This post originally appeared on LinkedIn Pulse and was written by William Patel

Leadership is perhaps one of the most important aspects of management. This is because leadership is a major factor which contributes immensely to the general wellbeing & uplifting of organisations. Organisations such as General Electric and Chrysler had been turned around from the brink of bankruptcy to become two of the world’s most profitable organisations through the effective leadership. Great nations like the USA, Britain, France and India are some of the most prominent nations in the world today on the wings of effective leadership. This is because leaders in organisations and nations make things happen. 

Several theories have and are being put forward to explain leadership effectiveness. Two of the most prominent leadership theories are Transformational and Transactional leadership theories. Since the late 1980s, theories of transformational and charismatic leadership have been ascendant. Although most agree that Transactional and transformational leadership are different in concept and in practice, many believe that transformational leadership significantly augments transactional leadership, resulting in higher levels of individual, group, and organizational performance. Others believe that Transactional leadership is a subset of transformational leadership.

Transformational Leadership: A transformational leader is a person who stimulates and inspires (transform) followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. He/she pays attention to the concern and developmental needs of individual followers; they change followers’ awareness of issues by helping them to look at old problems in a new way ; and they are able to arouse, excite and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals. Transformational leadership theory is all about leadership that creates positive change in the followers whereby they take care of each other's interests and act in the interests of the group as a whole. The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 in his descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage has spread into organisational psychology and management with further modifications by B.M Bass and J.B Avalio.

Transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them and makes them interested; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that enhance their performance.

Transactional Leadership: Transactional Leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of supervision, organisation, and group performance; transactional leadership is a style of leadership in which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and punishments. Unlike Transformational leadership, leaders using the transactional approach are not looking to change the future, they are looking to merely keep things the same. These leaders pay attention to followers' work in order to find faults and deviations. This type of leadership is effective in crisis and emergency situations, as well as when projects need to be carried out in a specific fashion.

Within the context of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, transactional leadership works at the basic levels of need satisfaction, where transactional leaders focus on the lower levels of the hierarchy. Transactional leaders use an exchange model, with rewards being given for good work or positive outcomes. Conversely, people with this leadership style also can punish poor work or negative outcomes, until the problem is corrected. One way that transactional leadership focuses on lower level needs is by stressing specific task performance. Transactional leaders are effective in getting specific tasks completed by managing each portion individually.

Comparison Between Transformational and Transactional Leadership:

Transactional	VS	Transformational
Leadership is responsive		Leadership is proactive
Works within the organisational culture		Works to change the organisational culture by implementing new ideas
Employees achieve objectives through rewards and punishments set by leader		Employees achieve objectives through higher ideals and moral values
Motivates followers by appealing to their own self interest		Motivates followers by encouraging them to put group interests first
Management-by-exception: maintain the status quo; stress correct actions to improve performance.		Individualised consideration: Each behaviour is directed to each individual to express consideration and support. Intellectual stimulation: Promote creative and innovative ideas to solve problems.

Transformational and Transactional leadership theories represent bold attempts by researchers to explain the nature and effect of leadership. Both theories have their various strengths and weaknesses’ However, the influence of situational variables on leadership outcomes within the context of both styles of leadership.

A landmark report by the Alternative Commission on Social Investment, launched in London has wide ranging implications for the Australasian social investment market, according to social impact investor and analyst, Emma Tomkinson.

After the Gold Rush, the final report of the Alternative Commission on Social Investment, contains 50 recommendations for improving the social investment market.

Australian analyst Emma Tomkinson said the Commission report is a response to growing recognition in the UK that the social investment market is not meeting the needs of the organisations and individuals it seeks to serve.

“It was established to take stock, investigate what’s wrong with the UK social investment market and to make some practical suggestions for how the market can be made relevant and useful to a wider range of charities, social enterprises and citizens working to bring about positive social change.”

The commission was funded with a grant from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and was led by David Floyd, managing director of social enterprise Social Spider. It was established to assess whether the social investment market in the UK was meeting the access to finance needs of social sector organisations.

Commission Secretariat and Managing Director of Social Spider CIC, David Floyd said: “We often hear from Ministers, champions of social investment and the G8 that the UK is a world leader in social investment. Yet for charities and social entrepreneurs here in the UK, it doesn’t feel like that.

“The Alternative Commission on Social Investment was set up to ask why and to make some practical suggestions as to how things could be improved.”

The report recommends that Social investment in the UK should produce less social investment hype that might inflate expectations, deliver more transparency from lenders and more focus on the needs of charities and social enterprises if it is going to succeed.

The commission delivered five key areas for action:

1. Transparency

• Publish information on all social investments across all investors – with investees anonymised if required (Big Society Capital, SIFIs, the Social Investment Forum). Delegates at roundtables also called for upfront transparency from social investors on:
  
• • what they will and won’t fund
  • where the money goes
  • the terms of investment
  • how to present a case for investment
  • what the application process will involve

• Explain if and how social value is accounted for within your investments – do you expect investees to demonstrate their impact as a condition of investment? Do you offer lower interest rates based on expected impact? Are you prepared to take bigger risks based on expected impact? (Big Society Capital, SIFIs)
  

2. Wholesale changes

• Reconsider the role of Big Society Capital – prioritise building a sustainable and distinctively social investment market over securing a sustainable existence for Big Society Capital – (Big Society Capital, Cabinet Office)
• Consider splitting the investment of Unclaimed Assets and Merlin bank funds. Unclaimed Assets, allocated by law to Social Sector Organisations, could be invested on terms that better meet demand than currently, while Merlin bank funds could be invested in a wider group of organisations, with a focus on positive social value – (Big Society Capital, Cabinet Office)
  

3. Social investment is dead!

• Minimise all forms of social investment hype that might inflate expectations and under no circumstances imply that social investment can fill gaps left by cuts in public spending (Cabinet Office, DWP, MoJ, HM Treasury, Big Society Capital, Big Lottery Fund, NCVO, ACEVO, Social Enterprise UK)
  
• Avoid treating the development of the social investment market as an end itself – social investment is a relatively small phenomenon overlapping with but not the same as ‘access to finance for social sector organisations’ and ‘increasing flows of capital to socially useful investment’. These wider goals should be prioritised over a drive to grow the social investment market for its own sake – (Cabinet Office, Big Society Capital)
  

4. Long live social investment!

• Work together in equal partnership with the social sector to develop a set of principles for what makes an investment ‘social’ - (Policymakers, Big Society Capital, Key Stakeholders, SIFIs, Umbrella bodies, the Social Investment Forum, SSOs)
  
• Social investors should better reflect and understand the market they are seeking to serve by getting out and about, meeting a broader range of organisations – particularly organisations based outside London – recruiting from the sector and cutting costs that deliver no social value – (SIFIs)
  

5. Doing it Ourselves

• Create a ‘Compare the market’/’trip advisor’ tool for social investment – enabling organisations to rate their experiences and comment – (Umbrella bodies and SSOs)
• Back yourselves and invest in each other – Social sector organisations should consider cutting out the middleman and developing models where they can invest in each other, where legal and appropriate – (SSOs)
  

Emma Tomkinson said the report enables Australia to learn from the mistakes of the UK market. Tomkinson created the Social Impact Bond Knowledge Box for the Centre for Social Impact Bonds at the UK Cabinet Office and also developed the social impact bond concept for application in New South Wales.

“The report should also encourage us to embrace our own failures and learn as we go. We can build an Australian social investment market that better meets the needs of social purpose organisations and the communities they serve.

“This is also an important report because it is a reflection on the UK Social Investment market by social enterprises, using information gathered from social enterprises, investors and research.”

“As the Australian social/impact investment market is still being designed, we have a precious opportunity to learn from the UK and the report has lots of great recommendations that we can easily implement as we go.”

“We also have an opportunity to correct some of the things that didn't go so well, rather than repeat the mistakes.

Tomkinson said that the particularly relevant lessons for Australia from the Alternative Social Investment Commission's report are:

1. Minimise the hype: e.g. “Best available estimates are that the domestic market could reach A$32 billion in a decade (IMPACT-Australia 2013)”. This is not a forecast, but the most optimistic of goals. We can track the progress we do make, rather than set ourselves up for failure and disappointment. We can likewise cease talk of social investment filling the gap left by funding cuts unless there is any evidence that this has occurred.
2. Increase investor transparency: information on investments made will help organisations seeking finance navigate investors more efficiently. It will also help coordinate efforts and highlight gaps between investors.
3. Don’t just replicate the mainstream finance market for social investment: some mainstream finance models don't transpose well to social investment - we can develop a social finance market that is fit-for-purpose and takes advantage of modern technology.
4. Understand the market we seek to serve: we can avoid some of the 'us and them' mentality that has arisen in the UK by seeking and listening to the voice of the investee in order to develop social investment that is useful to them.
5. Fill the gaps: similar to the UK, there is a funding gap for small, high-risk, unsecured investments. If this is the type of investment we are going to talk about all the time, let's provide it.
6. Redefine social investors: social investors don't have to be just rich people and financial institutions. In order to achieve the three points above, we should encourage and highlight social investments by social purpose organisations, individuals who are not 'wholesale' or 'sophisticated' investors and superannuation funds. Individual investment currently occurs in Australia through cooperatives, mutuals and small private investment. Crowd-sourced equity funding reform is being considered by the Australian Treasury and may reduce the regulatory burden and cost associated with making investments available to individuals who aren't already rich.
   

Download the report and its summary of recommendations at http://socinvalternativecommission.org.uk/home/.

This articled was sourced from ProBono and originally appeared here. 

New Zealand’s tourism industry is in a strong position to take advantage of growth opportunities, according to the State of the Tourism Industry 2014. The report records a year of solid and continued growth, marked by a return to strong international growth for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis.

Released in March 2015, the report is the latest in an annual series produced by the Tourism Industry Association New Zealand (TIA) and Lincoln University.

Download the full report and see highlights below.

The NZAS's (New Zealand Association of Scientists) conference in Wellington today had experts sharing their experiences, and encouraging others, in speaking publicly. The conference, titled Going public: scientists speaking out on difficult issues, focused on exploring the issues surrounding and challenges for experts stepping up and speaking to the public on topical science-related issues.

NZAS president Nicola Gaston kicked off the day by describing how fear and peer-pressure often discouraged scientists from speaking out.

“The fear of being wrong is compounded by the myth of scientific expertise, where a person is seen as having to be right all of the time,” she said.

Dr Gaston said that when dealing with controversial issues there was seldom one right answer, but it was important the right scientists were speaking at the right time.

The Science Media Centre’s Peter Griffin emphasised the need for scientists to get on the front foot when science issues were in the headlines.

“Put your hand up, or it is more likely you will get pseudo science and vested interests controlling the narrative.”

Dominion Post journalist Nikki Macdonald agreed that scientists needed to be heard for the media to get it right.

“Journalists are looking for information, we want to understand the issue and understand the science. The more access to different voices, the better we have the complete picture.”

While there were no easy answers, Auckland University researcher Siouxsie Wiles captured the sentiment of the room as she described the difficulties, and rewards, of good science communication.

“A lot of people say “what the hell do you know about this”, but the reason that I’m here, it’s not about me, it’s about wanting New Zealand to be a scientifically literate country.”

You can follow the conference on Twitter, using the hashtag #GoingPublic

This article first appeared on NZ Doctor website here.

Notes of a  presentation to ASSR September 2007 Forum by Andrew Rae (Stats NZ) and Diana Suggate (OCVS – MSD) about Classifying New Zealand’s Non-Profit Sector For Comparability with International Standards.

Context

Diana Suggate, Senior Analyst at the Ministry of Social Development’s Office for the Community & Voluntary Sector, and Andrew Rae, representing Statistics New Zealand’s Non-Profit Institutions team, were part of a research effort that brought together Stats NZ, MSD, Massey University, and private researchers in an ambitious international drive to map the non-profit institutions of more than 40 countries.

Non-profit institutions contribute almost 5% to the country’s gross domestic product in 2004, and marshal the efforts of more than a million New Zealanders—half of whom made a habit of volunteerism. These findings were part of a presentation to the September Forum by two researchers working across departmental boundaries to produce a taxonomy of the New Zealand non-profit sector. The taxonomy will then become an essential reference for policy makers and help to drive policy.

The New Zealand team also consulted an expert advisory committee that included Not-for-Profit Sector representatives, several academics, Maori community advisors, and others. The team met an important benchmark a month ago in launching the New Zealand Satellite Account through Stats NZ. Just what a satellite account is, what it allows one to discern, and how the team constituted it, provided the body of the Forum presentation.

Please find original post here.

Research into businesses across Australia and New Zealand has found that 34% of companies with offshore operations have encountered a foreign bribery or corruption incident over the past five years – up from 21% in 2012.

The 2015 Deloitte Bribery and Corruption Survey had respondents from 269 organisations in New Zealand and Australia, finding that 23% had experienced at least one case of domestic corruption since 2010. More than half of these transpired during the last year.

The survey was the second of its kind conducted by Deloitte, but was the first to ask questions about domestic bribery and corruption. “Almost one in four organisations reporting an incident is a significant level of corruption,” Barry Jordan, lead forensics partner at Deloitte, told The New Zealand Herald. “There is no longer any excuse for complacency against this risk. Apart from the legal ramifications, which can include heavy fines or even jail time, the long term reputational damage from corruption can have serious long term flow on effects on an organisation's bottom line.”

According to the report, the most common types of corruption cited were undisclosed conflicts of interest, supplier kickback and personal favours. Over 25% of the incidents occurred within organisations with over 5000 employees, while 68% of incidents involved private or business individuals. It was also found that corruption was occurring within all sectors.

The whistle was most often being blown on domestic corruption in management reviews, internal controls and tip-offs from employees; but in larger organisations with more than 5000 employees, the most common way of informing employers of corruption was via a dedicated hotline.

“Hotline channels have increasing potential in terms of incident detection and deterrence,” Jordan said, adding that the report’s findings emphasised that large organisations should provide a platform to enable tip-offs to be made.

Several countries, including China, India and Indonesia, have begun to increase their efforts to combat corruption, the report stated. However, just 31% of respondents with offshore operations reported having a comprehensive understanding of relevant legislations.

Forty per cent also reported either not having or not being aware of a formal compliance program to manage corruption risk, while almost one in five participants operating in high risk jurisdictions did not discuss the risks at management or board level.

“A large percentage of respondents do not have adequate systems in place to identify foreign bribery risks, nor have they carried out foreign bribery and corruption risk assessments,” said Julie Read, chief executive and director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office. “This is surprising given the success of Kiwi companies overseas, in jurisdictions identified by Transparency International as high risk, and where UK, US and NZ legislation all apply. We see the potential for an increase in foreign bribery cases given this profile and would encourage all companies trading in international markets to be proactive in taking steps to identify and respond to risks of foreign bribery in their organisations.”

This article originally appeared here.

A healthy visitor economy is vital to the regions but local government support is essential, the Tourism Industry Association New Zealand (TIA) says.

In its submission to Local Government New Zealand’s Local Government Funding Review, TIA says local government plays a central role in regional economic development.

"The visitor economy generates jobs and income, as well as contributing to the vibrancy of communities. Only a fraction of the money international and domestic visitors spend is in places commonly considered tourism-specific, such as accommodation, activities and attractions. They also spend in shops, cafes, restaurants, supermarkets and petrol stations," TIA Chief Executive Chris Roberts says.

Many regions rely heavily on visitor expenditure, ranging from $75 million a year in Gisborne, to $4.8 billion a year in the Auckland region.

Local government investment in assets such as stadia, conference facilities, parks and museums brings great benefits to both visitors and ratepayers, Mr Roberts says.

"However, the tourism industry acknowledges that growth in visitor numbers is putting pressure on areas with small rating bases like Kaikoura, Queenstown and the West Coast. We want to work with local government to find solutions to the fiscal challenges being faced by councils," he says.

TIA is open to the possibility that visitor levies could be introduced in some regions but only if they are supported by the local community and are re-invested in tourism-related projects.

TIA’s submission points out that ‘bed taxes’ are inequitable as they target only those visitors staying in commercial accommodation, not those staying in private homes or renting holiday homes. They are also costly for accommodation providers to administer.

"Bed taxes can work in places like Queenstown where many visitors stay in commercial accommodation, but they don’t work in areas like Thames-Coromandel where visitors tend to stay in rented accommodation or their own holiday homes," Mr Roberts says.

"This highlights the difficulty of introducing a national policy. Any visitor levy regime should be decided at the local level, on a case by case basis."

TIA’s view is that other rating models set out in the LGNZ paper, such as development contributions, local income taxes, user charges and regional fuel taxes, should also be considered as ways to fund destination marketing and visitor infrastructure because local residents also benefit.

To read TIA’s submission, go to www.tianz.org.nz/main/local-government

Under a law change that has recently come into force, charities must improve financial reporting. Registered charities now need to include information about their income and expenses with their annual returns.

A spokesperson for the government agency Charities Services, Michael Wiles, said that up until now, there had been no minimum requirement for what the financial statements should cover. He said the change was aimed at boosting public trust and confidence in the sector.

A lawyer who works with charities said it would be hard for charities to adjust to tougher reporting standard. Susan Barker said it would be difficult for organisations where there was significant change and there will be a period of adjustment. She said the changes were designed to ensure accounting information was consistent and easily understandable for the public.

This story originally appeared here.

As one of an elite group of Annual Partners, Advanced Solutions International will support AuSAE events, programs, and workshops benefiting the New Zealand association community

Advanced Solutions International (ASI), the largest, privately-owned global provider of not-for-profit software, today announced it will provide sponsorship funding in 2015 to the Australasian Society of Association Executives (AuSAE) through the New Zealand. AuSAE is the peak professional society in Australia and New Zealand for executives working in associations; ASI will serve as one of an exclusive group of Annual Partners for New Zealand.

ASI’s sponsorship will help support AuSAE’s member conferences, workshops, leadership symposiums, peer-to-peer networking events, surveys and research, online communities, and more in the New Zealand region.

“Reaching out to the New Zealand association community is important to ASI and there’s no better way to accomplish this than through AuSAE,” said Paul Ramsbottom, Managing Director of ASI Asia-Pacific. “Their timely and informative events and innovative tools/resources are invaluable to the industry and we’re proud to support their efforts.”

“ASI is an established leader in the global association community and we’re thrilled they will be joining us as an Annual Partner of New Zealand this year,” said Brett Jeffery, General Manager of AuSAE — New Zealand. “ASI’s support will ensure we can continue to provide the exceptional level of programming our members expect.”

About ASI
Advanced Solutions International (ASI) is a recognised global industry thought leader that focuses on helping associations and not-for-profits increase operational and financial performance through the use of best practices, proven solutions, and ongoing client advisement. Since 1991, ASI has served nearly 4,000 clients and millions of users worldwide, both directly and indirectly through a network of over 100 partners, and currently maintains corporate offices in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia.

ASI is the provider of iMIS 20, an Engagement Management System (EMS) ™ that enables organisations to engage members, donors, and other constituents anytime, anywhere, from any device. It includes constituent relationship management, commerce management, member self-service, online fundraising, social engagement, private communities, and mobile access in one seamless cloud-based system. Plus, iMIS 20 has the flexibility to work with an existing Content Management System (CMS) or – for many organisations – the power to manage their entire website. This eliminates costly integration efforts, enables you to gather better constituent intelligence, and helps you make smarter business decisions.

Please find the full press release here.

Superannuation, Sport, the ASX100, NSW Government Boards and Cooperative Research Centres are the only areas where gains of more than five per cent in the number of women on boards have been made since 2013, in new research released today.

Releasing the 2015 Boardroom Diversity Index (BDI) in Sydney, Women on Boards Directors, Ruth Medd and Claire Braund, said these sectors stood out for the greatest gains, but there were encouraging trends in all areas – except the Federal, Queensland and Western Australian Governments.

 

“It is clear to us that the message is starting to hit home in a number of important areas in the economy – in particular superannuation and ASX companies – but unfortunately not with some Governments,” Ms Braund said.

 

“It’s hard not to conclude that conservative leaning governments are bad for women.”

 

Queensland posted the biggest loss of -13.6% in the number of women serving on the boards of state owned corporations, followed by Western Australia with -3.2% and Rural Research and Development Corporations at -2.0%.

 

While the 91 significant Federal Government boards included in the research only posted a loss of -0.6%, the 2014 Australian Government Gender Balance on Boards Report (not compiled by WoB) showed the number of female board members down by two per cent on the previous year across 387 government boards.

 

“This is a worrying trend that, if it continues, could easily move to five or 10 per cent and erode the excellent work done by the previous Federal Government to move women into board roles via its Boardlinks program.”

 

The research reveals gender balance on governing bodies of universities, National Sporting Organisations, affordable housing companies, Medicare Locals, State Health Services (NSW, Vic and Qld) and State Owned Corporations in NSW, Victoria and South Australia is above 30 per cent.

 

Ms Braund said listed companies beyond the ASX100 still had some way to go, noting there were 81 companies in the ASX300 without a woman on their board.

 

She drew particular attention to five companies in the ASX100 - TPG Telecom, Ramsay Healthcare, Qube Holdings, Sirtex Medical and Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – who do not have a woman on their board.

 

“These companies are bucking the trend when it comes to other ASX100 companies who have steadily increased the number of women on boards to be in reach of a 25% target by 2016.”

 

“While this is clearly a long way short of the desired 40 per cent, it is moderate progress that we trust will continue.”

Ms Braund said Women on Boards has been focussed on the superannuation sector over the past year in terms of moving women onto boards and was pleased to see gains being made following stagnation in the 2013 index.

 

Of the 135 Superannuation Trusts measured for this year’s index, 254 of the 955 trustees were female (26.6%) – a rise of 5.7% on the 2013 index.

 

Speaking at the launch of the BDI, Anne Richards CVO CBE, Global Chief Investment Officer at Aberdeen Asset Management, congratulated the Australian Superannuation industry on the result.

 

Ms Richards, rated one of the most influential female executives working in financial services across Europe, the Middle East and Africa by the Financial News in 2014, said the global influence exerted by superannuation trusts meant it was critically important to get the right gender balance of trustees.

This media release originally appeared here on Women on Boards.