This article was downloaded by: [J. Aluya] On: 06 August 2014, At: 07:24 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: tandfonline/loi/uesb20 Nanotechnology Implications and Global Leadership Perspectives J. Aluyaa a Director, Aluya Institute of strategic Management-Global Mindset, Placentia, California, USA Published online: 04 Aug 2015. To cite this article: J. Aluya (2015) Nanotechnology Implications and Global Leadership Perspectives, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 10:1, 31-37 To link to this article: dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2010.506472 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at tandfonline/page/terms¬and-conditions NANOTECHNOLOGY AND LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES 35 transactional leadership approach while introducing and implementing nanotechnology rather than an authoritarian form of leadership. Contrary to authoritarian leadership, leaders implement nan¬otechnology products to their constituents for self-aggrandizement whereas transactional leadership contemplates on the ramifications, acceptability, and consequences of such motives. Leaders who are transactional in their leadership approach still contemplate risks and benefits of nanotechnol¬ogy. Transactional leaders gingerly implement elements of nanotechnology with calculated risks and potential benefits to their continuants.Transactional leaders suggestivelyfall within the realms of democratic leadership styles and the authoritarian form of leadership styles (Aluya, 2007b, 2008b, 2009;Aluya and Garraway,2009, 2010). The situational leadership approach conjecturally minimizes the risks associated with nanotechnology. Minimization of the risks associated with nan¬otechnology should be a conduit for sharing technological information globally among leaders. Inextricably, situational leadership styles unequivocally emerged as the invisible hand that stirs the economicimpactofa nationortheglobal economy(Smith, 1976). Authoritarian leadershipstyles become the predictor to a bad or dysfunctional approach to nanoproducts and systems. BAD LEADERS’ ATTITUDE APPROACHES TO NANOTECHNOLOGY When bad leadership styles are compared and contrasted to other leadership styles what emerges becomes the lack of capacity of leaders to be visionary. Within the change doctrine, planning, implementing, managing, marketing, and setting innovative templates are missing components that jaundicethe visionofbad leadersinrespecttothe nanovalue chainof productsand systems(Porter and Stern, 2001). What really constitutes a bad leadership approach to nanotechnologies are bad attitudes. Attitude, anchored culture, the lack of vision, and the inability to adapt to change are the crux as to whyleaders are stigmatized with the label of “bad” or “dysfunctional” (Luthans, 2005). What constitutes bad leadership styles contrasts with what constitutes good leadership styles. Bad leaders are uncomfortable with triggers generated from the dissonance brought about by changes from nanosystems and products or the additives. Bad leaders are comfortable with the status quo instead of adapting, adjusting and realigning withthe frontiersin nanosystemsor products. Accordingto Gallagher(2002,p.27),“the traditional emphasis on effectiveleadership, visionary leadership, inspirational leadership and strong leadership raises the philosophical dilemma of what constitutes ineffective leadership, non-visionary leader¬ship, non-inspirational leadership and non-situational leadership.” Erickson et al.(2007)conducted a web-based study of 335 respondents that indicated the existence of bad culture and behaviors that are perceived as dysfunctional in organizations. Denrell(2005)noted that in contrast to effective leaders, one should examine those leaders who were demoted, transferred, or who were terminated for these attributes. All the good elements that are enshrined and inculcated in good effective leaders are conspicuously missing in bad leaders and these reasons contribute to their inability to embraced nanotechologies (Aluya, 2008a). Examining the anchored culture of bad leadership styles require the use of all the applicable benchmarks or yardsticks embodied in good leadership styles to change bad leadership attitudes towardsolar,wind,orhybrid systems.The disruptivenessofbad leadershipstyles meansintegrating and inculcating a good, inspirational, and transformational style through the use nanotechnological products and systems to the advantage of their constituents. To be simplistic, bad leaders are the antitheses of good leaders. Bad leaders are also very complacent (Burns, 2006). The resistance to elements that creates disruptive technologies within an existing organizational climate breeds in bad leadership styles that require changes in the anchored attitude, behavior, cul¬ture and mannerisms in the system (Luthans, 2005). Academically and practically, the research question is how do leaders change the attitudes of their constituents to embraced nanotechnologies andadditives?Bad leadersmustnotonlyhavea paradigmaticmindshiftbutaglobalmindshiftas well. Because of the lack of these shifts, bad leaders contaminate the surrounding climate needed NANOTECHNOLOGY AND LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES 37 Berger, M. 2008. Using Nanotechnology to Improve Li-ion Battery Performance.Available at: wahdang. Bernstein, M. 2009. Nanotechnology Now.Available at: nanotech-now/news.cgi?story_id=35286. Burns, J. M. 2006. Running Alone: Presidential Leadership—JFK to Bush 11.NewYork: Basic Books. Buzea, C., Pacheco, I., and Robbie, K. 2007. Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity. Biointerphases 2: MR17-MR71. Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Conference 2009. Research: Bioenergy Glossary. Available at: greatlakesbioenergy.org. Denrell, J. 2005. Selection bias and the perils of bench-marking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 4:114–119. Doyle, E. M. 2009. Health Risks of Nanotechnology: How Nanoparticles Can Cause Lung Damage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Drexler, E. 1991. Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. NewYork:Wiley. Erdem,T., Nizamoglu,S.,Sun,X.,and Demir,H. 2010.Aphotometricinvestigationof ultra-efficientLEDswithhigh color rendering index and high luminous efficacyemploying nanocrystal quantum dot luminophores. Opt. Express 18:340–347. Erickson, A., Shaw, J.B., and Agade, Z. 2007. An empirical investigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies 1:26–45. Eswaramoorthy,M.,and Shanmugam,S. 2009.Techno-economic analysisofa solar thermoelectricpower generatorfora rural residential house energy demand. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 4:1911–1919. Freitas, Jr., J., and Robert, A. 2010. Nanotechnology and medical treatment. Futurist 44:21–22. Frewer,L. 2010.Acommunication quandary. Chem. Ind.-London 2:27–29. Gallagher,E.G. 2002. Leadership:Aparadigm shift. Management in Education 16:24–29. Hellan,A.,Wick,P.,Koehler,A., Schmid,K.,andSom,C. 2007.Reviewingtheenvironmentaland human healthknowledge base on carbon nanotubes. Environ. Health Persp. 115:11–25. Heritage CommunityFoundation. 2009. Alberta Inventors and Inventions.Available at: abheritage.ca. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. 2009. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing.Available at: imm.org. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., and Cohen, G. 2008. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat. Nanotechnology 4:87–90. Kahn, J. 2006. Nanotechnology. National Geographic 6:98–119. Kashiwada, S. 2006. Distribution of nanoparticles in the see-through medaka. Environ. Health Persp. 114:16–97. Ligeng, X.,Ying, L., Ru, B., and Chunying, C. 2010. Applications and toxicological issues surrounding nanotechnology in the food industry. Pure Appl. Chem. 82:349–372. Litton,P. 2007. Naoethics? What’s new? Hastings Cent. Rep. 37:22–24. Luthans,F. 2005. Organizational Behavior 10th ed.NewYork: Irwin McGraw-Hill. McCabe, E. R. 2010. Nanopediatrics: Enabling personalized medicine for children. Pediatr. Res. 67:453–457. Merkle, R. 2009. Nanotechnology.Available at: zyvex. National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2009. National Nanotechnology Initiative.Available at: nano.gov. North Carolina State University (2008). Increased Education On Nanotech, Human Enhancement Increases Public Concerns. Available at:sciencedaily. Oberdorster,G., Oberdorster,E.,and Oberdorster,J. 2005. Nanotoxicology:An emerging disciplineevolvingfromstudies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Persp. 113:823–837. Palumbo, C. M. 2010. Investigating the microscopic world of food nanotechnology.Environmental Nutrition 33:1–6. Parlini, A. 2008. Project on emerging nanotechnologies.ScienceDaily April 25. Piller, C. 2006. Science’s tiny, big unknown. Los Angeles Times June 1. Porter, M., and Stern, S. 2001. Innovation: Location matters. MIT Sloan Manage, Rev. 42:28–36. Priento,J. 2010.Painting the future green. European Coatings Journal 10:20–25. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 2008. Nanotechnology’s Future Depends On Who the PublicTrusts.Available at: sciencedaily. Reade, L. 2010. Putting textiles to work. Chemistry & Industry 5:18–20. Rodgers,P. 2006. Nanoelectronics: Single file. Nature Nanotechnology DOI:10.1038/nnano.2006.5. Rice University. 2006. Consumers neutral on risks, benefitsof nanotechnology.Available at: sciencedaily. Salamanca-Buentello,F., and Schulte,P.A. 2007. Ethical and scientific issuesof nanotechnologyin theworkplace. Environ. Health Persp. 115:5–7. Smith, A. (1976). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taniguchi, N. 1974. On the basic concept of nano-technology.Proc. Intl. Conf. Prod. London, Part II London: British Society of Precision Engineering. TechTarget. 2008.Nanotechnology.Available at: whatis.techtarget. Uldrich, J. 2006. A cautionary tale: Nanotechnology and the changing face of the electric utility industry. Management Quarterly 47:16–18. Walter,P. 2010.Next generation nanowire batteries.Chemistry & Industry 5:8–8. Yale University. 2008.Nanotechnology ‘Culture War’ Possible, Says Yale Study.Available at: sciencedaily.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:18:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015