance of the six criteria

The primary aim of this chapter is to justify the proposition and hypotheses
formulated for the research and review the accumulated knowledge on the issues
under investigation (Neuman, 2006: 111). The literature review conducted in this
chapter accordingly examines the current status of leadership and strategic
leadership, focusing on leadership theories and strategic leadership imperatives,
corporate culture and strategic alignment in the context of strategic management
in a dynamic and competitive business environment.

More specifically, this literature review includes the following: leadership and
strategic leadership, the strategic importance of corporate culture and strategic

22
alignment. These topics will be explored and their significance discussed in the
context of this study.

2.2 LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

2.2.1 Introduction
The development and progression of leadership and strategic leadership theories
is examined in this section to provide an overview of scholarly thinking on this
topic and a framework for the study.

New directions in leadership and organisational effectiveness are explored in this

context and leadership themes and theories, including the upper echelons theory
and emergent theories, are reviewed. The paradox of leading and managing in
organisations is explored, and strategic, visionary and managerial leadership
defined and discussed. Components of effective strategic leadership practices
and critical criteria are examined and their importance in the context of the study
discussed.

2.2.2 New directions in leadership and organisational effectiveness

To capture the current consensus on dominant leadership theories, review the
theories in the literature and design a conceptual framework of strategic leadership
that reconciles major leadership theories chronologically, Sanders and Davey
(2011: 42) use textbook expositions in terms of their evolution in the following
major categories: trait theories, behavioural theories, contingency theories,
transactional theories and contemporary (transformational) theories. The aim is to
identify the primary elements of the leadership effectiveness construct and
linkages to organisational effectiveness. According to Sanders and Davey (2011),
all of these theories generally endeavour to explain the leadership effectiveness
construct, but thus far no overall paradigm has been found in the scholarly
literature that explicitly aligns these theories into a model that links leadership
effectiveness and organisational effectiveness.

23
Organisations are by definition composed of people involved in dynamic social
relationships. It is through these relationships between leaders and followers,
superiors and subordinates, managers and workers, that the work and thus the
fundamental purposes of organisations are achieved. The effectiveness of these
relationships undoubtedly influences the effectiveness of organisations. However,
the effectiveness of these relationships depends largely on the effectiveness of the
behavioural inputs supplied by the participants in these relationships relative to
organisational goals. Hence leader effectiveness must be an input to and
determinant of organisational effectiveness and leadership effectiveness is
likewise a function of organisational effectiveness (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 46).

A synthesis of the leadership theories indicates at least three elements that are
essential to the construct of leadership effectiveness, namely task focus, people
focus and development focus (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 42). Task focus involves
those processes that are aimed at the accomplishment of the basic purpose of the
group (e.g. goals, objectives and results). Leadership inputs that are people
focused include the following: consideration; participative decision making;
concern for followers' needs; matching personal and group needs; fairness;
respect; trust; and equitable rewards. Development focus includes the periodic
need to establish new patterns that take cognisance of altered conditions in which
the organisation operates.

Organisational effectiveness is viewed as the primary means of linking leadership

theories to the strategic leadership construct, and leadership effectiveness needs
to be defined in terms of organisational effectiveness if it is to be considered
strategic. Through their organisations, leaders make strategic choices about the
strategies they adopt to enhance their competitive advantage. From a strategic
management standpoint, organisational effectiveness is the degree to which the
composite outputs an organisation produces align with the demands of its
environment in order to achieve a competitive advantage – and strategic
leadership is a primary determinant of this set of outputs. Identifying these outputs
and the processes whereby they contribute to effectiveness is the key to

24
understanding organisational effectiveness. Sanders and Davey (2011:43-44) use
the term “meta-model” of strategic leadership because this framework draws on
the numerous theories of strategic leadership and seeks to incorporate them into
an overall paradigm that aligns their interrelationships and their relationships with
the leadership effectiveness and organisational effectiveness constructs via the
concept of strategic leadership. The components of strategic leadership are
discussed in section 2.2.5 below.

In the meta-model, organisational effectiveness is viewed as the ultimate measure

of leader effectiveness. To optimally align with their environment, effective leaders
have to assess a diverse set of dynamic environmental forces and identify
performance demands on the organisation in terms of the specific outputs the
organisation needs to produce (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 45). The challenge of
leadership is to envision how to change the organisation in order to achieve the
set of organisational results that best fits with environmental demands, while
maintaining the organisation as a functioning social system.

Today’s leaders face unprecedented challenges as organisations struggle to adapt

to the ever-accelerating rates of change both internally and in the external
environment in which they are embedded. Such change challenges not only the
knowledge, skills and abilities of leaders, but also perhaps even more important,
the self-conceptualisations of their leadership capabilities and psychological
resources to meet the ever-increasing demands of their lives (Hooijberg, Hunt &
Dodge, 1997; Avolio & Luthans, 2006). Given such complex challenges, it would
be hard to imagine anyone being positively influenced by leaders who do not
welcome or accept such challenges. Yet how much is known or should be known
about such leadership efficacy challenges (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans & Harms,
2008: 669)?

Leadership efficacy is a specific form of efficacy associated with the level of

confidence in the knowledge, skills and abilities required to lead others.
Leadership efficacy can thus be clearly differentiated from confidence in the

25
knowledge, skills and abilities associated with other social roles, such as teacher
(i.e. teacher efficacy) or statesman (i.e. political efficacy), one fulfils. Hannah et al.
(2008) argue that the current conditions require leaders to continually “step up” to
meet complex challenges and to have the requisite agency to positively influence
their followers and the organisation’s culture, climate and performance. In order to
mobilise groups towards collective performance, leaders have to exercise high
levels of personal agency and create similar levels of agency in those individuals
they are leading by proxy (Bandura, 2000).

The above discussion sets the scene for investigating leadership themes and
theories.

2.2.3 Leadership themes and theories

2.2.3.1 Introduction
The topic of leadership has been the focus of studies that have progressed
through a range of views. By the late 1940s, dissatisfaction with trait theory in
terms of adequately explaining and predicting leader effectiveness, led to a
paradigm shift that focused more directly on what leaders did to actuate results
and on the importance of situational factors (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 42).

During the 20 years leading up to 2001, the field of strategic leadership had
experienced both rejuvenation and metamorphosis (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 515).
They argue that the essence of strategic leadership involves the capacity to learn
and to change, as well as managerial wisdom. Against this backdrop, Boal and
Hooijberg (2001) first review issues relating to under what conditions, when and
how strategic leadership matters. Next they selectively review three streams of
theory and research. The first is strategic leadership theory and its antecedent, the
upper echelons theory. The second stream of theory and research focuses on
what has been labelled the “new” leadership theories. These include charismatic,
transformational and visionary theories of leadership. The third stream of research
is classified as the “emergent” theories of leadership. These theories are
discussed in sections 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3 below in order to track developments in

26
strategic leadership and provide a background framework for the context of this
study.

The leadership themes which progressed from the early 1970s through the upper
Echelons theory and the emergent theories will be reviewed below.

2.2.3.2 The upper echelons theory

At the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, leadership as a field of
study had reached an impasse: little new theory was being developed, and serious
scholars were asking not where the field should go next, but whether leadership
even matters (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 515, 516). Notable exceptions included the
early work of House (1977) on charismatic leadership and that of Lord (1977) on
implicit theories of leadership. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was considerable
disagreement on the impact of leadership on performance, as sceptics from the
field of organisational sociology contended that leadership behaviours influenced
organisational performance less than environmental or organisational factors
(Hannan & Freeman, 1997: 929; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977: 475), while proponents
argued that leaders’ attitudes had a major impact on the performance of
organisations (Child, 1972; Day & Lord, 1988; Thomas, 1988: 388). The mid-
1980s indicated a shift from the study of “supervisory” leadership (House & Aditya,
1997: 409) towards the study of strategic leadership. This change in emphasis
was accompanied by a newfound sense of interest, initially centring on the upper
echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984: 193) and the study of TMTs, as well
as what has been labelled the “new” leadership theories (Hunt, 1999: 129). The
attention of early leadership researchers focused predominantly on what lower-
level managers did or should do in their attempts to provide guidance, support and
feedback to subordinates (Yukl, 1998).

In response to the scepticism about the impact of leaders, three streams of

leadership research emerged (Elenkov, Judge & Wright, 2005: 667). First,
Hambrick articulated an ambitious research agenda set out to provide a stronger
argument for leadership in the strategic management literature (Hambrick &

27
Mason, 1984) and labelled this the “upper echelons perspective”. According to
Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996), this had a profound impact on our understanding
of organisational processes and outcomes. While the upper echelons perspective
expanded understanding of strategic leadership, it has been criticised for not
directly studying actual strategic leadership behaviour. Instead, it used
demographic proxies and inferred strategic leadership behaviours. Most of these
studies have been conducted in Western developed (predominantly the United
States) economies. As such, the way in which strategic leadership behaviours
vary throughout the world is unknown and relatively unexplored (Elenkov et al.,
2005: 667).

Bowing to leadership sceptics, the upper echelons research has also recognised
that sometimes top managers matter significantly to organisational outcomes, and
sometimes not at all – they are often somewhere in between, depending on how
much discretion or latitude of action they are afforded. Discretion exists when
there is an absence of constraints in decision making and when there are many
plausible alternative courses of strategic action. With more discretion, top
managers are more likely to realise their original intentions and vice versa
(Elenkov et al., 2005: 667). In a nutshell, according to Elenkov et al. (2005), the
upper echelons perspective has provided sound theoretical and a number of
empirical arguments for the central role of strategic leadership.

The new leadership theories focus on charismatic, transformational and visionary

leadership. In contrast to upper echelons and strategic leadership, these theories
emphasise the interpersonal processes between leader and followers (Boal &
Hooijberg, 2001: 525).

Theories of charismatic leadership emphasise the personal identification of the

followers with their leader. Charismatic theories tend to focus on individual level
outcomes such as effect, loyalty, identity, commitment, motivation and
performance. Personal identification with the leader is the key variable in
charismatic theories of leadership (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 526).

28
According to Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 526), transformational theories emphasise
such factors as intellectual stimulation, individual consideration and inspiration. All
organisations possess an identity that describes what is central, distinctive and
enduring about the organisation. These identities have a temporal orientation of
past (who the organisation used to be), present (who the organisation is) and
future (who the organisation wants to become). It is in the vision of the leader and
the articulation for change that the past, present and future come together (Boal &
Hooijberg, 2001: 527). Vision will be discussed further in section 2.2.4.3.

2.2.3.3 Emergent theories

(a) Introduction
Some emergent theories of leadership explore behavioural and cognitive
complexity as well as social intelligence. Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 515) suggest
how the “new” and “emergent” theories can be integrated within what they claim is
the essence of strategic leadership, and how cognitive complexity, behavioural
complexity and social intelligence form the foundation for absorptive capacity, the
capacity to change and managerial wisdom, and that these in turn have an impact
on leadership and organisational effectiveness. Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 534)
maintain that there is a relationship between vision, charisma and transformational
leadership function as moderating variables and cognitive complexity, behavioural
complexity and social intelligence and absorptive capacity, the capacity to change
and managerial wisdom (see section 2.2.3.2 (b), (c) and (d)), and that these in turn
have an impact on organisational and leadership efficacy (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001:
534).

(b) Behavioural complexity

Research supports the idea that leaders who fulfil multiple leadership roles score
higher on leadership than those who do not (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 530).
Managers with a broad repertoire of leadership roles and who play those roles
frequently are regarded as more effective, not only by their subordinates but also
by their peers and superiors. Leaders not only need a large behavioural repertoire
but also the ability to select the right roles for the situation. To this end, leaders

29
need both cognitive and behavioural complexity and flexibility. In other words,
leaders require not only the ability to perceive the needs and goals of a
constituency, but also the “ability to adjust their personal approach to group action
accordingly” (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983: 678). Leadership must carefully select the
appropriate leadership role for their interactions with subordinates, peers or
superiors. It is the notion of repertoire and selective application that is referred to
as behavioural complexity (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 530).

(c) Cognitive complexity

The underlying assumption of the cognitive complexity perspective is that
cognitively complex individuals process information differently and perform certain
tasks better than cognitively less complex individuals because they use more
categories or dimensions to discriminate between stimuli and see more
commonalities in these categories or dimensions. Cognitively complex people
search for more information (Tuckman, 1964) and spend more time interpreting it
(Sieber & Lanzetta, 1964; Dollinger, 1984). As such, Boal and Hooijberg (2001:
531) view cognitive complexity as a key individual difference variable underlying
absorptive capacity at individual level.

Cognitively, leaders may understand and see the differences in expectations

between their subordinates and superiors, but that does not mean that those
leaders can act in such a behaviourally differentiated way as to satisfy the
expectations of both groups. At the upper levels of the organisation, leaders are
not only concerned with the internal functioning of the organisation but also with
the larger marketplace and even the role of the organisation in the community and
society. Interacting with the members of the community and government may well
require a different set of behaviours than those needed in the organisation. While
cognitive and social intelligence are of primary importance to first- and middle-level
managers, they have even greater significance for leaders at the highest levels of
organisations. There is evidence that complex leaders use a broader variety of
leadership components, are more capable of and make more use of collaborative

30
leadership, make more use of feedback, tend to receive more favourable follower
ratings and lead more effective groups (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 530–532).

According to Jaques (1989: 33), cognitive capacity connotes those mental

processes used to take information, pick it over, play with it, analyse it, put it
together, reorganise it, judge it, reason with it, draw conclusions, make plans and
decisions and take action. It is defined as the scale and complexity of the world
that one is able to pattern and construe, including the amount and complexity of
information that must be processed in doing so. It is the raw mental power
enabling a person to sustain increasingly complex mental processes.

(d) Social intelligence

Most leadership researchers agree that leaders require vital interpersonal skills
such as empathy, motivation and communication in addition to the cognitive skills
mentioned above (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 533). What has received considerably
less attention than these skills is the fact that the appropriate application of these
skills requires a thorough understanding of one’s social setting. This
understanding has been referred to as social intelligence. Social intelligence is a
key factor underlying discernment in the interpersonal arena. One of the key
components of social intelligence is the capacity to differentiate between emotions
in the self and others. This is a key component of effective leadership because
decision-making processes, the implementation of planned solutions,
organisational progress and emerging social problems are rarely emotion free.
Effective social intelligence allows leaders to estimate the social capital available
to them, establish and enforce norms, achieve trust and reputation and accomplish
instrumental objectives.

(e) Leadership efficacy

In addition to these skills, and central to leadership and its development, efficacy is
the most pervasive of the mechanisms of agency which may deliberately or
intentionally exert a positive influence and provide a foundation for all other facets
of agency in order to operate (Bandura, 1997). Leadership efficacy is a specific

31
form of efficacy associated with the level of confidence in the knowledge, skills and
abilities associated with leading others.

Efficacy’s relevant and comprehensive nature in meeting today’s leadership

challenges is captured by Bandura and Locke’s statement (Hannah, et al., 2008:
669) that “efficacy beliefs affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or self-
debilitating ways, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of
difficulties, the quality of their well-being and their vulnerability to stress and
depression, and the choices they make at important decision points”.

Without effective leadership, the probability of an organisation achieving superior

or even satisfactory performance when confronting the challenges of the global
economy will be greatly reduced (Ireland & Hitt: 1999: 43). Strategic leadership is
the ability to influence others to voluntarily make day-to-day decisions that
enhance the long-term viability of the organisation, at the same time maintaining
its short-term financial stability (Rowe: 2001: 81).

2.2.3.4 Summary
The progression of leadership theory is well documented. Dissatisfaction with trait
theory in terms of adequately explaining and predicting leader effectiveness led to
the development of the upper echelons theory and the study of TMTs. As
discussed, this theory has been criticised for not directly studying actual strategic
leadership behaviour. Emergent theories exploring behavioural and cognitive
complexity, social intelligence and leadership efficacy were discussed in this
section, and added new dimensions to leadership theory.

The preceding discussion emphasised the link between leadership effectiveness

and organisational effectiveness. However, Sanders and Davey’s (2011: 41)
meta-model attempts to reconcile major leadership theories with organisational
effectiveness, which is viewed as the ultimate measure of leadership effectiveness
by proposing a somewhat modified framework for assessing strategic leadership.
They propose that leader effectiveness, which is ultimately governed by

32
organisational effectiveness, is largely determined by the leaders’ ability to
anticipate the composite of organisational outputs needed to meet environmental
demands, and how well the leader’s composite of behaviours actuates the
composite of organisational outputs.

While Sanders and Davey’s (2011) model does not propose a basis on which to
measure these behaviours, their theoretical model and thinking aligns with this
study, which investigates the way in which selected critical strategic leadership
criteria are aligned in the organisation, and focuses on the paradox that leaders
face in simultaneously leading strategically and managing and aligning the
organisation. This paradoxical challenge is discussed in section 2.2.4, where the
concepts of managerial leadership, visionary leadership and strategic leadership
are defined and briefly discussed, and the relationship between managerial,
visionary and strategic leadership and organisational performance is highlighted.

2.2.4 The paradox of leading and managing: strategic, visionary and

managerial leadership
2.2.4.1 Introduction
The concepts of strategic leadership, visionary and managerial leadership are
defined and discussed in relation to the paradox of leading and managing an
organisation, and the purpose of this discussion is examine these key leadership
roles. Working through the paradox of leading and managing is not only
demanding and difficult, but it is also achievable for a critical mass of organisations
that have not lost strategic control. Executives in such organisations should start
thinking of themselves as strategic leaders who have to accept and merge the
visionaries and managerial leaders in their organisations (Serfontein, 2009: 67).

2.2.4.2 Strategic leadership

Wealth creation for organisations in which strategic leadership is exercised is more
probable because these leaders make appropriate investments for future viability,
while maintaining an appropriate level of financial stability in the present
(Serfontein, 2009: 54).

33
Serfontein (2009: 56) cites Hitt et al.’s view that strategic leadership presumes
visionary leadership on the part of those with the willingness to take risks. It
presupposes managerial leadership on the part of those with a rational view of the
world. Strategic leadership presumes that visionary and managerial leadership can
coexist, and that strategic leadership combines the two synergistically. It
presupposes a belief in the ability of strategic leaders to change their
organisations in order to meet the changing demands of the environment in which
their organisations operate (Rowe, 2001: 83).

Strategic leadership is different from the two other popular leadership styles,
namely managerial and visionary leadership. Managerial leaders are primarily
immersed in the day-to-day activities of the organisation and lack an appropriate
long-term vision for growth and change. Despite the benefits of strategic
leadership, many organisations still implement structures or routines that constrain
and discourage strategic leadership. If strategic leadership is to emerge, an
organisation must offer its leaders autonomy and protection. They need to be free
to envision a future as they see it and implement growth strategies without
interference. This interference is most evident in large diversified organisations.

They need to be protected from the managerial leaders in the organisation who
may try to impose rigid financial controls at the expense of strategic controls
(Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 6).

An examination of the characteristics of managerial and visionary leadership styles

will foster a better understanding of strategic leadership. Managerial leaders
typically need order and stability and the ability to control the details of the work
being performed. As a rule, these leaders have no personal attachment to setting
and using goals as motivational tools, and they may have difficulty showing
empathy when dealing with employees (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 7). They will
attempt to gain control through systems of rewards, punishment and other forms of
incentives, encouragement or coercion. These leader/managers will be focused
on the cost-benefit analysis of everyday actions and will therefore be generally

34
linked to the short-term financial health of the organisation, as reflected in its day-
to-day stock price. Short-term gains are often a result of a least-cost approach,
which may not be conducive to long-term viability (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 7).

Conversely, visionary leaders are primarily future oriented, proactive and risk
taking. These leaders base their decisions and actions on their beliefs and values,
and try to share their understanding of a desired vision with others in the
organisation (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 7). Strategic leaders are a synergistic
combination of managerial and visionary leadership.

Strategic leadership is the ability to influence others to voluntarily make day-to-day

decisions that enhance the long-term viability of the organisation, at the same time
maintaining its short-term financial stability. Visionary leadership is future oriented
and involves risk taking, and visionary leaders are not dependent on their
organisations for their sense of who they are. Under visionary leaders,
organisational control is maintained through socialisation and the sharing of and
compliance with a commonly held set of norms, values and beliefs. Managerial
leadership involves stability and order, and the preservation of the existing order.
According to Rowe (2001), managerial leaders are more comfortable handling
day-to-day activities and are short-term oriented.

The continued destruction of shareholder wealth by organisations suggests a lack

of strategic leadership. This prevalence of managerial leadership and the lack of
strategic leadership is one of the primary issues facing modern organisations.
Unless board members, CEOs and top management teams understand this issue,
and the difference between managerial, visionary and strategic leaders, the
problem will persist (Rowe, 2001: 82).

Rowe (2001: 81) examines the role of strategic leadership in creating wealth in
organisations. He cites Ireland and Hitt, who state that, without effective strategic
leadership, the probability of an organisation achieving superior or even
satisfactory performance when confronting the challenges of the global economy

35
will be greatly reduced. Strategic leadership influences others to voluntarily make
day-to-day decisions that enhance the long-term viability of the organisation, while
at the same time maintaining its short-term financial stability.

Sustained wealth creation, continuous growth and expansion, and a healthy

financial status in the short term are more likely to occur under strategic
leadership. According to Rowe and Nejad (2009: 7), the demise of companies
such as GM and K-Mart and the constant decline in shareholder value at these
companies is in fact a result of a leader being too focused on day-to-day activities,
to the detriment of other facets of sound business practice – in other words, failure
because of managerial leadership. If we accept the widely held assumption that
leadership does matter, and that the function of a business leader is to increase
shareholder value, Rowe and Nejad’s (2009) belief is that strategic leadership is
the best alternative for creating shareholder value.

Rowe (2001: 82, 86) examines several successful companies and compares their
strategic leadership capability and their organisational success. He maintains that
he is not arguing that because they had stunning market value-added ratios (MVA)
that they are strategic leaders, but instead, sets out to demonstrate that they had
stunning MVAs because they were strategic leaders. MVA is defined as the
difference between the organisation’s market value and the capital contributed by
investors.

Rowe (2001) examines these categories and maintains that a strategic leader will
create more wealth than a combination of visionary leader and managerial leader.
Managerial leaders emphasise the organisation’s short-term financial stability,
whereas strategic leaders are visionary and emphasise the long-term viability of
the organisation. Their aim is to change and be innovative in creating long-term
wealth.

The literature confirms the importance of the role of strategic leadership in creating
wealth in organisations.

36
2.2.4.3 Visionary leadership
Under pure visionary leadership, a much wider range of wealth creation is possible
because there may or may not be the constraining influence of a managerial
leader. Such leadership is more risky than allowing the exercise of strategic
leadership to permeate the organisation.

According to Conger (1991), visionary leadership is touted as the cure for many of
the ills that affect organisations in today’s fast-changing environment.
Unfortunately, visionary leaders are not readily embraced by organisations, and
unless they are supported by managerial leaders, may not be appropriate for most
organisations. Being visionary and having an organisational tendency to use
visionary leaders is risky. Ultimately, visionary leadership requires power to
influence people’s thoughts and actions. This means putting power in the hands of
one person, which entails risk in several dimensions. There is the risk of equating
power with the ability to achieve immediate results; the risk of losing self-control in
the desire to obtain power; and the risk that the presence of visionary leaders may
undermine the development of managerial leaders who become anxious amid the
relative disorder that visionary leaders tend to generate. Visionary leaders have
attitudes towards goals that are relatively more proactive, shaping ideas instead of
reacting to them (Rowe, 2001: 85).

Visionary leaders exert influence in a way that determines the direction an

organisation will take by evoking images and expectations, altering moods and
establishing specific desires and objectives. Their influence changes the way
people think about what is possible, desirable and necessary. Visionary leaders
strive to devise choices and fresh approaches to long-standing problems and
create excitement in their work. They work from high-risk positions and seek out
risky ventures, especially when the rewards are high. They are concerned with
ideas and relate to people in intuitive and empathetic ways. Their attention is on
what events and decisions mean to people. With visionaries in charge, human
relations are more turbulent, intense and sometimes even disorganised. This may
intensify individual motivation and produce positive or negative unanticipated

37
outcomes. Visionary leaders feel separate from their environment, and sometimes
from other people. They work in but do not belong to organisations (Zaleznik,
1977). Their sense of who they are does not depend on their work, roles or
membership, but on their created sense of identity. This identity may result from
major events in their lives.

According to Hosmer (1982), visionary leaders influence the opinions and attitudes
of others in the organisation. They are concerned with ensuring the future of an
organisation through the development and management of people. Visionaries
embed themselves in complexity, ambiguity and information overload. Their task is
multifunctional and they have a far more complex integrative task. Because of this,
they come to know less than their functional area experts about each of the
several areas for which they are responsible. Visionaries are more likely to make
decisions based on values and are more willing to invest in innovation, human
capital and creating and maintaining an effective culture to ensure long-term
viability. Visionary leaders focus on tacit knowledge and develop strategies as
communal forms of tacit knowledge that promote the enactment of a vision. They
make use of nonlinear thinking and believe in strategic choice, their choices make
a difference in what their organisations do and these differences affect their
organisations’ environment (Kotter, 2001).

Visionary leadership has gradually emerged as a crucially important but relatively

underemphasised aspect of leadership research (Elenkov et al., 2005: 668) and
emphasises its effects on organisational processes and outcomes. Visionary
leadership is future oriented and concerned with risk taking, and visionary leaders
are not dependent on their organisations for their sense of who they are. Under
these leaders, organisational control is maintained through socialisation and the
sharing of and compliance with a commonly held set of norms, values and shared
beliefs. In some senses, visionary leadership is similar to the inspirational
component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). Kotter (2001) suggests
that a combination of managerial leaders and visionaries is a solution for
organisations. However, Zaleznik (1977) argues that leaders and managers are

38
different, and that no one person can exercise both types of leadership
simultaneously. He suggests that visionary leaders and management leaders are
at opposite ends of a continuum, and that trying to be both causes the individual to
end up in the centre and able to exercise neither style of leadership.

According to Nutt and Backoff (1997), visionary leadership studies underscore the
fact that effective top managers are able to develop and communicate to followers
some clear and compelling imagery, which recognises and draws on traditions and
offers their organisations innovative ways to improve by bringing energy and
commitment to the workplace. Visionary leaders are also able to articulate
attractive visions, which focus attention on possibilities that are inspirational,
unique and attainable, and offer a new order that can result in organisational
distinction. The imagery communicated to followers is more effective if it is
challenging and powerful, but also clear and realistic. Alternatively, a vision is
believed to be likely to fail if it does not convey a view of the future that is
perceived to be clearly and convincingly better for the organisation and its
members. Elenkov et al. (2005: 669) contend that the major problem with the
visionary perspective is that most of the empirical work in the area of visionary
leadership has been anecdotal. Furthermore, it is unknown if visionary leadership
has the same or a different impact on organisational processes and outcomes as
its conceptual cousin – transformational leadership behaviours. As stated,
visionary leadership has gradually emerged as a crucially important but relatively
underemphasised aspect of leadership research. As such, systematic research is
needed to better understand the role and impact of strategic leadership vision on
organisational performance (Elenkov et al., 2005: 669).

According to Rowe (2001: 86), this is not an unreasonable perspective in view of

the following: managerial leaders want stability and order and to preserve the
existing order, whereas visionary leaders desire creativity, innovation and chaos
and to change the existing order.

39
Rare is the business leader who can articulate and instil a long-term vision and
manage the day-to-day operations with the requisite obsession for detail. A leader
who combines both styles is what they call a strategic leader, someone who, more
than any other type of leader, is best equipped to increase shareholder value
(Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 6, 7). Visionary leaders articulate a compelling vision, and
then empower and energise their followers to move towards it.

This analysis is in line with the research objectives of this study in terms of
strategic leadership and strategic alignment.

2.2.4.4 Managerial leadership

Under managerial leadership, there is a wider range than under strategic
leadership, but a narrower range than under visionary leadership, because wealth
creation may range from normal to below normal performance (Serfontein, 2009:
54).

Most managers typically exercise managerial leadership. According to Rowe

(2001: 84), for several reasons, organisations implicitly and explicitly train their
employees to be managerial leaders. Governments are even more inclined than
business organisations to train their employees to be managerial leaders, as a
result of public accountability for every cent spent, the diversification of
government, the political context of re-elections and, for most governments, an
enormous debt load. These factors lead to the imposition of a financial control
system that enhances the use of managerial leadership and curtails strategic and
visionary leadership. There are people who can exercise strategic and visionary
leadership in such organisations, but the nature of the organisations discourages
the exercise of such leadership. Managerial leaders commonly adopt impersonal,
passive attitudes towards goals. Goals arise out of necessities rather than desires
and dreams, are based on where the organisation has come from and are deeply
embedded in the organisation’s history and culture (Zaleznik, 1977: 184).

40
Managerial leaders view work as a process that enables some combination of
ideas and people to interact in order to establish strategies and make decisions. In
this process, they negotiate, bargain and use rewards, punishment or other forms
of incentive. Managerial leaders relate to people according to their roles in the
decision-making process – they relate to how things are done. Managerial leaders
may lack empathy – they may seek out involvement with others, but will maintain a
low level of emotional involvement in these relationships. Managerial leaders
influence only the actions and decisions of those with whom they work (Rowe,
2001).

Managerial leaders are involved in situations and contexts characteristic of day-to-

day activities and are concerned with and more comfortable in functional areas of
responsibilities. They possess more expertise about their functional areas.
Managerial leaders may make decisions that are not subject to value-based
constraints in their decision making because of such pressures as being financially
controlled. They use a linear thought process and believe in determinism, which is
established by their organisation’s internal and external environments (Rowe,
2001).

In some ways, managerial leadership is similar to transactional leadership. It

should be emphasised that organisations need managerial leadership. However, it
is possible that too many organisations are led by managerial leaders and that
managerial leaders will, at best, maintain wealth that has been created, and may
even be a source of wealth destruction in the long term if they are the predominant
leadership type in their organisation (Rowe, 2001: 84).

Managerial leadership involves stability and order and the preservation of the
existing order (Rowe, 2001; Serfontein, 2009: 35). Managerial leaders are more
comfortable handling day-to-day activities and are short-term oriented. The lack of
strategic leadership and the prevalence of managerial leadership is one of the
main issues facing organisations today. Unless board members, CEOs and

41
leadership understand this issue and the differences between managerial,
visionary and strategic leaders, the problem will persist.

2.2.4.5 Summary
Table 2.1 highlights the differences between strategic, visionary and managerial
leaders.

Table 2.1: Strategic, visionary and managerial leadership

STRATEGIC LEADERS
Synergistic combination of managerial and visionary leadership
Emphasis on ethical behaviour and value-based decisions
Oversee operating (day-to-day) and strategic (long-term) responsibilities
Formulate and implement strategies for immediate impact and
preservation of long-term goals to enhance organisational survival,
growth and long-term viability
Have strong, positive expectations of the performance they expect from
their superiors, peers, subordinates and themselves
Use and interchange tacit and explicit knowledge on individual and
organisational levels
Use linear and nonlinear thinking patterns
Believe in strategic choice, that is, their choices make a difference in
their organisations and environment

VISIONARY LEADERS MANAGERIAL LEADERS

Are proactive, shape ideas, Are reactive; adopt passive
change the way people think attitudes towards goals; goals
about what is desirable, arise out of necessities, not
possible and necessary desires and dreams; goals
based on past
Work to develop choices and View work as an enabling
fresh approaches to long- process involving some
standing problems; work from combination of ideas and
high-risk positions people interacting to establish
strategies
Are concerned with ideas, Relate to people according to
relate to people in intuitive and their roles in the decision-
empathetic ways making process

42
 Feel separate from their See themselves as
environment; work in, but do not conservators and regulators of
belong to, organisations; sense existing order; sense of who
of who they are does not they are depends on their role
depend on work in organisation
Influence attitudes and opinions Influence actions and decisions
of others in the organisation of those with whom they work
Concerned with ensuring future Involved in situations and
of organisation, especially contexts characteristic of day-
through development and to-day activities
management of people
More embedded in complexity, Concerned with and more
ambiguity and information comfortable in functional areas
overload; engage in of responsibilities
multifunctional, integrative tasks .
Know less than their functional Expert in their functional area
area experts .
More likely to make decisions Less likely to make value-based
based on values decisions
More willing to invest in Engage in and support short-
innovation, human capital, and term, least-cost behaviour to
creating and maintaining an enhance financial performance
effective culture to ensure long- figures
term viability .
Focus on tacit knowledge and Focus on managing the
develop strategies as exchange and combination of
communal forms of tacit explicit knowledge and ensuring
knowledge that promote compliance with standard
enactment of a vision operating procedures
Use nonlinear thinking Use linear thinking
Believe in strategic choice, that Believe in determinism, that is,
is, their choices make a the choices they make are
difference in their organisations determined by their internal and
and environment external environments

(Source: Adapted from Rowe, 2001: 82)

In examining the progression of leadership themes in this section, one should

consider Sanders and Davey’s (2011: 41–45) view that the contemporary theories
of leadership primarily deal with organisationally relevant change that is the focus

43
of strategic management. These theories extend transactional theories beyond
the focus on the leader-member exchange process to incorporate change of the
follower and thereby change of the organisation. The contemporary theories
specifically focused on eliciting the composite of follower behaviours/outputs that
would produce the composite of organisational outputs consistent with the leader’s
vision that has been internalised by the followers. In this view, the contemporary
theories can essentially be regarded as a facilitator of organisational performance
and thus organisational effectiveness.

In Sanders and Davey’s (2011:45) meta-model, organisational effectiveness is

seen as the ultimate measure of leader effectiveness. Effective leaders are those
who are able to assess a diverse set of dynamic environmental forces to identify
performance demands on the organisation in terms of specific outputs the
organisation has to produce to optimally align with its environment. In essence,
the challenge of leadership is to envision how to change the organisation to
achieve the set of organisational results that best fits with environmental demands,
while maintaining the organisation as a functioning social system. Leaders then
have to enact a composite of behaviours that influences followers to enact
behaviours that produce follower performance outputs that collectively represent
the desired composite or organisational outputs. Leader effectiveness is thus
ultimately measured by organisational effectiveness. Organisations are by
definition composed of people involved in dynamic social relationships. It is
through these relationships between leaders and followers, superiors and
subordinates, managers and workers, that the work and thus fundamental
purposes of organisations are accomplished. The effectiveness of these
relationships undoubtedly influences the effectiveness of organisations. Yet, the
effectiveness of these relationships depends largely on the effectiveness of the
behavioural inputs supplied by the participants in these relationships relative to the
organisational goals (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 45). Leader effectiveness is thus an
input into and determinant of organisational effectiveness, while leadership
effectiveness is a function of organisational effectiveness.

44
No overall paradigm has been found in the scholarly literature that explicitly aligns
these theories into a model or framework that links leadership effectiveness and
organisational effectiveness. As discussed in section 2.2.2, the theoretical meta-
model (Sanders & Davey, 2011) and thinking aligns with this study, which links
strategic leadership behaviour and organisational performance. For the purpose
of this study, it is accepted that leadership effectiveness is ultimately determined
by organisational effectiveness. However, Sanders and Davey’s (2011) meta-
model proposes a theory but fails to identify the behaviours relating to
organisational performance and a basis on which these behaviours can be
evaluated in the organisation.

A framework of strategic leadership that reconciles major leadership theories with

the organisational effectiveness construct is presented and discussed in section
2.2.6 in order to promote a deeper understanding of the development of thinking in
strategic leadership which seeks to explain strategic leadership as a construct.
The ensuing sections will provide an overview of the literature on strategic
leadership. Strategic leadership in the new competitive landscape, a definition of
the current thinking on strategic leadership and the impact of strategic leadership
behaviours on the organisation and on innovation are considered.

2.2.5 Strategic leadership

2.2.5.1 Introduction
An examination of the literature in the field of strategic leadership revealed an
increasing interest in the topic. In spite of the long history of research on
leadership, social scientists, primarily organisation behaviour scholars, have only
recently started to single out strategic leadership as a focus of attention (Boal &
Schultz, 2007: 412). In the meanwhile, the practice of “strategic leadership”
appears to be animated by persistent myths, sometimes created by the trade
press, and at other times by the personal experience of leaders. These myths
invite critical scholarly scrutiny (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 380).

45
Is the concept of strategic leadership self-evident? Should we approach models or
frameworks of strategic leadership merely as the extension of generic leadership
phenomena to a unique context? Or should we build the concept and associated
models and frameworks from the persistent leadership myths? These kinds of
questions (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 381) are fundamental to any theoretical
enterprise, perhaps more so in the case of a topic as complex as strategic
leadership, because their answers calibrate the implicit, taken-for-granted
assumptions within which research projects are conducted.

Are these models or frameworks applicable to the complex and dynamic

environment in which strategic leadership functions? The challenges faced by
leadership in the new competitive landscape and the behaviours that promote
innovation are examined in section 2.2.5.2.

2.2.5.2 Leadership in the competitive landscape

According to Ireland and Hitt (1999: 44), the global economy has created a new
competitive landscape in which events change constantly and unpredictably. For
the most part, these changes are revolutionary and not evolutionary. Revolutionary
changes happen swiftly, are constant, even relentless in their frequency, and
affect virtually all parts of an organisation simultaneously (Greenwood & Hinings,
1996).

The uncertainty, ambiguity and discontinuity resulting from revolutionary changes

challenge organisations and their strategic leadership to increase the speed of the
decision-making processes through which strategies are formulated and
implemented (Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996). In the global economy, knowledge
work and knowledge workers are the primary source of economic growth – for
both individual organisations and nations. Thus, in the 21st century, the ability to
build, share and leverage knowledge will largely replace ownership and/or control
of assets as a primary source of competitive advantage. In the 21st-century’s
global economy, competition will be complex, challenging and fraught with

46
competitive opportunities and threats (Drucker, Dyson, Handy, Saffo, & Senge,
1997).

Gibney, Copeland and Murie (2009: 9) examine strategic leadership in a

knowledge-based economy and maintain that strategic leadership is the
leadership of and for the new types of relationships that are emerging in the
knowledge-based economy. It is a form of leadership that seeks to generate,
renew and sustain the collective learning cycle. It is not time limited but time
extensive – it is leadership that is able to look beyond the short-termism of
performance goals, the “statutory” and the “contractual”. Strategic leaders are
leaders of communities, elected political leaders, appointed officials who operate
at chief executive and senior executive levels and individuals who hold the
equivalent of board-level or cabinet-level positions in the public sector.

At strategic level, leadership is the key issue facing organisations in the 21st
century (Ireland & Hitt, 1999: 43). Without effective strategic leadership, a
company’s ability to achieve or sustain a competitive advantage is greatly
constrained. The conceptualisation of leadership at strategic level should be based
on the notion that the relational components of leadership constitute the core of
strategic leadership. Furthermore, the members of TMTs should be considered the
key participants in the strategic leadership process, which conceivably could
influence innovation processes at organisational level (Elenkov, 2008: 38).

A major current interest in the topic is reflected in the amount of corporate

attention being focused on leadership and leadership development in the new
economy, which is the result of numerous changes in the political, economic and
information technology environments. According to Kelley (Serfontein, 2009: 69),
this new economy can be defined in terms of the following three distinguishing
characteristics: it is global, it favours intangible things (ideas, information, and
relationships) and it is intensely interlinked. These three attributes produce a new
type of marketplace and society referred to as the “new economy”, one that is
rooted in ubiquitous electronic networks.

47
According to Ireland and Hitt (1999: 45), certain conditions of the new competitive
landscape afford companies opportunities to improve their financial performance
Organisations in which strategic leaders adopt a new competitive mindset in which
mental agility, organisation flexibility, speed, innovation and globalised strategic
thinking are highly valued will be able to identify and competitively exploit
opportunities that emerge in the new competitive landscape.

These opportunities surface primarily because of the disequilibrium created by

continuous changes (especially technological changes) in the states of knowledge
that are a part of a competitive environment. More specifically, although
uncertainty and disequilibrium often result in seemingly hostile and intensely
rivalrous conditions, these conditions may simultaneously yield significant product-
driven growth opportunities (Zahra, 1993). Through effective strategic leadership,
an organisation can be mobilised in order to adapt its behaviours and exploit
different growth opportunities (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

Wheeler et al. (2007: 4) concur with this thinking. They maintain that the
challenges faced by leaders of organisations are huge in a rapidly changing world.
Leaders face incredible pressures to deliver immediate results, do more with less
and manage an ever-increasing personal workload. However, in a world of
changing conditions and priorities, leaders and individual contributors alike should
be able to look beyond the “now” and adopt a more strategic leadership approach
to their work and responsibilities.

2.2.5.3 Defining strategic leadership

There have been calls to focus scholarly attention on strategic leadership, in
addition to “supervisory leadership” (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 382), calls that
echo House and Aditya’s (1997) exhaustive review of the leadership literature.
Building on the work of Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996), House and Aditya (1997:
446) formulated the following definition of strategic leaders: they are “executives
who have overall responsibility for an organisation” locating strategic leadership at

48
the nexus of executives and organisations. In other words, if there is no formal
organisation, strategic leadership does not come into play.

Strategic leadership is the ability to influence others in the organisation to

voluntarily make day-to-day decisions that lead to the organisation’s long-term
growth and survival, and maintain its short-term financial health (Rowe & Nejad,
2009: 2). The main aspects of strategic leadership are shared values and a clear
vision, both of which enable and allow employees to make decisions with minimal
formal monitoring or control mechanisms. With this accomplished, a leader will
have more time and a greater capacity to focus on other ad hoc issues such as
adapting the vision to a changing business environment. In addition, strategic
leadership will incorporate visionary and managerial leadership by simultaneously
allowing for risk taking and rationality.

A leader is an individual in an organisation who is able to influence the attitudes of

others; by contrast, a manager is merely able to influence their actions and
decisions (Hosmer, 1982: 55). The true responsibility of the strategic leader is a
consistent, analytical and developmental approach to the strategy, structure and
systems of an organisation, which is the definition proposed for strategic
leadership.

Providing strategic leadership is a critical role for the CEO and many other senior
executives (Rowe, 2001: 86). Strategic leadership sets the direction.
Hierarchical, autocratic leadership is being replaced by a democratic “synergy”
style leadership with team leadership assuming an executive role (Hewson, 1997).
The most accurate indicator of future success in today’s major companies is the
sum of competencies of the entire executive team, as opposed to those of the
chief executive only. These competencies are tested in line with proposition 1 of
this study, which is to establish the importance of six critical leadership criteria.

49
Innovation plays a significant role in the success of organisations (Elenkov et al.,
2005: 665), and the impact of strategic leadership behaviour on innovation is
considered in section 2.2.5.4.

2.2.5.4 Leadership behaviours and innovation

Strategic leadership is the process of forming a vision for the future,
communicating it to subordinates, stimulating and motivating followers and
engaging in strategy-supportive exchanges with peers and subordinates.
Strategic leadership and innovation strategy are crucial for achieving and
maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century (Ireland & Hitt, 1999).
Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) maintain that strategic leaders have been
repeatedly recognised for their critical decisions that affect innovation processes.
Strategic leaders’ opportunity recognition and exploitation add considerable
business value (Yukl, 1998). The interactions between leadership and innovation
variables have attracted increasing attention in empirical studies (e.g.
Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley, 2003; Tierney, Farmer & Green,
1999), but most of these studies have not focused on actual strategic leaders
(Antonakis & House, 2002; Yukl, 1998). Nonetheless, there has been progress in
exploring the linkage between strategic leaders’ demographic characteristics and
innovation strategy in the upper echelons perspective (e.g. Bantel & Jackson,
1989), but these studies have failed to directly study actual strategic leadership
behaviours and their effects on organisational innovation process (Cannella &
Monroe, 1997).

Elenkov et al. (2005: 665) investigated the relationship of strategic leadership

behaviours with executive innovation influence and the moderating effects of the
TMT’s tenure, heterogeneity and social culture on that relationship. Their study
attempts to open up the “black box” in the top management team dynamics to
better understand how strategic leaders affect innovation processes in
organisations.

50
Can leadership make a difference? Some leaders definitely do influence
organisational performance (Smith et al., 1984). Perhaps it is time to go beyond
describing leader activities or behaviours and focus on identifying effective or
influential behaviours. Rare is the business leader who can articulate and instil a
long-term vision and manage the day-to-day operations with the requisite
obsession for detail (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 6). A leader who combines both styles
is what is known as a “strategic leader” – someone who, more than any other type
of leader, is best equipped to increase shareholder value.

Bass (2007: 37) concurs with this view and states that many studies have
demonstrated that what top leadership does has a strong influence on a
corporation’s profitability. The profitability of the organisation depends on the
CEO’s actions.

The results of the study by Elenkov et al. (2005: 679) have generated the idea that
each strategic leadership behaviour could and should be viewed independently
and separately, because each has its own effects on organisational innovation
processes, and each may have different interactions with contextual variables. In
particular, each strategic leadership behaviour is likely to be associated with
different organisational outcomes, especially in terms of the magnitude of the
results, in different social cultures. Strategic leadership behaviours are positively
associated with executive influence on innovation processes. Effective strategic
leadership has a pervasive effect on organisational innovation. Elenkov et al.
(2005) state that defining the entire scope of strategic leadership is a broad and
difficult concept. The strategy is the plan, and strategic leadership is the thinking
and decision making required to develop and effect the plan.

In summary, the conceptualisation of leadership level should be based on the

notion that the relational components of leadership constitute the core of strategic
leadership. Furthermore, the members of TMTs should be considered the key
participants in the strategic leadership process, which conceivably could influence
innovation processes at organisational level.

51
The next section deals with strategic leadership in the organisation.

2.2.5.5 Strategic leadership in the organisation

(a) Introduction
Since the mid-1980s, a growing body of leadership research has focused on
strategic leadership, in contrast to managerial and supervisory leadership. House
and Aditya (Serfontein, 2009: 32) maintain that strategic leadership focuses on
how top leadership makes decisions in the short term which guarantee the long-
term viability of the organisation. The best-performing organisations are
consciously strategic in their leadership planning. These top leaders also have the
ability to effectively align human resources directly to the business strategy.

Waldman et al. (2004: 355) recognise that strategic leadership has increasingly
become a topic of focus. Over the past 20 years, the field of strategic management
has become increasingly concerned with the influence of top-level managers on
strategy formulation and organisation performance. Statistics on the number of
published books and articles on the subject of leadership show exponential growth
since 1970. For example, Storey (2005: 91) states that there were twice as many
articles published per month in the years 2001 to 2002 than there were per annum
in the equivalent two-year period 30 years earlier.

Strategic leadership theory has evolved from the original upper echelons theory
developed by Hambrick and Mason (1984), as stated in 2.2.3 (Vera & Crossan,
2004: 223), to a study of not only the instrumental ways in which the dominant
coalition impacts on organisational outcomes, but also the symbolism and social
construction of top executives (Hambrick & Pettigrew, 2001). Strategic leadership
theory refers to the study of people at the top of organisations, while leadership
research focuses on the relationship between leaders and followers.

The presence of a strategic leader leads to a number of outcomes of an

organisation that are ultimately linked to shared values in both the short and long
term (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 7). These leaders tend to pay particular attention to

52
building their organisation’s resources, capabilities and competencies in order to
gain an appropriate, sustained competitive advantage. Strategic leaders know
that focusing on the short term and forgetting about core competencies in the face
of changing circumstances and a turbulent environment are likely to lead to
organisational failure.

Defining the concept of strategic leadership is one thing – developing its construct
has proven to be more difficult. Being a relatively new field in management theory,
measurement has been a low priority. Researchers acknowledge that strategic
leadership “is a complex, multifaceted competency that has many nuances and
subtleties, making it difficult to easily codify”. The same is true of foresight or
futures research (Gary, 2005: 1). This difficulty is due in part to the broad scope of
strategic leadership, which can encompass structure, organisation or
environmental variables. This demands a more holistic perspective than is usually
is found in leader-follower or supervisory theories of leadership (e.g. path-goal,
contingency and LMX).

(b) Value creation

Organisations led by strategic leaders are more successful in learning, both at
individual and group level. Studies have shown that both the managerial and
visionary aspects of leadership are essential for the success of organisation-wide
learning initiatives. While a strategic leader’s articulation of a vision helps alter the
institutionalised learning of an organisation, his or her managerial approach helps
spread and reinforce current learning initiatives. This combination is necessary
because the organisation always needs to learn new things and at the same time
institutionalise newly discovered avenues of learning (Rowe & Nejad, 2009).
Organisational learning and the creation and sharing of knowledge in an
organisation are vital prerequisites for long-term viability and are better practised
by an organisation led by a strategic leader.

Strategic leadership has a direct effect on an organisation’s strategic flexibility and

competitive advantage (Hitt et al., 1995: 26). Strategic flexibility and competitive

53
advantage are affected by strategic leadership through the major actions of (1)
developing dynamic core competencies; (2) focusing and building human capital;
(3) using new technology effectively; (4) engaging in valuable strategies; and (5)
building new organisational structures and culture. Strategic flexibility should be
exercised by the TMT who together with the CEO, as the most important member,
are the organisation’s key decision makers.

Narayanan and Zane (2009: 381) suggest an epistemological vantage point for
theory development in strategic leadership which is fuelled by the metaphor of
inventing a future for strategic leadership, focusing less on reviews of the existing
literature but more on the possibilities for generating insights. They make three
points: first, the concept of “strategic leadership” may embrace a richer set of
phenomena than that captured in the current preoccupations in the leadership
literature. Second, the research and scholarship on leadership can be enhanced
by greater variety in terms of focus, perspectives and methods. Third, they argue
for integration – building bridges to cross-fertilise ideas between islands of
scholarship.

The academic literature is poised to bring leadership back into strategy.

Montgomery (Narayanan & Zane, 2009: 381) calls for incorporating the role of
leadership into strategy making in order to counterbalance the reliance on
objective analysis that the literature spearheaded during the preceding two
decades. There has been a wealth of literature on the functions of leadership –
thanks to both organisational behaviour and human resource disciplines,
disciplines whose insights, theories and concepts have sustained the industry for
training and consulting that has grown up around leadership. This literature on
leadership has typically conceptualised the construct in terms of leader style and
behaviour and leader-follower relations. Cumulatively, findings from this research
stream are far from convergent, but more importantly, the applicability of
leadership functions articulated by them to strategic levels is yet to be
demonstrated.

54
Narayanan and Zane (2009: 400-1) argue that engagement with strategic leaders
is necessary in theory development. Meaningful dialogue and interaction with the
senior leaders of organisations of some size are not common occurrences in most
social science departments, including many business schools. These interactions
have to be designed, and often depend on privileged access. However, creating
this access is typically not in the toolkit of most social scientists. Engagement with
strategic leaders is an epistemological necessity for both theoretical and pragmatic
reasons. The strategic leadership concept offers scholars another potential lever
to improve the functioning of organisations. Success depends on the ability of the
theories to provide insights and guidelines to current or aspiring leaders. This
view was adopted in designing the research approach for this study.

The ultimate goal of a business is to create, capture and distribute wealth in a

sustainable manner (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 9). As indicated in section 2.2.4.4,
managerial leaders will, at best, maintain the level of wealth that has been created
in the past, but over time may cause wealth to be slowly destroyed. This means
that the stewards (the board of directors, CEO and TMT of productive assets are
only creating the wealth that the owners of those assets expected them to create
(Barney, 1997). Unfortunately, in managerially led organisations, only financial
controls are exercised. This leads to a stifling of creativity and innovation and to
below-normal performance in the long term (Rowe, 2001: 89).

Visionary leaders may or may not create value. If they do, their style of leadership
is rare and difficult for other organisations to duplicate (Rowe, 2001: 85).
Unfortunately, some visionaries who are capable of creating value are not
supported by their organisations with appropriate structures, controls and rewards,
and are more likely to achieve below-normal performance.

Strategic leaders are different from managerial and visionary leaders in the sense
that they dream and do something about their dreams. They are a synergistic
combination of managerial leaders who never stop to dream, and visionary
leaders, who only dream. A strategic leader will probably create more wealth than

55
a combination of a visionary leader and a managerial leader. These strategic
leadership types will create the most wealth for their organisations (Rowe, 2001:
86).

Because strategic leaders are concerned with the future viability and the present
financial stability of their organisations, they make decisions that achieve above-
average returns, and therefore create wealth for their organisations. According to
Rowe (2001: 91), throughout the 1990s, no two appointed CEOs exemplified
wealth creation on a consistent basis as well as Jack Welch and Robert Goizueta.
From 1992 to 1998, either GE or Coca-Cola was ranked number one and two in
market value added (MVA). What characteristics did these two CEOs display
during that period? Both believed that their actions affected their companies and
determined what happened in the respective industries in which their companies
operated. Both refocused their companies in order to regain strategic control. Both
relentlessly strove to reduce the stifling effect of bureaucracy on creativity and
innovation. These strategic leaders believed that their decisions would affect their
companies and their environments. They placed great emphasis on achieving their
visions by influencing employees and associates. They also ensured that their
visions were achieved in a way that was best for their employees, customers and
shareholders. Strategic leaders are more capable of seeing environmental trends
that affect the organisation’s future and providing more effective communication to
the rest of the organisation, which leads to higher levels of organisational
innovation (Papadakis & Bourantas, 1998).

As stated above, Rowe (2001: 92) examined the CEOs of GE and Coca-Cola and
the characteristics that these two CEOs displayed during the 1980s. What is clear
is that organisations require strategic leadership and need to pursue corporate
strategies that allow strategic leadership among a critical mass of the senior
management team and middle and junior managers. The analysis in this study
supports this view and concurs with that of Labovitz and Rozansky (1997: 16),
namely that an aligned organisation will achieve above-average performance.

56
Strategic leadership theory is more of a theory of group composition than
leadership, and in the empirical literature, it is not always clear whether strategic
leaders or strategic leadership is being studied (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 524).
Supervisory theories of leadership are about leadership in an organisation,
whereas strategic leadership is of an organisation. The above authors suggest a
direct link between strategic leadership effectiveness and organisational
effectiveness and maintain that strategic leadership is marked by concern for the
whole organisation, its evolution, its changing aims and the selection, the
development and maintenance of the requisite resources and capabilities to
enable it to compete. This view is in contrast to the views previously held,
whereby substantial numbers of CEOs adopted the notion that strategic leadership
responsibilities are theirs alone (Serfontein, 2009: 38). Owing to the significant
choice of options available to the CEO as the organisation’s key strategic leader,
this individual often works alone in shaping the organisation.

Strategic leadership is specific to the “nominal” head of the organisation whose

responsibility in this role is to create an effective organisation. According to
Nicholls (1994: 11), the principal components of this strategic leadership role are
path finding and culture building. However, leadership is not confined to the head
– all managers have a role to play in their area of responsibility, which is confirmed
in the views of Boal and Hooijberg (2001).

It is unfortunate that, despite the many benefits, many organisations still

implement structures or routines that constrain and discourage strategic
leadership. If strategic leadership is to emerge, an organisation must offer these
leaders autonomy and protection. They need to be free to envision a future as
they see it and implement growth strategies without interference. They need to be
protected from the managerial leaders in the organisation who may try to impose
rigid financial controls at the expense of strategic controls. This interference is
more evident in large diversified organisations with many divisions, and which
often fall into the trap of imposing highly bureaucratic controls as a result of

57
financial restrictions, the political context and the short-term demands of the
markets (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 5).

(c) Characteristics and behaviour of strategic leaders

According to Hambrick and Mason (1984), strategic leadership theory (SLT)
assumes that executive behaviour is a product of individual psychology.
Personality, values, and beliefs shape the way leaders perceive, interpret and use
information to decide what business to compete in, what goods or services to
offer, how to allocate resources and what policies to implement (Kaiser, DeVries &
Hogan, 2006: 5). Some studies found that there is no relationship between
leadership style and organisational performance, while others report a substantial
relationship (Day & Lord, 1988). Hambrick and Finkelstein’s (1987) analysis of
leader discretion resolves this apparent contradiction. They argue that discretion
determines the impact leaders have on organisations. This research shows that
whoever is in charge affects organisational strategy, structure, policy and culture.
Discretion also consistently moderates the relationship between leader
characteristics and organisational performance – when discretion is high, there is
a strong relationship. For example, this has been shown for tenure and strategy
distinctiveness as well as locus of control and strategy formulation. The fact that
discretion links individual leaders to organisational outcomes poses a dilemma.
Without discretion, leaders are unable to influence a firm’s performance, but with
it, they can put self-interest ahead of their other responsibilities and obligations
(Kaiser et al., 2006: 6).

Individual leadership matters because the quality of a leader’s character makes all
the difference. The best leaders pay attention to the design of the elements
around them: they articulate a lucid sense of purpose, create effective leadership
teams, prioritise and sequence their initiatives carefully, redesign organisational
structures to make effective execution easier and, most importantly, integrate all
these tactics into one coherent strategy. This design of strategic leadership is
therefore an integrated group of practices that builds an organisation’s capacity for
change. The following four critical elements need to be integrated: commitment to

58
the organisation’s purpose, the make-up of top management, the capabilities and
motivation of people through the organisation and a sequence of well-chosen
strategic initiatives that can take the organisation forward (Wheeler et al., 2007: 4).
Strategic leaders view human capital as a key factor in innovation and the creation
of core competencies, and they expend considerable effort sustaining the health of
this resource (human capital). While managerial leaders focus on the exploitation
of current resources and capabilities, strategic leaders combine this focus with a
search for new resources, capabilities and core competencies, which will, when
needed, be exploited to create wealth. This dual focus on exploitation and
exploration, often referred to as ambidexterity, is a prerequisite for long-term
organisational success. While managerial and visionary leaders are busy
exploiting and exploring, strategic leaders exploit and explore in a way that
maintains organisational financial stability in the short term, while building a
foundation for long-term viability (Rowe & Nejad, 2009: 9). As stated in section
2.2.5.4, strategic leaders encourage innovation in the face of changing
environments and contexts, seeking innovation and change in moving forward.

While it is agreed that there are many passing references to strategic top-level
leaders and their crucial importance, the larger part of analytical study has focused
on leadership at lower levels in the organisation (Zaccaro & Horn, 2003: 772;
Storey, 2005). Less than 5% of the leadership literature focuses on executive
leadership as opposed to the majority of studies which focus on lower-level
leadership (Storey, 2005: 81). There is a need to distinguish between “leadership
in organisations” and “leadership of organisations”, and attempts have been made
to identify the critical issues relating specifically to executive level leadership.

Davies and Davies (2004: 29-30) identify the characteristics of individuals who
fulfil a strategic leadership role successfully. They identify successful activities or
strategic behaviours that strategic leaders engage in. These authors identify
factors associated with strategic leadership, both at organisational and individual
level. They postulate that leaders have the organisational ability to be strategically
oriented.

59
 translate strategy into action
align people and organisations
determine effective strategic intervention points
develop strategic competencies

The criteria associated with strategic leadership include creating and

communicating a vision of the future; exploiting and maintaining core
competencies; developing organisational structures, processes and controls;
developing human capital; sustaining an effective organisational culture; and
infusing ethical value systems into an organisation’s culture (Ireland & Hitt, 1999:
48-52; Boal & Hooijberg, 2001: 516; Hitt et. al., 2001: 500).

Strategic leaders make and communicate decisions for their organisation’s future
(Bass, 2007: 36). They formulate the organisation’s goals and strategies; develop
structures, processes, controls and core competencies for the organisation;
manage multiple constituencies; choose key executives; groom the next
generation of executives provide direction with respect to organisational strategies:
maintain an effective organisational culture; sustain a system of ethical values;
and serve as the constituencies, as well as negotiate with them. These concepts
are in line with Ireland and Hitt’s (1999: 48-52) critical criteria for effective strategic
leadership.

Accelerating change in the external environment is increasing the need to view

strategy and leadership as two sides of the same coin. Abell (2006: 311) identifies
leadership tasks (all strategic), that are emerging as priorities: dual strategies;
putting vision and mission ahead of strategy; the fit between market opportunity,
leadership purpose and organisation resources; strategy as the hinge between the
changing external world and internal company resources; competition between
entire business systems; and delegation of strategy making to managers below
corporate and business unit levels. For effective reform to take place in
organisations in order to meet these challenges of change, the process must be
changed (Barron & Henderson, 1995: 2). The change in leadership from

60
administrator/manager to strategic leadership by focusing, not only on content, but
also on process in the four key areas of participation, sensitivity, trust between
stakeholders and openness and fairness, is necessary.

Strategic leaders emphasise ethical behaviour (Ireland & Hitt, 1999). They are
extremely rare in most organisations (Conger, 1991). They oversee day-to-day
operating and long-term strategic responsibilities. Strategic leaders formulate and
implement strategies for immediate impact and the preservation of long-term goals
in order to enhance organisational growth, survival and viability. They use
strategic controls and financial controls, with the emphasis on the former.
Strategic leaders have strong positive expectations of the performance they
expect from their superiors, peers, subordinates and themselves. They utilise and
interchange tacit and explicit knowledge at both individual and organisation level
(Nonaka, 1994) and they use both linear and nonlinear thinking patterns.

Finally, they believe in strategic choice – the fact that their choices make a
difference in what their organisations do, and that this will affect their
organisations’ internal and external environments. Strategic leaders manage the
paradox created by managerial and visionary leadership models. They are
metaphors, analogies and models to allow the juxtaposition of seemingly
contradictory concepts by defining boundaries of mutual coexistence. They guide
the organisational knowledge creation process by promoting the organisation’s
capability to combine individual, group and organisational tacit and explicit
knowledge to generate the organisational and technological innovations required
for enhanced future performance (Rowe, 2001: 87).

In conclusion, the focus on strategic leadership has increased (Waldman et al.,

2004; Storey, 2005; Serfontein, 2009) and, in particular, the identification of
characteristics and behaviour that impact on value creation (Rowe, 2001; Elenkov
et al., 2005). Rowe and Nejad’s (2009) contribution aligns with Hitt et al.’s (1995)
critical criteria that create competitive advantage in organisations. These criteria
are discussed in section 2.2.7.

61
2.2.5.6 Summary
This section examined and defined strategic leadership. The true responsibility of
strategic leadership is a consistent, analytical and developmental approach to the
strategy, structure and systems of an organisation.

Leadership in the competitive landscape was explored and it is clear that effective
strategic leadership is a key issue facing organisations in the 21 st century, without
which, organisations’ capability to achieve or sustain competitive advantage is
greatly constrained. The characteristics and behaviour of strategic leadership in
organisations and its impact on value creation were also discussed.

2.2.6 Criteria of effective strategic leadership

2.2.6.1 Introduction
A strategic leader’s true responsibility is a consistent, analytical and
developmental approach to an organisation’s strategy, structure and systems.
This section deals with the critical criteria required by leadership to fulfil this
responsibility.

Top management formulate the strategic purpose and direction of the organisation
by articulating and communicating the desired vision of the organisation’s future.
Effective strategy is needed for an organisation to achieve and maintain a
competitive advantage in an effort to keep up with competition in changes in
technology and markets. According to Beer and Eisenstat (Bass 2007: 42), the
following are required to formulate and implement an effective strategy: (1) top-
down direction that accepts upward influence; (2) clear strategies and priorities;
and (3) an effective TMT with a general management. Effective strategic
leadership practices also include the following: (1) focusing attention on outcomes
and processes; (2) seeking to acquire and leverage knowledge; (3) fostering
learning and creativity; (4) improving work flows by paying attention to
relationships; (5) anticipating internal and external environmental changes; (6)
maintaining a global mindset; (7) meeting the diversity of the interests of the

62
multiple stakeholder; (8) building for the long-term while meeting short-term needs;
and (9) developing human capital.

These and other effective practices can afford the organisation advantages in a
competitive environment (Ireland & Hitt, 1999). Competitive advantages in a
global economy can also be gained from a strategy that depends on the leaders’
global leadership skills as well as the organisation’s reputation.

2.2.6.2 Critical criteria of strategic leadership

According to Ireland and Hitt (1999: 47–48), what will be different in 21st-century
companies is the way in which top leaders discharge their strategic leadership
responsibilities.

These responsibilities should be executed through interactions based on the

sharing of insights, knowledge and responsibilities for achieved outcomes. These
interactions should occur between the organisation’s great leaders, top managers
and employees.

Effective strategic
leadership

Determining Establishing
strategic strategic
direction control

Exploiting and Developing Sustaining Emphasising

maintaining human capital effective ethical
core corporate practices
competencies culture

Figure 2.1: Strategic leadership: critical criteria

(Source: Adapted from Hitt et al., 2001: 500)

63
These interactions take place as the organisation satisfies the requirements
associated with six key strategic leadership practices, and it is through
configuration of all six of these practices or critical criteria that strategic leadership
can succeed in the 21st-century organisation (Ireland & Hitt, 1999: 48).

Figure 2.1 indicates the above-mentioned critical criteria of strategic leadership

which are as follows:
(1) determining strategic direction
(2) managing the organisation’s resource portfolio effectively – exploiting and
maintaining core competencies
(3) developing human capital
(4) sustaining an effective corporate culture
(5) emphasising ethical practices
(6) establishing balanced strategic controls

Hagen et al. (1998: 2) conducted an empirical study to explore the six critical
criteria developed by Hitt et al. (1995) in which they examined American CEOs'
perceptions of the ranking suggested by the authors and presented in their study.
According to Jooste and Fourie (2009: 52–53), Hitt et al.’s (2001) criteria
contribute positively to effective strategy implementation. They maintain that
strategic management is viewed as a set of decisions and actions that results in
the formulation, implementation and control of plans designed to achieve an
organisation’s vision, mission, strategy and strategic objectives. They state that
strategic leaders have a role to play in each of the above-mentioned strategic
leadership actions. Each of these strategic leadership actions, in turn, contributes
positively to effective strategy implementation (Hitt et al., 2001: 500).

2.2.6.3 Hagen et al.’s (1998) study of strategic leadership criteria

Thus far, six criteria, which Hagen et al. (1998) studied empirically, have been
discussed. These criteria are critical for strategic leadership. The first purpose of
the study by Hagen et al. (1998) was to explore the most critical strategic

64
leadership criteria (Hitt et al., 1995). The second was to investigate American
CEOs’ perceptions of the ranking of these criteria (Appendix A).

Hagen et al.’s (1998) research methods included a survey questionnaire, sample

and data collection and statistical techniques. The survey questionnaire was
developed by the researchers of this study to include the six critical corporate
strategic leadership criteria (Hitt et al., 1995). The questionnaire consisted of six
statements to assess the opinions of the surveyed CEOs of the ranking of the
suggested leadership criteria. Each statement comprised a five-point Likert
response format ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).

The survey elicited opinions from executives who had practised some or all of the
six leadership criteria suggested. The research sample consisted of 1 000 CEOs
randomly selected from companies throughout the United States.

The results indicated that determining strategic direction, exploiting and

maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining effective
corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing strategic controls
are the most critical components of the corporate strategic leadership. However,
exercising strategic controls affects the other five criteria as well.

The results showed that CEOs emphasised developing human capital over
exploiting and maintaining organisational core competencies to reflect the
importance of human resources in the 21st century. Their study therefore
concludes that the following, ranked in order of importance, are the six critical
criteria of strategic leadership:
(1) determining the organisation's strategic direction
(2) developing human capital
(3) exploiting and maintaining core competencies
(4) sustaining an effective corporate culture
(5) emphasising ethical practices
(6) establishing strategic controls

65
The study ranked these criteria as significant but did not investigate the
relationship between the six critical criteria and organisational performance.

2.2.6.4 Determining strategic direction: vision and strategic intent

(a) Strategic direction
Determining the strategic direction of the organisation involves developing a long-
term vision. An organisation’s long-term vision generally looks at least five to ten
years into the future (Hitt et al. 2001: 497; Hagen et al., 1998: 2). Strategic intent
means leveraging the organisation’s internal resource capabilities and core
competencies to accomplish what may at first appear to be unattainable goals in
the competitive environment. Accordingly, strategic intent involves all the
employees of an organisation being committed to pursuing a specific performance
criterion, believing fervently in the product and industry and focusing totally on
doing what they do better than the organisation’s competitors (Hamel & Prahalad,
2005).

Porter (Hammonds, 2001: 154) maintains that the chief strategist of an

organisation has to be the leader – the CEO. According to Hammonds (2001), a
lot of business thinking has stressed the notion of empowerment, of pushing down
and involving many people. This is crucial, but empowerment and involvement do
not apply to the ultimate act of choice.

To be successful, an organisation must have an extremely strong leader who is

willing to make choices and define the trade-offs. According to Hammonds (2001),
there is a striking relationship between really effective strategies and really strong
leaders.

(b) Vision
Vision is a critical element for anyone in a leadership position because it is closely
aligned with future-directed goals (Orndoff, 2002: 59). A vision is simply a view of
how one would like the future to be. It will be a description, in reasonable detail, of

66
a company or department in two, five or more years. A vision is also a “stretch”
towards something better.

The development of organisational vision and the ability to manage the change
engendered by visions represent core organisational competencies that foster a
competitive advantage for organisations (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004: 367). They
further argue that effective visions offer an image of what the organisation is
changing into. Visions only have value when they are implemented, and to this
end, leadership must have strong change management skills. The ability to
develop and communicate a vision, as well as enabling the organisation to do so
through the broad strategic, structural and policy changes that the vision requires,
is critical for the organisation’s leadership. Middle-level management need to
translate visions into long- and short-term strategic plans, while operational
managers function within an extremely short timeframe.

According to Serfontein (2009: 35), visionary leadership is future oriented and

concerned with risk taking, and visionary leaders are not dependent on their
organisations for their sense of who they are. Under visionary leaders,
organisational control is maintained through socialisation and the sharing of and
compliance with a commonly held set of norms, values and beliefs.

Zaccaro and Banks (2004: 368) argue, however, that management theorists
maintain that, for an organisation to maximise competitive advantage, managers
need to clearly define their vision with their strategic plan and have the capability
to manage the changes needed to implement the plan. They further postulate that
the body of research shows the contribution of organisational vision and the
process of leader visioning towards organisational effectiveness, and suggest that
leader training and development should focus on developing visioning and change
management skills in their leadership training. They argue that organisations need
to devote considerable resources to the development of change management as a
core competency if they wish to enhance their competitive advantage.

67
According to Ireland and Hitt (1999), strategic leadership includes the formulation
and articulation of a clear vision. De-emphasising the role of strategic choice
(Westley & Mintzberg, 1988; Westley, 1989, Cannella & Monroe, 1997: 221), the
primary task in strategic leadership, is the formulation of a vision and the creation
of conditions for its realisation. Mental models in a leader’s vision represent
coherent frameworks of social realities; indeed, such models may involve an
ultimate reality as well, thus creating a role for religion in leadership vision
(Worden, 2005: 224). Behind a vision lies the formulation and articulation of a
social reality which lies at the core of leadership, far surpassing the relatively
superficial impact of traits and styles that have fascinated quantitative
investigations for decades. In fact leadership may be defined in terms of followers’
acceptance of a vision’s social reality as formulated by a leader.

Accordingly, Nanus and Enderle (Worden, 2005: 224), claim that to lead is to
interpret experience and communicate a resultant social reality through the force
of vision. A leader’s first responsibility is to define reality. Such reality
construction is accomplished through a leader’s mental model pertaining to his or
her vision (Strange & Mumford, 2002). At a basic level, the content of a leader’s
vision is essentially meaning, structured to reflect a social context. Strategic
orients (without collapsing) such socialised meaning towards strategic plans and
goals (Worden, 2005: 224).

In “defining the reality of others”, leaders influence “the systems of meaning” which
circumscribe organisational activity (Rowsell & Berry, 1993: 18). Such
circumspection may be in line with strategic objectives and the overall social reality
in the vision, even though the latter may go beyond (or may be in tension with) the
organisational interests (Worden, 2005).

The role of vision is a filter for strategic choice. In addition, in fashioning a system
of meaning in a vision’s constructed social reality, a leader can relate individual
interests to group purpose and thereby influence any decisions that are made.
These in turn can influence the interpretation of reality that characterises the

68
vision. The influence is not total, for if it were, the vision would collapse into a
mere reflection of strategic interests. However, such a leader can still create an
effective plan for organisational success (Caldwell, Bischoff & Karri, 2002), even
as he or she maintains a credible and distinct vision (Worden, 2005: 224).

(c) Strategic intent

According to Hamel and Prahalad (2005: 150), strategic intent captures the
essence of winning. It focuses on a desired leadership position and establishes
the requirements the organisation needs to achieve its goals. Strategic intent is
more than simply unfettered ambition because it encompasses an active
management process that will motivate its people by communicating the value of
the target and providing the scope for individual and team contributions. It should
also sustain enthusiasm by redefining operations guided by intent as business
changes.

A significant factor in organisations that have successfully transformed themselves

from those that labour mightily to produce little more than business as usual, is the
possession of a long-term strategic intent that aligns the actions and beliefs of
everyone in the organisation towards a challenging goal. Formulating and
implementing such a strategic intent requires a particular brand of leadership. This
process of organisational leadership through the use of strategic intent starts with
a personal quest to cast off the shackles of old habits of thought in order to
reinvent the future. It takes hold in the present through the effort to enrol others as
committed participants in the enactment of a new collective purpose. It gathers
momentum with each impossible obstacle that is overcome (Smith, 1994: 66).

Simply attempting to reproduce the cost and quality advantages of its competitors
will not create a competitive advantage for a company. Instead, strategic intent
incorporates stretch targets that force companies to compete in innovative ways
and maximise their use of resources (Hamel & Prahalad, 2005).

69
2.2.6.5 Exploiting and maintaining core competencies
Core competencies are the resources and capabilities that serve as an
organisation’s source of competitive advantage (Hitt et al., 2001: 501). Typically,
core competencies relate to an organisation’s functional skills. As strategic
leaders, corporate managers make decisions intended to help their organisation
develop, maintain, strengthen, leverage and exploit core competencies. Exploiting
core competencies involves sharing resources across units. In general, the most
effective core competencies are based on intangible resources, which are less
visible to competitors because they relate to employees’ knowledge or skills.

Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2010: 107) define three levels of competency
– a competency, a core competency and a distinctive competency. A core
competency is a competitively important activity that a company performs better
than any other internal activity and it is central to a company’s strategy and
competitiveness. A core competency is a more valuable resource than a
competency because of the well-performed activity’s role in the company’s
strategy and the contribution it makes to the company’s success in the
marketplace.

According to Clardy (2007: 44), a core competency is the organisational capability

to perform some aspect of a production function in a manner consistently superior
to its competition, which in turn leads to above-average organisational
performance. Core competencies allow the organisation to adapt to changing
conditions in a competitive environment and generate more efficient and effective
performance. An ideal source of sustainable competitive advantage stems from
the organisation’s core competencies, which are based on superior organisational
routines and processes, and these should be nurtured and developed.

Srivastava (2005: 49) confirms the need to identify an actionable framework for
leveraging the concept of core competency in creating a competitive advantage for
organisations and proposes a critical competence framework which integrates the
various studies on core competencies and proposes a methodology for sustained

70
success. Core competency, according to Srivastava (2005), is an organisation’s
ability to successfully deploy its competencies to attain a sustainable competitive
advantage. However, having core competencies does not guarantee success –
organisations must identify the right ways to deploy them to their advantage.

Competencies refer to intelligent functioning and the abilities to engage in

cognitive activities that are the person-generic dispositions necessary for
nonroutine or unprogrammed tasks and for a complex volatile environment.
Leadership tasks can be described as relatively unstructured, nonspecific,
discretionary, complex and subject to constant change. Research indicates that
studies agree on the nature of managerial jobs, but the lack of a coherent scheme
for understanding and identifying the core skills (Mendonca, 2001: 270).

Even though talent management is the key resource necessary for achieving and
sustaining a competitive edge, it is not always easy to find the right person to fit
the right job. Few hiring managers can claim to have never experienced the fallout
surrounding a bad hire decision, for which the costs are exorbitant and lessons are
painfully learnt (Grigoryev, 2006: 16). Core competency modelling is an approach
for selecting and developing new hires, which can greatly increase the hiring
manager’s success rates in finding and developing the talent needed to ensure
that the organisation remains competitive.

It is clear that exploiting and maintaining core competencies, being the resources
and capabilities that serve as an organisation’s source of competitive advantage,
are critical criteria for strategic leadership as core competencies are difficult for
competing organisations to emulate.

Core competencies cannot be effectively developed or exploited without

appropriate human capital. This is discussed in section 2.2.6.6.

71
2.2.6.6 Developing human capital
Organisations of today have no choice but to mobilise and align their resources
with their strategy (Treen, 2000: 62-63). Value can only be created through an
organic internal development process that links everyone to a single strategy.
Effective human resource recruitment benefits from core competency modelling to
ensure the right person is hired for the right job (Grigoryev, 2006: 16). Achieving
and sustaining a competitive edge is critically dependant on achieving the right fit.
Executive performance matters a lot. According to Hollenbeck (2009: 130),
executives and executive selection are absolute keys to organisation success.

Hagen et al. (1998: 3) define human capital as the knowledge and skills of the
organisation’s workforce – employees as a capital resource. Core competencies
cannot be effectively developed or exploited without appropriate human capital.

Understanding and identifying the characteristics for next generation leaders is

critical if business is to be successful in tomorrow’s large complex organisations.
Ready (2004: 36) asks what skills and competencies they will require. Strategic
human resource management provides the framework in which these key
characteristics can be fostered. The organisation’s competencies are the main
source of its competitive advantage (Grant, 1995: 140).

Ready (2004: 36) identifies the following characteristics of great leader-builder

companies:
They articulate leadership development as a top-level strategic priority.
They build outstanding HR functions that create powerful infrastructures for
leadership development.
They reward and support next-generation leaders in multiple ways.
They create an organisational culture that facilitates the development of
leaders.

It is completely within an organisation’s power to create a great leadership

development machine internally. While many companies struggle to create an

72
adequate stream of next-generation leaders, top leadership in some companies
has made great progress in this regard. These companies understand the
importance of articulating leadership development as a top strategic priority
(Ready, 2004: 39-40). They have HR executives who think and behave as
business leaders and have embedded infrastructures that enable leaders to grow
more effectively. In addition, these companies find multiple ways of supporting and
rewarding the development of next-generation leaders. Consequently, these
companies create corporate cultures that facilitate a continual line of talent that is
capable of leading companies into the future. Sustaining the organisation’s
corporate culture is discussed in section 2.3.2.

In order to succeed, executives must rely heavily on their ability to establish,

cultivate and manage meaningful human relationships. Why are relationships
important? Strategic is “big”, and the bigger the picture, the less a person can
know about everything needed from smaller, more specialised areas that help
make up the big picture. The greater the involvement in an inherently strategic
effort, the greater the need is to rely on the knowledge and expertise of those
making up an individual’s network of personal relationships. Hence the specific
skills relating to the development of sound human relationships become inherently
more significant. Developing, maintaining and cultivating relationships will mean
inspiring trust in others as well as correctly judging the character of those one has
to rely on (Orndoff, 2002: 59). This also means understanding the need for
reciprocation and empathy in considering the multiple perspectives of those
involved in a person’s network of relationships.

Picking the right leaders is crucial (Sorcher & Brant, 2002: 80-81). The
characteristics that can help a person succeed in one environment, such as
turning around a losing division, may lead to failure in another situation, such as
starting a new business. Despite this awareness, costly and painful mistakes are
often made in hiring new people for key positions. It is not uncommon for leaders
to fall prey to the “halo effect” and emphasising certain attributes while

73
underemphasising others. Many organisations do not have the right procedures in
place to produce a complete and accurate picture of all their top prospects.

Hollenbeck (2009: 131) lists a number of key assumptions, which are based more
on philosophy and experience than on data:
Executive performance matters – a lot. Executive success is predictable;
however, this is not the case in practice, because if everything were known,
then selections would be perfect.
People do not change – much. After becoming adults, people have underlying
characteristics that serve as the bases for their behaviour over the years – that
is, extroverts remain extroverts and introverts remain introverts, the implication
being that selection is significant.
Past performance predicts future performance – sometimes. Given
dramatically different performance demands, predicting from past performance
may be risky – hence the need to predict from more fundamental perspectives.
The people make the place – the implication is that executive selection is vital.

Hollenbeck (2009: 133) further states that in addition to the “right” things done in
the selection process such as better interviews, better tests, assessment centres,
360 degree feedback, fit, a range of candidates, hiring strategies including talent
management, board involvement and behavioural competency models, other
factors that were historically ignored, are now being routinely considered in the
selection process. Personality is back – after ignoring, if not denying the
significance of personality variables, personality is an integral part of current
thinking. At the top levels, the range of cognitive ability is often deemed to be so
narrow that much of the performance variation lies in these cognitive factors.
Leadership is essential – in a world where the terms “leader” and “executive” are
largely interchangeable, it may be hard to believe that “leadership” was not a
dimension in the original assessment processes. The 1970s and 1980s saw such
an emphasis on leadership, that the question that should be asked is not, “Is
leadership is important?”, but “Is leadership the only thing that is important?”
(Hollenbeck, 2009). Assessing leadership is a major priority in executive selection.

74
Relationships, whether termed emotional intelligence, social intelligence or
interpersonal relationships, leadership and executive positions are today viewed
as relational. The inability to manage relationships and the so-called “top team”
are often seen as the primary cause of executive failure. Identifying not only the
success factors but also the derailment factors that may cause executives to fail
are now being identified as key factors. The global capabilities required by
executives to perform on a global stage are included in the selection and
development activities for executives.

The tendency is to overvalue certain characteristics, attributes and skills (Sorcher

& Brant, 2002: 80-81), such as the following:
Being a team player – people who manage by consensus. The best leaders
are usually not team players; they are independent thinkers and they do not
mind making decisions by themselves, decisions that set them apart from the
pack. By contrast, consensus managers have trouble making decisions unless
everyone is in general agreement with this.
Hands-on coaching – leaders try to develop others through close mentoring
relationships. Many excellent leaders prefer to select strong people and
delegate fully to them.
Operational proficiency – overvalue people who are effective implementers and
problem solvers. Being able to solve problems is one thing; knowing which
problems to solve is another. It is critical to have the ability to handle ill-defined
and complex situations.
Dynamic public speaking – often overvalued is the ability to comport
themselves in front of people. While public speaking is vital, the ability to
engage, convince and inspire others, not only large groups but also one on
one, is crucial.
Raw ambition – a perceived lack of ambition is often viewed as a negative.
Many exceptional leaders are modest and display little ambition with a high
degree of personal humility.

75
 Similarity and familiarity – many top executives support those with similar
backgrounds, experiences and characteristics to their own and sometimes
miss excellent candidates because of a perceived lack of “fit”.

It is therefore necessary to properly identify the required leadership skills for an

organisation. As the minimum (Sorcher & Brant, 2002), organisations should put in
place an evaluation process that results in a full, balanced and accurate picture of
candidates. Without this, senior management will remain at risk of making the
wrong decisions and misidentifying their leadership talent, and the wrong people
will continue to be placed in high-level positions. Studies done in hindsight on why
executives fail abound, but the more focused approach on why executive selection
fails has not been researched (Hollenbeck, 2009: 141). Demonstrating the
effectiveness of executive selection requires going beyond the traditional
validation framework of correlating selection data with individual job performance.
It requires exploring what happens in the organisation after selection has occurred
and whether these outcomes can be attributed to the chosen executives
(Hollenbeck, 2009: 149).

As previously discussed, developing human capital is a critical criterion for

effective strategic leadership because without appropriate human capital, the core
competencies of the organisation cannot be effectively developed or exploited.
The ability to develop an organisation’s human capital is influenced by its
corporate culture (Hagen et al., 1998: 3). This is discussed in section 2.3.2.

2.2.7 Summary
It is clear that, at a strategic level, leadership is the key issue facing 21st-century
organisations (Elenkov, 2008: 37; Hitt, et al., 1998). As previously stated, without
effective strategic leadership, the capability of a company to achieve or sustain
competitive advantage is greatly constrained. The phrase “strategic leadership”
emerged from research conducted on strategic management (Sosik et al., 2005:
48) and highlights the six critical criteria identified by Hitt et al. (1995), as listed
above.

76
The literature shows that strategic leadership is a series of processes that
determine the degree to which organisations are effective in making fundamentally
sound connections between people, technology, work processes and business
opportunities aimed at adding economic, social and intellectual capital for
shareholders, society and employees.

It is critical to understand what strategic leaders actually do in order to produce a

strategy-focused organisation. Outstanding strategic leaders are those executives
who display key behaviours that enable the organisation to effectively execute its
strategy. They are “strategy-focused” leaders (Sosik et al., 2005: 48).

Each of the critical leadership criteria proposed by Hitt et al. (1995) was discussed.
Research has shown that there is a definite relationship between the leadership’s
criteria and the organisation’s performance. Each of the criteria is crucial and
influences the others. As stated in chapter 1, this study explores the significance
of these criteria for leadership in high-performing organisations in South Africa, as
well as the importance of the relationship between strategic leadership and
strategic alignment for these organisations (see section 2.4).

2.3 THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF CORPORATE CULTURE

2.3.1 Introduction
Culture provides the context within which strategies are formulated and
implemented. Organisational culture is concerned with decisions, actions,
communication patterns and communication networks. Formed over the life of an
organisation, culture reflects what the organisation has learnt across time through
its responses to the continuous challenges of survival and growth. Culture is
rooted in history and held collectively and is of sufficient complexity to resist many
attempts at direct manipulation, because it influences the way the organisation
conducts its business, as well as the methods used to regulate and control the
behaviour of people in the organisation. Since the way the organisation conducts
its business depends largely on the alignment of business process with its

77
strategy, and needs to be effectively controlled, culture can be a competitive
advantage (Serfontein, 2009: 50). The discussion in this section identifies the
importance of organisational culture ethical practices, strategic control and
strategic alignment in the context of strategic leadership.

2.3.2 Sustaining an effective corporate culture

An organisational culture consists of a complex set of ideologies, symbols and
core values that is shared throughout the organisation and influences the way it
conducts business (Hitt et al., 2001: 505).

Corporate culture comprises the core values shared by all or most employees.
Strategic leaders should develop and nurture an appropriate culture, one that
promotes focused learning and human development, the sharing of skills and
resources among units in the organisation, and the entrepreneurial spirit
necessary for innovation and competitiveness. An appropriate corporate culture
can promote an entrepreneurial spirit, foster and facilitate a long-term vision and
create an emphasis on strategic actions linked to the production of high-quality
goods and services. Changing culture is more difficult than sustaining it, but
effective strategic leadership involves recognising the need to change the culture
and implement the changes (Hagen et al., 1998: 3).

The behaviours of top-level leaders become symbols for the organisation’s new
culture, and for an organisation to become more transformational, top
management must articulate the changes required (Bipath, 2007: 66).

2.3.3 The impact of culture on performance

A major reason for the interest in culture in the organisation arises from the
assumption that certain organisational cultures lead to positive organisational
performance. Positive organisational performance is dependent on the values of
the organisational culture being widely communicated and shared in the
organisation. Organisations with strong cultures outperform those with weak
cultures (Bipath, 2007: 68).

78
Much of the literature on organisational culture and the performance of the
organisation indicates that culture can have significant positive economic value for
an organisation (Barney, 1986: 659). Consistency between policies and actions as
a strong determinant of culture is influenced by the ethics of the organisation
(Mendonca, 2001: 267).

Without the proper cultural nurturing, organisations will be unable to produce

sustainable results and a lasting competitive advantage. The transformation of a
culture requires relentless commitment from top management – a role that cannot
be delegated or outsourced. It is top management that drive the culture of an
organisation, and while many leaders will admit that culture is a powerful influence
that is able to create and sustain organisational performance, it is not always given
the focus that will achieve the transformation (Panico, 2004: 58). Culture can be
defined as those characteristics that differentiate one organisation from another
and these comprise values, beliefs and behaviours. In any organisation, the
culture is a consequence of the influence of past leadership, whether good or bad.
Collins (2001: 13) maintains that all companies have a culture, some companies
have discipline, but few companies have a culture of discipline. When a culture of
discipline is combined with the ethic of entrepreneurship, the result is great
performance.

While many leaders concede that culture is a powerful influence that can create
and sustain organisational performance, few afford it the time and attention it
deserves. The reasons lie in complexity and duration. Transforming a culture
requires relentless commitment from top management, a commitment that cannot
be delegated or outsourced (Panico, 2004: 58).

The transformation of culture is a long-term process and cannot be accomplished

overnight. However, the reputation and culture of an organisation can be
destroyed in a moment of indiscretion. A leadership team whose behaviour and
conduct have generated mistrust cannot possibly drive positive cultural change,
because trust is the one factor that is the most crucial for successfully transforming

79
a culture. Trust is a function of two things: character and competence. Character
includes integrity, motive and intent with people. Competence includes
capabilities, skills, results and track record – and both are vital (Panico, 2004: 59;
Covey & Merrill, 2006: 30).

Leaders are totally responsible for the climates they create. In companies and
society, too often, leaders focus on those characteristics and beliefs that separate
rather than unite (Panico, 2004: 60).

2.3.4 Characteristics of organisational culture

According to Panico (2004: 59), the following characteristics of organisational
culture are consistently apparent in high-performing organisations:
There is clear communication of values to ensure they are defined, understood
and practised in the organisation.
Everyone understands the vision and where the organisation is going.
The business purpose is clearly understood and is more than just profitability.
There are a small number of unambiguous strategic priorities.
There is clear communication of performance progress, both positive and
negative, which is regularly measured.
Responsibility and accountability are individually owned.
Standards of performance are fixed.
There is reward for contributions both at individual and group level.
Work is seen as fun.
People at all levels treat one another with dignity and respect.
Human resources in the organisation are managed as its most important asset.
Trust reigns supreme.

Although this list is far from comprehensive, it does establish a baseline for
references to an effective culture since these same characteristics appear
consistently in high-performing organisations (Panico, 2004: 59).

80
All organisations have a culture, but not all cultures have a positive influence on
the organisation’s performance. A positive corporate culture is driven by the
organisation’s strategic leadership and is a critical criterion in organisational
performance. Such a positive culture includes emphasising ethical practices. This
is discussed in section 2.3.5.

2.3.5 Emphasising ethical practices

There is a considerable body of literature which addresses the topic of ethical
leadership. However, many of the sources deal with the topic of leading ethically
without clarifying the attributes and actions that comprise ethical leadership. This
is a vital concept and organisations must gain a better understanding of the factors
that influence ethical leadership (Resick, Hanges, Dickson & Mitchelson, 2006:
346; McCann & Holt, 2009: 212). A lapse of ethical standards by leaders in recent
years has resulted in ethical leadership coming under the spotlight of public
attention.

The meaning of ethical is that which is morally good and right, as opposed to
legally or procedurally right (Sauser, 2005: 345). Ethics has to do specifically with
moral behaviour in society. It is becoming more apparent that organisational
leaders need to be more sensitive to their moral obligations to all stakeholders,
including employees, suppliers, consumers, governments and local communities.
(Mendonca, 2001: 268; McCann & Holt, 2009: 211).

Ethics or integrity is a set of moral standards of what is proper and right behaviour.
The extent to which one’s behaviour measures up to societal standards is typically
used as a gauge of one’s ethicality. Integrity in leadership is vital for a corporation
to achieve its goals. It is assumed that the personal values a leader holds will
influence corporate beliefs, behaviour and decisions (McCann & Holt, 2009: 211).

The leaders of organisations are responsible for maximising shareholder profit

while maintaining a high standard of business practices. It is not sufficient for
organisations to simply provide codes of ethics – they must develop an ethical

81
decision-making process based on a shared understanding of the values of the
organisation. Values not only influence individuals’ behaviour, but also have an
impact on the achievement of specific goals and objectives (Ncube & Wasburn,
2006: 78, 90). Ethical decision making in organisations is not only the right thing to
do, it is also vital to the organisation’s survival. The real challenge in ethical
decision making is to ensure that the decision made will not only meet the needs
of the individual but advance organisational goals as well. Executives today work
in a virtual moral minefield, where a seemingly innocent decision can explode and
cause considerable damage to the reputations of both the organisation and the
decision maker (Messick & Bazerman, 1996: 9).

The effectiveness of processes to implement strategy increases when the

processes are based on ethical practices. Ethical companies encourage and
enable people at all organisational levels to exercise ethical judgement. To
properly influence employees’ judgement and behaviour, ethical practices must
shape the organisation’s decision-making process and be an integral part of its
culture. A value-based culture is the most effective means of ensuring that
employees comply with the organisation’s ethical requirements (Hitt et al., 2001:
508). Hagen et al. (1998: 3) maintain that effective strategic leaders emphasise
ethical practices in their organisations, and seek to infuse them through the
organisational culture. The ethics that guide individual actions are based on
principles formed by long-term influences that extend beyond the organisation.

Leading ethically in a culturally appropriate way requires managers to understand

the interface between societal culture and ethical leadership. Keating, Martin,
Resick & Dickson, (2007: 23) build on the four components of ethical leadership
identified.

A long-held view is that while production and profitability goals are the leader’s
primary objectives, leaders are also responsible for setting the standards of moral
and ethical conduct in their environments (Resick et al., 2006). These researchers
state further that, essentially, ethical leadership involves leading in a way that

82
respects the rights and dignity of other people. According to Beschorner (2006:
127), business takes ethics into account only if it pays, the last resort being profit
maximisation. In an environment characterised by numerous corporate scandals,
restoring trust and applying ethical standards have become challenges for
business. In United States of America, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 requires
certification by the top management of corporations of the accuracy of financial
statements and reports (Ncube & Wasburn, 2006).

Does an organisation need ethical leadership in order to be effective and

successful? Undoubtedly. An organisation’s long-term success is determined by
the leader’s character, which makes the organisation trustworthy and builds the
confidence of its stakeholders in the organisation (Mendonca, 2001: 268).
Organisational effectiveness on an enduring basis is greatly enhanced by the self-
transformation of the leader and the followers, which is inherent in ethical
leadership.

The organisation’s moral environment is a natural overflow of ethical leadership

manifested by the leader’s altruistic motive, empowering influence over strategies
and moral character formation (Mendonca, 2001: 275). The practice of personal
mastery through the exercise of virtue and managerial resourcefulness ensures
ethical leadership through the leader’s commitment to the ethical principles and
values expressed, not only in terms of intellectual assent, but also in the leader’s
continuous struggle to live by them.

Resick et al. (2006: 345) examine ethics cross-culturally. Business faces the
challenge of international competition for customers and resources who may be
located anywhere in the world, requiring leaders to interact regularly with
colleagues from a different culture. It has become imperative for leaders to be
aware of the cultural differences that impact on business – hence the significance
of clarifying the attributes and behaviours of ethical leadership to address the
question of what ethical leadership is. Keating et al. (2007: 7) define ethical
leadership as the way in which leaders use their social power in the decisions they

83
make, actions they engage in and ways they influence others. Ethical leadership is
fundamentally about leading in a way that respects the rights and dignity of others
(Resick et al., 2006: 346).

A cognitive component consisting of leaders’ values and knowledge is at the core

of ethical leadership. Resick et al. (2006: 346) identify six key attributes that
appear to characterise ethical leadership. These include character and integrity,
ethical awareness, community/people orientation, motivating, encouraging and
empowering and managing ethical accountability.

The findings of the study conducted by Resick et al. (2006) indicate that four
components that characterise ethical leadership – that is, character/integrity,
altruism, collective motivation and encouragement – are viewed as behaviours and
characteristics that contribute to a person being an effective leader across
cultures. These components are universally supported. However, the degree of
endorsement for each dimension differs from culture to culture. Keating et al.’s
(2007) study provides support for the use of the four-factor ethical leadership
construct.

2.3.6 Ethical behaviour in organisations

Reputation and others’ perceptions of one are key aspects of executive ethical
leadership. Those “others” include all stakeholders, employees at all levels and
key external stakeholders. In order to develop a reputation for ethical leadership, a
leader should be strong on two dimensions namely – he or she should be a moral
person and a moral manager (Treviño, Hartman & Brown, 2000: 128, 133). The
CEO is regarded as the chief ethics officer of the organisation and therefore
creates a strong ethics message which influences the thoughts and behaviours of
employees. The executive ethical leader must find ways to focus on ethics and
values that will infuse the organisation with the principles that guide employee
behaviour. Leadership behaviour, in the sense of leading, assesses the followers’
needs and expectations and inspires them to realise the organisation’s vision
(Mendonca, 2001: 266). In this regard, the leader’s integrity and moral behaviour

84
give credibility to the vision, because, if this is in question, no matter how noble
and well presented the vision, it will be viewed with scepticism and lose credibility
in the eyes of the followers, and will not move them to achieve it.

According to Zhu, May and Avolio (2004: 16), leaders exhibit ethical behaviours
when they are doing what is morally right, just and good, and when they help to
elevate their followers’ moral awareness and moral self-actualisation.

The characteristics of a moral person and a moral manager are identified. Traits
are stable personal characteristics resulting in predictable behaviour, which is
determined by integrity, honesty and trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is a key
characteristic of the leader and has to do with consistency, credibility and
predictability in relationships (Treviño et al., 2000: 130, 131). Behaviour is what is
seen and reflects the character of the leader. Accordingly, the leader’s behaviour
has a strong influence on the organisation. So-called “right behaviour” is
evidenced by doing the right thing, concern for people, being open and the
leader’s personal morality.

Ethical leaders are expected to treat their employees fairly and in an unbiased and
impartial manner. When a leader’s behaviour is perceived as genuine and
authentic, employees will respond positively. However, the strength of the
relationship between such behaviours and employees’ responses will weaken if
the moral intention behind the leader’s behaviour becomes suspicious (Zhu et al.,
2004: 17).

Executive leaders are deemed to have to a solid set of ethical values and
principles in their decision-making role. They aim to be objective and fair and are
also perceived to have a perspective that goes beyond the bottom line to include
concerns about the broader society and community (Treviño et al., 2000).

The mental model of the individual is a critical factor that influences his or her
ability to make quality decisions in addition to creating a framework for the beliefs

85
and values (Caldwell et al., 2002: 153) that ultimately determine the leader’s
ethical framework.

The causes of poor ethical decision making are often the same as the general
causes for poor decision making, with decisions possibly being based on
inaccurate theories about the environment in which they operate (Messick &
Bazerman, 1996: 20). Improving ethical decision making may benefit from the
same method of improving general decision making – broadly speaking,
executives can focus on quality, breadth and honesty.

Moral managers recognise the need to put ethics at the forefront of their
leadership agenda. The challenge for executives is to make values and ethics
prominent in the business landscape where messages about beating the
competition and achieving quarterly goals and profits dominate (Treviño et al.,
2000: 133). A number of ways in which moral managers can increase the impact
of an ethics and values agenda and enhance a reputation for ethical leadership
are identified. These include role modelling through visible action, rewards and
discipline and communicating about ethics and values.

Strategic leaders emphasise ethical behaviour and are extremely rare in most
organisations (Rowe, 2001: 87). They oversee day-to-day operations and long-
term strategic responsibilities and formulate and implement strategies for
immediate impact and the preservation of long-term goals to enhance
organisational growth, survival and viability. They use strategic controls and
financial controls, with the emphasis on the former and have strong positive
expectations of the performance that they expect from their superiors, peers,
subordinates and themselves. They use and interchange tacit and explicit
knowledge at both the individual and organisational levels and use both linear and
nonlinear thinking patterns. Finally, they believe in strategic choice, namely that
their choices make a difference in what their organisations do, and that this will
affect their organisations’ internal and external environments.

86
As discussed earlier, integrity in leadership is vital if a corporation is to achieve its
goals (McCann & Holt, 2009). A leader’s personal values will influence corporate
beliefs, behaviour and decisions. Emphasising ethical practices is a critical
criterion for leadership in organisations and it should be driven from the top
leadership team throughout the organisation.

Ethical practices are essential for effective strategic control in organisations.

Establishing strategic control is discussed in section 2.3.7.

2.3.7 Establishing strategic control

Organisational control has long been viewed as a major part of the strategy
implementation process. Controls are necessary to help ensure that organisations
achieve their desired outcomes of strategic competitiveness and above-average
returns (Hitt et al., 2001: 511). According to Hagen et al. (1998: 4), strategic
control refers to corporate leaders’ understanding of the strategies being
implemented in the various business units. Strategic control focuses on the
content of strategic actions in order to achieve appropriate outcomes. Strategic
control therefore encourages lower-level managers to make decisions that
incorporate moderate and acceptable levels of risk. Effective use of strategic
controls by corporate leaders is frequently integrated with appropriate autonomy
for the subunits so they can gain a competitive advantage in their respective
markets. Autonomy provided by strategic control allows for the flexibility and
innovation necessary to take advantage of specific market opportunities. Strategic
leadership promotes the simultaneous use of strategic controls and autonomy.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, performance measurement received

considerable criticism for being limited to financial measures as indicators of
organisations’ profitability (Bipath, 2007).

Although change is part of business development, it is often difficult to manage,

and control is essential. Most organisations focus on attention to goals, particularly
financial goals, as the main variable in strategic control. Tavakoli and Perks (2001:

87
304) developed a five-factor model for a strategic control system for the
management of strategic change. The five factors in this model focus on
competitive advantage, strategic capabilities, industry key success factors,
strategic goals and planning premises. Building the five factors into an
organisation’s strategic control system can assuage the likelihood of the impact of
strategic change being underestimated by managers.

Kaplan and Norton (1996: 24-25) developed the widely used balanced scorecard
as a means of identifying targets and measuring performance. The balanced
scorecard provides executives with a comprehensive framework that translates a
company’s vision and strategy into a coherent set of performance measures
organised into four different perspectives: financial, customer, internal business
process and learning and growth. These topics are discussed in more detail in
sections 2.4.2 to 2.4.5.

The five-factor model is built on the conceptual base of the balanced scorecard
with the emphasis on the monitoring of competitive advantage factors, strategic
capabilities and key success factors. The process variables and external dynamic
forces, as key measures incorporated into the balanced scorecard, represent a
significant advance on previous models of strategic control (Tavakoli & Perks,
2001: 303).

According to Narayanan and Zane (2009: 394), if leadership does not directly
impact organisational performance, then leadership does not matter to
organisational life.

Virtually no one disputes the fact that investors need as much information as
possible to accurately evaluate a company, and academic studies show that
companies with greater transparency have higher valuations. In addition to
providing annual forecasts, many companies are providing forward-looking
information, including key operating ratios plus qualitative information about the

88
company and its industry. Ratio analysis can help investors to evaluate company
performance (Brigham & Ehrhardt, 2008: 122).

As discussed, controls are necessary to help ensure that organisations achieve

their desired outcomes of strategic competitiveness and above-average returns.
Strategic leadership promotes the simultaneous use of strategic controls and
autonomy.

2.3.8 Summary
Effective cultures are ones in which people understand that competitive
advantages do not last forever and that the organisation must move forward
continuously. When employees are comfortable with the reality of constant
change and the need for a never-ending stream of innovations, patterns and
practices are in place that can enhance global competitiveness (Serfontein, 2009:
51).

The challenge for the strategic leader is how to instil normative values that guide
corporate action and individuals’ behaviour. In the final analysis, ethical decision-
making processes result in the use of organisational resources to obtain the
benefits desired by legitimate stakeholders. A strategic leader’s commitment to
pursuits in which legal, ethical and social concerns have been taken into account
is deemed to be both morally right and economically efficient (Serfontein, 2009:
52).

Strategic leaders’ commitment to serve stakeholders’ legitimate claims will

contribute to the establishment and continuation of an ethical organisational
culture. The necessity of controls to help ensure that organisations achieve their
desired outcomes was discussed.

The literature confirms the importance of culture, ethics and control as critical
criteria for effective strategic leadership in organisations in the context of this
study.

89
2.4 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
2.4.1 Introduction
As noted earlier, the presence of a strategic leader leads to a number of short- and
long-term outcomes that largely determine the success of an organisation (Rowe
& Nejad, 2009: 2), especially where these leaders focus on building their
organisation’s resources, capabilities and competencies in order to gain a
sustained competitive advantage.

In this section, the strategic alignment of organisational resources and capabilities

with strategy is discussed in an effort to gauge the value of alignment in enabling
an organisation to deliver on its strategy and meet customer needs. An
understanding of the concepts of and approaches to alignment will be explored,
and its impact on organisational performance discussed.

2.4.2 What is strategic alignment?

Alignment is that optimal state in which strategy, employees, customers and key
processes work in concert to propel growth and profits. Aligned organisations
enjoy greater customer and employee satisfaction and produce superior returns
for shareholders (Labovitz, 2004: 30). He maintains that alignment gives
managers at every level of the organisation the ability to rapidly deploy a coherent
business strategy, be totally customer focused, develop world-class people and
continuously improve business processes – all at the same time. Strategic
alignment furthermore provides a means to measure the effectiveness of
organisations.

According to Khadem (2008: 29), two people are aligned when they move in the
same direction. They are integrated when they cooperate with each other. Total
alignment encompasses both alignment and integration. It is possible to be
aligned but not integrated. This is evidenced when two people move in the same
direction but without cooperation. Khadem (2008) maintains that alignment needs
a centre of focus or frame of reference for all employees, which is the vision,
values and strategy of the organisation. Alignment therefore means alignment

90
with the organisation’s vision, values and strategy. Hence, according to Khadem
(2008: 29), the most effective way to make an organisation’s business strategy
effective is through alignment and follow-up. This state of alignment means that
everyone in the organisation understands the strategy, buys into it, knows how to
make a real contribution and strives to make a contribution to its realisation.

As previously discussed in section 1.3.3, Kaplan and Norton (2006: 3) maintain

that alignment matters and that it produces dramatic benefits in organisations.
These authors (2006) developed the four-perspective framework of a business
unit’s balanced scorecard, which describes how the unit creates shareholder value
through enhanced customer relationships driven by excellence in internal
processes. These processes are continually improved by aligning people, strategy,
systems and culture. The four perspectives are as follows:

(1) Financial. What are our shareholders’ expectations for financial performance?
(2) Customer. To achieve our financial objectives, how do we create value for our
customers?
(3) Internal processes. What processes must we excel at to satisfy our customers
and shareholders?
(4) Learning and growth. How do we align our intangible assets – people, systems
and culture – to improve the critical processes?

Each of these four perspectives is linked in a chain of cause-and-effect

relationships (Kaplan & Norton, 2006: 6-7). For example, a training programme to
improve employee skills (the learning and growth perspective) improves customer
relations (internal processes), which, in turn, leads to greater customer satisfaction
and loyalty (customer) and, eventually, increased revenues and margins
(financial).

The four-perspective framework for business unit strategies extends naturally to

developing an enterprise balanced scorecard. Alignment is critical if enterprises

91
are to achieve synergies through their business and support units (Kaplan &
Norton, 2006: 26–27).

Kaplan and Norton’s (2006:15) key focus is on aligning strategy with the
organisation’s employees and management processes. Aligning and integrating
strategies in all organisational units will yield little if employees are not motivated
to help their organisational unit implement these strategies.

Kaplan and Norton (2006) conclude that the successful execution of strategy
requires the effective alignment of the following four components:
the strategy
the organisation
the employees
the management systems

Underlying this is the guiding hand of strategic leadership. Each of these

alignment components is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. In
concert, however, they provide a recipe around which a successful management
process can be developed.

The concepts presented by Kaplan and Norton (2006) reflect similar components
to those inherent in Labovitz and Rosansky’s (1997) model, whose four
components are strategy, customers, processes and people (employees).

While the necessity for an alignment between the organisation’s strategy and
operations is theoretically founded (Raymond & Croteau, 2009: 192, 199), only a
few researchers have empirically studied the nature of alignment as well as its
influence on the organisation’s performance. Their research objectives were to
identify the consequences of alignment for the operational and business
performance of medium-sized manufacturing enterprises and to verify whether
these consequences are valid for all types of business strategy or for only some.
Their study confirmed the existence of many relationships, a number of these

92
depending on the business strategy. Examples of these included a positive
association between alignment and productivity and between alignment and
profitability.

Alignment is essential in all organisations, but alignment issues are critical in

service organisations. Services are intangible because they involve acts and
processes rather than producing tangible goods. Great service is rare, but it is not
an impossible dream. It is rare because it is complicated, requiring the alignment
of numerous internal practices that contribute to the creation and reinforcement of
a service tradition, strategy and culture (Schneider, Godfrey, Hayes, Huang, Lim,
Nishi, Raver & Zigert, 2003: 123). The result of excellent service accordingly
impacts positively on profitability.

Despite the accepted need for strategic alignment in the manufacturing strategy,
according to the literature, there has been relatively little research aimed at
simultaneously aligning decisions in the structural and infrastructural areas with
the competitive priorities of an organisation (Kathuria & Partovi, 2000: 215). In
order to bridge this gap, they presented a conceptual model based on the premise
that the process of aligning workforce management practices to competitive
priorities involves the identification of the key managerial tasks underlying various
competitive priorities. These tasks are then matched with the process technology
characteristics and workforce management practices to seek a good fit, which is
expected to improve performance.

Alignment appears to be a necessary condition for organisational effectiveness.

Alignment means having common agreement about goals and means (Fonvielle &
Carr, 2001: 5). It is in the achievement of goal congruency that all parts and
functions of an organisation’s value chain work towards the same purpose. These
authors (2001) further emphasise that when alignment is strong, people feel a
clear and shared sense of purpose, inspiration and energy, and both individual
and team effectiveness increase. When alignment is weak, people work at cross-
purposes and actions become less effective.

93
Khadem (2008: 29) poses the following question: If alignment and follow-up are
crucial to success, why are so many organisations with competent, creative and
determined resources lacking these two elements? The reason, according to
Khadem (2008) is that a strength can sometimes become the weakness.
Organisations that lack alignment often have competent, creative and determined
resources that do not agree with the strategy, do not share the vision or do not buy
into the culture of the organisation as defined by the TMT.

Strategic alignment must start at the top of the organisation with its top level of
leadership and cascade down through all levels in the organisation. This will have
a unifying effect on functions, teams and individuals and impact positively on the
organisation’s performance. In order for this to be effective, communication of the
organisation’s strategic direction and performance measures throughout the
organisation is critical to achieve alignment. Without measures, many
organisations fail to communicate and cascade their strategy through the
organisation (Fonvielle & Carr, 2001: 60). The empirical study by Jooste and
Fourie (2009: 65) concludes that a poor understanding of the strategy by the
workforce and ineffective communication of it to the workforce are the principal
barriers to strategy implementation in this regard. The successful transition from
strategy formulation to the implementation of strategy ultimately depends on the
organisation’s strategic leaders.

The literature examines the four constructs of strategic alignment, namely

strategy, customers, processes and people, and the significance of their
relationship with each other to effect organisational performance. Alignment links
strategy to people and integrates them with customers and process improvement.
Alignment ensures that the organisation is in balance.

The next section examines a model of alignment for measuring effectiveness in

organisations.

94
2.4.3 The strategic alignment model
The strategic alignment model presented by Labovitz and Rosansky (1997)
provides a tool for measuring effectiveness in organisations. Alignment gives
managers at every level of the organisation the ability to rapidly deploy a coherent
business strategy, be totally customer focused, develop world-class people and
continuously improve business processes – all at the same time. Labovitz and
Rosansky (1997) further maintain that their research and experience have
convinced them that growth and profit are ultimately the result of alignment
between people, customers, strategy and processes.

They have found that organisations that consistently land on their feet during
turbulent times are managed by people who keep everyone focused on the key
business objectives and, in the midst of change, have generated sustained
business results. To understand the concept of strategic alignment (Labovitz &
Rosansky, 1997: 38; Lear, 2000: 23), the analogy of landing a small aircraft is
used to describe the challenge of becoming and staying aligned when many
factors

In alignment
Out of alignment

Left of runway.
FigureAltitude
2.2: Instrument
too high out of alignment and in alignment
(above
(Source: glide path)
Adapted from Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 39)

95
factors are changing at once. The instrument landing system helps the pilot align
vertically and horizontally with the runway during the approach. In line with this
analogy, the same focus is needed to keep a business centred on its main
objectives.

In figure 2.2, the instrument indicates that the plane is too high. By lowering the
nose of the aircraft, the pilot will see the horizontal bar move up towards the
centre. The vertical bar indicates that the aircraft is not aligned with the runway
and is too far to the left and must turn to the right in order to land on the runway.
When both bars are aligned in the centre, as illustrated in figure 2.2, the aircraft is
on the proper glide path for a safe landing.

Because factors such as crosswinds, air speed and rate of descent all conspire to
move the plane off this perfect course, it is necessary for the pilot to continually
adjust altitude and direction all the way down to the runway for a safe landing. In
the same way, business leaders must continually be centred on the ultimate
objective of the business in order to be effective.

Strategy

Processes Strategy Customers

People

Figure 2.3: Model of strategic alignment

(Source: Adapted from Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 44)

96
What serves as the central point for alignment? Labovitz and Rosansky (1997: 38)
maintain that the central focus of leadership is the organisation’s goals and
objectives. Alignment is the optimal state where the key elements of an
organisation – people, strategy, customers and processes – are aligned and
integrated to work in concert with each other. People in aligned organisations have
a clear line of sight to customer requirements and organisational goals. Hence
strategic alignment is defined as linking strategy and people, and integrating them
with customers and process improvement (figure 2.3).

Sustained excellence emerges when all the key elements of a business are
connected and simultaneously linked to the marketplace. There is increasing
evidence that strategic alignment is a vital factor in achieving business success
(Lear 2000: 24, 26).

The hallmark of aligned organisations is that they consistently deliver measurable

improvements in customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, employee retention and
return to shareholders, all at the same time (Labovitz, 2004).

Labovitz (2004) has done extensive research on strategic alignment and

developed a tool to measure strategic alignment in organisations, which provides a
basis for measuring organisational success. This diagnostic profile is used as a
measure of the impact of strategic leadership on companies (Labovitz & Rosansky
1997: 53). The diagnostic profile can be used across the entire spectrum of the
organisation. In this way it can be ascertained whether there are levels in which
alignment does or does not occur in the organisation.

Schneider et al. (2003: 124) examined the experiences of strategic alignment by

employees in a service organisation. They maintain that organisational
researchers describe the relationship between the environment and the internal
organisation in terms such as “fit”, “congruence”, “consistency”, “alignment” and
“matching”.

97
These concepts indicate that a high level of both internal and external alignment is
more likely to lead to greater quality and efficiency of operations than a low level of
alignment. This is because the various systems in the organisation reinforce
instead of disrupt one another, thus making organisational effectiveness more
likely. They conclude from their study that the key to great service is in the
alignment of all the organisation’s practices, which emphasises the shared
message that service excellence is who we are and what we value. They further
conclude that great service is rare but not impossible. It is rare because it requires
the alignment of numerous internal practices that contribute to the creation and
reinforcement of a service tradition, strategy and culture. Where organisations are
able to render great service they are in fact profiting from their efforts (Schneider
et al., 2003: 124).

Aligned organisations enjoy greater customer and employee satisfaction and

produce superior returns for their shareholders. They focus employees and their
work on key goals. In an aligned organisation, every employee understands not
only the organisation’s strategy and goals, but also how his or her work contributes
to satisfying the needs of the customer. This is discussed in sections 2.4.4 and
2.4.5.

2.4.4 Vertical and horizontal alignment

Alignment relies on two essential dimensions which lie on the vertical and
horizontal axes. The vertical dimension is concerned with organisational strategy
and the people who must transform the strategy into meaningful work. According
to Labovitz and Rosansky (1997: 73), the difference is the way strategy is
formulated, and the way in which people are engaged with it will determine the
degree of deployment throughout the organisation.

According to Kim and Mauborgne (2009: 73), there are two types of strategy:
structuralist strategies that assume that the operating environment is given and
reconstructionist strategies that seek to shape the environment (Appendix G). In
choosing which of the two would be most appropriate for the organisation, the

98
following factors need to be considered: environmental attractiveness, the
capabilities and resources and whether the organisation has a strategic orientation
for competing or innovating. Whichever type of strategy is chosen, success will
depend on creating an aligned set of strategy propositions targeted at customers,
the people working for or with the organisation and processes in the organisation
aligned to execute the strategy. Kim and Mauborgne (2009: 80) maintain that
failure to achieve alignment is the key reason why many market-creating
innovations fail to become sustainable business. The challenge for leaders is
therefore to ensure that there is robust debate on what the right strategic approach
is for each business. The real difference between success and failure is strategic
alignment. Strategy that reflects the contributions of the workforce and is
executed rapidly and effectively will align activities with the intentions of the
business and invigorate employees.

According to Labovitz and Rosansky (1997: 76-77), a hierarchy that stresses

command and control can claim to do neither. Measurements tied to company
objectives are the key to vertical alignment. The importance that the TMT
attributes to determining the organisation’s strategic direction must be matched
with the communication and deployment of the strategy throughout the
organisation. Involving employees in the process of strategy determination will
result in faster more effective deployment. When the TMT not only values these
criteria, but ensures that they are implemented in the organisation, alignment is
impacted on positively. According to Khadem (2008: 33), if an organisation
intends to be aligned, it needs a centre of focus or frame of reference for all its
employees. This frame of reference is the vision, values and strategy of the
organisation.

Vertical alignment energises people and provides direction and offers

opportunities for involvement. It implies more than employee compliance with
strategy as determined by top leadership. Instead, strategy should be determined
by customer requirements and shaped by the people who implement it at
operational level. Strategies that are created by top leadership in isolation do not

99
align with customer needs. Vertical alignment alone is only half the challenge –
the other half is implementation. Excellent strategy execution requires aligning
competencies with strategy (Khadem, 2008).

In the same way as vertical alignment ensures that company strategy is reflected
in the behaviour of every employee, the horizontal dimension involves the
organisation’s processes that create what the customer values, and infuses the
concerns of the customer into everything the organisation does. Horizontal
alignment links a company’s actions with customer needs in ways that delight and
create loyalty (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 109). This influences the company’s
strategy, processes and behaviour. Horizontal alignment informs strategy and
people.

Ensuring that organisational processes focus on the customer, as the overarching

goal, a powerful horizontal alignment will be achieved (Labovitz & Rosansky,
1997: 131).

Becoming aligned does not simply happen. Someone in a position of power has
to make it happen with a huge push or some type of Herculean effort (Labovitz &
Rosansky, 1997: 175). Real change almost always starts at the top. To achieve
the vision, the organisation needs to produce results through the existing
processes in the organisation, and the creation of new processes to deliver
additional results (Khadem, 2008: 34).

As previously stated, alignment is that optimal state in which strategy, employees,

customers and key processes work in concert to propel growth and profits
(Labovitz, 2004: 30). Once alignment is achieved, performance measures are
needed to keep the organisation aligned.

The next section discusses the impact of alignment on organisational

performance.

100
2.4.5 Strategic alignment and organisational performance
The performance measurement system is ultimately responsible for maintaining
alignment and coordination in an organisation. No organisation can succeed
unless it has an effective and efficient metrics system that aligns all the strategic
objectives of the organisation. Melnyk, Calantone, Luft, Stewart, Zsidisin, Hanson
and Burns (2005: 314) explore the relationship between customer, corporate
strategy and tactical execution level as it affects the implementation, development,
use and management of metrics.

Studies on strategic alignment have focused on the alignment of IT processes to

the organisation’s objectives (Peak & Guynes, 2003) and have examined its
impact on business performance. The literature suggests that organisations
cannot be competitive if their business and information technologies are not
aligned. According to Labovitz (2004: 31), organisations must align and improve
their core processes in order to meet customer requirements and drive the
organisation’s strategy.

Economic performance can be enhanced by alignment by finding the right fit

between external positioning and internal arrangements. By focusing on the
alignment of strategy and infrastructure, organisations may not only achieve
synergy and facilitate the development of business plans, but also increase
profitability and efficiency (Ciborra, 1997: 70; Avison et al., 2004: 225).

Alignment is necessary between strategic priorities and measurement activities in

order to impact on operational performance. Once strategic priorities have been
selected and defined, their impact on operations is determined by how well they
are communicated, as well as by how frequently and systematically they are
evaluated or measured. The measures used to monitor an organisation’s
operational excellence in supporting desired strategic priories are influenced by
the measures used to monitor the organisation’s value-added activities (Fawcett,
Smith & Cooper, 1996: 411).

101
Total alignment provides a system for strategy execution. Once this system is in
place, it will soon be apparent how well current strategies are working. Then when
the organisation searches for a better business strategy, it will be because it needs
one, not because the organisation cannot get the existing strategy to work
(Khadem, 2008: 35).

In conclusion, achieving improved business performance occurs through

alignment between the organisational strategies, customers, people and process,
which affects business performance (Papke-Shields & Malhotra, 2001).

Once alignment has been achieved across the four dimensions in the
organisation, maintaining alignment through measurement is vital in a dynamic
and changing organisational environment.

2.4.6 Summary
Without effective strategic leadership, the probability of an organisation achieving
superior or even satisfactory performance when confronting the challenges of the
global economy will be greatly reduced (Ireland & Hitt, 1999: 43).

From the body of literature examined in this chapter, there is no doubt that
strategic leadership matters. Identifying the criteria whereby strategic leadership
influences performance is therefore critical to the organisation’s success.

Several identifiable actions characterise strategic leadership that contribute

positively to effective implementation (Hitt et al., 1999; Jooste & Fourie, 2009),
namely
determining strategic direction
exploiting and maintaining core competencies
developing human capital
sustaining an effective organisational culture
emphasising ethical practices
establishing balanced organisational controls

102
The literature suggests that organisations cannot be competitive if their
businesses are not aligned. However, achieving strategic alignment continues to
be a major concern for business executives (Avison et al., 2004). Alignment is
essential and produces dramatic benefits for organisations (Kaplan & Norton,
2006: 3), and alignment is critical if organisations are to achieve synergies through
their business and support units (Kaplan & Norton, 2006: 26-27).

Aligned organisations enjoy greater customer and employee satisfaction and

produce superior returns for their shareholders (Labovitz, 2004: 30). This is
achieved when employees in the organisation are aligned with the organisation’s
strategy, which is geared to customer needs and processes to ensure the
business is able to deliver on the strategy.

While the necessity for an alignment between the organisation’s strategies,

customers, processes and people is theoretically founded, only a few researchers
have empirically studied the nature of alignment and its influence on the
organisation’s performance. Alignment of the four constructs of strategic
leadership, strategy, customers, processes and people, falls within the context of
the current research.

2.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter dealt with the theory and the empirical research findings relating to
the development of leadership themes and theories, including strategic leadership,
organisational culture and strategic alignment.

While the topic of leadership has been the focus of studies over the past 30 years
that have reflected a range of views, only recently has there been evidence of an
increasing focus on strategic leadership.

103
Effective leaders are those who are able to assess a diverse set of dynamic
environmental forces to identify performance demands on the organisation in
terms of specific outputs the organisation has to produce to enable it to optimally
align with its environment. In essence, the challenge of leadership is to envision
how to change the organisation in order to achieve the set of organisational results
that best fits with environmental demands while maintaining the organisation as a
functioning social system (Sanders & Davey, 2011: 45).

While it is agreed that there are many passing references to strategic, top-level
leaders and their vital importance, the larger part of analytical study has focused
on leadership at lower levels in the organisation. Less than 5% of the leadership
literature has focused on executive leadership as opposed to the majority of
studies which have focused on lower-level leadership (Zaccaro & Horn, 2003: 772;
Storey, 2005: 81).

Research has confirmed that leader behaviour influences group and organisational
behaviour, but less is known about how top leadership ensure that group and
organisational members implement their decisions. It is the alignment across
hierarchical levels that matters (O’Reilly et al., 2010: 104,112).

International studies such as that of Elenkov (2008), who conducted an empirical

study to determine the effects of strategic leadership on innovation, and an earlier
study by Elenkov et al. (2005) explored strategic leadership and executive
innovation influence. The results of this study found that leadership at strategic
level had a strong relationship with the influence of top management on two types
of innovation – product market and administrative innovations. The study further
indicated that possessing relevant strategic leadership skills appears critical to top
leadership’s ability to influence innovation. Raymond and Croteau’s (2009: 192)
study confirmed the existence of a positive association between alignment and
productivity and alignment and profitability and found significant performance
outcomes of alignment. O’Reilly et al. (2010) examined the effects of a leader’s
alignment on strategy implementation and concluded that it is only when leaders'

104
effectiveness at different levels is considered in the aggregate that significant
performance improvement occurs. This conclusion emphasises the need for
alignment across all levels of the organisation.

According to Elenkov (2008: 37), little empirical evidence has been provided for
the effects of leadership at strategic level on organisational processes with
distinctive strategic importance. The need for further research on the relationship
between strategic leadership and alignment in organisations in the South African
context has been established and informs the problem statement, research
question and research objectives of this study.

In the South African context, only eight doctoral studies have been completed on
strategy and leadership in South Africa and none of these has focused in particular
on the direct and indirect impact of strategic leadership and alignment on the
operational strategy and performance of business organisations in South Africa
(Serfontein, 2009: 22). Some of the studies relating to this study include that of
Van Schalkwyk (1989), entitled “Leadership and strategic management in
organisational development”; a study by Serfontein (2009), entitled “The impact of
strategic leadership on operational strategy and performance of business
organisations in South Africa”; and a study by Jooste and Fourie (2009) entitled
“The role of strategic leadership in effective strategy implementation: Perceptions
of South African strategic leaders”, which explores the role of strategic leadership
in effective strategy implementation from a director’s perspective. Other research
conducted by South African researchers has been mainly of a theoretical
conceptual nature and of limited scope (e.g. MCom and MBA dissertations).
Except for the above-mentioned studies, no empirical research has been done in
South Africa that specifically relates to strategic alignment in the context of high-
performing companies.

Serfontein’s (2009: 150) study confirms the relationship between strategic

leadership, operational strategy and performance. The limitation of this study was
self-reporting by a single respondent, namely the CEO. This study confirms the

105
existence of a definite relationship between the leadership’s characteristics, an
organisation’s strategies and its performance. However, no research has been
conducted that explores the relationship between strategic leadership and
alignment in relation to high-performing companies. This confirms the research
gap in strategic leadership in organisations that has been identified and forms the
basis of the current research.

Strategic alignment
Strategy
Strategic leaders
Customers
6 critical criteria
Processes
People

High performing companies

Figure 2.4: Strategic leadership – researcher’s compilation

The diagram in figure 2.4 illustrates the intended relationship between strategic
leadership and strategic alignment in high-performing companies.

In order to further examine the relationship between strategic leadership and

strategic alignment, an empirical research study was conducted on high-
performing companies. More specifically, the focus of this study was to establish
the importance of the strategic leadership criteria and the extent of the relationship
between the strategic leadership criteria and strategic alignment in high-
performing companies in South Africa.

Chapter 3 deals with the research design and research methodology employed in
this empirical study.

106
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCION

Chapter 1 explored the context and aims of the study. The chapter provided an
overview of the study, the need for the study was explored, the research problem
was discussed and the general research questions and research objectives were
formulated.

In chapter 2, the theoretical and empirical knowledge of strategic leadership and

strategic alignment were reviewed.

This chapter provides a description of the research design and methodology. This
is followed by a discussion of quantitative research methods and a theoretical
discussion of the research approach and methodology employed in this study.
Thirdly, the methods selected to collect and analyse the data are described.

3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM

The ultimate purpose of research is scientific explanation - to discover and

document universal laws of human behaviour. Because research is systematic
and controlled, it has the potential for fewer errors. People accordingly have
confidence in the outcomes of empirical scientific research. Empirical refers to the
way scientific information is collected through the senses and specialised scientific
techniques. In scientific research, the researcher’s personal beliefs are put
outside the scientific investigation and the ideal of objectivity is pursued (Neuman
in Bipath, 2007: 84).

The basic aim of science is to build theory. Kerlinger and Lee (2000: 11) define
theory as a set of interrelated constructs, definitions and propositions that present
a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships between variables,
the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena. Theories are regarded

107
as working truth until they are reviewed during empirical research. Each theory is
evaluated empirically to determine how well it predicts new findings. Theories can
be used to guide the research plan by generating testable hypotheses and
organise facts from testing these hypotheses (Bipath, 2007: 82).

A research design is a plan for selecting the sources and types of information used
to answer the research question. It is a framework for specifying the relationships
between the study’s variables and a blueprint that outlines each procedure from
the hypotheses to the analysis of data (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 130).

Different techniques may be used to accomplish the objective of exploration of a

particular issue. Broadly speaking, both qualitative and quantitative techniques
can be used and are the most frequently used approaches. These two research
paradigms are often positioned as opposing approaches. Even though there is no
specific rule prescribing that only one approach may be used in research,
researchers usually embrace only one of the two approaches (Bipath, 2007: 82).

Mixed methods research has gained visibility in the last few years, although
limitations persist regarding the scientific calibre of certain mixed methods
research designs and methods. The need exists for rigorous mixed methods
designs that integrate various data analytic procedures for a seamless transfer of
evidence across qualitative and quantitative modalities. Such designs can offer the
strength of confirmatory results drawn from quantitative multivariate analyses,
along with “deep structure” explanatory descriptions as drawn from qualitative
analyses (Castro, Kellison, Boyd & Kopak, 2010: 342).

In quantitative research, the aim is to determine the relationship between one thing
(an independent variable) and another (a dependent or outcome variable) in a
population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive (subjects usually
measured once) or experimental (subjects measured before and after a
treatment). A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables,

108
whereas an experiment using an empirical study establishes causality (Hopkins,
2000: 1).

Given the primary research question, the current study was framed within the
positivist research paradigm (approach) – that is, it is quantitative in nature, its
main purpose being to describe and explain (Neuman, 2000: 22). The quantitative
paradigm was deemed appropriate for this study because it involved the
systematic collection of measurable data, the statistical analysis of the data and
the development of an analytical framework. The aim was to empirically examine
the relationship between variables that were measureable and had accepted
validated measurement instruments. In addition, the research attempted to
quantitatively link the relationship between a specified set of variables.

According to Kerlinger and Lee (2000: 14), a scientific approach to research can
be defined as “the systematic, controlled, empirical, amoral, public and critical
investigation of natural phenomena. It is guided by theory and hypotheses about
the presumed relations amongst such phenomena.”

This study makes a contribution to the body of knowledge about the relationship
between strategic leadership and organisational alignment in high-performing
companies.

3.2.1 Problem statement and objectives of the study

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between strategic
leadership and strategic alignment in organisations in the 200 top listed companies
in South Africa.

The focus of empirical study has been on leadership and to a lesser extent on
alignment, and only recently on strategic leadership. As discussed in chapter 2,
hardly any in-depth research on the impact of strategic leadership has been
conducted in the South African context. Few doctoral studies have been
completed on strategy and leadership in South Africa and even fewer have

109
focused particularly on the direct and indirect impact of strategic leadership on the
operational strategy and performance of business organisations in South Africa.

A study completed by Serfontein (2009) explored the impact of strategic

leadership on the operational strategy and performance of business organisations
in South Africa. The central theme of this study was that executives must accept
full responsibility for strategic leadership (Serfontein, 2009: 23). A limitation of the
study was the use of only one respondent per organisation, since it is possible that
the use of more respondents per organisation could have provided a different
picture and result of the implementation of strategic leadership practices
(Serfontein, 2009: 246). However, this study did not explore the in-depth and
complex nature of strategic leadership. Since only CEOs and senior executives of
the organisation were consulted, it is possible that another study which examines
the perception of top, middle and lower management would yield other results
(Serfontein, 2009: 28).

As discussed in chapter 2, there are few studies on strategic leadership, but the
limitation in most of the studies has been self-reporting by the CEO only, with no
cross-verification included in the study to test if the responses of the CEO align
with those of employees in the organisation. Serfontein (2007) maintains that the
CEO is the best person to respond to questions on strategy for example.
However, implementation of strategy occurs at operational level and numerous
factors impact the effective implementation.

The linkage between strategic leadership and strategic alignment has not been
empirically investigated in South Africa. This study explores that relationship. To
achieve this objective, quantitative techniques were considered appropriate for this
study because it involves the systematic collection of measurable data and their
statistical analysis. The aim is to empirically examine the relationship between
variables that are measurable and have accepted validated measurement
instruments.

110
3.3 RESEARCH PROPOSITION AND HYPOTHESES

The research literature disagrees on the meanings of the terms “proposition” and
“hypothesis”. Cooper and Schindler (1998: 43) define a proposition as a statement
about concepts that may be judged as true or false if the statement refers to
observable phenomena. When a proposition is formulated for empirical testing, it
is called a hypothesis. As a declarative statement, a hypothesis is of a tentative
and conjectural nature.

A hypothesis is a statement about the population. It may be right or wrong, and the
data enables one to make a decision about which hypothesis to accept (Siegel,
1997: 342). Hypothesis testing uses data to decide between two possibilities.

In research, the main function of a hypothesis is to guide the direction of the study.
Cooper and Schindler (1998: 45) maintain that an acceptable hypothesis should
fulfil the following three conditions:
It must be adequate for its purpose.
It must be testable.
For explanatory purposes, it must be better than its rivals.

As already stated, the aim of this study was to explore the relationship between
strategic leadership and strategic alignment. The criteria being examined were
identified as critical to strategic leadership (Hitt et al., 1999) and subsequently
supported by considerable research, as outlined in the literature review in chapter
2.

In order to achieve the general aim of this research, the following proposition and
hypotheses were formulated for examination in this study:

Proposition 1:
The six selected critical criteria, namely determining strategic direction, exploiting
and maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining

111
effective corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing
strategic controls are important for strategic leadership.

Hypotheses:
H01 There is no relationship between the following strategic leadership
constructs: strategy, customers, processes and people.
H11 There is a relationship between the following strategic leadership
constructs: strategy, customers, processes and people.

H02 There is no relationship between the four strategic leadership constructs

and the six critical criteria of strategic leadership.
H12 There is a relationship between the four strategic leadership constructs and
the six critical criteria of strategic leadership.

H03 Strategic leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high
performance companies.
H13 Strategic leadership positively influences strategic alignment in high
performance companies.

These hypotheses are empirically assessed in chapter 4, according to the

research design outlined in this chapter.

3.4 VARIABLES AND MEASURES

Scientists operate at both theoretical and empirical levels. At theoretical level,

there is a preoccupation with identifying constructs and their relations to
propositions and theory – at this level, constructs cannot be observed. At the
empirical level, where the propositions are converted to hypotheses and testing
occurs, the scientist is likely to be dealing with variables (Cooper & Schindler,
1998: 40).

112
3.4.1 Independent and dependent variables

The relationships between variables are of great interest to researchers. Variables

can be both independent and dependent.

Table 3.1: Defining independent and dependent variables

Independent variable Dependent variable

Presumed cause  Presumed effect
Stimulus  Response
Predicted from …  Predicted to …

Antecedent  Consequence

Manipulated  Measured outcome

(Source: Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 41)

In the research process, the independent variables are used to predict the
relationship with the dependent variables. In study situations, such a simple one-
on-one relationship needs to be conditioned or revised to take other variables into
account. In these instances, the moderating variable is used. A moderating
variable is a second independent variable that is included because it is believed to
have a significant contributory or contingent effect on the originally stated
relationship. Whether a given variable is treated as an independent or a
moderating variable depends on the hypothesis (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 41–
42).

There are an almost infinite number of extraneous variables that could affect a
particular relationship. Some are considered to be independent or moderating, but
most are either assumed or excluded from the study. In some cases, they are
important, but the impact is random, which results in little effect. Cooper and
Schindler (1998: 42-43) define an intervening variable as “that factor which
theoretically affects the observed phenomenon but cannot be seen, measured, or

113
manipulated; its effect must be inferred from the effects of the independent and
moderator variables on the observed phenomena”.

3.4.2 Measurement of key variables

The two key variables examined in this study are as follows:

1. the independent variable, strategic leadership

2. the dependent variable, strategic alignment.

The relationship between the independent variable, strategic leadership (six critical
criteria), and the dependent variable, strategic alignment (strategy, people,
customers and processes) is shown in table 3.2. A construct is an image or idea
specifically invented for a given research and/or theory-building purpose.
Constructs are built by combining the simpler concepts (Cooper & Schindler, 1998:
37) and must be measured by means of multiple indicators. A construct
represents a hypothesis that a variety of behaviours will correlate with one another
in studies of individual differences and/or will be similarly affected by experimental
treatments (Nunnally, 1978: 97, 98). The groupings of strategy, people, customers
and process were considered constructs as they measured similar concepts with
multiple indicators.

A detailed definition of each of the critical criteria being measured is provided in

table 3.4. Associations are drawn between the similarities of independent and
dependent variables. Core competencies is associated with customers but could
also be associated with people and processes. The impact on customers is the
outcome of effective people and processes, thus the association drawn between
core competencies and customers.

Questioning is a widely used stimulus for measuring concepts. A manager may be

asked his or her views on an employee, giving a response such as, “a good
machinist”, “a troublemaker”, “a union activist” or “a fast worker with a poor record
of attendance”. These answers represent different frames of reference for

114
evaluating the worker and are often of limited value to the researcher (Cooper &
Schindler, 1998: 186).

Table 3.2: Independent and dependent variables

Independent variable Dependent variable Strategic alignment

Strategic leadership (strategy, customers, people and process)
Q1 Determining Strategy Q1 Organisational strategies are clearly
strategic direction communicated to me
Q2 Organisational strategies guide the
identification of skills and knowledge I need
to have
Q3 People here are willing to change when
new organisational strategies require it
Q4 Our senior managers agree on the
organisational strategy
Q2 Exploiting and Customers Q5 For each service our organisation provides,
maintaining core there is an agreed-upon, prioritised list of
competencies what customers care about
Q6 People in this organisation are provided
with useful information about customer
complaints
Q7 Strategies are periodically reviewed to
ensure the satisfaction of critical customer
needs
Q8 Processes are reviewed to ensure they
contribute to the attainment of customer
satisfaction
Q3 Developing Q9 Our organisation collects information from
human capital People employees about how well things work
Q10 My work unit or team is rewarded for our
performance as a team
Q4 Sustaining Q11 Groups in the organisation cooperate to
effective achieve customer satisfaction
corporate culture Q12 When processes are changed, the impact
on employee satisfaction is measured
Q5 Emphasising Process Q13 Our managers care about how work gets
ethical practices done as well as about the results
Q14 We review our work processes regularly
to see how well they are functioning
Q6 Establishing Q15 When something goes wrong, we correct
strategic controls the underlying reasons so that the problem
will not happen again
Q16 Processes are reviewed to ensure they
contribute to the achievement of strategic
goals

115
3.5 RESEARCH METHODS

Two approaches improve the usefulness of such replies: firstly, various properties
may be separated and the respondent asked to judge each specific facet, with
several questions being substituted for a single one. Secondly, one can replace
the free-response reply with structuring devices. Thus, in order to quantify
dimensions that are essentially qualitative, rating scales or ranking scales are
used (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 186).

3.5.1 Research instruments

The use of questionnaires is one of a range of methods to obtain information from

people or answers to research questions. Questionnaires have both advantages
and disadvantages and one of their weaknesses is that they elicit answers by
asking questions (Gillham, 2000: 2). One of the strengths of questionnaires is that
they make it possible to collect data designed to answer specific questions which
can be statistically tested. Questionnaires were deemed the most suitable method
to collect data in this study.

Gillham (2000: 26) identifies the following three main categories into which
research topics usually fall:
questions of fact
questions about opinions, beliefs and judgements
questions about behaviour

When designing survey questionnaires, the potential inclusion of existing

questions is a possibility that is not often contemplated by researchers and
students, despite it being perfectly feasible. This is partly due to the pressures of
being “original” in the academic and research worlds. Question “recycling” also
has many advantages such as savings that can be made in terms of both time and
money, and the removal of any need for question testing. One advantage of using
these pre-existing questions is that they will have been extensively tested at the
time of first use. Using the questions that have already been developed in this way

116
has several advantages. The most obvious one is that since the questions would
have already been tested at the time of their first use, researchers can be fairly
confident that they are effective indicators of their concepts of interest (Hyman,
Lamb & Bulmer, 2006: 1, 3 & 8).

The research instruments used in this study were developed to assess the impact
of strategic leadership on strategic alignment of business organisations in South
Africa. In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument,
it was essential to define the key variables accurately and clearly. For this
purpose, questions from existing measuring instruments that had proven reliable
and valid in previous research studies were used.

3.5.1.1 Measurement of strategic leadership

The critical criteria of strategic leadership were measured by the TMT in their
organisation. The research instrument consisted of a questionnaire using a seven-
point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7),
which measured the TMT’s rating of the importance of these critical criteria in their
organisation, as shown in table 3.3.

The six critical criteria developed by Hitt et al. (1995) and empirically tested by
Hagen et al. (1998), Bipath (2007), Serfontein (2009) and Jooste and Fourie
(2009) were utilised to measure strategic leadership in the organisations studied.

117
Table 3.3: Strategic leadership questionnaire

Strategic leadership questionnaire

(Instructions for completing the questionnaire)

To be completed by the top management team.

Please respond to each statement by marking the appropriate box with an “x”
that best represents your view of the importance of the critical criteria. Should
you require an explanation, one for each criteria is provided in the definition
tab.

Company ____________________
Role ____________________
Q Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 Determining strategic direction
     
2 Exploiting and maintaining core competencies       
3 Developing human capital       
4 Sustaining an effective corporate culture       
5 Emphasising ethical practices       
6 Establishing strategic controls       

A definition of each critical criteria was provided to ensure consistency in the

interpretation of the criteria by each respondent, as indicated in table 3.4.

118
Table 3.4: Definition of critical criteria
Definition of criteria
Critical criteria Definition
Determining strategic Determining the strategic direction of the organisation
direction refers to developing a long-term vision. Strategic intent
means leveraging the organisation’s internal resource
capabilities and core competencies to accomplish what
may at first appear to be unattainable goals in the
competitive environment. Strategic intent involves all
employees of an organisation being committed to
pursue a specific performance criterion, believing
fervently in the product and industry and focusing
totally on doing what they do better than competitors.
A long-term vision of the organisation’s strategic intent
usually requires a view of at least five to 10 years in
the future.
Exploiting and Core competencies are the resources and capabilities
maintaining core that serve an organisation’s source of competitive
competencies advantage. Typically, core competencies relate to an
organisation’s functional skills. As strategic leaders,
corporate managers make decisions intended to help
their organisation develop, maintain, strengthen,
leverage and exploit core competencies. Exploiting
core competencies involves sharing resources across
units. In general, the most effective core competencies
are based on intangible resources, which are less
visible to competitors because they relate to
employees’ knowledge or skills. Effective strategic
leaders promote the sharing of intangible resources
across business units in their organisations.
Developing human Human capital refers to the knowledge and skills of the
capital organisation’s work force – employees as a capital

119
 resource. Core competencies cannot be effectively
developed or exploited without appropriate human
capital.
Sustaining an effective Corporate culture refers to the core values shared by
corporate culture all or most employees. It consists of a complex set of
shared ideologies, symbols and values that influence
the way the organisation conducts its business.
Corporate culture is the social energy that drives or
fails the organisation. Strategic leaders must develop
and nurture an appropriate culture, one that promotes
focused learning and human development, the sharing
of skills and resources among units in the organisation
and the entrepreneurial spirit necessary for innovation
and competitiveness. An appropriate corporate culture
can encourage an entrepreneurial spirit, foster and
facilitate a long-term vision, and create an emphasis on
strategic actions linked to the production of high-quality
goods and services. Changing a culture is more
difficult than sustaining it. But effective strategic
leadership involves recognising the need to change the
culture and implement the changes.
Emphasising ethical Effective strategic leaders emphasise ethical practices
practices in their organisations and seek to infuse them through
the organisational culture. The ethics that guide the
individual actions are based on principles formed by
long-term influences that extend beyond the
organisation. However, organisations can shape and
control employees’ and managers’ behaviour.
Establishing strategic Strategic control refers to the corporate leaders’
controls understanding of the strategies being implemented in
the various business units. Strategic control focuses

120
 on the content of strategic actions in order to achieve
appropriate outcomes. Strategic control therefore
encourages lower-level managers to make decisions
that incorporate moderate and acceptable levels of
risk. Effective use of strategic controls by corporate
leaders is frequently integrated with appropriate
autonomy for the subunits to enable them to gain a
competitive advantage in their respective markets.
Autonomy provided by strategic control fosters the
flexibility and innovation necessary to take advantage
of specific market opportunities. Strategic leadership
promotes the simultaneous use of strategic controls
and autonomy.

3.5.1.2 Measurement of strategic alignment

Strategic alignment influences organisational performance, and aligned

organisations enjoy greater customer and employee satisfaction and produce
superior returns for shareholders, which is a significant competitive advantage
(Labovitz, 2004: 30). In the current study, strategic alignment was measured using
a questionnaire adapted from the questionnaire developed by Labovitz and
Rosansky (1997), which measured the degree of alignment of strategy, processes,
customers and people in an organisation. The tool has been refined over the
years, based on continual learning, and has been administered to thousands of
people in scores of organisations. It simply presents each individual with a series
of statements and indicates how his or her organisation’s behaviours and practices
measure up against each. According to Labovitz and Rosansky (1997: 55-56),
this diagnostic tool has several benefits for respondents – it is easy to understand,
score and interpret and is an effective way to reveal misalignment problems. The
alignment research instrument’s validity was tested (Lear, 2000) in a study
measuring strategic alignment in organisations and found to be valid and reliable.

121
Table 3.5: Employee questionnaire

Employee questionnaire
(Instructions to complete the questionnaire)
To be completed by a cross-section of employees across the company
Please respond to each statement by marking the appropriate box with an “x” that
best represents your view.

Company: ___________________
Division: ___________________
My role in the organisation is: Senior management 
Management 
Operations 

Q Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 Organisational strategies are clearly
communicated to me      
2 Organisational strategies guide the       
identification of skills and knowledge I need to
have
3 People here are willing to change when new       
organisational strategies require it
4 Our senior managers agree on the       
organisational strategy
5 For each service our organisation provides,       
there is an agreed-upon, prioritised list of what
customers care about
6 People in this organisation are provided with       
useful information about customer complaints
7 Strategies are periodically reviewed to ensure       
the satisfaction of critical customer needs
8 Processes are reviewed regularly to ensure       
that they contribute to the attainment of
customer satisfaction

122
9 Our organisation collects information from       
employees about how well things work
10 My work unit or team is rewarded for our       
performance as a team
11 Groups in the organisation cooperate to       
achieve customer satisfaction
12 When processes are changed, the impact on       
employee satisfaction is measured
13 Our managers care about how work gets done       
as well as about the results
14 We review our work processes regularly to see       
how well they are functioning
15 When something goes wrong, we correct the       
underlying reasons so that the problem will not
happen again
16 Processes are reviewed to ensure they       
contribute to the achievement of strategic
goals

The questionnaire used a seven-point response format ranging from “strongly

disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The questionnaire was tested for both
reliability and validity and was determined to be both reliable and valid for the
purpose.

The questionnaire comprised 16 questions measuring the respondent’s view of the

importance of alignment of strategy, people (employees), customers and
processes.

3.5.1.3 Validity and reliability of the strategic alignment testing instrument

The characteristics of an effective measurement tool are that it should be an

accurate counter or indicator of what is being measured. In addition, it should be
easy and efficient to use. There are three major criteria for evaluating a
measurement tool: validity, reliability and practicality. Cooper and Schindler (1998:
166) define these terms as follows:

123
 Validity refers to the extent to which a test measures what we actually want it to
measure.
Reliability has to do with the accuracy and precision of a measurement
procedure – that is, obtaining the same result under the same circumstances.
Practicality is concerned with a wide range of factors of economy, convenience
and interpretability.

The scientific requirement of a project calls for the measurement process to be

reliable and valid, while the operational requirements demand that it should be
practical (Cooper & Schindler, 1998).

The strategic alignment instrument was subjected to validity and reliability testing
to ensure that it met the demands of scientific study.

(a) Validity
According to Nunnally (1978: 86), in a general sense, a measuring instrument is
valid if it does what it is intended to do. Psychological measures serve the
following three major functions: (1) establishment of a statistical relationship with a
particular variable, (2) representation of a specified universe of content, and (3)
measurement of psychological traits. Corresponding to these are the following
three types of validity: (1) predictive validity, (2) content validity, and (3) construct
validity (Nunnally, 1978: 87).

Predictive validity is at issue when the purpose is to use an instrument to estimate

some important form of behaviour that is external to the measuring instrument
itself, the latter being referred to as the criterion. Predictive validity is determined
by, and only by, the degree of correspondence between the two measures
involved. If the correlation is high, no other standards are necessary (Nunnally,
1978: 88).

Content validity rests mainly on appeals to reason about the adequacy with which
significant content has been sampled and on the adequacy with which the content

124
has been cast in the form of test items. Content validity also relates to a
somewhat direct issue in scientific generalisation – the extent to which one can
generalise from a particular collection of items to all possible items that would be
representative of a specified domain of items (Nunnally, 1978: 91, 94).

Construct validity refers to how well the results obtained from the use of the
measures fit the theories around which the test is designed (Sekaran, 1992: 173).
The use of factor analysis can determine the construct validity of a measuring
instrument (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 167). To the extent that a variable is
abstract rather than concrete, it is referred to as a construct. A construct
represents a hypothesis (usually only half formed) that a variety of behaviours will
correlate with one another in studies of individual differences and/or will be
similarly affected by experimental treatments. Nunnally (1978: 97, 98)
distinguishes the following three major aspects of construct validation: (1)
specifying the domain of observables related to the construct; (2) from empirical
research and statistical analyses, determining the extent to which the observables
tend to measure the same things; and (3) subsequently performing studies of
individual differences and/or controlled experiments to determine the extent to
which supposed measures of the construct produce results which are predictable
from highly accepted theoretical hypotheses concerning the construct.

(b) Factor analysis

Factor analysis is a statistical approach that can be used to analyse
interrelationships between a large number of variables and explain them in terms
of their common underlying dimensions (factors). The objective is to find a way of
condensing the information contained in a number of original variables into a
smaller set of variates (factors) with a minimal loss of information.

A researcher can use factor analysis, for example, to better understand the
relationships between customers’ ratings of a fast-food restaurant. Assume
customers are asked to rate the restaurant on the following six variables: food
taste, food temperature, freshness, waiting time, cleanliness and friendliness of

125
employees. The analyst would like to combine these six variables into a smaller
number. By analysing the customer responses, the analyst might find that the
variables, food taste, temperature and freshness, together form a single factor of
food quality, while waiting time, cleanliness and friendliness of employees combine
to form another single factor, service quality (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &
Tatham, 2006: 17, 18).

The alignment measuring instrument was tested for validity, and table 3.6 shows
the results of testing the instrument where the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy indicates 0.895. High values of between 0.5 and 1.0 indicate
that factor analysis is appropriate. Values less than 0.5 indicate factors that may
not be appropriate. These results indicate a high level of validity of this
questionnaire.

Table 3.6: Factor analysis: forced four factors

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.895

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 1,143.175
Df 120
Sig. 0.000

Bartlett’s test of sphericity (table 3.6) is a statistical test for overall significance of
all correlations in a correlation matrix. It provides the statistical significance that
the correlation matrix has significant correlations between at least some of the
variables (Hair et al., 2006: 102, 114).

Eigenvalues (also referred to as the latent root) are a column sum of squared
loadings for a factor. They represent the amount of variance accounted for by a
factor. Eigenvalues (table 3.7) greater than one are considered significant,
whereas all factors with latent roots of less than one are considered insignificant
and disregarded. The squared factor loadings indicate what percentage of the
variance in an original variable is explained by a factor (Hair et al., 2006: 102,

126
120). Factor analysis was applied to the alignment instrument and the results are
tabled in 3.7 and 3.8 below.

Table 3.7: Total variance

Extraction sums of squared Rotation sums of squared

Initial eigenvalues loadings loadings
% of Cumula- % of Cumula % of Cumula-
Component Total variance tive % Total variance -tive % Total variance tive %
1 9.414 58.840 58.840 9.414 58.840 58.840 4.497 28.106 28.106
2 1.231 7.695 66.534 1.231 7.695 66.534 3.176 19.852 47.958
3 1.032 6.450 72.984 1.032 6.450 72.984 2.875 17.968 65.926
4 0.977 6.107 79.092 0.977 6.107 79.092 2.107 13.166 79.092
5 0.640 4.000 83.091
6 0.536 3.349 86.441
7 0.454 2.841 89.281
8 0.348 2.173 91.454
9 0.274 1.711 93.165
10 0.264 1.652 94.817
11 0.221 1.383 96.200
12 0.172 1.074 97.274
13 0.136 0.848 98.121
14 0.111 0.695 98.816
15 0.106 0.664 99.481
16 0.083 0.519 100.000

Table 3.8: Rotated component matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
q14 0.831 0.273 0.267 0.037
q16 0.815 0.226 0.238 0.284
q15 0.811 0.261 0.144 0.329
q13 0.774 0.190 0.439 0.138
q11 0.663 0.466 0.244 0.344
q9 0.609 0.412 0.398 0.254
q12 0.515 0.428 0.476 0.118
q8 0.314 0.816 0.127 0.165
q6 0.164 0.752 0.295 0.158
q7 0.324 0.730 0.047 0.398
q5 0.267 0.601 0.426 -0.353
q2 0.292 0.125 0.851 0.171
q3 0.228 0.185 0.690 0.201
q10 0.303 0.345 0.622 0.410
q1 0.237 0.230 0.403 0.781
q4 0.470 0.173 0.227 0.720
Extraction method: principal component analysis
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalisation
a Rotation converged in seven iterations.

127
In factor rotation, the reference axes of the factors are turned about the origin until
some other position has been reached. The ultimate effect of rotating the factor
matrix is to redistribute the variance from earlier factors to later ones to achieve a
simpler, theoretically more meaningful factor pattern. Factor rotation assists in the
interpretation of the factors by simplifying the structure through the maximisation of
the significant loadings of a variable (Hair et al., 2006: 123). Rotation in table 3.8
indicated convergence in seven iterations, a computational procedure in which a
cycle of operations is repeated to approximate the desired result more clearly.

The results of this factor analysis of 0.895 indicated a significant correlation

between the variables and the fact that the alignment questionnaire measures
what it was designed to measure.

(c) Reliability
Reliability refers to the degree to which measures are free from error and therefore
yield consistent results (Zikmund, 2003: 300). The Cronbach alpha test is
regarded as useful for indicating reliability (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 171).

Table 3.9: Case processing summary

N %
Cases Valid 82 91.1
Excludeda 8 8.9
Total 90 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

The Cronbach alpha is commonly used to establish internal consistency and

construct validity, with 0.60 being considered acceptable for exploratory
purposes, 0.70 adequate for confirmatory purposes and 0.80 good for
confirmatory purposes (Garson, 1998: 2). The results of the Cronbach alpha
0.952 (table 3.10) indicated that an extremely reliable result would be obtained
from the use of this questionnaire.

128
 Table 3.10: Reliability statistics

Cronbach
alpha N of items
0.952 16

Scale mean Scale Corrected

if item variance if item -total
deleted item deleted correlation Cronbach alpha if item deleted
q1 72.52 257.018 0.684 0.950
q2 72.90 255.842 0.680 0.950
q3 73.32 258.935 0.591 0.951
q4 72.66 256.129 0.698 0.949
q5 73.17 263.699 0.504 0.953
q6 73.20 257.517 0.631 0.951
q7 72.85 258.991 0.686 0.950
q8 72.90 261.546 0.685 0.950
q9 73.18 239.238 0.844 0.946
q10 73.10 246.139 0.771 0.948
q11 72.93 246.760 0.864 0.946
q12 74.07 242.513 0.778 0.948
q13 72.71 248.136 0.818 0.947
q14 72.84 250.481 0.770 0.948
q15 72.82 250.695 0.793 0.947
q16 72.82 251.188 0.812 0.947
Extraction method: principal component analysis

The instrument was deemed statistically to be both valid and reliable and its
practicality and easy administration enabled it to be used effectively for the
purpose of this study.

3.5.2 Rating scales

In research, measurement consists of assigning numbers to empirical events in

compliance with a set of rules. Measurement typically uses some sort of scale to
classify or quantify the data collected. There are four scale types – nominal,
ordinal, interval and ratio. Nominal scales classify without indicating order,
distance or unique origin. Ordinal data show the magnitude relationships of more
than and less than but have no distanced or unique origin. According to Cooper
and Schindler (1998: 159–164), interval scales have both order and distance but
no unique origin, while ratio scales possess all the features.

129
Rating scales are used to judge the properties of objects without reference to other
similar objects. These ratings may be in such forms as “like–dislike”, “approve–
indifferent–disapprove” or other classifications using even more categories. The
most widely used scales range from three to seven points. A simple category scale
has two response choices: these could be “yes” and “no”, “important” and
“unimportant” or “agree” and “disagree”. This scale is particularly useful for
demographic questions or in instances where a dichotomous response is
adequate (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 189).

Likert scales help one compare one person’s score with a distribution of scores
from a well-defined group. They are useful when one expects to conduct an
experiment in order to undertake a programme of change or improvement.
Accordingly, we can measure attitudes before and after the experiment to judge
whether our efforts have had the desired effect. Likert scales produce interval data
(Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 189).

According to Cooper and Schindler (1998: 189, 197), the Likert scale is the most
frequently used variation of the summated rating scale. Summated scales consist
of statements that express either a favourable or an unfavourable attitude towards
the object of interest. In terms of these scales, the respondent is asked to agree or
disagree with each statement on the basis of a numerical score to reflect its
degree of attitude favourableness, and the scores may be totalled to measure the
respondent’s attitude. The measuring instruments in this study used Likert-type
scales on the basis of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree for each
statement in the questionnaire.

3.6 SAMPLING FRAME

A population is the total collection of elements about which inferences are to be

made. The research frame is closely related to the population. It is the list of
elements from which the sample is actually drawn (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 215,
221).

130
The population selected for this study was the 200 top performing organisations in
South Africa, as published in the Financial Mail survey of 2007. All of these
organisations are publicly listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange and
conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The ranking of the
top 200 organisations was measured by the Financial Mail over a five-year period
to ensure consistency in their performance (Financial Mail, 2007).

In their study, in which they sought to establish the role of strategic leadership in
effective strategy implementation, Jooste and Fourie (2009: 54) and Serfontein
(2009) used the Financial Mail’s Top 200 Companies list as their population
sample frame. The main reasons for selecting strategic leaders in the Financial
Mail Top 200 companies as the target population include the following:
The names of these organisations are published in an annual special
edition of the Financial Mail, which is a respected South African financial
magazine.
All of these organisations are publicly listed companies on the
Johannesburg Securities Exchange (although some are dually listed on
more than one stock exchange), and vast amounts of information on these
organisations are a matter of public record.
All of these organisations are South African, which makes it a study of a
geographically comparable population with similar exposure to the factors in
the external business environment.
These organisations represent several industries of the South African
economy, which increases the possibility of generalising the findings to
organisations in all industries.
These organisations can be regarded as financially successful, because the
criteria used by the Financial Mail in selecting the Top 200 include internal
rate of return (IRR), earnings per share (EPS) growth, return on equity
(ROE), return on assets (ROA), dividend yield and growth in pretax profits
calculated over a five-year period.

131
The Financial Mail Top 200 Companies list was used in preference to other study
population lists that were considered, including normal listed companies on the
JSE Securities Exchange (JSE) and the Decision Makers Database. The JSE
companies were rejected, since it could be argued that public companies may be
more risk averse than private companies, that they will be scrutinised by their
shareholders and that they have a need to comply with JSE rules and regulations.

The Decision Maker Database was considered for the study but its cost is
prohibitive, and since it is used for commercial purposes, the researcher felt that it
might not provide a representative picture of the study population. The 2008
Financial Mail 200 Top Performers list was thus selected as the population for the
study conducted by Serfontein (2009: 156).

In order to explore the relationship between strategic leadership and strategic

alignment, the sample for this study was required at two levels:
1. the TMT of the organisation
2. a cross-section of employees

The TMT is typically the top six to eight leaders in an organisation. In order to
meet the threshold of the minimum number of 30 respondents being the minimum
ratio of observations to variables of 5:1 (Hair et al., 2006: 197) for inferential
statistics for exploratory research, six organisations were required to participate in
the study. The population sample for the TMT was therefore 48. The population
sample for employees was 100 employees from each organisation, totalling an
employee population of 600.

The CEOs in organisations on the list of Financial Mail 200 Top Companies,
commencing with the highest ranking organisations on the list, were approached
and invited to participate in the research with the intent of obtaining the
participation of a random sample of six organisations. Holding organisations were
not included in the population because the requirement was that of an operational
entity with a TMT and employees, as opposed to a holding organisation.

132
Organisations were requested to participate both in the Leadership Questionnaire
with their top management team and the Employee Questionnaire with
questionnaires sent to a sample of 100 employees across the organisation.

3.7 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The primary data collection was done by means of two questionnaires (table 3.3),
which measured critical criteria and strategic alignment (table 3.5) in the
organisation.

The first step in the research was to make telephonic contact with the CEO’s office
in each organisation to explain the nature of the study. The approach thereafter to
the CEO comprised a letter of invitation (appendix E), a brief (appendix F) outlining
the objectives and scope of the study, and the leadership and employee
questionnaires. These documents were mailed electronically to the CEO.
Commitment of the organisation by the CEO was deemed critical to secure the
participation of the TMT and employees in the study. In each case, the CEO
assigned a designated senior person to assist with the data collection in the
organisation.

The second step was the selection of the sample of employees. The organisation
used systematic sampling to select the sample. In this approach, every kth
element in the population is sampled, beginning with a random start of an element
in the range of 1 to k. According to Cooper and Schindler (1998: 237), the major
advantage of systematic sampling is its simplicity and flexibility.

In the third step of the research process, the questionnaires were electronically
distributed to the TMT and employee sample by the designated senior person in
the organisation. Participation was voluntary, anonymous and confidential.

In the fourth step, each respondent submitted the questionnaires electronically

directly to the researcher by clicking the “submit” button on the completed

133
questionnaire. This process ensured content integrity, confidentiality and the
anonymity of respondents.

The final step of the process comprised the electronic collation of the data into a
database. The results were then analysed using the statistical inferential
techniques of correlation and regression analysis in terms of the stated
hypotheses. The results are discussed in chapter 4.

3.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethics in research involves what is right and not right in conducting research
(Neuman, 2000: 90) and forms an integral part of any research study.

Neuman (2000: 90-91) states that ethics in research span the entire research
process: from the nature of the problem being investigated; the reporting of the
theoretical framework thereof; the context in which the research is conducted; the
data collection instruments utilised; the data collection methods used; the research
subjects; the procedures followed to analyse the data; and the way in which the
data are reported.

In particular, the research should be conducted ethically. This means that the
research question should be framed objectively within the theoretical framework to
ensure confidence in the research process (Neuman, 2000: 283-285).

The issue of ethics in research methodology is mainly concerned with studies

involving human beings, that is, the people the study is targeting. Although a
researcher has the right to search for new knowledge, he or she cannot do so at
the expense of the individuals being studied. According to Neuman (2000: 92),
the following are especially important:

The aims of the research should be communicated to the research subjects.

Participation in the research study should be voluntary.

134
 Information provided by participants should be treated as confidential at all
times (i.e. no information on any particular subject should be released).

In the current study, the organisations and respondents involved were promised
anonymity and the study was endorsed by the CEO. Confidentiality was adhered
to so that the respondents were free to rate their responses honestly without fear
or favour.

The ethical integrity of this study was maintained by the respondents submitting
the completed questionnaire electronically, directly to the researcher. On
completion of the study, none of the individual scores will be provided to the
organisation participating in the study, only the overall results pertaining to the
company. The names of the participating companies will also not be released to
maintain their confidentiality.

3.9 DATA ANALYSIS

The data were analysed by means of the Excel 2010 Data Analysis package to
answer the empirical research questions. The specific statistical instruments were
correlation, scatterplots and regression analysis.

3.10 RESEARCH ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

In order to examine the research questions and relationships between variables,

inferential statistical analysis techniques were applied.

3.10.1 Measuring and predicting relationships

Statistics can summarise the relationship between two factors based on a bivariate
data set. The correlation will indicate how strong the relationship is, and

135
regression will make it possible to predict one factor from another (Siegel, 1997:
365).

3.10.2 Correlation

Correlation coefficients reveal the magnitude and direction of relationships. The

magnitude is the degree to which variables move in unison or opposition. The
coefficient’s sign (+/-) signifies the direction of the relationship. Direction indicates
whether large values on one variable are associated with large values on the other
+1, indicating a perfect positive relationship and -1 indicating a perfect negative or
reverse relationship (as one variable grows larger, the other variable grows
smaller) (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 517).

A p-value is a measure of how much evidence there is against the null hypothesis
(H0). The smaller the p-value, the more evidence there is against H0. The null
hypothesis is rejected when the p-value is less than the significance level (α) of
0.05. When the null hypothesis is rejected, the result is statistically significant
(Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 476).

3.10.3 Scatterplots

Scatterplots are essential for understanding the relationship between variables.

They provide a means for visual inspection of data that a list of values for two
variables cannot. Both the direction and the shape of a relationship are conveyed
in a plot. When stronger relationships are apparent, the points cluster close to an
imaginary straight line passing through the data. The weaker relationships depict
a more diffuse data cloud with points spread further away from the line. The
shape of linear relationships is characterised by a straight line, whereas nonlinear
relationships have curvilinear, parabolic and compound curves representing their
shapes. Pearson’s r measures relationships in variables that are linearly related.
It cannot distinguish linear from nonlinear data (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 518-9).
According to Siegel (1997: 368), a scatterplot displays each elementary unit using
two axes to represent the two factors. If one variable is seen as causing, affecting

136
or influencing the other, then it is called X and defines the horizontal axis. The
variable that might respond or be influenced is called Y and defines the vertical
axis. If neither causes nor influences the other, either factor may be selected as X
or Y.

3.10.4 Regression analysis

Multiple regression analysis is a statistical technique that can be used to analyse

the relationship between a single dependent (criterion) variable and several
independent (predictor) variables. The objective of multiple regression analysis is
to use the independent variables whose values are known to predict the single
dependent value selected by the researcher. Each independent variable is
weighted by the regression analysis procedure to ensure maximum prediction from
the set of independent variables. The weights denote the relative contribution of
the independent variables to the dependent variables to the overall prediction and
facilitate interpretation of the influence of each variable in making the prediction
(Hair et al., 2006: 176).

Regression analysis involves predicting one variable from another when the two
have a linear relationship. By convention, the variable being predicted is denoted
as Y, and the variable that helps with the prediction as X. The regression model is
Y = b0 + b1X1. This is the numerical value of the parameter estimate directly
associated with an independent variable. In the model, for example, the value b1 is
the regression coefficient for the variable X1. The regression coefficient represents
the amount of change in the dependent variable for a one-unit change in the
independent variable. In the multiple predictor model (e.g. Y = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2),
the regression coefficients are partial coefficients because each takes into account
not only the relationships between Y an X1, and between Y and X2, but also
between X1 and X2. The coefficient is not limited in range because it is based on
both the degree of association and the scale units of the independent variable
(Hair et al., 2006: 174).

137
Linear regression involves predicting one variable from another when the two have
a linear relationship. In the same way as the average is used to summarise a
single variable, a straight line can be used to summarise a linear predictive
relationship between two variables. A straight line is described by the slope, b, and
the intercept, a. The slope indicates how steeply the line rises or falls if b is
negative. The intercept is the vertical value for Y when X is 0. The slope is also
known as the regression coefficient of Y on X, and the intercept is also referred to
as the constant term in the regression (Siegel, 1997: 389-10).

Siegel (1997) maintains that for statistical inference to be valid, the data set must
be a random sample from the population of interest. This ensures that the data
set represents the population in an exact controlled way.

Multivariate regression predicts a single Y variable from two or more X variables.

Inference commences with the F test, an overall test to establish if the X variables
explain a significant amount of the variation in Y (Siegel, 1997: 447). If the p-value
is less than 0.05, the result is significant. If p-value is less than 0.01, then it is
highly significant.

If the regression is significant, it indicates that one or more of the X variables is

helpful in predicting Y and inference proceeds with t tests for individual regression
coefficients. The t test shows whether an X variable has a significant impact on Y,
holding all other X variables fixed.

The t test is significant if the reference value 0 (indicating no effect) is not in the
confidence interval. The t test is a test for the effect of X on Y after an adjustment
has been made for all other factors (Siegel, 1997: 454).

3.10.5 Statistical tests applied to the proposition and hypotheses

In order to test the proposition and hypotheses formulated in this study, the
methodology used to analyse the data collected is indicated in table 3.11.

138
Table 3.11: Statistical tests applied to the proposition and hypotheses
Proposition 1 Statistical tests
The six selected critical criteria, namely Descriptive statistics
determining strategic direction, exploiting Pearson’s correlation coefficient test
and maintaining core competencies,
developing human capital, sustaining
effective corporate culture, emphasising
ethical practices and establishing
strategic controls are important for
strategic leadership.
Hypotheses
H01 There is no relationship between Descriptive statistics
the following alignment constructs: Pearson’s correlation coefficient test
strategy, customer, processes Radar diagrams
and people Scatterplots
H11 There is a relationship between
the following alignment constructs:
strategy, processes, customers
and people
H02 There is no relationship between Descriptive statistics
the four alignment constructs and Scatterplots
the six critical criteria by Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests
leadership. the critical criteria in relation to the four
H12 There is a relationship between constructs of strategic alignment,
the four alignment constructs, and namely strategy, customers,
the six critical criteria by processes and people and the
leadership. strategic leadership critical criteria
H03 Strategic leadership does not Descriptive statistics
positively influence strategic Regression analysis to determine
alignment in high performance causal relationship and interpretation
companies. of statistical analysis.

139
H13 Strategic leadership positively Evaluate impact of effectiveness/
influences strategic alignment in ineffectiveness and explain the gap
high performance companies.

3.11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter explained the research methodology used in this study. In terms of
this, the research objective and research questions were also stated.

Different research paradigms were discussed and the use of the quantitative
approach in the study was justified. The research process followed by the
researcher was described. This commenced with the problem to be investigated
(chapter 1), followed by the study of theoretical concepts and theories in the
literature review (chapter 2) and the statement of the proposition and the
hypotheses to be tested in the study. The instruments and the data sources were
identified for the dependent and independent variables.

The data collection instruments that were identified were tested for validity and
reliability and the sampling design and data collection process described. Chapter
4 will deal with the analysis of the results.

140
 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter reports the results of the empirical studies. Statistical techniques to
provide answers to the empirical research questions formulated in chapter 3 are
explained. The framework used in chapter 3 to identify the relationships between
respective variables is used to report the results. A detailed analysis using the
statistical techniques discussed in chapter 3 was undertaken to test the
hypotheses and systematically provide answers to the following questions:

Empirical question 1: What level of importance do the top leadership team

assign to the selected critical leadership criteria identified in this study?
Empirical question 2: What level of strategic alignment exists between the four
alignment constructs of strategy, processes, customers and people?
Empirical question 3: Is there a relationship between the critical leadership
criteria and strategic alignment in these top-performing companies?
Empirical question 4: If so, what is the relationship?

Correlation analysis and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to describe

the relationship between the independent and dependent variables and to test the
hypotheses. Scatterplots were utilised to depict the relationships and regression
analysis performed to determine the inferential relationships between the
variables.

4.2 PROFILE OF THE POPULATION AND POPULATION SAMPLE

The target population comprised the Financial Mail’s (2007) Top 200 Companies
in South Africa in June of that year, from which a convenient sample was drawn.
The figures and the tables to establish the Top 200 companies were provided by
the McGregor Bureau for Financial Analysis (BFA) and were calculated according

141
to the standardisation definition as summarised below (Financial Mail, 2007: 9–
11). The companies’ consolidated audited financial statements were used in the
Financial Mail rankings.

As far as the standardisation of financial data is concerned, the BFA standardises

all the published financial statements. This is because the accounting conventions
used by companies differ, which makes it practically impossible to rank companies
on the basis of their published data. The term “standardisation” is therefore used
because certain adjustments are made to the published financial statements of
companies to obtain comparable information. In interpreting and allocating specific
items, basic accounting principles are followed.

A convenient number of six companies was included in the sample, from the
population frame of the Financial Mail’s (2007) Top 200 list as per the
methodology discussed in chapter 3.

The researcher experienced great difficulty obtaining the commitment of the

organisations that were willing to participate. The majority responded negatively or
did not respond at all, despite numerous follow-up contacts.

An in-depth study was conducted focusing on the views of the top leadership team
and the employees in the organisation, compared with other studies (e.g.
Serfontein, 2009) that examined the views of only one respondent who had
completed the survey on behalf of the organisation. Serfontein’s (2009) study was
completed by the organisation’s CEO or his or her respondent only, whereas in
Jooste and Fourie’s (2009) study, the directors, who were not involved in the day-
to-day operations of the organisation, were required to complete the survey.

This study required a greater commitment from the organisation and at the same
time afforded operational environment employees the opportunity to present their
responses on the organisational impact of the decisions taken by the TMT.

142
The approach made to the sample was twofold: Firstly, the TMT was requested to
complete the leadership questionnaire; and, secondly, a sample of approximately
100 employees spread throughout the organisation was requested to participate
by completing the strategic alignment questionnaire.

Participation was voluntary and the questionnaires were completed anonymously.

In order to provide more valuable feedback to the participating companies, the
participants were asked to supply the name of the division in the company in which
they work, as well as their level of seniority. Not all respondents elected to provide
this information.

A total of 35 top leaders out of a population of approximately 40 voluntarily

participated in the study, a response rate of 87.5%. Of a population of 600
employees, a sample of 350 voluntarily participated in the study, a response rate
of 58.3%.

Each of the organisations that participated was listed on the Johannesburg

Securities Exchange (JSE).

The research approach outlined in chapter 3 was followed. The initial approach
was made to the CEO of each company, requesting the company’s participation in
the study. The approach outlined the aims of the study, explained the methodology
and included the questionnaires that would be used.

The study required that a questionnaire be completed by the TMT, rating their
perceptions of the importance of the critical leadership criteria in the organisation.
The questionnaire contained six statements on the critical criteria. To ensure
clarity of understanding, the questionnaire included a definition of each statement
to ensure consistency in interpretation. One hundred employees were invited to
complete the strategic alignment questionnaire which contained 16 statements.
These questions focused on the dimensions of strategy, customers, processes
(operations) and people (employees).

143
Having obtained the CEO’s commitment to the organisation’s participation in the
study, the critical leadership criteria questionnaire was distributed electronically to
its top leadership team and the strategic alignment questionnaire to 100
employees across the company. The research instruments that were used
comprised structured, self-administered electronic questionnaires.

On completion of the questionnaire, each respondent submitted it electronically

directly to the researcher. The responses were anonymous, which afforded the
respondents the opportunity to be candid in their scoring.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

The Excel 2010 Data Analysis Tool was used to answer the empirical research
questions:
Empirical question 1: What level of importance do the top leadership team
ascribe to the selected critical leadership criteria identified for this study?
Empirical question 2: What level of strategic alignment exists between the four
alignment constructs of strategy, processes, customers and people?
Empirical question 3: Is there a relationship between the critical leadership
criteria and strategic alignment in these top performing companies?
Empirical question 4: If so, what is the relationship?

Descriptive statistics were applied to the data to determine these relationships and
test the proposition and hypotheses.

4.4 NATURE OF THE RESULTS

The completed questionnaires were received electronically by the researcher. The

raw data were captured into a database. Statistical analysis of correlation and
regression was applied to test the hypotheses in accordance with the analysis

144
methodology discussed in chapter 3 and scatterplots to show the relationships
between subvariables demonstrated.

4.5 PROPOSITION 1

The six selected critical criteria: determining strategic direction, exploiting and
maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining effective
corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing strategic controls
are important for strategic leadership.

The following statements were made with a definition for each statement in the
questionnaire provided (table 3.4) to ensure consistency of interpretation:
(1) determining strategic direction
(2) exploring and maintaining core competencies
(3) developing human capital
(4) sustaining an effective corporate culture
(5) emphasising ethical practices
(6) establishing strategic controls

Table 4.1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the critical criteria.
The mean is the sum of the observed values in the distribution divided by the
number of observations. It measures the central tendency, that is, the average
response of respondents.

The mean for these data is indicated for each question with the highest score
being 6.23 and the lowest at 5.80 on a rating scale ranging from (1) to (7). This
indicates an extremely high rating by all the respondents.

The standard error indicates approximately how far the observed value of the
statistic is from the mean and shows the amount of uncertainty in a summary
number representing the entire sample. By contrast, the term “standard deviation”

145
is normally used to indicate the amount of variability among individuals, or
elementary units, specifically indicating how far individuals are from the average.

The mode indicates that the most frequently occurring value in the rating of the
critical criteria is 7.00. The range is the largest data value minus the smallest data
value, representing the size or extent of the entire data set. The mode for this
sample is 7.00.

Table 4.1: Summary of descriptive statistics for the critical criteria

Summary of descriptive statistics for the critical criteria

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Mean 6.23 6.03 5.94 5.94 5.80 5.80
Standard error 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.20
Median 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Mode 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Standard deviation 1.21 1.20 1.19 1.14 1.28 1.21
Range 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00
Minimum 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
Maximum 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Sum 218.00 211.00 208.00 208.00 203.00 203.00
Count 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00

Correlation analysis refers to the degree to which changes in one variable are
associated with changes in another. According to Cooper and Schindler (1998:
524), interdependencies between variables are a common characteristic of most
multivariate techniques. A correlation analysis reveals the magnitude and
direction of relationships. The magnitude is the degree to which variables move in
unison or opposition. Direction indicates whether large values on one variable are
associated with large variables on the other (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 517).

146
The descriptive measure coefficient or correlation (r) is a measure of the degree of
association between two variables, and indicates the estimated extent to which the
changes in one variable are associated with changes in the other, on a range of
+1.00 to -1.00. A correlation of +1.00 indicates a perfect positive relationship, a
correlation of 0.0, no relationship, and a correlation of -0.00, a perfect negative
relationship. As a rule of thumb, a correlation of -0.3 indicates a weak negative
correlation between two variables, while 0.7 indicates a strong positive correlation
(Sanders, Lewis & Thornhill, 1997).

In the case of a positive correlation between two variables, a higher score on one
variable tends to indicate a higher score on the other. If the correlation is
negative, a higher score on one variable tends to indicate a lower score on the
second variable. Correlation analysis was performed to test the relationships
between the critical criteria. Table 4.2 shows the results of the correlation
between the variables in the data set. All the correlations in this data set are
positive.

Table 4.2: Correlation matrix for relationship between critical criteria

Pearson correlation matrix for critical criteria
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Q1 1
Q2 0.7418411 1
Q3 0.6825864 0.723939 1
Q4 0.6490817 0.691499 0.739183 1
Q5 0.5036351 0.44461 0.534895 0.599229 1
Q6 0.4530429 0.511315 0.525286 0.548703 0.811206 1
Level of significance 0.05
N = 35

Determining strategic direction is the most important critical criterion. Whilst

importance of all the criteria was tested, it was noted that this criterion has an
influence on all the other criteria.

147
Table 4.3 indicates the mean scores of each organisation’s rating of the critical
criteria.

Table 4.3: Mean scores of critical criteria for each organisation

Organisation A B C D E F Mean

1 Determining
7.00 7.00 6.32 6.18 4.61 6.27 6.23
strategic direction
2 Exploiting and
maintaining core 6.75 6.80 6.51 5.68 4.41 6.01 6.03
competencies
3 Developing human
6.38 6.77 6.37 6.27 4.24 5.58 5.94
capital
4 Sustaining an
effective corporate 6.18 6.69 6.37 5.69 5.10 5.58 5.94
culture
5 Emphasising ethical
5.29 6.79 5.98 5.88 5.05 5.78 5.80
practices
6 Establishing
5.50 6.50 5.60 6.00 5.20 6.00 5.80
strategic controls

Mean 6.18 6.76 6.19 5.95 4.77 5.87 5.95

Sum (maximum 42) 37.10 40.55 37.13 35.70 28.60 35.22 35.72

N = 35

An examination of the scores for the critical criteria indicated that ‘determining
strategic direction’ was rated the highest criteria and ‘exploiting and maintaining
core competencies’ the next highest of the criteria. ‘Developing human capital’
and ‘sustaining an effective corporate culture’ followed with ‘emphasising ethical
practices’ and ‘establishing strategic controls’ the lowest rated. The high rating of
mean scores indicates that the critical criteria are important to leadership.
Determining strategic direction is the key criteria for strategic leadership in
organisations. Proposition 1 is therefore accepted.

148
4.6 HYPOTHESIS 1

H01 There is no relationship between the following alignment constructs:

strategy, customers, processes and people.
H11 There is a relationship between the following alignment constructs:
strategy, customers, processes and people.

Alignment was tested by utilising the questionnaire comprising 16 questions

measuring alignment across the four alignment constructs of strategy, customers,
people and processes. A total of 350 responses was received from employees in
the six organisations. In order to conduct statistical analysis of correlation and
regression with the X and Y variables, the data were collapsed into 35 groups of
ten, thus reducing the sample size to equal the number of the sample size for
strategic leadership, making it possible to conduct statistical analysis tests on the
data. A primary goal of statistics is to collapse data into easily understandable
summaries. These summaries may then be used to compare sets of numbers from
different sources or to evaluate relationships among sets of numbers (Sonnad,
2002: 622).

Table 4.4 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the four alignment
constructs of strategic alignment. The mean is the sum of the observed values in
the distribution, divided by the number of observations. It measures central
tendency – in other words, the average response of the respondents. The mean
for this data set is indicated for each alignment construct with the highest score
being 4.57 for the processes construct and the lowest score 3.82 for the people
construct on a scale ranging from (1), strongly disagree, to (7), strongly agree.

The mode indicates that the most frequently occurring value in the rating of
alignment is 4.00. The standard error indicates approximately how far the
observed value of the statistic is from the mean and the amount of uncertainty in a
summary number representing the entire sample. The standard error for this
sample ranges between 0.11 and 0.15. The term “standard deviation” is usually

149
indicated to show the amount of variability among individuals or elementary units,
specifically indicating how far individuals are from the average, 0.60 to 0.89.

Table 4.4: Summary of descriptive statistics for strategic alignment

Summary of descriptive statistics for strategic alignment
Strategy Customers People Processes
Mean 4.40 4.22 3.82 4.57
Standard error 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.11
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Mode 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
Standard deviation 0.69 0.80 0.89 0.69
Range 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Minimum 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
Maximum 6.00 7.00 6.00 6.00
Sum 154 148 134 160
Count 35 35 35 35
Sum = 35

4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
Strategy Customers People Processes

Figure 4.1: Mean scores for strategic alignment

The bar diagram (figure 4.1) graphically depicts the mean scores for each of the
four alignment constructs, strategy, customers, people and processes, indicating
their comparative mean scores.

150
The correlation score in table 4.5 indicates the relationship between the alignment
of strategy, customers, people and processes. Correlation analysis for this variable
shows a high correlation between the alignment of customers and people of 0.71,
with a P-value of (.000); customers and processes of 0.75, with a P-value of
(.000); people and processes of 0.72, with a P-value of (.000); strategy and people
of 0.63, with a P-value of (.000); and strategy and customers of 0.61, with a P-
value of (.000). There is a moderate correlation of 0.54 for strategy and processes,
with a P-value of (.001).

Table 4.5: Pearson correlation for strategic alignment indicating

P-values
Strategy Customers People Processes
Strategy Pearson correlation 1 .619** .637** .546**
(P-value) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Customers Pearson correlation .619** 1 710** .753**
(P-value) (.000) (.000) (.000)
People Pearson correlation .637** .710** 1 .730**
(P-value) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Processes Pearson correlation .546** .753** .730** 1
(P-value) (.001) (.000) (.000)

The P-value (table 4.5) for each alignment construct shows a significance level
that is less than 0.05, indicating that the relationship is statistically significant. The
implications of these correlations will be discussed in chapter 5.

The key consideration in the alignment analysis is that each construct is aligned to
the other constructs, thereby indicating alignment across all four constructs of
strategic alignment. The alignment of the sample mean is illustrated in the radar
diagram in figure 4.2 for the four alignment constructs of strategy, customers,
processes and people.

151
Figure 4.2: Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for the sample
mean of the alignment constructs of strategy, customers, processes and
people

Analysis of the mean scores for each organisation shows a greater degree of
variability. Table 4.6 presents the mean scores for each organisation across the
four alignment constructs. Organisation B had the highest level of alignment,
whereas A and E displayed the lowest level of alignment.

The comparison of the two sets of sample scores indicating the highest and the
lowest level of alignment across the dimensions of strategy, people, customers
and processes will be discussed in detail in chapter 5.

152
Table 4.6: Mean scores for strategic alignment for each organisation
Organisation A B C D E F Mean

Strategy 4.50 5.20 4.36 4.00 4.13 4.20 4.40

Customers 4.00 5.50 4.00 4.00 3.72 4.10 4.22

People 3.23 5.40 3.71 3.50 3.50 3.60 3.82

Processes 4.00 5.80 4.43 4.50 4.21 4.50 4.57

Mean 3.93 5.47 4.00 4.00 3.89 4.10 4.25

Sum (28) 15.73 21.90 16.00 16.00 15.56 16.40 17.02

N = 35

The bar diagram in figure 4.3 graphically depicts the mean scores for
organisations A to F for the four alignment constructs of strategy, customers,
processes and people.

5
Strategy
4
Customers
3 People

2 Processes

0
A B C D E F Mean

Figure 4.3: Bar diagram showing mean scores for strategic alignment for
organisations A to F

153
 Processes

Figure 4.4: Radar diagrams illustrating the strategic alignment means for
organisations A to F

154
Figure 4.4 depicts the radar diagrams illustrating the alignment means for the
alignment constructs, strategy, customers, processes and people, for
organisations A to F in the sample.

In the following section, scatterplots are used to demonstrate the relationships

between the two variables graphically. A scatterplot displays each elementary
unit using two axes to represent the two factors. If one variable is seen as
causing, affecting or influencing the other, then it is called X and defines the
horizontal axis. The variable that may respond or be influenced is called Y and
defines the vertical axis (Siegel, 1997: 368). Both direction and the shape of a
relationship are conveyed in the plot. When stronger relationships are apparent,
the points cluster close to an imaginary straight line passing through the data. The
weaker relationships depict a more diffuse data cloud with points spread farther
from the line (Cooper & Schindler, 1998: 518-519). Scatterplots enable one to
understand the relationship between variables and provide a means for visual
inspection of data which a list of values for two variables cannot do.

4.6.1 Vertical alignment

In vertical alignment, the data for the sample show a strong correlation of 0.63
between strategy and people.

Figure 4.5: Scatterplot depicting vertical alignment: strategy – people

155
The scatterplot in figure 4.5 indicates this relationship graphically. This relationship
has a correlation of .637 and a P-value of (.001), which indicates that the vertical
relationship between strategy and people is statistically significant.

4.6.2 Horizontal alignment

In horizontal alignment, the data for the sample show a strong correlation of 0.75
and a P-value of (.000) between customers and processes, which indicate that the
relationship is statistically significant. The scatterplot in figure 4.6 is a graphical
representation of this relationship.

The horizontal alignment is stronger than the vertical alignment. The implications
of this will be discussed in chapter 5.

Figure 4.6: Scatterplot depicting horizontal alignment: customers –

processes

The correlation analysis indicates a strong positive alignment between the four
alignment constructs indicating that they are important. The P-values show that
they are statistically significant.

156
Hypothesis 1, which states that there is no relationship between the alignment
constructs of strategy, customers, processes and people, is rejected. The
alternative hypothesis, which states that there is a relationship between the
alignment constructs of strategy, customers, processes and people, is accepted.

4.7 HYPOTHESIS 2

H02 There is no relationship between the four alignment constructs and the six
critical criteria of strategic leadership.
H12 There is a relationship between the four alignment constructs and the six
critical criteria of strategic leadership.

Table 3.2 depicts the relationship between the independent variable, critical
criteria, and the dependent variable, alignment constructs of strategy, people,
customers and processes. The questions measured the employees’ rating of the
implementation of the critical criteria in the organisation. The sections below
discuss the responses to each critical criterion and its corresponding alignment
construct response. These are displayed in scatterplots in order to indicate the
degree of alignment between the two variables.

4.7.1 Q1: Determining strategic direction – strategy

The scatterplot in figure 4.7 shows the responses to Q1, namely, determining
strategic direction, while alignment’s “strategy” construct shows a weak positive
correlation (table 4.8) of 0.20 and a P-value of (.244), which is statistically
insignificant.

157
Figure 4.7: Scatterplot depicting Q1 – strategy

4.7.2 Q2: Exploiting and maintaining core competencies – customers

The scatterplot in figure 4.8 depicting the relationship between Q2, Exploiting and
maintaining core competencies, and alignment’s “customers” construct shows a
weak positive correlation (table 4.8) of 0.05 and a P-value of (.759), which is
statistically insignificant. Core competencies could also be associated with people
and processes, however the ultimate impact of these competencies is their impact
on customers.

Figure 4.8: Scatterplot depicting Q2 – customers

158
4.7.3 Q3: Developing human capital – people
The scatterplot in figure 4.9 depicts the relationship between Q3, Developing
human capital, and alignment’s ”people” construct, indicating a weak positive
correlation (table 4.8) of 0.15 and a P-value of (.366), which shows that this
relationship is statistically insignificant.

Figure 4.9: Scatterplot depicting Q3 – people

4.7.4 Q4: Sustaining an effective corporate culture – people

The scatterplot in figure 4.10 depicts the relationship between Q4, Sustaining an
effective corporate culture, and alignment’s “people” construct, and indicates a
weak positive correlation (table 4.8) of 0.19 with a P-value of .265. The
relationship is therefore statistically insignificant.

159
Figure 4.10: Q4 – Scatterplot depicting Q4 - people
.

4.7.5 Q5: Emphasising ethical practices – processes

The scatterplot in figure 4.11 depicts the relationship between Q5, Emphasising
ethical practices, and alignment’s “processes” construct, and indicates a weak
positive correlation (table 4.8) of 0.23 with a P-value of (.183), which is statistically
insignificant.

Figure 4.11: Scatterplot depicting Q5 – processes

160
4.7.6 Q6: Establishing strategic controls – processes
The scatterplot in figure 4.12 depicts the relationship between Q6, Establishing
strategic controls, and alignment’s “processes” construct and indicates a weak
positive correlation (table 4.8) of 0.13 with a P-value of (.424), which shows that
the relationship is statistically insignificant.

Figure 4.12: Scatterplot depicting Q6 – processes

4.7.7 Scatterplot depicting the relationship between the X and Y variables

The scatterplot in figure 4.13 indicates the relationship between the independent
and dependent variables in the data set for this sample. The mean values
obtained for X is the sum of the observed values for each leadership response
divided by the number of constructs (four). The mean values obtained for Y is the
sum of the observed values for each employee response divided by the number of
critical criteria (six).

161
Figure 4.13: Scatterplot depicting the X and Y variables

The scatterplot depicts a weak positive relationship between the two variables, X
and Y, with the points clustered in a cloud in relation to the straight line depicting a
linear relationship. Some outliers are shown. These outliers indicate low scores
with a rating of “2” on critical criteria and “3” on strategic alignment on certain
responses. The scatterplot for the sample indicates a weak positive relationship
between the X and Y variables.

4.8 CONCLUSION

The correlation between the variables for the sample is depicted in Table 4.7. The
correlation shows a weak positive relationship between the X and Y variables.
The relationships are all positive. No variables show a negative relationship. The
correlation indicates a weak positive relationship. The null hypothesis is rejected
when the P-value is less than the significance level of 0.05. The P-values indicate
that the relationship is statistically insignificant. Hypothesis H02, which states that
there is no relationship between the four alignment and the six critical criteria of
strategic leadership, is not rejected.

162
Table 4.7: Correlation for the critical criteria and strategic alignment of strategy, customers, people and processes
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Strategy Customers People Process
Q1 Pearson correlation 1 .752** .683** .649** .54** .453** .202 .125 .146 .258
P-value (.000) (.000) (.000) (.002) (.006) (.244) (.474) (.403) (.135)
Q2 Pearson correlation .742** 1 .724** .691** .445** .511** .092 .054 .115 .261
P-value (.000) (.000) (.000) (.007) (.002) (.600) (.759) (.511) (.130)
Q3 Pearson correlation .638** .724** 1 .739** .535** .525** .136** .167 .157 .254
P-value (.000) (.000) (.000) (.001) (.001) (.437) (.336) (.366) (.142)
Q4 Pearson correlation .649** .691** .739** 1 .599** 549** .179 .175 .193 .265
P-value (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.001). (.304) (.315) (.265) (.124)
Q5 Pearson correlation .504** .445** .535** .599** 1 .811** .258 .103 .279 .231
P-value (.002) (.007) (.001) (.000) (.000) (.134) (.558) (.105) (.183)
Q6 Pearson correlation .453** .511** .525** .549** .811** 1 .168 -0.42 .268 .140
P-value (.006) (.002) (.001) (.001) (.000) (.334) (.810) (.120) (.424)
Strategy Pearson correlation .202 .092 .136 .179 .258 .168 1 .619** .637** .546**
P-value (.244) (.600) (.437) (.304) (.134) (.334) (.000) (.000) (.001)
Customers Pearson correlation .125 .054 .167 .175 .103 -.042 .619** 1 .710** .753
P-value (.474) (.759) (.336) (.315) (.558) (.810) (.000) (.000) (.000)
People Pearson correlation .146 .115 .157 .193 .279 .268 .637** .710** 1 .730**
P-value (.403) (.511) (.366) (.265) (.105) (.120) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Process Pearson correlation .258 .261 .254 .265 .231 .140 .546** .753** .730** 1
P-value (.135) (.130) (.142) (.124) (.183) (.424) (.001) (.000) (.000)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

.

163
4.9 HYPOTHESIS 3

H03 Strategic leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high
performance companies.
H13 Strategic leadership positively influences strategic alignment in high
performance companies.

Linear regression analysis predicts one variable from another when the two have a
linear relationship.

By convention, the variable being predicted is denoted as Y, strategic alignment,

while the variable that helps with the prediction is denoted as X, strategic
leadership. The straight line intercept, the slope, indicates how steeply the line
rises for a positive relationship or falls if the relationship is negative (Siegel, 1997:
389-10).

Multiple regression predicts a single Y variable from two or more X variables. In

this analysis, the dependent variable, strategic alignment, is predicted from the
independent variable, the six critical criteria. Inference commences with the f-test,
an overall test to establish whether the X variables explain a significant amount of
the variation in Y (Siegel, 1997: 447). If the P-value is less than 0.05, the result is
significant. If the regression is significant, it indicates that one or more of the X
variables is useful in predicting Y.

Table 4.8 depicts a multiple regression analysis for this sample.

The regression analysis for this data sample is not statistically significant because
the P-value is greater than 0.05. Hypothesis H03, which states that strategic
leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high performance
companies, is not rejected.

164
Table 4.8: Multiple regression analysis for the X and Y variables

SUMMARY OUTPUT - Multiple regression for X Strategic Alignment and Y Strategic Leadership

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.294516868
R Square 0.086740185
Adjusted R Square -0.108958346
Standard Error 0.706668747
Observations 35

ANOVA
Df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 6 1.328054196 0.22134237 0.443233706 0.843478435
Residual 28 13.98266009 0.49938072
Total 34 15.31071429

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 3.316262888 0.746392196 4.44305675 0.000126871 1.787347782 4.845177993 1.787347782 4.845177993
Q1 0.04796199 0.162547506 0.29506445 0.770121507 -0.285001481 0.380925461 -0.285001481 0.380925461
Q2 -0.04255164 0.180099493 -0.2362674 0.814945017 -0.411468727 0.326365447 -0.411468727 0.326365447
Q3 0.030088688 0.174255698 0.17266975 0.864153117 -0.326857929 0.387035305 -0.326857929 0.387035305
Q4 0.065779803 0.180256791 0.36492275 0.717911028 -0.303459494 0.4350191 -0.303459494 0.4350191
Q5 0.139837324 0.177934249 0.78589324 0.438530493 -0.224644463 0.504319111 -0.224644463 0.504319111
Q6 -0.083123851 0.181378336 -0.4582899 0.650281409 -0.454660531 0.288412828 -0.454660531 0.288412828

165
4.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter discussed the findings of the research study. The profile of the
sample was the 200 top performing organisations in South Africa, as published by
the Financial Mail (2007). A total of 35 valid responses was received from top
leadership and 350 employees from across all levels in six organisations.

Descriptive analysis was utilised to describe the data by comparing and discussing
the mean, mode, standard error and standard deviation. Scatterplots and
correlation analysis were used to determine the relationships between strategic
leadership and strategic alignment as well as each critical criterion and the
alignment constructs of strategy, customers, processes and people. Regression
analysis was conducted to determine the causal relationships between the X and
Y variables.

These findings were also suggested and supported by the literature review in
chapter 2 and the methodology in chapter 3.

The empirical findings indicate the following:

Proposition 1 is accepted.
Hypothesis H01 is rejected.
Hypothesis H02 is not rejected
Hypothesis H03 is not rejected.

The conclusions and recommendations for the study are presented in chapter 5.

166
 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

“Does strategic leadership matter? Indeed the quality of individual leadership

matters” (Wheeler et al., 2007: 2).

“Under what conditions? Where? How? On what criteria?” (Boal & Hooijberg,
2001: 518).

The study of leadership has progressed from early studies on the topic by House
(1977), in which he focused on charismatic leadership, through a range of studies
including the following: the upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984); the
study of TMTs (Bryman, 1992); charismatic theories (House, 1977; Shamir, House
& Arthur, 1993); transformational theories (Bass, 1985); visionary theories (Bennis
& Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987); supervisory theories (House & Aditya,
1997); and strategic leadership theories (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Black & Boal,
1996; Hitt et al., 1998; Boal & Hooijberg, 2001 Rowe, 2001; Elenkov et al., 2005;
Abell, 2006; Elenkov, 2008).

Much emphasis has been placed on identifying leadership traits, leadership style,
charismatic leaders or whether leaders are born or made. As House and Aditya
(1997) note, prior to about the mid-1980s, there were very few empirical studies on
the strategic leadership process and strategic leader behaviour. However, since
1989, the interest in strategic leadership has grown in significance with many more
recent studies on the topic. Strategic leadership is increasingly becoming a top
focus in academic and business studies alike. Leadership at strategic level is the
key issue facing 21st-century organisations (Hitt et al. 1998; Elenkov, 2008).
Without effective strategic leadership, the capability of a company to achieve or
sustain a competitive advantage is greatly constrained (Elenkov, 2008: 37).

167
Strategic leadership that results in the successful organisational performance and
implementation of strategies is exemplified by several key actions. The most
critical of these involve determining strategic direction, exploiting and maintaining
core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining an effective
organisational culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing balanced
organisational controls (Hitt et al., 2001: 499, 500). With the recognition of the
significance of these critical leadership criteria developed by Hitt et al. (1998), an
empirical study was conducted to determine the ranking by U.S. leaders of the
importance of these components (Hagen et al., 1998). Following this study,
interest has increased in both the topics of strategic leadership and strategic
alignment.

According to Elenkov (2008: 27), there has been little empirical evidence
concerning the effects of strategic leadership on organisational processes that
have distinctive strategic significance. Studies by Hitt et al. (1995) and Hagen et
al. (1998) identify and examine the criteria that they have determined as being
critical to strategic leadership. Labovitz and Rosansky (1997) link organisational
performance to strategic alignment. Companies seek to be top performers and
identifying factors that contribute to that performance has been the object of much
interest and investigation.

In the South African context, Serfontein (2009) conducted an empirical study of the
impact of strategic leadership on the operational strategy and performance of
business organisations in South Africa and concluded that strategic leadership has
a significant impact on operational performance. However, Serfontein (2009)
further states that a limitation of this study was that only one person from each
organisation, typically the CEO, completed the survey. It is possible that another
study that examines the perception of top, middle and lower management could
yield different results (Serfontein, 2009: 28).

A further study by Jooste and Fourie (2009) explored the role of strategic
leadership in effective strategy implementation. The limitation of this study is that

168
it was aimed at directors only, with no reference to the measurement of
implementation in the organisation. The findings of this study concur with those of
Serfontein’s study (2009).

Building on these arguments and the literature on strategic leadership discussed in

chapter 2, the conceptual framework was systematically examined by means of
empirical and analytical methods. The framework was tested in six companies.

The purpose of this study is to establish whether effective strategic leadership will
result in strategic alignment. The view that this is indeed the case is gaining
increasing support and is held by Ireland and Hitt (1999), who maintain that being
able to exercise strategic leadership in a competitively superior manner facilitates
an organisation’s performance. The aim is to explore the relationship between
strategic leadership and strategic alignment in an attempt to provide greater
understanding of strategic leadership’s impact on organisational success. This
chapter discusses the results of this study.

The chapter reviews the results presented in chapter 4 and discusses the
empirical findings of the study as set out in the proposition and hypotheses that
were tested. The contributions and limitations of the study and recommendations
for further research are also discussed.

5.2 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

The database from which the participating companies was drawn was compiled by
the Financial Mail (2007) in which this publication ranked the top-performing listed
companies on the JSE out of a total of 419 (in 2007) listed companies. The results
of the sample show a weak positive but not statistically significant correlation
between the critical leadership criteria and strategic alignment in high-performing
organisations in South Africa. In examining the companies individually, the
following section summarises the findings.

169
5.3 FINDINGS ON STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

5.3.1 Proposition 1
The six selected critical criteria – determining strategic direction, exploiting and
maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining effective an
corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing strategic controls
– are vital for strategic leadership.

The purpose of this study was to determine the importance the TMT attributed to
each criterion. An analysis of the results of the strategic leadership questionnaire
shows that each of the critical criteria was highly rated by the leadership in the
sample. The results indicate that these criteria are regarded as crucial
components of strategic leadership, based on the current research.

An analysis of the raw data shows that many of the respondents rated all the
criteria at 7, indicating that an equal level of importance was assigned to each
criterion. On closer examination of the sample results, the mean scores (table 4.1)
were Q1 - 6.23, Q2 – 6.03, Q3 – 5.94, Q5 5.80 and Q6 – 5.80. Q1 had the highest
mean score of 6.23, and Q5 and Q6, the lowest mean score of 5.80. (Slight
variations on the mean scores in the various tables occurred as a result of the
summarising and rounding off of scores to the next decimal point).

5.3.1.1 Analysis of the highest-rated criterion: determining strategic

direction
Determining strategic direction focuses the organisation on a long-term vision with
a view to at least five years in the future. Strategic intent means leveraging the
organisation’s internal resources, capabilities and core competencies to
accomplish what may at first appear to be unattainable goals in the competitive
environment (Hamel & Prahalad, 2005). Strategic intent exists when all employees
in an organisation are committed to pursuing a specific performance criterion. This
correlates with strategic alignment, which measures the degree to which all

170
employees in the organisation are aligned across the four dimensions of strategy,
customers, processes and people.

The choice of strategic direction is of vital importance to the organisation’s

success. This is confirmed by the results of this survey, where the mean score for
criterion 1 was 6.23. The mean scores of organisations A to F (table 4.3) were
7.00, 7.00, 6.32, 6.18, 4.61 and 6.27 respectively. Organisation E rated this
criterion with a moderate score of 4.61, while all the other organisations rated the
criterion with a high score of 6.18 to 7.00.

5.3.1.2 Analysis of the lowest-rated criterion: emphasising ethical practices

and establishing strategic controls
All the participants gave two criteria the lowest scores, namely “emphasising
ethical practices and “establishing strategic controls”. The overall mean for each
of these criteria was 5.8.

The mean scores for the criterion emphasising ethical practices for organisations
A to F were (table 4.3) 5.29, 6.79, 5.98, 5.88, 5.05 and 5.78 respectively.

Effective strategic leaders emphasise ethical practices in their organisations, and

seek to infuse them through the organisational culture. The ethics that guide
individual actions are based on principles formed by long-term influences that
extend beyond the organisation. However, organisations can shape and control
their employees’ and managers’ behaviour through formalised rules, economic
rewards and sanctions and the values and norms that represent corporate culture
(Hagen et al., 1998). While this score was the lowest at 5.8, it is still highly rated
compared to the top score of 7.

To the extent that managers and employees share a common set of ethical
principles, there is a strong likelihood that ethical practices will be observed
(Hagen et al., 1998).

171
Thomas, Schermerhorn and Dienhart (2004: 57) link ethical business practice to
company performance and maintain that an accurate appreciation of the full costs
of ethical failures is crucial to creating a sense of urgency in ethical business
behaviour.

For business executives, the strategic leadership responsibility for initiating

changes has to include the goals of creating and sustaining ethical climates within
which employees act ethically as a matter of routine (Thomas et al., 2004: 58).
These authors contend that some of these costs are chronically undervalued in
executive decision making.

Business executives can and must realise that the bottom line of business success
always includes an ethics component (Thomas et al., 2004: 65). Strategic control
refers to corporate leaders’ understanding of the strategies being implemented in
the various business units. It focuses on the content of strategic actions in order to
achieve appropriate outcomes. Strategic control focuses on the content of
strategic actions in order to achieve appropriate outcomes.

Strategic control therefore encourages lower-level managers to make decisions

that incorporate moderate and acceptable levels of risk. Effective use of strategic
controls by corporate leaders is frequently integrated with appropriate autonomy
for the subunits so they can gain a competitive advantage in their respective
markets. The autonomy of strategic control allows for the flexibility and innovation
necessary to take advantage of specific market opportunities. Strategic leadership
promotes the simultaneous use of strategic controls and autonomy.

In their study, Hagen et al. (1998:6) conclude that exercising strategic controls
affects the other five criteria. Strategic controls balance the evaluation of strategic
actions with the outcomes of such actions (e.g. quality, creativity, finance, etc.).
For instance, the autonomy, flexibility and innovation provided by strategic control
help leaders to take advantage of particular marketplaces.

172
The score of 5.8 (table 4.3), with mean scores for organisations A to F of 5.50,
6.50, 5.60, 6.0, 5.20 and 6.00 respectively, for strategic control in this study,
indicates that leadership assign a relatively high level of importance to strategic
control in the organisation.

5.3.1.3 Exploiting and maintaining core competencies

Core competencies are the resources and capabilities that serve an organisation’s
source of competitive advantage. Typically, core competencies relate to an
organisation’s functional skills such as manufacturing, finance, marketing and
research and development. Core competencies allow organisations to produce
and deliver products that have unique benefits and value for customers (Hamel &
Prahalad, 2005). As strategic leaders, corporate managers make decisions
intended to help their organisation develop, maintain, strengthen, leverage and
exploit core competencies. Exploiting core competencies involves sharing
resources across units. In general, the most effective core competencies are
based on intangible resources, which are less visible to competitors because they
relate to employees’ knowledge and skills. Effective strategic leaders promote the
sharing of intangible resources across the organisation’s business units.

The mean scores for exploiting and maintaining core competencies for
organisations A to F were 6.75, 6.80, 6.51, 5.68, 4.41 and 6.01 respectively, with a
sample mean of 6.03. This reflects a high level of importance placed by the TMT
of all the organisations on this criterion, with the exception of organisation E,
whose score was 4.41, which was significantly lower than the other scores. As
with the rating for strategy, organisation E had the lowest rating on this criterion.
The high scores in this study indicate the significance of the TMT’s rating of this
criterion.

5.3.1.4 Developing human capital

Human capital refers to the knowledge and skills of the organisation’s workforce –
employees as a capital resource. Core competencies cannot be effectively
developed or exploited without appropriate human capital.

173
An effective approach to developing human capital is through training and
development programmes. However, management development programmes can
help to build skills and facilitate communication between employees by providing a
common language, building employee networks and constructing a common vision
of the organisation.

Because development programmes socialise employees and help inculcate a

common set of core values, they promote cohesion. Furthermore, they should help
employees to improve the skills that are critical to the organisation’s primary
operations, core competencies and customers (Hagen et al., 1998).

The mean scores for developing human capital for organisations A to F were 6.38,
6.77, 6.37, 6.27, 4.24 and 5.58 respectively, with an overall mean of 5.94. These
scores reflect a high rating by all the organisations, with the exception of
organisation E whose score for this criterion was only 4.24.

5.3.1.5 Sustaining an effective corporate culture

Corporate culture refers to the core values shared by all or most employees. It
consists of a complex set of shared ideologies, symbols and values that influence
the way in which the organisation conducts its business. Corporate culture is the
social energy that either drives the organisation or leads to its failure. Strategic
leaders must develop and nurture an appropriate culture, one that promotes
focused learning and human development, the sharing of skills and resources
among units in the organisation and the entrepreneurial spirit crucial for innovation
and competitiveness.

An appropriate corporate culture can encourage an entrepreneurial spirit, foster

and facilitate a long-term vision and emphasise strategic actions linked to the
production of high-quality goods and services. Corporate culture helps regulate
and control employee behaviour. Changing culture is more difficult than sustaining
it – but effective strategic leadership involves recognising the need to change the

174
culture and implement the changes. Restructuring may provide an appropriate
time to effect change (Hagen et al., 1998).

The mean scores (table 4.3) for sustaining an effective corporate culture for
organisations A to F were 6.18, 6.69, 6.37, 5.67, 5.69 and 5.10 respectively, with
an overall mean of 5.94. This indicates that the TMT in each company assigned an
overall importance value to culture.

The high value placed on sustaining effective corporate culture by these TMTs
correlates with the degree of strategic alignment in the companies that were
studied. Companies that place a low value on effective corporate culture tend to
have a command and control style of management, which is not conducive to
releasing the untapped energy of employees and does not align activities with
intentions (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 74).

An effective corporate culture will engender a high trust environment. Covey and
Merrill (2006: 13) maintain that trust is a hard-edge economic driver. Accordingly,
there is a strong business case for trust, and one should remember that trust
always affects two outcomes – speed and cost.

When trust is low, speed decreases and costs increase. Conversely, when trust is
high, speed increases and costs decline. This is illustrated in the following simple
formula:

↓Trust = ↓ Speed ↑ Cost

When trust increases, speed will also increase and costs will decline.
↑ Trust = ↑ Speed ↓ Cost

This formula indicates the impact of an effective corporate culture on an

organisation’s performance (Covey & Merrill, 2006). A strong alignment to the
company’s strategy influences corporate culture.

175
5.3.1.6 Mean score rating for each company in the sample
An examination of Table 4.3 which indicated the mean scores for the six criteria for
each organisation that participated in the study, shows a significant difference
between the organisations.

Organisation B had the highest rating, with a total score of 40.55 out of a
maximum of 42 and a mean of 6.76, with each criterion rated the highest out of the
total sample and significantly above the sample sum of 35.72 and sample mean of
5.72.

Organisation E had the lowest rating, with a total sample score of 28.60 out of a
maximum of 42 and a mean of 4.77, with each criterion rated the lowest out of the
total sample and significantly lower than the sample of 35.72 and mean of 5.95.

Organisations A, C, D and F had a rating of 37.10, 37.13, 35.70 and 35.22

respectively. The scores of all these organisations were closely related to the
sample mean of 35.72. There is a significant difference between the ratings of the
highest and lowest organisation in this sample. These ratings will be compared to
the alignment ratings for the highest and lowest organisation’s rating in the sample
in section 5.7.

5.3.2 Conclusion
The results of the strategic leader’s rating of each criterion indicated a high level of
importance being assigned to each criterion. The results correlated with
conclusions drawn by previous research, namely that these are significant
strategic leadership criteria (Jooste & Fourie, 2009; Hitt et al., 2001; Hagen et al.,
1998).

The conclusions of this study indicate that the six critical criteria are vital
components of effective strategic leadership. Proposition 1 is therefore accepted.

176
5.4 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
5.4.1 Hypothesis 1
H01 There is no relationship between the following strategic alignment
constructs: strategy, customers, processes and people.
H11 There is a relationship between the following strategic alignment constructs:
strategy, customers, processes and people.

Alignment is that optimal state in which strategy, employees, customers and key
processes work in concert to propel growth and profits. The organisation must be
able to rapidly deploy new strategies because goals and priorities are always
changing. It must achieve total organisation-wide customer focus. It must align
and improve core processes to meet customer requirements and drive strategy. It
must train, develop and manage employees to foster innovation, productivity and
growth (Labovitz, 2004: 30, 31).

A key consideration in the alignment analysis is that each alignment construct is

aligned to the others, thereby indicating alignment across all four alignment
constructs of strategic alignment – hence balance in an organisation.

The mean scores for the sample indicate a strong correlation between the four
strategic alignment constructs, as indicated in table 4.4. They are as follows:
strategy – 4.40; customers – 4.22; people – 3.82; processes – 4.57.

The scores are closely aligned in relation to each other and are clustered around
the median of 4.00 in relation to a maximum score of 7.00 and a minimum of 3.00.
The sample is moderately positively aligned.

The results indicate that there is a relationship between the four alignment
constructs of strategy, customers, processes and people. Hypothesis H01 is
rejected.

177
5.4.2 Vertical and horizontal alignment
As discussed in section 2.4.4, strategy and people are vertically aligned, while
processes and customers are horizontally aligned.

A strategy that reflects the contributions of the workforce and which is executed
rapidly and effectively will align activities with the organisation’s intentions and
invigorate employees. A hierarchy that stresses command and control can claim to
do neither. According to Labovitz and Rosansky (1997: 74), measurements tied to
company objectives are the key to vertical alignment.

The importance that the TMT assigns to determining the organisation’s strategic
direction should be matched with the communication and deployment of the
strategy throughout the organisation. Involving employees in the process of
strategy development will result in their being more aligned with strategy
implementation. This is evidenced in the rating by employees in their strategic
alignment responses. Developing human capital and sustaining an effective
corporate culture will empower and equip employees to align themselves with the
organisation’s strategy and build the capacity to implement the strategy.

Table 5.1 indicates the constructs of vertical and horizontal alignment in relation to
the six critical criteria.

Table 5.1: Alignment and leadership criteria

Strategic alignment Critical criteria
Vertical Strategy Determining the organisation’s strategic direction
alignment People Developing human capital
Sustaining an effective corporate culture
Horizontal Process Emphasising ethical practices
alignment Establishing strategic controls
Customers Exploiting and maintaining core competencies

178
Vertical alignment involves rapidly moving the company strategy through the
organisation, turning intentions into actual work. For many organisations, strategy
never fully diffuses through the company – it is never completely deployed. When
the TMT not only values these criteria, but also ensures that they are implemented
in the organisation, alignment is affected. This view is confirmed in this study by
the alignment scores for these dimensions. According to Labovitz and Rosansky
(1997: 109), vertical alignment ensures that company strategy is reflected in the
behaviour of every employee (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 109).

Bass (2007: 44) argues that middle managers are often responsible for
implementing strategic decisions made by senior executives. Senior executives
complain that middle managers fail to take the necessary steps to implement
strategies. The commitment and understanding are poor about what needs to be
done. The middle managers fail to articulate the same goals as the senior
executives. If the middle managers agree with the strategic initiatives, they
frequently work against implementation.

To promote commitment, rewards systems and structures need to be aligned to fit

the intended strategy. Middle managers’ and supervisors’ understanding of the
strategy will be fostered by increased discussions with senior managers about the
strategy and their criteria for success. According to Bass (2007), providing
strategic leadership is a vital role for the CEO and senior executives.

The sample in this study shows a high level of vertical alignment between the
alignment constructs of strategy and people, with a correlation score (table 4.5) for
the sample of 0.63 and a P-value of (.000), indicating that the relationship is
statistically significant. The deployment of strategy throughout the organisation is
at a moderate level, as indicated in table 4.6 by the total mean scores of 4.40 for
strategy and 3.82 for people out of a maximum of 7.00. The implications of this will
discussed in section 5.5 which deals with the relationship between the strategic
leadership criteria and the alignment constructs of alignment.

179
In the same way as vertical alignment ensures that the company strategy is
reflected in the behaviour of every employee, horizontal alignment links the
company’s actions to customer needs in ways that delight and create loyalty.
Horizontally aligned companies are “hardwired” to customer requirements so that
the needs of their customers resonate with the personnel and influence the
company’s strategy, processes and behaviour (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 109).

Strategically aligned companies have clear and explicit methods for gathering
market data and disseminating these data through the organisation. They link
customer needs to their core processes for delivering goods and services. They
base every improvement on changing customer requirements and use the
customer as the ultimate arbiter of how they are doing. The horizontally aligned
company uses the customer voice both as a beacon and a driver for the way
individuals think, the way they work and the way the organisation is managed.
Structure, decisions and actions are based on what is best for the customer
(Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 109).

The alignment scores for the sample (table 4.6) indicate 4.22 for customers and
4.57 for processes, showing a strong positive correlation (table 4.5) of 0.75 and a
P-value of (.000), which is statistically significant. The correlation between
customers and processes is the highest correlation score between the alignment
constructs, indicating a high level of importance between these two constructs.
They are moderately positively deployed in the company in relation to a maximum
of 7.00. The implications of this result will be discussed in section 5.5.

5.5 COMPARISION OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC

ALIGNMENT: HYPOTHESIS 2

H02 There is no relationship between the four strategic alignment constructs

and the six critical criteria of strategic leadership.

180
H12 There is a relationship between the four strategic alignment constructs and
the critical criteria of strategic leadership.

Without effective strategic leadership, the capability of a company to achieve or

sustain competitive advantage is hugely constrained (Rowe, 2001; Elenkov, 2008:
37).

The value a TMT assigns to exploiting and maintaining core competencies,

emphasising ethical practices and establishing strategic controls, aligned to an
organisational strategy that is customer focused, will empower the organisation to
delight its customers. The scores shown on alignment for these dimensions
confirm this in the current study.

Table 3.2 demonstrates the relationship between the two variables of strategic
leadership and strategic alignment. The correlation matrix in table 4.7 indicates a
weak positive correlation between the variables of strategic leadership and
strategic alignment overall. The large scores for variable X for strategic
leadership, correlate with the moderate scores for variable Y for strategic
alignment.

The scatterplot in figure 4.9 indicates the overall relationship between variables X
and Y, which depicts a weak positive relationship between the variables. As
reported in section 4.7.7, some outliers are shown which indicates low scores by
some respondents for strategic leadership. These outliers reflect some
respondents’ minimum scores on the critical criteria of 2.00 on Q1, Q3 and Q5,
and low scores of 3.00 on Q2, Q4 and Q6.

These scores reflect a small number of responses that are significantly lower than
the mean scores (table 4.3) of 6.23, 6.03, 5.94, 5.94, 5.80 and 5.80 for Q1 to Q6
respectively, and indicate a significant gap. These differences are discussed in
section 5.3.1.1, where the highest and lowest responses to the critical criteria and
most aligned and least aligned organisational responses are discussed.

181
Table 5.2: Comparative responses of the independent and dependent
variables

Independent variable Dependent variable

Mean Mean Mean
Strategic leadership Strategic alignment
1. Organisational strategies are
4.01
clearly communicated to me
2. Organisational strategies guide the
4.74 identification of the skills and

Strategy
1 Determining strategic knowledge I need to have
6.23 4.40
direction 3. People here are willing to change
4.47 when new organisational
strategies require it
4. Our senior managers agree on the
4.76
organisational strategy
5. For each service, our organisation
provides, there is an agreed-
4.46
upon, prioritised list of what
customers care about
6.People in this organisation are
Customers

4.23 provided with useful information

2 Exploiting and
about customer complaints
maintaining core 6.03 4.22
7. Strategies are periodically
competencies
reviewed to ensure the
4.58
satisfaction of critical customer
needs
8. Processes are reviewed to ensure
4.98 they contribute to the attainment
of customer satisfaction
9. Our organisation collects
3.63 information from employees about
3 Developing human how well things work
5.94
capital
10. My work unit or team is rewarded
3.54
for our performance as a team
People

3.82 11. Groups in the organisation

4.04 cooperate to achieve customer
4 Sustaining effective satisfaction
5.94
corporate culture 12. When processes are changed,
3.11 the impact on employee
satisfaction is measured
13. Our managers care about how
5.01 work gets done as well as about
5 Emphasising ethical the results
5.80
practices 14. We review our work processes
4.68 regularly to see how well they are
Process

functioning
6 Establishing strategic 4.57 15. When something goes wrong, we
controls correct the underlying reasons so
4.99
that the problem will not happen
5.80 again
16. Processes are reviewed to
4.67 ensure they contribute to the
achievement of strategic goals

182
In relation to hypothesis 3, each criterion is discussed in a comparison with the
relative alignment construct.

The scatterplots in figures 4.1 to 4.5 demonstrate the relationship between the
critical leadership criterion X and the constructs of strategic alignment Y for the
sample.

All of the relationships have a weak positive relationship. Table 5.2 presents the
mean scores for each of the questions for variables X and Y in order to provide an
overall comparative perspective of their relationship. These responses are
discussed in section 5.5.1.

5.5.1 Q1: Determining strategic direction – strategy

The correlation of Q1 (table 4.7) and the responses on the strategy construct
indicate a weak positive correlation in the overall sample of 0.20. Even though the
correlation is positive, the P-value of (.244) indicates that this relationship is
statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 1 – determining strategic direction has a mean (table 5.2) of 6.23
compared with a mean score of 4.40 for the corresponding mean score for
strategy in strategic alignment.

An analysis of each question in the strategic alignment questionnaire provides

greater insight. While the TMT value the importance of strategic direction in the
organisation, as indicated by the score of 6.23 above, it is not being as effectively
communicated and is therefore moderately deployed throughout the organisation,
as indicated by the score of 4.40 above.

5.5.2 Q2: Exploiting and maintaining core competencies – customers

The correlation of Q2 (table 4.7) and the responses on the customer construct
indicate an extremely weak correlation in the overall sample of 0.05. Even though

183
this correlation is positive, the P-value of (.759) indicates that the relationship is
statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 2 – exploiting and maintaining core competencies has a mean

score of 6.03 compared with a mean (table 5.2) of 4.22 for the corresponding
score on customers in strategic alignment.

An analysis of each question in the strategic alignment questionnaire will provide

greater insight into the fact that while the TMT place a high level of importance on
exploiting and maintaining core competencies, these competencies are not being
closely aligned to meeting the needs of the customer.

5.5.3 Q3: Developing human capital – people

The correlation of Q3 (table 4.7) and the responses on the people construct
indicate an extremely weak positive correlation in the overall sample of 0.16. Even
though the correlation is positive, the P-value of (.366) indicates that the
relationship is statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 3 – developing human capital has a mean score (table 5.2) of 5.94
compared with a mean score of 3.82 for the corresponding score for people in
strategic alignment. “Our organisation collects information from employees about
how well things work” has mean score of 3.63, indicating that employees feel that
the TMT are not considering their views.

“My work unit or team is rewarded for our performance as a team” has a mean
score of 3.54, indicating that employees do not feel that their efforts are being
rewarded.

5.5.4 Q4: Sustaining an effective corporate culture – people

The correlation of Q4 (table 4.7) and the responses on the people construct
indicate an extremely weak positive correlation in the overall sample of 0.19.

184
Although this is an extremely weak positive correlation, the P-value of (.265)
indicates that the relationship is statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 4 – sustaining effective corporate culture – has a mean score of

5.94 compared with a mean of 3.82 for people in strategic alignment. The scores
for the people construct in strategic alignment show the lowest overall scores in
the sample.

Groups in the organisation cooperate to achieve a mean score of 4.04, indicating a

slightly higher focus on corporate culture with the emphasis on achieving customer
satisfaction than the other scores for this alignment construct.

“My work unit or team is rewarded for our performance as a team” has a mean
score of 3.11, which is the lowest score for all the questions and a low level of
employee recognition in terms of their contribution to the organisation’s objectives.

5.5.5 Q5: Emphasising ethical practices – processes

The correlation of Q5 and the responses on the process construct (table 4.7)
indicate a weak positive correlation in the overall sample of 0.23. Even though this
is a weak positive correlation, the P-value of (.183) is statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 5 – emphasising ethical practices – has a mean score of 5.80

compared with mean score of 4.57 for processes in strategic alignment. These
scores are the same as the scores for Q6, processes, and demonstrate the lowest
rated critical criterion by leadership. However, they are the highest rated by
employees.

Detailed examination of each response by employees provides greater insight into

the specific alignment areas in the organisation that can be focused on for
improvement.

185
An analysis of each question in the strategic alignment questionnaire will provide
greater insight into the fact that while the TMT value the importance of strategic
direction in the organisation, it is not being as effectively communicated and
therefore deployed throughout the organisation. This is discussed in section 5.5.7.

5.5.6 Q6: Establishing strategic controls – processes

The correlation of Q6 and the responses on the process construct (table 4.7)
indicate a weak positive correlation in the overall sample of 0.14. Even though this
is a positive correlation, the P-value of (.424) is statistically insignificant.

Critical criterion 6 – establishing strategic controls – has a mean score of 5.80

compared with mean score of 4.57 for processes in strategic alignment. These
ratings indicate that employees perceive that leadership place a higher value on
processes than they do on people in the organisation.

An analysis of each question in the strategic alignment questionnaire will provide

greater insight into the fact that while the TMT value the importance of strategic
direction in the organisation, it is not being as effectively communicated and
therefore deployed throughout the organisation.

5.5.7 Conclusion
The analysis of the relationships between the two variables indicates that the TMT
have a higher view of the importance of each criterion in the organisation in
comparison with the employees’ experience. Examination of the employee scores
for each individual question (table 5.4) provides greater insight.

On the strategy construct, communication of strategies is identified as a

contributing factor. In order for employees to effectively understand and deploy
strategy throughout the organisation, they must have a clear understanding of
what the strategy is. The results indicate that employees have a moderate
understanding of the strategy throughout the organisation which therefore does
not translate into people development and processes that are focused on

186
customer needs. Useful information about customer needs is not provided to
employees, and this tends to impact on the implementation of all the other
alignment constructs.

The results indicate that the TMT place a greater focus on strategy than
employees’ experience of the other three alignment constructs, with the lowest
focus on processes. While it can be argued that strategy is the main focus of
leadership, failure to deploy the strategy throughout the organisation will impact on
organisational effectiveness and performance.

The people construct demonstrates the lowest scores on the employee rating.
Lack of communication and the impact of changes in processes are reflected.
While team work is rated highest on this alignment construct, reward for teamwork
is rated low.

Ratios show the relative sizes of two or more variables. The ratios between critical
criteria and alignment in the six organisations are as follows: 89/62 – strategy; 86/
60 – customers; 84/55 – people; and 82/65 – processes. The mean ratio for the
sample is 85/60. The ratio comparisons provide a perspective on the overall
relationship, thus indicating a consistent gap between the TMT responses as
opposed to the employee responses. The TMT have a more positive view of the
importance of the levels of implementation in the organisation of the critical criteria
than is being experienced by employees.

One may conclude that, in the South African context, the ratio of TMT’s
perspective of their effectiveness to employee ability to impact on the function and
operations’ organisational level is 85/60, with leadership having a higher view of
their effectiveness than is being reflected in the organisation. This explains the
result of the regression analysis which seeks to measure and equal the direct
causal relationship and which does not show a direct causal relationship between
strategic leadership and the constructs of strategic alignment.

187
These results indicate that there is greater emphasis in the organisation on
managerial leadership than on strategic leadership in the overall sample.

The results also indicate that the alignment scores show a low positive correlation
between the six critical criteria and strategic alignment constructs of strategy,
customers, people and processes. However, even though the relationship is
positive, the P-values indicate that it is statistically insignificant. Hypothesis H02 is
therefore not rejected.

The correlation results are based on the overall sample. A comparison of the
highest and lowest rated organisations scores on both variables is discussed in
section 5.6.

5.6 HYPOTHESIS 3

H03 Strategic leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high
performance companies.
H03 Strategic leadership positively influences strategic alignment in high
performance companies.

This section examines the relationship between the two variables based on
predictive analysis to determine whether a predictive relationship between
strategic leadership and strategic alignment is demonstrated.

The regression analysis presented in table 4.9 for these data indicates no strong
causal relationship between the two variables even though the correlation
indicates a weak positive relationship for the total sample. A possible
interpretation of this is that the critical criteria do not influence alignment in
organisations. However, the conclusions in section 5.4 indicate that a strong X
variable correlates to a moderate Y variable in the sample.

188
As discussed in section 5.5 above, the results for hypothesis H03 indicate a weak
positive relationship between the two variables X and Y for the sample. However,
even though the relationship is positive, the P-values indicate that it is statistically
insignificant. Since the regression analysis does not indicate a strong causal
relationship between variables X and Y, hypothesis H03 is not rejected.

The results have been presented for the sample. An examination of the
responses by individual organisations and particularly the responses of the
organisations that reflect the highest and lowest scores will provide greater insight.
This is discussed in the section 5.6.1.

5.6.1 Comparison of the critical criteria scores in the most and least aligned
companies
The components of the critical criteria and strategic alignment measures show the
impact of the six critical criteria on business effectiveness. The scores for the
organisations indicate that organisation B had the highest mean score (table 4.3)
of 6.7, organisation E, the lowest score of 4.77, and the remaining organisations,
A, C, D and F, were fairly closely clustered between 5.87 and 6.18 around a
sample mean of 5.95.

On the alignment scale (table 4.6), organisation B again had the highest rated
score with a mean of 5.47, and organisation E the lowest, with a mean of 3.89,
with the remaining organisations A, C, D and F clustered around the mean of 4.25
with scores between 3.93 and 4.10.

The two sets of scores for variables X and Y indicate similar patterns. A
comparison of the scores in table 5.3 clearly shows the impact of the TMT’s
perception of value and its communication and deployment of each criterion
throughout the company.

189
Table 5.3: Comparison of the highest and lowest scores for the two
variables
Variable X Variable Y
Critical criteria Alignment

Alignment
Highest Lowest Highest Lowest
construct

Organisation Mean B E Mean B E

1 Determining
strategic 6.219 7.000 4.600 4.398 5.20 4.13 Strategy
direction
2 Exploiting and
maintaining
5.969 6.800 4.400 4.279 5.60 3.88 Customers
core
competencies
3 Developing
5.847 6.667 4.200
human capital
4 Sustaining an 3.830 5.40 3.50 People
effective
5.856 6.667 5.000
corporate
culture
5 Emphasising
5.733 6.667 5.000
ethical practices
6 Establishing 4.601 5.80 4.25 Processes
strategic 5.800 6.50 5.200
controls

Mean 5.904 6.670 4.733 4.277 5.50 3.93

Sum Sum
35.425 40.00 28.40 22.00 15.70
(max. 42) (max. 28)
N = 35

Organisation B has the highest scores for the critical criteria and the greatest level
of alignment in the study. Organisation E has the lowest scores for the critical
criteria and the lowest scores for alignment.

There is a significant difference between both sets of scores for the two
organisations, as highlighted below.

190
Critical criteria: B – 40.00 and E –28.40 of a maximum score of 42, with means of
6.67 and 4.73 respectively for variable X.

Alignment: B – 22.00 and E – 15.70 of a maximum score of 28, with means of

5.50 and 3.93 respectively for variable Y.

Figure 5.1 depicts the highest and lowest scores for variable X, critical criteria, and
variable Y, alignment, reflected. Figure 5.1 demonstrates the comparative
organisational responses.

Ratio

Figure 5.1: Graphical representation of the highest and lowest organisational

scores for the two variables

The scores for the critical criteria are the highest in organisation B and reflect the
fact that the TMT are strongly focused on the critical criteria. The scores for
alignment in organisation B indicate the highest level of alignment. In organisation
E, the TMT are moderately focused on critical criteria and reflect a lower score on
the alignment constructs. The ratios reflected in these results show a 96/68 ratio
of critical criteria to alignment for organisation B compared with a 77/57 ratio of
critical criteria to alignment for company E across the two organisations.

191
The conclusion drawn for hypothesis 3 is that, in the South African context, the
ratio of the TMT’s perspective of their effectiveness to employee ability to impact
on the function and operations organisational level is 85/60, with leadership having
a higher view of their effectiveness than is being reflected in the organisation. This
explains the negative result of the regression analysis for hypothesis 4, which
seeks to measure the direct causal relationship.

Of significance is the fact that in the year prior to this research being conducted,
organisation B was rated number 1 on the Deloitte’s “Best company to work for”
assessment, while organisation E was rated 86 out of the 106 participants in the
survey. At a presentation made by a spokesperson from organisation B at the
awards function, attended by the researcher, the reason for its success was cited
as the “alignment of all their employees with the goals and objectives of the
company through a company-wide campaign to centre the employees on ‘the main
focus’ of the organisation”. The spokesperson also cited effective communication
throughout the organisation, which ensures that every employee understood the
company’s strategy, was clearly focused on customer needs and aligned the
people and processes towards meeting these needs as being key to the
organisation’s success.

This level of alignment to the strategic goals of the organisation was reflected in
the high ranking on the Top 200 (2007) list of performing companies in South
Africa at the time of this research study.

5.6.2 Conclusion
Becoming aligned does not simply happen. Someone in a position of power has to
make it happen with a big push or some type of Herculean effort. Real change
almost always starts at the top (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997: 175).

The results for organisation B demonstrate the impact of the TMT ensuring that
the critical criteria are deployed throughout the organisation, resulting in the
highest level of alignment of organisations in the sample.

192
 Organisation B
Strategy
28

8 18

18

Pro cesses 2
2
-
Customers

Peo ple

Figure 5.2: Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for organisation B

The results for organisation E demonstrate the effect of the low level of importance
assigned to the critical criteria and the corresponding low level of alignment in the
organisation.

The critical criteria of strategic leadership were rated the highest in organisation B
and the lowest in organisation E.

Organisation E
Strategy
28

18

18

Pro cesses 2
-
28 Customers

Peo ple

Figure 5.3: Radar diagram illustrating strategic alignment for organisation E

193
As discussed, the scores for the individual questions demonstrated a high level of
the TMT’s commitment to these criteria in organisation B as experienced by the
employees in the organisation. The four constructs of strategy, customers, people
and processes are extremely closely aligned in organisation B (figure 5.2).

By contrast, the moderate level of commitment by the TMT to the critical criteria of
strategic leadership, which was rated lowest in organisation E, is demonstrated by
the low level of alignment in organisation E (figure 5.3).

The sample indicates that, in the South African context, the TMT rate the critical
criteria as being highly important, whereas alignment is rated as important. The
results also show that the alignment scores indicate moderate positive
implementation of the critical criteria by leadership in the sample.

The results for organisations A, C, D and F indicate that the employee scores
show that these organisations place greater emphasis on managerial leadership at
operational level than on strategic leadership, as opposed to the view of the TMT
in these organisations which rate strategic leadership more highly. In essence, the
indications are that strategy is moderately aligned to customer needs, moderately
communicated throughout the organisation and operational processes and
employees are responding accordingly.

The responses of employees on the respective questions of the alignment

construct suggest that the low correlation and P-values for the sample is a
reflection of the TMT’s failure to “walk the talk” instead of demonstrating that
strategic leadership does not positively influence strategic alignment in high-
performing companies. Organisation B clearly demonstrated the fact that strategic
leadership does positively influence strategic alignment in that company.
Organisation E clearly demonstrated that where the TMT were not focused on
strategy, the communication and deployment of strategy throughout the
organisation in an effort to ensure that processes and competencies are focused

194
on meeting the needs of the customer, strategic leadership did not positively
influence strategic alignment.

The regression analysis and P-values for the sample do not confirm a strong
causal relationship between critical criteria and alignment for the overall sample.
However, as discussed above, in the South African context, the ratio analysis
suggests a possible causal relationship for this gap. The results also indicate that
the TMT in four of the organisations have a higher view of their performance on
the critical criteria than is reflected in the organisation and that this influenced the
mean scores for the sample.

A causal relationship is supported by the results for organisations B and E which

indicate a causal relationship between strategic leadership critical criteria and
alignment of the four constructs of strategy, customer, processes and people in
high-performing organisations.

If alignment and follow-up are crucial to success, the question posed by Khadem
(2008: 29) and discussed in 2.4.2, is as follows: Why are so many organisations
with competent, creative and determined resources lacking in these two elements?
Khadem (2008) further maintains that organisations that lack alignment often have
competent, creative and determined resources that do not agree with the strategy,
do not share the vision, or do not buy into the culture of the organisation as
defined by the top team. Total alignment encompasses both alignment and
integration by the TMT in order to achieve success in the organisation.

The results of this study indicate that organisations A, C, D and F do in fact

demonstrate this. The TMT rate critical competencies highly, but the resultant
level of alignment indicates a lack of integration from the TMT. However,
organisations B and E demonstrate the integration of the TMT with the critical
criteria and levels of alignment shown in the study results.

195
5.7 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY

The major contribution of this study is that it is the first empirical test of the
relationships between strategic leadership and strategic alignment in high-
performing organisations in South Africa.

There has been increasing interest in strategic leadership over the past ten years.
Much has been written from a theoretical perspective, but no studies have actually
attempted to establish these linkages. Studies have researched the relationship
between some of the critical components, for example, the impact of culture on
performance and the impact of leadership on innovation, as discussed in chapters
1 and 2.

There are three such studies, Firstly, Mackey (2008) examined the effect of the
CEO on organisation performance (appendix D). This study tracked the impact of
turnover in CEOs on organisation performance as opposed to actual CEO
effectiveness in managing the organisation. Secondly, Serfontein (2009)
examined the impact of strategic leadership on the operational strategy and
performance of business organisations in South Africa (appendix C). Thirdly,
Jooste and Fourie (2009) studied the role of strategic leadership in effective
strategy implementation (appendix B).

The major limitation of the studies by Serfontein (2009) and Jooste and Fourie
(2009) is that they were based on only the CEO’s response, in the first instance,
and the board directors who have no executive responsibility in organisations, in
the second instance. These were simple studies with responses from only one
person in the organisation in the first study and a sample of up to five board
members representing the organisations in the second study. No investigation
was conducted in the organisation to verify and examine the responses or
opinions of the leadership expressed in the study in either of these studies.

196
As an exploratory study, this study attempted to measure the relationship between
the two variables of strategic leadership and strategic alignment in order to
determine the factors that influence organisational performance.

The implications of the findings of this study suggest that there is a weak positive
relationship between strategic leadership and strategic alignment in high-
performing organisations. However, the relationship is not directly proportionate,
but shows that top leadership have a higher level of confidence in their
performance on the six critical criteria than is reflected in the experience at
organisational level by its employees.

The benefit of this research is that it indicates areas that could be further explored
as possible opportunities for improving performance in companies.

The main conclusion is that the critical criteria are important in high performing
companies. Strategic leadership is the determinant factor in high-performing
organisations.

5.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

In this study, a random sample was used to test the relationships. Future research
could be conducted with an increased sample size in order to confirm the results
and make them more generalisable.

The study required a target number of six organisations in the sample. The
researcher experienced great difficulty obtaining commitment from companies to
participate in the study. The following reasons were given for declining the
researcher’s request: the organisation was too busy; the organisation had recently
conducted similar research; the organisation did not participate in any studies of
this kind conducted by external researchers; the timing was not suitable; and the
organisation had received too many research requests and could not participate in
all the studies. In spite of the challenges experienced, the CEO of one participating

197
organisation stated the following: “If we do not participate in studies of this nature,
we will not gain any new knowledge.” He thus committed his organisation to
participating in the study.

The fact that the research required a more rigorous response from participating
organisations in the sense that the whole TMT was required to participate along
with 100 employees, increased the organisations’ involvement, and is seen as a
contributing factor to the difficulty experienced by the organisations to participate.

It is easier for one representative to complete a survey than it is to commit the

organisation’s TMT and employees to such a study. A further factor is that there is
less risk of exposure of leadership’s inadequacies or weaknesses when no cross-
verification of responses is obtained.

The difficulty experienced in obtaining commitment from sufficient organisations

resulted in the prolonged duration of the study.

The ranking accorded the companies by the Financial Mail were not a variable in
the study – it served merely to indicate the performance ranking on the list from
which the sample was drawn.

The study did not evaluate the strategy of the company in terms of whether or not
it was a good strategy, but focused on the company’s ability to deploy and
implement the strategy throughout the organisation which was designed and
articulated by its leadership and whether the employees considered they had been
involved in the development of the strategy. It is worth noting that an organisation
can have the most outstanding strategy, but it will only show results if such a
strategy is understood by the company at all levels and that all processes in the
business are totally aligned to achieving those objectives.

198
5.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study confirms the view of Elenkov (2008: 37) that, without effective strategic
leadership, a company’s capability to achieve or sustain a competitive advantage
is greatly constrained. Elenkov (2008) maintains that little empirical evidence has
been provided concerning the effects of leadership at a strategic level on
organisational processes with distinctive strategic importance and that innovation
can help companies achieve sustainable competitive superiority.

This study builds on the theories of previous research in the field of strategic
leadership and has opened up new avenues of thinking about the areas of
strategic leadership and alignment in high performance organisations.

The following further research topics arise from the empirical findings of this study:

1. The study could be replicated but with a larger sample of companies of

different sizes. Each company represented a different industry, suggesting
the applicability and generalisability of the study in any industry. However,
before the research can be generalised, it would be of value to replicate the
study with a wider sample of companies and industries.
2. A study of the communication processes between the TMT and the
organisation would provide valuable insight.
3. International benchmarking would provide valuable insight into the 85/60
ratio of the leadership versus employee perspective of leadership
performance on the critical criteria.

5.10 CONCLUSION

The main contribution of this study was the assessment that strategic leadership is
directly and indirectly positively associated with high performance in business
organisations in South Africa. The six critical criteria are important for leadership.

199
Effective implementation of these criteria will lead to aligned organisations, and
aligned organisations are high-performing organisations.

Analysis of the results has shown that the six critical criteria are important in high-
performing organisations. However, the rating of these criteria highly by the top
leadership is insufficient per se. Mere “lip service” of commitment to these critical
criteria does not reflect high levels of organisation alignment.

Top leadership can affect high performance in the organisations they lead by their
own commitment to the implementation of these critical criteria throughout the
organisations.

The challenges of competition in a global environment in the remainder of the 21st

century will be difficult and complex. This study has sought to identify criteria that
will help leaders enhance their ability to effectively lead high-performing
organisations into the future.

200
LIST OF REFERENCES

Abell, D.F. 2006. The future of strategy is leadership. Journal of Business

Research, 59: 310–314.

Antonakis, J. & House R.J. 2002. An analysis of the full-range leadership theory:
the way forward, in Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road
ahead, edited by B.J. Avolio & F. Yammarino. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science: 3–33.

Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P. & Wilson, D. 2004. Using and validating the
strategic alignment model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13:
223–246.

Avolio, B. & Luthans, F. 2006. The high impact leader. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 93(3): 75–78.

Bantel K. & Jackson S. 1989. Top managers and innovations in banking: does the
composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management
Journal, 10, Special Summer Edition: 107–124.

Barney, J.B. 1986. Organisational culture: can it be a source of sustained

competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 656–665.

Barney, J.B. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New York:
Addison-Wesley (see chapter 2).

201
Barron, B.G. & Henderson, M.V. 1995. Strategic leadership: a theoretical and
operational definition. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2), June:
178–181.

Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press.

Bass, B.M. 2007. Executive and strategic leadership. International Journal of

Business, 12(1): 34–52.

Bennis, W. & Nanus. B. 1985. Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper & Row.

Beschorner, T. 2006. Ethical theory and business practices: the case of discourse
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 127–139.

Bipath, M. 2007. The dynamic effects of leader emotional intelligence and

organisational culture on organisational performance. DBL thesis,
University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Black, J.A. & Boal. K.B. 1996. Assessing the organisational capacity to change, in
Competence-based strategic management, edited by A. Heene & R.
Sanchez. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley: 151–180.

Boal, K.B. & Hooijberg, R. 2001. Strategic leadership research: moving on.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), Winter: 515–549.

Boal, K.B. & Schultz, P.L. 2007. Storytelling, time, and evolution: the role of
strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. Leadership Quarterly,
18: 411–428.

202
Brigham, E.F. & Ehrhardt, M.C. 2008. Financial management theory and practice.
12th edition. Willard, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Bryman. A 1992. Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage.

Caldwell, C., Bischoff, S.J. & Karri, R. 2002. The four umpires: a paradigm for
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1/2): 153–163.

Campbell, B., Kay, R. & Avison, D. 2005. Strategic alignment: a practitioner’s

perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(6): 653–
664.

Cannella, A.A. & Monroe, M.J. 1997. Contrasting perspectives on strategic

leaders: toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of
Management, 23(3): 213–237.

Castro, F.G., Kellison, J.G., Boyd, S.J. & Kopak, A. 2010. A methodology for
conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4): 342–360.

Child, J. 1972. Organisational structure, environment, and performance: the role of

strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1–22.

Ciborra, C.U. 1997. De profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic

alignment. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9(1): 67–82.

Clardy, A. 2007. Strategy, core competencies and human resource development.

Human Resource Development International, 10(3) 339–349.

Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

Collins, J. 2001. Good to great. London: Random House.

203
Conger, J. 1991. Inspiring others: the language of leadership. The Academy of
Management Executive, 5(1), 31–45.

Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. 1998. Business research methods. Boston: Irwin
McGraw Hill International.

Covey, M.R. & Merrill, R.R. 2006. The speed of trust. New York: Free Press.

Daft, R.L. 2011. The leadership experience. 5th edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: Cengage
Learning South-Western.

Davies, B.J. & Davies, B. 2004. Strategic leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 24(1), 30–38.

Day, D.V. & Lord, R.G. 1988. Executive leadership and organisational
performance. Journal of Management, 14, 453–464.

Deloitte. 2007. Top industry winners. “Best companies to work for” survey.
http://www.bestcompany.co.za/default.asp?pageID=508&menuID=09
(accessed on 12 August 2007).

Dollinger, M.J. 1984. Environmental boundary spanning and information

processing effects on organisational performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 27(2), 351–368.

Drucker, P.F., Dyson, E., Handy, C., Saffo, P. & Senge, P.M. 1997. Looking
ahead: implications of the present. Harvard Business Review, 75 (5): 18–
32.

Drucker, P.F. 2002 (reprint). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Elenkov, D.S. 2008. Effects of leadership at strategic level and its moderators on
innovation: an international empirical study. International Journal of
Business Strategy, 8(2): 37–47.

204
Elenkov, D.S., Judge, W. & Wright, P. 2005. Strategic leadership and executive
innovation influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study.
Strategic Management Journal, 26: 665–682.

Fawcett, S.E., Smith, S.R. & Cooper, M.B. 1996. Strategic intent, measurement
capability and operational success: making the connection. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 27(7): 410–421.

Fiedler, F.E. 1996. Research on leadership selection and training: one view of the
future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2): 241–251.

Financial Mail. Top 2007 Companies. June.

http://www.topcompanies.co.za/topcos2007/tables/200topperformers.html
(accessed on 12 August 2007).

Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D.C. 1996. Strategic leadership: top executives and
their effects on organisations. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West.

Fonvielle, W. & Carr, L.P. 2001. Gaining strategic alignment: making scorecards
work. Management Accounting Quarterly, Fall: 4–14.

Garson, G.D. 1998. Validity.

http://faculty,chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/validity.htm (accessed on 24
March 2010).

Gary, J. 2005. Peak futures, foresight in strategic leadership.

http://www.jaygary.com/peakfutures/model_strategic_leadership.shtml
(accessed on 8 July 2011).

Gibney, J., Copeland, S. & Murie, A. 2009. Toward a “new” strategic leadership of
place for the knowledge-based economy. SAGE Publications, 5(1): 5–23.

Gillham, B. 2000. Developing a questionnaire. London & New York: Continuum.

Grant, R.M. 1995. Contemporary strategy analysis. Oxford: Blackwell: 126–145.

205
Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C.R. 1996. Understanding radical organisational
change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of
Management Review, 21: 1022–1054.

Grigoryev, P. 2006. Hiring by competency models. The Journal for Quality and
Participation, Winter: 16–18.

Hagen, A.F., Hassan, M.T. & Amin, S.G. 1998. Critical strategic leadership
components: an empirical investigation. SAM Advanced Management
Journal, 63(3): 39–44.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. 2006.
Multivariate data analysis. 6th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Halbesleben, J., Novicevic, M., Harvey, M. & Buckley, M. 2003. Awareness of

temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation: a
competency-based model. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5): 433–454.

Hambrick, D.C. & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: a bridge between

polar views of organisational outcomes, in Research in organisational
behaviour, edited by L.L. Cummings & B. Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press:
369–406.

Hambrick, D. & Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: the organisation as a reflection

of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.

Hambrick, D. & Pettigrew, A. 2001. Upper echelons: Donald Hambrick on

executives and strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3): 36–44.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. 2005. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review,
67(3): 148–161.

Hammonds, K.H. 2001. Michael Porter's big ideas. Fast Company, 44, March:
150–156.

206
Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F. & Harms, P.D. 2008. Leadership efficacy:
review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, (19): 669–692.

Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. 1997. The population ecology of organisations.

American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929–964.

Heifetz, R.A. & Laurie, D.L. 1997. The work of leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 75(10): 124–134.

Hewson, R. 1997. New dimensions in strategic leadership. Strategy and

Leadership, 25(5), September-October: 42–48.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. 1995. Strategic management:
competitiveness and globalization concepts. St. Paul, Minn.: West.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. 2001. Strategic management:
competitiveness and globalization. 4th edition. Cincinnati, Ohio:
Thomson/South Western.

Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W. & DeMarie, S.M. 1998. Navigating in the new competitive
landscape: building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st
century. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 22–42.

Hollenbeck, G.P. 2009. Executive selection: what’s right … what’s wrong.

Industrial Psychology, 2: 130–143.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J.G. & Dodge, G.E. 1997. Leadership complexity and
development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–
408.

Hopkins, W.G. 2000. Sportscience 4(1).

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html (accessed on 15 January
2010.

207
Hosmer, L.T. 1982. The importance of strategic leadership. The Journal of
Business Strategy, 3(2): 47–57.

House, R.J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership, in Leadership: the

cutting edge, edited by J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson. Carebondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press: 189–207.

House, R.J. & Aditya, R.N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: quo
vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3): 409–554.

Hunt, J.G. 1999. Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the

field: an historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 129–144.

Hyman, L., Lamb, J. & Bulmer, M. 2006. The use of pre-existing survey questions:
implications for data quality. Proceedings of Q2006 European Conference
on Quality in Survey Statistics.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/quality/documents/Pre-
existing%20surveys (accessed on 8 November 2011).

Iman, N. & Hartono, J. 2007. Strategic alignment impacts on organisational

performance in Indonesian banking industry. Gadjah Mada International
Journal of Business, 9(2): 253–272.

Ireland, R.D. & Hitt, M.A. 1999. Achieving and maintaining strategic
competitiveness in the 21st century: the role of strategic leadership.
Academy of Management Executive, 13(1): 43–57.

Jaques, E. 1989. Requisite organization. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall.

Jooste, C. & Fourie, B. 2009. The role of strategic leadership in effective strategy
implementation: perceptions of South African strategic leaders. South
African Business Review, 13(3): 51–68.

Kaiser, R.B., DeVries, K. & Hogan, R. 2006. The dark side of discretion: leader
personality and organisational decline. Hogan Assessment Systems Inc.

208
 http://www.hoganassessments.com/sites/default/files/Dark%20Side%20of%
20Discretioandn.pdf (accessed 21 August 2011).

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. 1996. Translating strategy into action: the balanced
scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. 2006. Alignment: using the balanced scorecard to
create corporate synergies. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Kathuria, R. & Partovi, F.Y. 2000. Aligning workforce management practices with
competitive priorities and process technology: a conceptual examination.
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(2): 215–235.

Keating, M., Martin, G.S., Resick, C.J. & Dickson, M.W. 2007. A comparative
study of the endorsement of ethical leadership in Ireland and the United
States. Irish Journal of Management, 28(1): 5–30.

Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. 1983. An estimate of variance due to traits in
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 678–685.

Kerlinger, F.N. & Lee, H.B. 2000. Foundations of behavioural research. Orlando,
Fla: Harcourt College Publishers.

Kessler, E.H. & Chakrabarti, A.K. 1996. Innovation speed: a conceptual model of
context, antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 21:
1143–1191.

Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R. 2009. How strategy shapes structure. Harvard
Business Review, September: 73–80.

Khadem, R. 2008. Alignment and follow-up: steps to strategy execution. Journal

of Business Strategy, 29(6): 29–35.

Kotter, J.P. 2001. What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, December:
85–96.

209
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. 1987. The leadership challenge: how to get
extraordinary things done in organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Labovitz, G.H. 2004. The power of alignment: how the right tools enhance
organisational focus. Business Performance Management, October: 30–35.

Labovitz, G. & Rosansky, V. 1997. The power of alignment: how great companies
stay centred and accomplish extraordinary things. New York: Wiley.

Lawler, E.E., Mohman, S.A & Ledford, G.E. Jr. 1998. Strategies for high
performance organisations: employee involvement – TQM and
reengineering programs in Fortune 1000 corporations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lear, L.W. 2000. Management transformation in the public sector: a critical

analysis of the importance of strategic alignment in effective service
delivery within government structures. MBL thesis, University of South
Africa, Pretoria.

Lord, R.G. 1977. Functional leadership behaviour: measurement and relation to

social power and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly,
22: 114–133.

Mackey, A. 2008. The effect of CEOs on organisation performance. Strategic

Management Journal, 29: 1357–1367.

McCann, J. & Holt, R. 2009. Ethical leadership and organisations: an analysis of

leadership in the manufacturing industry based on the perceived
Leadership Integrity Scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 211–220.

Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Luft, J., Stewart, D.M., Zsidisin, G.A., Hanson, J. &
Burns, L. 2005. An empirical investigation of the metrics alignment process.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
54(5/6): 312–324.

210
Mendonca, M. 2001. Preparing for ethical leadership in organisations. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 4: 266–276.

Messick, D.M. & Bazerman, M.H. 1996. Ethical leadership and the psychology of
decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2): 9–22.

Mouton, J. 2003. How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies: a South
African guide and resources book. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Narayanan, V.K. & Zane, L.J. 2009. Inventing a future for strategic leadership:
phenomenal variety and epistemic opportunities. Journal of Strategy and
Management, 2(4): 380–404.

Ncube, L.B. & Wasburn, M.H. 2006. Strategic collaboration for ethical leadership:
mentoring framework for business and organisational decision making.
Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 13(1): 77–92.

Neuman, W.L. 2000. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Neuman, W.L. 2006. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative

approaches. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education.

Nicholls, J. 1994. The “heart, head and hands” of transforming leadership.

Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 15(6): 8–15.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation.

Organisational Science, 5(1), 14–37.

Nunnally, L. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nutt, P.C. & Backoff, R.W. 1997. Crafting vision. Journal of Management Inquiry,
6: 308–328.

211
Nyabdza, G.W. 2008. The lived experience of the strategic leader: what effective
CEO’s do, how they do it and an exploration into how they think about it.
DBL thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Orndoff, K. 2002. Developing strategic competencies: a starting point. The

Information Management Journal, July-August: 57–62.

O'Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A., Lapiz, M. & Self, W. 2010. How
leadership matters: the effects of leaders' alignment on strategy
implementation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 104–113.

Panico, C.R. 2004. Global cosmetics industry. http://www.TheCosmeticSite.com

(accessed 10 January 2010).

Papadakis, V. & Bourantas, D. 1998. The chief executive officer as corporate

champion of technological innovation: an empirical investigation.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(1): 89–110.

Papke-Shields, K.E. & Malhotra, M.K. 2001. Assessing the impact of the
manufacturing executive’s role on business performance through strategic
alignment. Journal of Operations Management, 19: 5–22.

Peak, D. & Guynes, C.S. 2003. The IT alignment planning process. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, Fall: 9–15.

Raymond, L. & Croteau, A. 2009. Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in

medium-sized enterprises: performance effects of strategic alignment. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2): 192–202.

Ready, D.A. 2004. The characteristics of great leader–builder companies.

Business Strategy Review, Autumn: 36–40.

Resick, C.J., Hanges, P.J., Dickson, M.W. & Mitchelson, J.K. 2006. A cross-
cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of
Business Ethics, 63: 345–359.

212
Rowsell, K. & Berry, T. 1993. Leadership, vision, values and systematic wisdom.
Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 14(7): 18–22.

Rowe, W.G. 2001. Creating wealth in organisations: the role of strategic

leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1): 81–94.

Rowe, G. & Nejad, M.H. 2009. Strategic leadership: short-term stability and long-
term viability. Ivey Business Journal, 73(5): 6–11.

Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, J. 1977. Constraints on administrator’s discretion: the

limited influence of mayors on city budgets’. Urban Affairs Quarterly 12(4):
475–496.

Sanders, T.J. & Davey, K.S. 2011. Out of the leadership theory jungle: a proposed
meta-model of strategic leadership. Proceedings of the Academy of
Strategic Management, 10(1): 41–46.

Sanders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 1997. Research methods for business
students. London: Financial Times Publishing.

Sauser, W.I. 2005. Ethics in business: answering the call. Journal of Business
Ethics, 58(4): 345–357.

Schneider, B., Godfrey, E.G., Hayes, S.C., Huang, M., Lim, B., Nishi, L.H., Raver,
J.L. & Ziegert, J.C. 2003. The human side of strategy: employee
experiences of strategic alignment in a service organisation. Organisational
Dynamics, 32(2): 122–141.

Sekaran, U. 1992. Research methods in business: a skill building approach. New

York: Wiley.

Serfontein, J.J. 2009. The impact of strategic leadership on the operational

strategy and performance of business organisations in South Africa. DBM
thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.

213
Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: a self-concept theory. Organisation Science, 4: 1–
17.

Sieber, J.E. & Lanzetta, J.T. 1964. Conflict and conceptual structure as
determinants of decision making behaviour. Journal of Personality, 32:
622–641.

Siegel, A.F. 1997. Practical business statistics. 3rd edition. Chicago: Irwin.

Smith, J.E., Carson, K.P. & Alexander, R.A. 1984. Leadership: it can make a
difference. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4): 765–776.

Smith, C.E. 1994. The Merlin factor: leadership and strategic intent. Business
Strategy Review Spring, 5 (1): 67–83.

Sonnad, S.S. 2002. Describing data: statistical and graphical methods. Radiology,
225: 622-628.

Sorcher, M. & Brant, J. 2002. Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business
Review, February: 78–85.

Sosik, J.J., Jung, D.I., Berson, Y., Dionne, S.D. & Jaussi, K.S. 2005. The strategic
leadership of top executives in high-tech organisations. Organisational
Dynamics, 34(1): 47–61.

Srivastava, S.C. 2005. Managing core competence of the organisation. Vikalpa,

30(4): 49–63.

Storey, J. 2005. What next for strategic-level leadership research? SAGE

Publications, 1(1): 89–104.

Strange, J. & Mumford, M. 2002. The origins of vision: charismatic versus

ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 343–377.

214
Tavakoli, I. & Perks, K.J. 2001. The development of a strategic control system for
the management of strategic change. Strategic Change, 10: 297–305.

Thomas, A.S. 1988. Does leadership make a difference to organisational

performance? Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 388–400.

Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J.R. & Dienhart J.W. 2004. Strategic leadership of
ethical behaviour in business. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2):
56–66.

Thompson, A.A., Strickland, A.J. & Gamble, J.E. 2010. Crafting and executing
strategy. 17th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. & Green G. 1999. An examination of leadership and

employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 52: 591–620.

Treen, D. 2000. Strategic human resources. Ivey Business Journal, 64(3): 62–68.

Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L.P. & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager:
how executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California
Management Review, 42(4): 128–142.

Tuckman, B.W. 1964. Personality structure, groups composition and group

functioning. Sociometry, 27: 469–487.

Vera, D. & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organisational learning.

Academy of Management Review, 29(2): 222–240.

Waldman, D.A., Javidan, M. & Varella, P. 2004. Charismatic leadership at the

strategic level: a new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15: 355–380.

Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership
matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of

215
 perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal,
44(1): 134–143.

Westley, F.R. 1989. Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic

Management Journal, 10: 17–32.

Westley, F.R. & Mintzberg, H. 1988. Profiles of strategic vision: Leversque and
Iacoca, in Charismatic leadership: the elusive factor in organisations, edited
by J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo. New York: Jossey-Bass: 161–212.

Wheeler, S., McFarland, W. & Kleiner, A. 2007. A blueprint for strategic

leadership. Strategy and Business, 49: 1–13.

Williams, D. 2007. Financial Mail Top Companies. Rosebank: BDFM.

Worden, S. 2005. Religion in strategic leadership: a positivistic,

normative/theological, and strategic analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
57: 221–239.

Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in organisations. 4th edition. Engelwood Cliff, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S.J. & Banks, D. 2004. Leader visioning and adaptability: bridging the
gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage
change. Human Resource Management, 43(4): 367–380.

Zaccaro, S.J. & Horn, Z.N.J. 2003. Leadership theory and practice: fostering an
effective symbiosis. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 706–806.

Zahra, S.A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial

performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4):
319–340.

Zaleznik, A. 1977. Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business
Review, May–June.

216
Zhu, W., May, D.R. & Avolio, B.J. 2004. The impact of ethical leadership behaviour
on employee outcomes: the roles of psychological empowerment and
authenticity. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 11(1): 16–
26.

Zikmund, W.G. 2003. Business research methods. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-

Western.

217
APPENDIX A: STUDY ON RANKING OF CRITICAL COMPONENTS

Comparison between the mean scores of the responses of American CEOs who
disagreed and those who agreed with the suggested ranking order of the most
critical strategic leadership components (Hagen et al., 1998: 5, 7)

Research methods
The research methods included a survey questionnaire, sample and data
collection and statistical techniques. This study used the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS-X) to compute the frequencies, means, percentages and
chi-squares.

The survey questionnaire was developed by the researchers in this study to

include the six critical corporate strategic leadership components developed by
Hitt et al. (1995). The ranking suggested by the authors in their strategic
leadership model included determining strategic direction, exploiting and
maintaining core competencies, developing human capital, sustaining an effective
corporate culture, emphasising ethical practices and establishing strategic
controls.

The questionnaire consisted of six statements intended to assess the opinions of

the surveyed CEOs about the ranking of the suggested leadership components.
Each statement was in the form of a five-point Likert response format ranging from
“strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The scale points of “neither disagree
nor agree” were excluded from the data analysis.

A pilot study was conducted to verify the construct validity of the questionnaire and
the split-half procedure was used to verify its reliability. The split-half procedure is
used for an internal consistency measure of test reliability and is obtained by
dividing the items into halves and correlating the scores on these halves. The most
common procedure is to obtain the odd-even reliability by correlating the scores on

218
odd-numbered and even-numbered test items. The questionnaire was found to be
both valid and reliable.

Table A.1
Comparison between the mean scores of the responses of American CEOs
who disagreed and those who agreed with the suggested rank order of the
most critical strategic leadership components
Strongly Neither Strongly
Ranking Chi- Sig.
Components disagree agree or agree &
order square level
& disagree disagree agree
(1) Determining the
organisation’s 1 4% 3% 93% 46 .0000
strategic direction
(2) Developing
2 4% 5% 91% 38 .0000
human capital
(3) Exploiting and
maintaining core 3 7% 4% 89% 25 .0001
competencies
(4) Sustaining an
effective corporate 4 10% 3% 87% 28 .0001
culture
(5) Emphasising
5 9% 6% 85% 27 .0001
ethical practices
(6) Establishing
6 10% 7% 83% 22 .0001
strategic controls

219
APPENDIX B: STUDY OF THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP IN
EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

Perceptions of South African strategic leaders research results (Jooste & Fourie,
2009)

In the study conducted by Jooste and Fourie (2009), the objective of the research
was to investigate the perceived role of strategic leadership in strategy
implementation in South African organisations.

The research instrument was a structured self-administered mail questionnaire

mailed to the 930 randomly selected nonexecutive directors of the Financial Mail’s
Top 200 companies. In total, 71 questionnaires were completed and returned.
The rate of response was 7.8%.

Table 3: Perceived effectiveness of strategy implementation

Very
No Small Moderate Large large Mean Standard
Statement extent extent extent (%) extent extent (M) deviation
(%) (%) (%) (%) (SD)
That your
organisation is 13.0 31.9 33.3 21.7 0 2.65 .97
better at
formulating
strategy than at
implementing
strategy
That there is a
gap between 8.6 40.0 30.0 20.0 1.4 2.67 .95
the formulation
of and the
effective
implementation
of strategy in
your
organisation
That your
organisation is 1.4 11.4 28.6 45.7 12.9 3.58 .90
effective at
implementing
strategy
Source: Jooste & Fourie (2009: 59)

220
In the study by Jooste and Fourie (2009), the questionnaire contained attitude-
measuring questions in which the respondents reflected their opinions on or
attitudes towards the importance and effectiveness of strategy implementation in
their organisations. The respondents’ level of agreement with each of the
statements was measured on a five-point Likert scale, where “1” represents “no
extent” and “5” “very large extent”. It is evident from table 3 that the respondents
have different perceptions. More than half (55%) agree that their organisations are
better at formulating than implementing strategy, but the mean score for this item
is less than 3.00 (M = 2.65). More than half (51.4%) of the respondents agree that
there is a moderate to very large gap between strategy formulation and effective
strategy implementation, and the mean score for this item is less than 3.00 (M =
2.67). Almost three out of five respondents (58.6%) agree to a “large extent” and
“very large extent” that their organisations are effective at strategy implementation,
while only 12.9% rate it as effective to a “very large extent”. The mean score for
this item is more than 3.00 (M = 3.58).

The responses indicate that although the majority of the respondents are of the
opinion that their organisations are relatively effective at implementing strategy,
they still perceive a gap between the effective formulation and implementation of
strategy in their organisations. This indicates a level of uncertainty and doubt
about the effectiveness of strategy implementation and whether formulated
strategies are implemented to their full potential.

Barriers to effective strategy implementation

Section B of the questionnaire was designed to measure the perceptions of the
respondents about the perceived barriers to effective strategy implementation in
their organisations. The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to
which they believe that each of the items mentioned is a barrier to effective
strategy implementation in their organisations. A five-point Likert scale was used,
where “1” indicates agreement to “no extent” and “5” agreement to a “very large
extent”.

221
From table 4, it is evident that the mean scores for 14 of the 15 statements are
less than 3.00. This is an indication that the respondents did not perceive many of
the mentioned factors to be important barriers to effective strategy implementation
in the organisations.

Table 4: Barriers to effective strategy implementation

Very
No Small Moderate Large large Mean Standard
Statement extent extent extent extent extent (M) deviation
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (SD)
The organisation’s
strategy is not 7.0 29.6 33.8 25.4 4.2 2.93 1.02
effectively
communicated to
the workforce
The workforce
does not 5.6 26.8 32.4 29.6 5.6 3.05 1.03
understand the
organisation ‘s
strategy
The strategic
leaders of the 24.3 44.3 18.6 8.6 4.3 2.24 1.06
organisation do not
provide strategic
direction for the
organisation
The goals of and
incentives for the 15.5 33.8 22.5 19.7 8.5 2.71 1.18
workforce are not
aligned with the
strategy of the
organisation
The allocation of
resources is not 18.6 32.9 28.6 8.6 11.4 2.61 1.21
aligned with the
strategy of the
organisation
There is a lack of
alignment between 28.6 28.6 20.0 17.1 5.7 2.43 1.24
the culture of the
organisation and
the strategy of the
organisation
There is an inability
to manage change 7.0 46.5 23.9 18.3 4.2 2.64 1.01
effectively
The strategies are
poorly or vaguely 30.0 42.9 15.7 8.6 2.9 2.13 1.05
formulated
Top managers do
not support 42.3 38.0 8.5 5.6 5.6 1.93 1.11
strategy
implementation

222
The
implementation of 20.00 40.00 21.4 12.9 5.7 2.44 1.11
strategy is not
effectively
controlled
Ethical practices
are not evident in 64.8 25.4 4.2 4.2 1.4 1.52 .87
strategy
implementation
The leaders are not
competent enough 37.1 34.3 20.0 4.3 4.3 2.03 1.06
to implement
strategy
The core
competencies are 23.9 45.1 12.7 15.5 2.8 2.27 1.08
not aligned with the
strategy of the
organisation
Human capital is
not effectively 12.7 35.2 26.8 21.1 3.2 2.68 1.09
developed to
support strategy
implementation
Social capital is not
effectively 15.5 38.0 31.0 15.5 0 2.48 .99
developed to
support strategy
implementation
Source: Jooste & Fourie (2009: 61)

Drivers of strategy implementation

The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which the items
mentioned contribute positively to effective strategy implementation in their
organisations. A five-point Likert scale was used, where “1” indicates agreement
to “no extent” and “5” agreement to a “very large extent”.

It is evident from table 5 that the mean scores for all seven items exceeded 3.00,
ranging between 3.05 and 3.96. This is an indication that the respondents felt that
all of the mentioned factors are important drivers of strategy implementation. Most
of the respondents indicated that the strategic leadership of the organisation is the
most important driver of strategy implementation (M = 3.97).

223
Table 5: Drivers of strategy implementation
Very
No Small Moderate Large large Mean Standard
Statement extent extent extent extent extent (M) deviation
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (SD)
The structure of the
organisation 5.6 14.1 22.5 40.8 3.51 2.65 1.11

The allocation of
resources in the 0 8.5 25.4 46.5 19.7 3.77 .86
organisation
The culture of the
organisation 1.4 8.5 25.4 38.0 26.8 3.78 .99
The performance
system of the 7.0 12.7 29.6 31.0 18.3 3.43 1.14
organisation
The strategic
leadership of the 1.4 4.2 15.5 50.7 28.2 3.97 .87
organisation
Training and
development in the 5.6 21.1 40.8 23.9 8.5 3.08 1.01
organisation
The information
systems of the 7.0 21.1 39.4 25.4 7.0 3.05 1.01
organisation
Source: Jooste & Fourie (2009: 62)

Roles of strategic leadership actions in strategy implementation

Section C of the questionnaire was designed to measure the respondents’
perceptions of the role of specified strategic leadership actions in strategy
implementation in their organisations. The respondents’ perceptions of the extent
to which specific strategic leadership actions contribute positively to effective
strategy implementation in their organisations were measured. A five-point Likert
scale was used, where “1” indicates agreement to “no extent”, and “5” agreement
to a “very large extent”.

It is evident from table 6 that the respondents maintained that all the given
strategic leadership actions contribute positively to effective strategy
implementation in their organisations. This is evident from the fact that the mean
scores for all seven items exceeded 3.00, ranging between 3.25 and 4.29.
“Determining strategic direction for the organisation” obtained the highest mean

224
score (M = 4.29), while “developing social capital” obtained the lowest mean score
(M = 3.25).

Table 6: Roles of strategic leadership actions in strategy implementation

Very
No Small Moderate Large large Mean Standard
Statement extent extent extent extent extent (M) deviation
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (SD)
Determining a
strategic direction 0 4.2 5.6 46.5 43.7 4.29 .76
for the organisation
Establishing
balanced 0 8.6 50.0 35.7 5.7 3.38 .72
organisational
controls
Sustaining an
effective 2.8 7.0 31.0 40.8 18.3 3.67 .96
organisational
culture
Emphasising
ethical practices 0 11.3 45.1 25.4 18.3 3.49 .93

Exploiting and
maintaining core 0 4.2 31.0 42.3 22.5 3.83 .82
competencies
Developing human
capital 1.4 8.5 15.5 49.3 25.4 3.90 .94

Developing social
capital 0 16.9 52.1 21.1 9.9 3.25 .95

Source: Jooste & Fourie (2009: 64)

225
APPENDIX C: STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ON
THE OPERATIONAL STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE OF BUSINESS
ORGANISATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA (SERFONTEIN, 2009)

The purpose of this study was to identify a number of possible direct and indirect
ways of how strategic leadership may influence and impact the operational
strategy and organisational performance of business organisations in South Africa.
The population for the study consisted of the CEOs of the top 200 performing
organisations in South Africa that were part of the Financial Mail survey of 2008.

A total of 118 responses were received. The functional scope of the study focused
on the highest-ranking corporate officers (CEOs), or a member of the senior
executive group was the key informant and it is a self-reported study.

Table 6.5: A summary of the correlation analysis (r) and P-values as well as
the Spearman correlation coefficient comparing the dimensions of strategy
orientation with the constructs of strategic leadership
Dimensions of n Correlation Correlation Spearman Spearman
strategy orientation analysis (r) analysis (P- correlation correlation
value) (p) (P-value)
Action versus
execution of strategy 118 0.71 0.0000 0.64 0.00
Coherence versus
creation of strategy 118 0.76 0.0000 0.74 0.00
Coherence versus
creation of strategy 118 0.76 0.0000 0.68 0.00
Discipline versus
creation of strategy 118 0.62 0.0000 0.62 0.00

The data show a strong positive relationship between action and the execution of
strategy (r = 0.71; p = 0.000). The Spearman correlation coefficient also indicates
the same relationship (p = 0.64; p = 0.00).

226
The influence of strategic leadership on organisational performance
The second hypothesis in the Jooste and Fourie (2009) study was that strategic
leadership (action, coherence and discipline) is directly and positively associated
with organisational performance.

The results of the correlation analysis of the relationship between strategic

leadership and organisational performance are indicated in table 6.7.

Table 6.7: A summary of the correlation analysis (r) and P-values as well as
the Spearman correlation coefficient, comparing the dimensions of self-
reported organisational performance with the constructs of strategic
leadership
Dimensions of n Correlation Correlation Spearman Spearman
strategy orientation analysis (r) analysis (P- correlation correlation
value) (p) (P-value)
Action versus
adaptive leadership 118 0.69 0.0000 0.65 0.00
Action versus
processes and 118 0.67 0.0000 0.58 0.00
systems
Action versus
knowledge 118 0.58 0.0000 0.48 0.00
Coherence versus
autonomy 118 0.72 0.0000 0.66 0.00

Coherence versus
communication 118 0.69 0.0000 0.69 0.00
Coherence versus
knowledge 118 0.69 0.0000 0.66 0.00
Discipline versus
adaptive leadership 118 0.61 0.0000 0.64 0.00
Discipline versus
processes and 118 0.65 0.0000 0.53 0.00
systems
Discipline versus
values 118 0.61 0.0000 0.57 0.00

227
APPENDIX D: STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF CEOS ON FIRM PERFORMANCE

The main hypothesis of Mackey’s (2008) study was to determine the effects of the
CEO on firm performance. Table 3 presents the main results of the study.

Table 3: How much CEOs influence firm performance

DV: corporate DV: segment
ROA ROA
ANOVA % of total ANOVA % of total
estimate estimate
Year effect 0.0181 0.66% 0.405 1.15%
Industry effect 0.1712 6.20 2.63 7.47
CEO effect 0.2168 7.86 2.38 6.76
Corporate effect 0.8063 29.21 4.47 12.7
Segment effect – – 6.27 17.81
Residual SS 0.6030 21.84 12.06 34.26
Total SS 2.7604 100.00 35.2 100.0
N 801 801

CEO effects on corporate performance are fairly substantial (29.2%) – almost four
times larger than the corporate effect (7.9%) and almost five times larger than the
industry effect (6.2%). CEO influence on the variance in business segment
performance is smaller (12.7%) than on corporate performance; however, the
CEO effect on segment performance is still greater than the industry (7.74%) and
corporate effect (6.76%).

228
APPENDIX E: LETTER OF INVITATION TO CEOS OF ORGANISATIONS IN
THE SAMPLE

Dear Mr/Ms xxxx

STUDY OF THE STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP, ALIGNMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL SUCCESS

FOR (Organisation)

The role of the leader is fundamental to the success of organisations. Identifying the criteria that
leaders require to take their organisations to success will greatly enhance the possibility of
leadership success in organisations.

Up to the present, relatively little attention has been paid by researchers to the processes that
strategic leaders can apply to influence their organisations. Research has identified critical
leadership components which studies indicate contribute to organisational success.

I am currently undertaking research as part of my Doctorate in Business Leadership at Unisa’s

Graduate School of Business Leadership. As a result I will be examining the relationship between
these critical leadership components, strategic alignment and the organisation’s performance.

The results of this study will be compiled in a report which will benefit leaders in their critical roles in
their organisation.

I would like to invite you, as the leader of your company, to participate in this research programme
at no cost to your company, the results of which will make a valuable contribution to strategic
leadership.

The process will entail the top team completing a brief questionnaire (7 questions) to ascertain their
value of critical leadership components. A sample of 100 employees across all levels of your
organisation will be required to complete a brief anonymous questionnaire in order to measure the
degree of strategic alignment in the company. A copy of your annual report would also be
required.

Following the comprehensive analysis, a full report on the results of the research will be provided to
your company.

I would value your company’s participation in this vital research. Should you require any further
information, I would be happy to discuss the matter with you.

Kind regards

Lorraine W Lear
Doctoral student

229
APPENDIX F: BRIEF TO CEOS

Business Brief

Your organisation is invited to participate in a unique study to examine the

relationship between strategic leadership, strategic alignment and organisation
performance.

Success in today’s competitive business environment is a constant challenge

faced by leadership. What factors significantly influence an organisation’s
success? Is organisation performance directly linked to the capabilities of its
leadership to improve organisation performance? If it is, then what are those
critical components that leadership require? How is that evidenced in the
organisation to engender organisation success?

Your participation will ensure that your company receives a full report providing a
valuable resource to top management. The report will include the following:

an analysis of the value placed on the key leadership components by top

leadership
an analysis of the implications of the degree of alignment between strategy,
customers, people and processes that exists in the company and the
impact on business success
the identification of areas for improvement
the benchmarking of your company against the other companies
participating in this unique study

Participation of your company will require the following:

230
 a short questionnaire, to be completed electronically by the top leadership
team (7 questions), containing their evaluation of the critical leadership
components
a sample of employees across the organisation completing a questionnaire
measuring strategic alignment in the organisation (16 questions)

The study is part of doctoral research being undertaken as part of the

requirements for a Doctorate in Business Leadership at Unisa’s Graduate School
of Business Leadership. It aims to contribute to the knowledge resources to
enhance organisation performance. The study will be conducted as a ”consulting
assignment”.

A limited number of companies are being invited to participate in this research at

no cost.

Questionnaires

Top Leadership Questionnaire – to be completed by the top leadership

team
Employee Questionnaire – to be completed by approximately 100
employees

On completion, the participants can mail their questionnaires directly to the

researcher.

231
APPENDIX G: HOW STRATEGY SHAPES STRUCTURE (KIM &
MAUBORGNE, 2009)

Instead of allowing the environment to define your strategy, craft a strategy that
defines your environment.

When executives develop corporate strategy, they nearly always begin by

analysing the industry or environment condition in which they operate. They then
assess the strengths and weaknesses of the players the organisation is up
against. With these industry and competitive analyses in mind, leaders set out to
carve a distinctive strategic position, where the organisation can outperform its
rivals by building a competitive advantage. An organisation generally chooses to
differentiate itself from its competition for a premium price or to pursue low costs.
The organisation aligns its value chain accordingly.

The underlying logic of this process is that a company’s strategic options are
bounded by the environment. In other words, structure shapes strategy.
According to Mauborgne (2009), this “structuralist” approach, which has its roots in
the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of industrial organisation economics,
has dominated the practice of strategy for the past 30 years. Accordingly, an
organisation’s performance depends on its conduct, which in turn depends on
basic structural factors such as number of suppliers and buyers and barriers to
entry. It is a deterministic worldview in which causality flows from external
conditions down to corporate decisions that seek to exploit those conditions.

For the past 15 years, Kim and Mauborgne (2009) have been developing a theory
of strategy, known as the so-called “blue ocean strategy”, which reflects the fact
that a company’s performance is not necessarily determined by an industry’s
competitive environment. This strategy’s framework can help companies
systematically reconstruct their industries and reverse the structure-strategy
sequence in their favour.

232
The blue ocean strategy has its roots in the emerging school of economics called
endogenous growth, whose central paradigm posits that the ideas and actions of
individual players can shape structure. They call this approach “reconstructionist”.

While the structuralist approach is valuable and relevant, the reconstructionist

approach is more appropriate in certain economic and industry settings. Indeed,
today’s economic difficulties have heightened the need for a reconstructionist
alternative. Hence the first task of an organisation’s leadership is to choose the
appropriate strategic approach in the light of the challenges the organisation faces.
Choosing the right approach, however, is not enough. Executives then need to
make sure that their organisations are aligned behind it to produce sustainable
performance.

Choosing the right strategic approach

A structuralist approach is a good fit A reconstructionist approach is a good

when fit when
structural conditions are structural conditions are
attractive and the organisation attractive but players are well
has the resources and entrenched and the organisation
capabilities to build a distinctive lacks the resources or
position capabilities to outperform them
structural conditions are less structural conditions are
than attractive but the unattractive and they work
organisation has the resources against an organisation
and capabilities to outperform its irrespective of its resources and
competitors capabilities
When structural conditions and resources and capabilities do not distinctively
indicate one approach or the other, the right choice will turn on the organisation’s
strategic mind-set

233
 the organisation has a bias the organisation has an
towards defending current orientation towards innovation
strategic positions and a and a willingness to pursue new
reluctance to venture into opportunities
unfamiliar territory

The three-strategy propositions

Whichever approach is chosen, a strategy’s success hinges on the development
and alignment of three propositions:
(1) a value proposition that attracts buyers
(2) a profit proposition that enables the company to make money out of the
value proposition
(3) a people proposition that motivates those working for or with the company
to execute the strategy
The two approaches diverge in the alignment of the propositions.

The leadership challenge

With an increasing number of businesses, governments and nonprofits facing
unattractive environmental and structural conditions, leaders can no longer afford
to follow the common practice of allowing structure to drive strategy in all
situations. The economic challenges modern organisations face only underscore
the need to understand how strategy can shape structure. That is not to say,
however, that the stucturalist approach is no longer relevant. Take any company
with multiple businesses. Different business units face different structural
conditions with different resources and capabilities and have different strategic
mind-sets; a structuralist approach would be a better fit for some units, while a
reconstructionist approach would be more appropriate for others. The two
strategy schools’ assumptions and theories are distinct, and neither is sufficient to
deal with the diverse and changing structural and business conditions that
organisations face today and in the future. The challenge for leaders therefore is

234
to ensure that a robust debate takes place on what the right strategic approach to
should be.

Whilst the approach to strategy and which strategy approach is adopted in the
organisation is significant, the real critical factor in the researcher’s opinion is
strategic alignment. The real difference between success and failure is alignment.

235