Complementarity in Organizations Strategy Leadership Management Talent and Engagement in The Fourth Industrial Revolution Paul Turner Full Chapter

Complementarity in Organizations:
Strategy, Leadership, Management,

Talent and Engagement in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution Paul Turner
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/complementarity-in-organizations-strategy-leadership
-management-talent-and-engagement-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-paul-turner/
Complementarity in
Organizations
Industrial Revolution
Paul Turner
Complementarity in Organizations
Paul Turner
Complementarity in
Organizations
Industrial Revolution
Paul Turner
Leeds Business School- Associate
Leeds Beckett University-Associate
Leeds, UK
ISBN 978-3-031-10653-8 ISBN 978-3-031-10654-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10654-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Violet Renee Turner
Acknowledgements
Liz Barlow
Karthika Devi
Professor Martin Reynolds
And to the support and happiness given by Gail, Jane-Marie, Annette,
Harrison, Ellis, Sebastian, Jacob, Gary, Will
Heart like Roses
vii
Contents
1 From Singularity to Complementarity 1
2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution 31
3 The Origins of Complementarity 59
4 Complementarity and Business Strategy 87
5 Complementarity in Leadership and Management115
6 Complementarity in Talent and Workforce Engagement143
7 Complementarity in Organisation173
8 Complementarity and Competence-knowledge, Skills,

Attitudes, and Behaviours203
ix
x Contents
9 Complementarity
in Business Organisations- 20 Important
Conclusions233
Index261
About the Author
Paul Turner has held Professorial appointments at Universities in Leeds,

Birmingham, Nottingham and Cambridge. His business career included
Executive and Director positions in FTSE and Fortune companies, and
as Vice President of the CIPD. He was Chair of Human Asset, People
Innovation and the European Talent for Tomorrow Conferences as well
as being a judge on the Middle East HR, European HR Excellence and
the CIPD People Management Awards. Paul is the author or co-author
of The Making of the Modern Manager (2021), Employee Engagement
(2020), Leadership in Healthcare (2018), Talent Management in Healthcare
(2017), Make Your People Before You Make Your Products (2014), Workforce
Planning (2010), The Admirable Company (2008), Talent Strategy,
Management and Measurement (2007), Organisational Communication
(2003) and HR Forecasting and Planning (2002). He has written articles
for academic and business journals and the International Press. Paul has
a first degree from the University of East Anglia, a Ph.D. from the
University of Sheffield and is a Companion of the CIPD.
xi
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Business progression—complementarity, strategy and devel-

opment16
Fig. 1.2 Complementarity—at the core and at the periphery 22
Fig. 2.1 The Fourth Industrial Revolution—characteristics, impact and
response33
Fig. 4.1 Complementarity and business strategy five areas of potential 96
Fig. 5.1 Leadership and management competences for complementarity 124
Fig. 6.1 A model for developing talent management and workforce
engagement to achieve complementarity 160
Fig. 7.1 Organising for Complementarity 180
xiii
1
From Singularity to Complementarity
ompetitive Progression—Achieving Economic

C
Growth with a Positive Effect on Society
All business organisations strive for progression.
Progression is achieved through movement towards an objective by
converting energy within an organisation from latent potential to actual
force, and orchestrating assets and resources in support of this move-
ment. In addition, it means development- providing foundations for
future growth—by balancing a focus on short term gains with invest-
ments that will pay back in the longer term.
Progression manifests itself by results—profit, return on investment,
or the maximisation of shareholder value and by the successful adapta-
tion to contemporary environments including social objectives -fair-
trade practices, contribution to social welfare, respect for and
understanding about the environment, diversity, and equality of oppor-
tunity. It may be said that in a modern context, business progression
means achieving economic growth taking account of wider societal needs
and expectations. It means not only achieving competitive advantage but
investing to sustain that advantage in a positive, inclusive way.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

P. Turner, Complementarity in Organizations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10654-5_1
2 P. Turner
There is a panoply of strategic thought as to how organisations can

achieve such advantage. A potential contributor to this process is that of
complementarity in which one capability reinforces the impact of
another capability. In this concept, the organisation would seek to exploit
its unique resources by combining them with others to produce a for-
mula that is difficult to imitate on the part of competitors. Whilst there
is no universal definition, one interpretation that is relevant to a business
context, is where both tangible and intangible assets combine and com-
plement each other rather than stand alone; where strategy, stewardship
and policy facilitate such combinations and where human resources
know what to do to make them effective. This holistic view is based on
the potential benefits of synergies or linkages between each of the organ-
isation’s elements from manufacturing or operations to marketing to sup-
ply chain management. The existence of complementarity across
management practices is put forward as an explanation for unit-level pro-
ductivity differences. (Cavaco & Crifo, 2014; Hong et al., 2015) It is an
idea that has evolved over time with both a scientific and economic foun-
dation. Its applications stretch from government policy to global finan-
cial regulation, from technological development to individual behaviour.
(Samuelson, 1974; Teece, 1986; Lenfant, 2006) It is also used to explain
the outstanding performance of organisations such as Amazon and
Disney as they apply complementarity principles across their business
units. Furthermore, in their definitive article Brynjolfsson, E. and
Milgrom, P. (2013) noted that organisations such as Wal-Mart, or Toyota
‘enjoyed sustained periods of high performance. As a result, they were
heavily studied by competitors, consultants and researchers, and many of
their methods were documented in great detail. Nonetheless, even when
competitors aggressively sought to imitate these methods, they did not
have the same degree of success as these market leaders. Complementarities
in organisations can help explain why.’ Identifying and utilising comple-
mentary assets will be potential success factors in the age of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution.
But the initiatives to do so require clarity about what the term means
in the context of business and the organisation. A reasonable option
therefore would be a definition of complementarity that will enable those
seeking business benefits—from functional synergy to competitive
advantage—to craft how they go about leveraging any potential comple-

mentarities they may have. Hence, from the many definitions and inter-
pretations, which will be discussed in more detail later, and for the
purposes of this book:
Complementarity is the interaction of business strategies and manage-

ment practices to produce coherent, aligned and mutually reinforcing
systems and processes that give superior outcomes (such as shareholder
value, profit, customer satisfaction, market share or cost reduction) over
those that would occur if such strategies or practices had taken place
independently of one another. It is where the complementary agency of
those strategies produces superior results, where the relations of inde-
pendent units or their evolution creates higher value than their indi-
vidual operation.
How to apply this interpretation will depend on those responsible

integrating activities into the organisation’s systems and processes. It will
be affected by the organisation’s dynamics and requires agility in a way
that enables new initiatives. Guiding all is the language of vision or mis-
sion, articulated in the form of objectives, strategy, stewardship, and pol-
icy, and brought to life by leadership, management, and a talented,
engaged workforce. In this respect, a good business strategy will focus on
all of these elements and seek coherence—an alignment between expecta-
tion and reality; congruence—where elements of the strategy are inte-
grated and reinforce each other; and consistency—between intention and
action. Their implementation will be through the application of the con-
cepts of business management, their language, systems, and processes—
which are locked into every aspect of organisational life. But, as the
Fourth Industrial Revolution gathers momentum, the scale and velocity
of change in the global economy is creating new challenges and causing
reflection about how to make tried and tested business theories and prac-
tices work in a radically different context. Whilst a confluence of new
technologies offers significant opportunity, business managers will face
an environment that is unlike anything that has gone before, transform-
ing conventional models of strategy, and forcing companies to redesign
both internal and external structures if they are to remain successful.
4 P. Turner
(Rumelt, 2011; Schoenwaelder, 2019; Lanteri, 2021) An understanding

of how the core concepts of strategy and management evolved and their
characteristics over time may provide pointers to how they may change in
future scenarios involving complementarity initiatives.
usiness Strategy—More than a Reflexive,

B
Intuitive Reaction to Market Forces
The primary concept upon which organisational performance depends is
its strategy, and its numerous, elaborate, definitions, models and method-
ologies, which proliferated as competition amongst industrial and com-
mercial organisations increased in intensity into the twentieth century.
The perception was that more was required than a reflexive, intuitive
reaction to market forces. Business strategy evolved with the scale and
increasing diversification of organisations and the concomitant increase
in levels of investment, which in turn led to the demand for a better
understanding of the time and place for a return on that investment.
It was from this milieu that corporate planning emerged in the 1960’s,
portfolio planning in the 1970’s and a greater focus on market analysis in
the 1980’s. Different approaches to strategy were informed by SWOT,
PESTLE, Gap analysis or Balanced Scorecards and used a wide variety of
strategic frameworks such as the iconic Ansoff and BCG strategic
decision-making matrices. Each of these was underpinned by a dominant
rationalist approach to strategic thinking—scan the environment, assess
strengths and weaknesses, formulate the strategy, and then proceed with
implementation. The view was that business strategists could apply analy-
sis to help shift the competitive equilibrium. From the mid 1980’s the
work of Michael Porter, five forces analysis, the value chain and the theo-
ries of competitive advantage, cemented the rationalist approach and, for
many, confirmed the assumption that there were benefits to an explicit
process of strategy formulation to ensure that policies and actions were
coordinated and directed to a common set of goals. Porter’s work was the
most comprehensive and influential of all the strategy concepts whereby
‘competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of the value a firm is
able to create for its buyers that exceeds the firm’s cost of creating it.’ He
argued that competitive advantage was influenced by the choice of com-
petitive scope and the range of a firm’s activities. (Porter, 1980, 1985;
Henderson, 1989; Kay et al., 2006)
Overarching all of these considerations was the belief that the maximi-
sation of shareholder value would not come about by serendipity but by
clear objectives, a well thought through strategy and plans, and an under-
standing of the value chain and the importance of each link in it. But the
greater depth of analysis implied in strategy setting brought a diversifica-
tion of strategic theory and practice. The literature of strategy prolifer-
ated, with a variety of distinct ‘schools,’ including design, planning,
positioning, entrepreneurial, learning, the cognitive school, the environ-
mental school, and the configuration school. Some of these were pre-
scriptive, concerned with models of how strategy should be formulated.
Some were about positioning the organisation, others about learning and
others still about charismatic leadership. (Ahlstrad et al., 1998)
Subsequently, a resource-based view of strategy and the exploitation of
core competences were enthusiastically embraced as alternatives. There
were plenty of models from which those involved in strategy could choose.
But the lack of consensus on the best way to approach strategy
prompted questions. Martin (2014) argued for example that a too rigid
approach could create a series of ‘comfort traps’ which would lull the
strategists into a false sense of control. Strategic planning and cost-based
thinking were often bound by ‘self-referential planning frameworks’
based on what the company could control thereby limiting a focus on
what it couldn’t. Further reservations were raised about the very processes
of strategic planning. Earlier, and to counter such perceived rigidity,
Henry Mintzberg wrote of the concept of emergent or crafted strategy
(1978 and 1987) that presented an approach requiring agility; a respon-
siveness to unanticipated events and the ability to ‘craft’ as opportunity
became clearer, using its resources to build advantage. At each end of a
spectrum Porter believed that the essence of strategy not only included
decisions about what to do but also choices about what not to do; whilst
Mintzberg viewed strategy as a pattern based on a stream of decisions.
There are multiple positions between these two points of view. One of
which, the Resource Based View (Barney, 1991) is of particular interest,
6 P. Turner
given its focus on the exploitation of internal resources in the achieve-

ment of competitive advantage—when resources are valuable, rare,
imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable, they could create competi-
tive advantages, which explain the differences in overall performance.
Complementarity is the process by which such resources are allocated to
benefit the whole organisation (Hsu, 2013).
As the Fourth Industrial Revolution gathers momentum, there is a
panoply of strategic theory and practice from which organisations can
choose as they navigate their way through the transformed environment.
In its most explicit form, competitive advantage can be achieved by dif-
ferentiation or by being a lowest cost provider; it can be based on exploit-
ing unique competences or resources that exist within the organisation. It
can be based on a planned and systematic analysis of markets, or it can be
based on opportunistic agility to respond to whatever the environment
produces. Strategy can be concerned with adaptation to new environ-
ments, or developments within those environments; it can be concerned
with dealing with chaos or getting to grips with radical change. ‘At its
limit, strategy formation is not just about values or competences, and
capabilities, but also about ‘crisis and commitment, organisational learn-
ing and punctuated equilibrium, industrial organisation and social revo-
lution.’ (Ahlstrad et al., 1998) The shock to global order which came
about in the second decade of the twenty-first century added significantly
to the necessity to deal with crisis however this was manifested. Business
strategy has evolved from being less of a mould into which corporate
ingredients could be poured and a fully formed figure emerging, to more
like clay on a turntable, fashioned and crafted into shape.
Whatever model was used, it was not enough to have strategy setting
in isolation from other functions and so theories and practices of leader-
ship, general management, talent management and workforce engage-
ment developed—sometimes synchronised and sometimes in parallel—in
response to economic, social and technology dynamics. As the quest for
understanding of competitive advantage grew, so did questions about
what needed to be done to achieve it—what is good strategy, what makes
an effective leader, what is the role of the modern manager, how do we
define talent, what makes employees engaged- and the recognition of
their importance to business performance. In the contemporary
organisation, the agency of strategy, stewardship, and policy provide the

direction; talented leaders and managers decide on the allocation of
resource and navigate a course; a committed and skilled workforce carry
out operations, innovating and improving processes along the way. In
each of the functions, responsiveness to change has been remarkable.
Leadership and Management—Influencing

a Group to Commit Willingly
to a Common Goal
Accompanying the rise of theories about strategy and a surfeit of strategic
models, was a renewed focus on the type of leadership needed to match
corporate ambitions. From one perspective, leadership was seen as some-
thing that would be transformational, based on an individual’s charisma.
In some cases, leaders built enduring greatness through a blend of per-
sonal humility and professional will whilst some had emotional aware-
ness which allowed them to achieve more than those without (ie they
have high levels of emotional intelligence). For some, leadership was con-
cerned with authenticity, for others it required a ‘shift’ to a new level
where purpose, mastery, autonomy, and trust were characteristics of the
organisation and whose leaders shared aligned values and aspirations.
(Greenleaf, 1977; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998;
Goleman, 1996, 1998; Collins, 2001; Goffee & Jones, 2006; Hlupic,
2014) In most cases, leaders were those people who could ‘mobilise oth-
ers to want to get extraordinary things done in organisations… transform
values into actions, visions into realities, obstacles into innovations, sep-
arateness into solidarity, risks into rewards … create a climate in which
people turn challenging opportunities into remarkable successes’ (Kouzes
& Posner, 2007). Leaders were people who could influence a group to
commit willingly to a common goal.
Analysis of the many and varied perspectives on leadership summarised
the approaches as, Person based which associated with the traits pertain-
ing to a leader’s character or personality including having a clear vision
and strategic objectives, decisiveness, being an inspiring communicator,
8 P. Turner
integrity, trust and delegation, honesty, and consistency. Or leadership

could be results based which is founded on realising potential as a distin-
guishing feature of the leader’s actions. Process based leadership on the
other hand used the assumption that ‘people that we attribute the term
leadership to, act differently to non-leaders.’. Position based leadership
defines the term as a spatial position i.e where a person sits in the organ-
isation’s hierarchy. Leadership has been categorised as trait, behaviour,
power-influence, situational, integrative or intra individual; as well as
being defined into generic groupings (such as that based on trait or
behaviour) and local leadership theories including functional leadership
or group and team leadership. (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2003;
Grint, 2005; Yukl, 2010; Edger, 2012) Theories sometimes distinguished
between a leader who sits at the head of an organisation, department or
business unit and leadership which is a social phenomenon that occurs
at many organisational levels and points.
Given a wide array of leadership theories, there is support for Kilburg
and Donohue’s conclusion (2011) that ‘leadership is a complex, multidi-
mensional, emergent process in which the leader and followers use their
characteristics, capabilities, thoughts, feelings, and behaviours to create
mutually influencing relationships that enable them to coevolve strate-
gies, tactics, structures, processes, directions, and other methods of build-
ing and managing human enterprises.’ Nevertheless, and not for want of
trying, there is no universally accepted theory of leadership. Some 300
definitions, means that an analysis of leadership is more like looking
through the lens of a kaleidoscope rather than that of a microscope
because with each turn it changes shape and colour and hue. (Turner, 2019)
The subject of management is equally vibrant, and its genesis can be
traced back to the First Industrial Revolution and the principles of divi-
sion of labour as articulated in Adam Smith’s seminal work of classical
economy the Wealth of Nations in 1776. This was the beginning of the
organisational hierarchy, of planning and forecasting, the transformation
of the nature of work, the workforce to deliver it and the skills of the
people required to organise its production; the latter being known vari-
ously as executives, directors, managing partners, agents, foremen, under-
agents, over-men, corporals, supervisors, or stewards; but collectively as
leaders or managers. (Turner, 2021) During the nineteenth century the
seeds of Scientific Management were sown and cultivated. However, an

awareness that time clocks, stop watches and slide rules could only go so
far in informing how people should be managed, led to the growth of a
more human emphasis on management and from the early twentieth
century the emergence of Behavioural Management theories. At around
the time of the Third Industrial Revolution new approaches arose. Hence
Management Science underpinned new management theories, followed
by the importance of the organisational environment. In this latter
Management as Practice is of particular importance and within this
area, the innovations in practice introduced by successful global corpora-
tions that came out of the economies of Asia. There are many excellent
analyses which cover the various stages of management theory (Drucker,
1954, 1974; Child, 1969; Wilson & Thomson, 2009; Muldoon et al.,
2020) supporting a conclusion that management could be an economic
resource performing a series of technical functions which comprise the
organising and administering of other resources; or a system of authority
through which policy is translated into the execution of tasks; or an elite
social grouping which maintains the associated systems of authority. The
kaleidoscope’s lens would show management as shifting in form, some-
times expanding, sometimes contracting, always changing.
The final consideration has been that of how leaders differ from man-
agers and how leadership differs from management. This subject is one of
continuing debate in spite of the observations that ‘it is obvious that a
person can be a leader without being a manager (e.g. an informal leader),
and a person can be a manager without leading.’ (Yukl, 2010) There have
been attempts to distinguish between them. Two of the leading thinkers
on these subjects had clear points of view in answer to the question. Peter
Drucker was extremely forthright in his response; ‘as for separating man-
agement from leadership, that is nonsense—as much nonsense as separat-
ing management from entrepreneurship. Those are part and parcel of the
same job. They are different to be sure, but only as different as the right
hand from the left or the nose from the mouth. They belong to the same
body.’ Whilst Henry Mintzberg noted that ‘leadership cannot simply del-
egate management; instead of distinguishing managers from leaders, we
should see leaders as managers, and leadership as management practiced
well.’ Mintzberg’s belief that delineations between leadership and
10 P. Turner
management were wrong because ‘managing is controlling and doing and

dealing and thinking and leading and deciding and more.’ (Mintzberg,
2011) it would appear that there are more things that bind the concepts
of leadership and management together than separate them. Those con-
templating the nature of leadership and management in Industry 4.0.
organisations have a wide range of options.
F rom Exclusive to Inclusive—Defining Talent

and Engagement
With a strategy in place, leaders ready to transform and managers focused
on objectives, there is the question of productivity—what talent exists for
innovation and how engaged is the workforce with the organisation’s
direction and their roles in it. Recognition of the importance of effective
people management—in particular, talent and workforce engagement—
too often regarded adjuncts to the financial aspects of the strategic plan,
has increased. However, as in the case of strategy and leadership, opinions
abound about the precise meaning of both terms.
The greater focus on talent came about with the seminal work of
Chambers et al. (1998a) who captured the talent zeitgeist of a period in
which talent shortages were prevalent from the mid 1990’s. In the War for
Talent, publications (Chambers et al., 1998a, 1998b) ‘C suite’ executives
were found to be in short supply because of demographics (insufficient
people within the normal experience range of executives and senior man-
agers) and demand side economic growth forecasts. An imbalance
between the two, created intense competition for the best people and the
position was deemed to be so dire that the shortage of executive talent
was a threat to business survival. But it was soon clear that talent short-
ages were not confined to those in a narrow group of people in executive
positions and with the growing recognition that talent management was
necessary organisation wide and was a strategic issue (Cappelli, 2008;
Collings & Mellahi, 2009, 2013; Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Collings
et al., 2015; Cascio & Boudreau, 2016). The perceived inequality of hav-
ing only a few people as being identified with talent in the exclusive
approach; the experience of global organisations in their quest to fill the
roles of global specialists (such as project managers who were able to

manage across cultural and geographic boundaries); and the recognition
that there were talent shortages at many levels, brought about reflection
on the approach. This led to a more comprehensive, inclusive, perspective
on talent. This inclusivity was articulated by the UK’s professional organ-
isation, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (Tansley
et al., 2007).
This discussion was focused on talent at the organisational rather than
the individual level but attempts to define talent have also been couched
in terms of natural ability, mastery, commitment and fit, performance,
competences, capabilities, and commitment. (Gallardo-Gallardo et al.,
2013) There is, however, a contextual element that permeates much of
current thinking about talent. Ulrich and Smallwood’s (2011) research
refined the approach and proposed a model which identified talent seg-
ments to facilitate the efficient allocation of resources across the organ-
isation. In this analysis talent covers a wide span of the organisation and
the management of talent was a whole organisation enterprise. In the
twenty years since the term ‘talent war’ was first articulated, the manage-
ment of talent, its attraction and retention has been high on the corpo-
rate agenda.
And more recently, there is also recognition of the strategic importance
of workforce engagement. This is an area of organisational practice that
has been located within the subject of people or HR management but is
increasingly viewed in other organisational contexts because of its impact
on a range of business, service, or operational outcomes. As in the case of
leadership, management and talent, defining the term ‘engagement’
proved to be problematic with some 50 definitions emerging—‘more
than enough to confuse even the most positive people managers.’
(Huggett, 2009). The reason for the intensity of activity can be found in
the high level of attributed benefits showing relationships between
employee engagement and shareholder returns, operating income, reve-
nue growth, profit margins, creativity and innovation and customer or
client satisfaction, whilst work engagement has been associated with
turnover intention, task performance, contextual performance, and
employee well-being. (Saks, 2006, 2017; Schwarz, 2012; Bakker, 2017)
There is further evidence that engaged employees outperformed
12 P. Turner
non-engaged co-workers. The US based Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM) concluded that ‘employees who are engaged in
their work and committed to their organisations give companies crucial
competitive advantages—including higher productivity and lower
employee turnover.’ (Vance, SHRM 2006; 1) The Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development (CIPD) concluded that there were positive
relationships with profit, revenue growth, customer satisfaction, produc-
tivity, innovation, staff retention and efficiency. (CIPD, 2017)
The academic narrative on employee engagement is rich and diverse
with significant contributions from inter alia Maslach and Leiter (1997).
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004); Saks (2006, 2017); and Albrecht et al.
(2018). As a result, a wide range of terminology has been used whereby
engagement is viewed through the lens of emotional and rational factors
such as enthusiasm, passion, satisfaction, confidence, empowerment,
and positivity of attitudes; a person’s ‘preferred self ’ in behaviour which
promotes connections to work and to others. Schaufeli and Bakker
(2004) defined engagement as a positive work-related state characterized
by vigour, dedication, and absorption; where vigour relates to energy and
resilience; dedication to feeling enthusiasm and being inspired by one’s
work. Absorption is the intense concentration in the work being under-
taken. Christian et al. (2011) considered that employee engagement had
a psychological connection with the performance of work tasks; the self-
investment of personal resources in work and was a state of being rather
than a trait or characteristic. The analyses suggest that employee engage-
ment is connected to both the job and the organisation and is an active,
work-related state—although there is debate about whether employee
engagement is a trait, psychological state or a behaviour. From these per-
spectives engagement may be viewed as the simultaneous employment
and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self ’ in task behaviours that pro-
mote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical,
cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance.’ (Saks,
2017.) A holistic analysis showed that considerations of employee
engagement could be seen not only in psychological terms but also in
relation to the sociology of work and the organisation of work.
(Turner, 2020)
A compelling conclusion about both talent and workforce engagement

is that both concepts are essentially contextual. There is no grand unify-
ing theory in either case. Instead, organisations have adapted the defini-
tions in ways that suit their specific circumstances. Nevertheless, questions
remain about what is the nature of the workforce in the Industry 4.0
environment, what skills are required to work in smart workplaces and
what is the nature of talent in this new environment?
Organisations—Collections of Individuals
and Political Systems with Defined
Boundaries, Goals and Values, Administrative
Mechanisms, and Hierarchies of Power
A further consideration on the theme of progression, is that of organisa-
tion design and development. In the early stages of industrialisation, lon-
ger production runs, and new levels of supervision necessitated a level of
formality, and an introduction of hierarchy albeit limited in depth and
scope. This period was not only the genesis of modern management but
also the genesis of modern organisation. As industrial and commercial
opportunities grew, an ‘American way’ of business was shown to be more
efficient. In this instance new management processes became the norm,
based around the scientific management methods of Taylor, and deployed
in large scale industrial units epitomised by Henry Ford’s factories.
Organisations became more structured—Weberian hierarchies- and
accountabilities for each layer of design or process were formulated. Later,
more people-oriented business methods—a human relations approach—
was used to replace or supplement the purely process driven methods that
had provided the bedrock of industrial development. By the time of the
Third Industrial Revolution from the middle of the twentieth century,
Asian organisations, first from Japan, then the Asian Dragons and Asian
Tigers and subsequently Indian and Chinese organisations, took advan-
tage of new technologies and globalisation in remarkable levels of busi-
ness performance, often introducing new forms of management or
organisation design.
14 P. Turner
In all cases organisations are both collections of individuals and politi-

cal systems. They have defined boundaries, goals and values, administra-
tive mechanisms, and hierarchies of power. Their structure influences the
behaviour of individuals and groups and determines how job tasks are
divided, prioritized, and coordinated. Traditionally, business organisa-
tions have been functional, geographic, or product-oriented structures
and based on the principle of unity of command and authority on an
unbroken line. However, more recent developments present the organisa-
tion as a holistic phenomenon. It is not a static configuration but a con-
stant process of design and redesign and is driven not only by
technical-structural rules but also by general ones. Hence contemporane-
ously, organisations have evolved into new forms—ecosystems, networks,
matrices or swarms to enable them to address more complex tasks in
more complex environments. And of particular relevance to this book the
idea of complementarity, which proposes that in the objective of achiev-
ing optimal fit, the design of organisations should seek to leverage any
interdependencies between organisational elements, rather than dealing
with individual elements singularly or separately. This is ‘chemistry of
organisation,’ the combination of organisational elements, analogous to
that of chemical elements composing a variety of substances. In all cases,
however defined, organisations offer ‘a fine weave of influence patterns
whereby individuals or groups seek to influence others to think or act in
particular ways.’ (Handy, 1976; Grandori & Furnari, 2008; Magalhaes,
2018; Sytch et al., 2018; Giri & Ramakrishnan, 2019)
In future, progression will depend on the ability to craft strategy
through these complexities, on agility and flexibility in organisational
design and response, on the ability to integrate new technologies across
the value chain from product design to sourcing of materials in the sup-
ply chain to manufacture to marketing, and of the full application of the
talents of all the workforce in an inclusive environment. The pioneering
work of Milgrom and Roberts (1990) offers important insights. They
argued that flexibility in equipment and product design, together with an
emphasis on speed to market and overlaps in design, product and process
engineering were mutually complementary and could be adopted
together—each making the other more attractive. Only coordinated
changes among all of the variables would generate optimum outcomes.
‘Significant complementarities in a rapidly changing environment pro-

vide a reason for close coordination between functions.’ In this construct,
profit maximising firms adopt a coherent business strategy that exploits
complementarities. This involves recognising that decisions should be
made across a number of variables in a ‘cluster of complements.’ In place
of the singularity of decision making is the complementarity of decision
making. With AI, more robots, and smart machines in day- to- day oper-
ations the physical and virtual world will fuse together. Such a radically
different type of environment will require organisations to ‘master the
profound technological challenges at work and transform them into
opportunities.’ (WEF, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) The design and structure of
that organisation will be an important part of the formula or chemistry
by which progress is achieved.
ources of Progression over Four

S
Industrial Revolutions
As outlined above and visualised in Fig. 1.1 the theory and practice of
business management have been well served by research and evidence
with the principles surrounding key disciplines being honed, over a long
period of time, through a sequence of challenge and response. The value
of tangible assets has been increased by effective competitive strategies
leading to competitive advantage, embracing all aspects of the value chain
from cost management through to the development of leaders, the cre-
ation of a talented engaged workforce and effective organisational designs.
In recent times recognition of the importance of intangible assets—from
brand value to corporate ‘admiration;’ from technical prowess and know
how to strategic capability—has grown and strategy setting will increas-
ingly take account of their value. In a knowledge-based economy, com-
petitive advantage is increasingly rooted in the management of intellectual
capital, and intangibles rather than tangible assets. (Nakata et al., 2010)
Insights into all of the elements that are identified in this book as core
sources of progression arise from a vast array of supporting material, stra-
tegic models, leadership and management competence lists, talent man-
agement programmes and tools and measures for employee engagement.
16 P. Turner
Business Progression
Objective
Objective Objective
progressive and
increase the value of increase the value of
sustainable
tangible assets intangible assets
development
develop people or
respect for the
human capital with
competitive advantage competitive strategy environment and fair
cross organisational
trade practices
capability
by effective strategy resepct for diversity

through setting systems and increase information
capital through and creation of
differentiation against processes which go
exploitation of equality of
competitors beyond singularity to
knowledge opportunity
complementarity
through cost identify and build

developing leadership organisation capital contribution to social
leadership against
and management through networks in welfare
competitors
competence the development of
an ecosystem
with agile governance synergies through

and pace of deliver
talent management
adaptability complementarity
and workforce
value by synergies
engagement
between intangibles
identifying and
implementing organisation design and
complementarities development to foster
collaboration and
knowledge management
Fig. 1.1 Business progression—complementarity, strategy and development
These models have increased in their incidence and sophistication, in

response to the rapidly changing environments of Four Industrial
Revolutions, though most notably during the course of the Third as
organisations took the learning from the scientific management processes
and Weberian hierarchies from earlier times into a global context. Today,
thousands of business schools worldwide teach business theory and prac-
tice; business consultancies offer support through bespoke models cover-
ing every aspect of business strategy and operations and leaders and
managers bring their transformational or transactional skills to bear in
carrying out their roles. Informed and influential business leaders or

‘gurus’ have carried their messages throughout the world’s business organ-
isations. From Taylor to Weber, Follet to Washington; Drucker to Handy,
to Porter; Mintzberg to Kanter, Taiichi Ohno to Soichiro Honda; Zhang
Ruimin to Lakshmi Mittal—each of whom were and remain influential
in their industries, communities and beyond. If the intent behind the
research and development of strategic models was to help business pros-
per, then they can claim success. The future challenge will be to bring all
of these elements together through whole system change which includes
strategy, structure and process.
There has been tangible progress in the world’s economies over the past
50 years. If we compare economic prosperity today with any earlier time,
‘we see that every single region is richer than ever before in its history.’
And the enduring nature of capitalism has survived seismic shocks from
the Great Depression in the 1920’s and 30’s to the Great Banking Crisis
of 2008 interspersed with Pandemic, War and Political Upheaval.
Through judicious intervention by government or judicious non-
intervention by government, the average person in the world today is 4.4
times richer than in 1950. (Roser, 2013) GDP per capita in the USA at
the time of independence was around $2500, but by 2018—roughly
240 years after independence—GDP per capita had increased by more
than 20 times to $55,335. The trend in the USA can be used as a bell-
wether for others whether they are in Europe, in China, India or Japan
each of which have demonstrated phenomenal economic growth. Of
course, these high-level average figures conceal the reality of disparity in
wealth distribution, the haves and have nots, the somewheres and every-
wheres, the left behind. But what they can’t conceal is that today, the
world is a more prosperous place than it was, that there is less poverty and
more opportunity.
Behind macro-economic growth were the giants of corporate develop-
ment. In the USA these included Coca Cola, Westinghouse Electric,
General Electric, Pepsico, Ford Motor, Gillette, IBM and Walt Disney—
which all came to life during the Second Industrial Revolution. Companies
such as Honda, Matsushita—with brand names National and Panasonic—
Toyota, Sumitomo, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and Sony achieved global success
through their product design and development, manufacturing or service
18 P. Turner
prowess and effective management aligned to international trade and glo-

balisation during the Third. As did companies such as Samsung, BP,
Volkswagen, Lloyds and Unilever. Not only was it the established large
organisations that could be successful through the globalisation of oppor-
tunity but newer, agile, technologically adept, ones too. Corporations
such as Apple and Google founded in 1998; Facebook, launched in 2004
(with 2.5 billion users) and Chinese company Alibaba founded in 1999,
are worth close to or into the trillions; by applying technologies with new
management and organisational formats that saw them grow to be
amongst the largest companies in the world. Amazon—whose business
model, already a benchmark for the application of Industry 4.0 technolo-
gies—was bolstered by its remarkable adaptation to COVID 19’s far
reaching implications, has become one of the world’s most valuable com-
panies; and in 2021 the Tesla and SpaceX companies reached an astonish-
ing market value. And of course, there are the thousands of SME’s that
have prospered in every geography. Each industrial revolution brought
the opportunity for value and wealth creation to those organisations that
had the foresight, entrepreneurial drive, and preparedness to risk capital
investment. Each one of these organisations also had the need for leaders
and managers to take key decisions about strategy or direction, and man-
agers to take responsibility for implementation and application.
(Turner, 2021)
Synthesizing the various points of view suggests that in contemporary
organisations, business management comprises of a series of interlinked
activities. In the first place, the organisation will have objectives. These
might be related to shareholder value, rate of return on investment, mar-
ket share or geographic expansion. They will represent where the organ-
isation desires to be. Strategies will then articulate how the organisation
intends to get there and to where resource will be allocated in so doing.
It will be up to leaders and managers to convert strategy into action
through their competences, talented people to convert tacit knowledge
into explicit knowledge and a workforce to convert objectives into out-
puts based on their engagement with the overall purpose and clarity
about their roles in contributing to it. The analysis of the evolution of
these concepts has shown there was no golden ticket to guaranteed suc-
cess and the sequence of challenge and response that epitomised early
industrial and commercial ventures reflected a willingness to learn and to

adapt on the part of entrepreneurs and leaders.
These experiences showed the necessity of sufficient resources, as well
as a clear understanding about intent, priorities, and actions among key
stakeholders. Effective strategy execution depends on good communica-
tion, resource allocation, coordinated actions, clear goals and responsi-
bilities. Of particular interest to this book, the need to overcome silo
behaviour, sub-optimization, ineffective cultures, and a resistance to
change were particularly important since too often the failure of organ-
isation stemmed from the inability to translate a broad competitive strat-
egy into the specific action steps needed to gain competitive advantage.
(Porter, 1985; Rumelt, 2011; Kraaijenbrink, 2019) A conclusion that is
of particular relevance is that some of these failures could be attributed to
singularity—that is discreet interventions in a specific function such as
the creation of a new strategy, the appointment of a visionary or charis-
matic leader or innovations in operational management- taking place
with little or no coordination with other strategies or activities within the
organisation. Sets of concepts or actions become conflicting rather than
coherent. At best this would result in an uncoordinated, sub optimal
activity, at worst it could destroy value. The objective therefore is to have
three elements in place—these being of coherence, congruence and con-
sistency—to improve the odds of a successful execution of strategy. The
generation of business value—through such resources as IT- is contingent
upon the availability of other complementary organisational resources
and capacities. (Moreno et al., 2019) A complementarity approach
instead of one of singularity may enhance this process.
omplementarity is the Antithesis

C
of Singularity
It can be explained as follows; ‘Complementary goods are used together.
Examples include right and left shoes; razors and blades; cake and icing;
horses and carriages; cars and highways; TV sets and TV shows; com-
puter hardware and software; and tea, hot water and a cup. The value of
a group of complements in joint use is super-additive, that is, the things
20 P. Turner
used together are more valuable (to someone) than the sum of their val-
ues in separate use.’(Baldwin, 2018)
Competitive advantage will only remain an advantage if an organisa-
tion builds in progression as part of its value chain, progression means
forward movement in the generation of tangible assets, intangible assets,
and sustainable development. In this respect complementarity holds that
the business phenomena of strategy, leadership, management, talent, and
engagement, have complementary properties which, if recognised and
directed, can have a broader impact than if they were regarded as inde-
pendent activities. It is concerned with ‘the valuable, unique, and inimi-
table synergy that can be realized by integrating complementary resources
provides an opportunity for the firm to create competitive advantages
that can be sustained for a period of time.’ (Harrison et al., 2001)
In this regard the concept of complementarity has been applied across
organisational theory and practice. Most notably Milgrom and Roberts
(1990) applied it to the shift from mass production to modern manufac-
turing, with the proposition that doing more of one thing increases the
returns to doing more of another. ‘The theoretical model specified comple-
mentarities between an organisation’s strategy, structure, and managerial
process….The core insight is that certain configurations of organisational
structures and practices are associated with a firm’s competitive advan-
tages.’ (Jackson & Ni, 2013) The challenge to all organisations is to ensure
that the energy unleashed by such activity is experienced as positive force
that has benefits to the whole organisation rather than conditional poten-
tial that has benefits for a part. Complementarity is the principle that the
outcomes of singular initiatives will be improved where they take account
of the potential synergistic opportunity with other initiatives. It brings
together the properties of singular activities into a complementary frame-
work which takes account of the totality of the phenomena.
Progression through complementarity will have occurred when coher-
ent, aligned, mutually reinforcing business strategies and management
practices give superior outcomes (such as shareholder value, profit, cus-
tomer satisfaction, market share or cost reduction) to those that would
occur if such strategies or practices had taken place independently of one
another. It is where the complementary agency of those strategies pro-
duces superior results. The core tenets of this hypothesis are:
• The performance of the whole organisation will be improved when

there is complementarity between elements of business strategy—for
example between the technology strategy and the marketing strategy
or the finance strategy.
• The performance of the whole organisation will be improved when
there is complementarity between business strategy, leadership, man-
agement, talent and engagement; where there is a culture of comple-
mentarity backed by systems and processes designed specifically to
recognise and address complementarity.
• The outcomes of business strategy will be superior if the strategy is
complemented by leadership, management, talent and engagement
practices that are specifically incorporated into the processes for achiev-
ing such outcomes.
• The performance of leaders will improve if leadership competences are
complemented by management competences; the performance of
managers will improve if they complement traditional management
competences with those traditionally ascribed to leaders.
• Workforce engagement will improve if it is complemented by talent
management practice that addresses engagement issues; the perfor-
mance of talent management will be enhanced by talent aligned
engagement practices.
In particular, the book will address the idea that there are synergies to
be had where organisational functions or practices go beyond singular-
ity—strategies that take place with little reference to others- to comple-
mentarity. Complementarity holds that the business phenomena of
strategy, leadership, management, talent or engagement, have properties
which, if recognised and directed, can have a broader impact than if they
were regarded as independent activities. This book is concerned with the
idea of progress in organisations as we stand on the cusp of the Fourth
Industrial revolution or Industry 4.0.
There are elements of business strategy that can stand alone. But there
are elements that would benefit from being linked to and associated with
others as shown in Fig. 1.2. It is to the latter that complementarity
applies.
22 P. Turner
complementarity
complementarity between talent
between leadership management and
and management workforce
engagement
complementarity
complementarity in
between business unit
organisation design
or functional
and development
strategies
complementarity
outcomes and
benefits for the
whole organisation
Fig. 1.2 Complementarity—at the core and at the periphery
A confluence of technologies will transform every aspect of how organ-

isations operate; from the design and creation of products and services to
how they are distributed to market. The ubiquity of new technologies
will ensure its presence in every aspect of life and work. The context
within which business takes place will be radically different—a great reset
or a great transformation. The challenge will be to put in place a business
model to take advantage of the opportunities. (Turner, 2021) ‘Strategic
coordination or coherence is not ad hoc mutual adjustment. It is coher-
ence imposed on a system by policy and design. More specifically design
is the engineering of fit among parts, specifying how actions and resources
will be combined.’ (Rumelt, 2011) Complementarity will be a funda-
mental consideration in this process.
The Structure of the Book

This chapter has covered the nature of industrial revolutions; how organ-
isations have adapted to date; and some of the challenges ahead. I also
outlined the idea of progression in organisations and how complementar-
ity can enhance the execution of business strategy. Chapter 2 will look in
more detail at the characteristics and nature of the Fourth Industrial

Revolution, some of its opportunities and challenges and the strategic
options open to organisations as they navigate the transformed industrial
and commercial world. The issues to be addressed are about the nature of
strategy, of leadership and management and the role of talent and work-
force engagement in the face of these dramatic, powerful forces for
change—which are themselves compounded by a compelling narrative
on equality and diversity in race and gender; and the impact on life and
work of COVID 19.
Chapter 3 will concentrate on the concept of Complementarity and
its relevance to business. It will define complementarity and evaluate its
possibilities; provide a literature review of how the subject has evolved
from its basis in quantum physics and show how the concept can be
applied in the milieu of modern business management. It is proposed
that a comprehensive response to the new, challenging context will be
enhanced if the elements of Strategy, Leadership, Management, Talent
and Engagement become mutually reinforcing. Chapter 4 will seek to
apply the concept of Complementarity to strategy setting and strategic
choice with the hypothesis that single issue competitive advantage may not
be the only option available to organisations in Industry 4.0. As such, pros-
perity will not only come about by pace and agility; or by cost leadership
or differentiation; but by the ability to make sure that every investment
creates advantage across the whole organisation; and that such invest-
ments are mutually reinforcing. To achieve this will require strategies that
recognise complementarity. Chapter 5 will apply a similar process to the
subjects of leadership and management with a working hypothesis that
the qualities of leadership and the qualities of management, when combined,
produce more than the sum of the qualities of leadership or the qualities of
management as singular instances. The outcome will be a complementarity
model of leadership and management.
Chapter 6 will analyse the potential for Complementarity in talent and
engagement with a working hypothesis that the activities of talent manage-
ment, when combined with and complementary to the activities of employee
engagement, produce more than the sum of the benefits of each when treated
as singular events. The outcome will be a complementarity model of talent
and engagement. Chapter 7 will review Complementarity in
24 P. Turner
organisation design and development with the hypothesis that when the
qualities of leadership complement those of management which in turn com-
plement those of talent management and employee engagement in a holistic
model of organisation, the outcomes will exceed the sum of each of these phe-
nomena as singular events. The outcome will be a complementarity model
of organisation. It will focus on the creation and dissemination of knowl-
edge, an emphasis on collaboration to ensure that knowledge is applied in
an optimal way across the organisation, leaders and managers who are
committed to organisation wide goals and objectives as much as func-
tional or business unit ones; talent that is regarded as a corporate resource
and is deployed for the benefit of the wider organisation; and workforce
engagement that is based on knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours
that add to the strength of the organisation as a whole. Chapter 8 will
review the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours required to ensure
that the concept of Complementarity is applied to optimum effect. It will
focus on organisational competence and how this will be developed with
the application of complementarity; and the leadership and management
competences to facilitate this process. It will cover the meaning of compe-
tence at all levels, a literature review on the subject and a methodology for
identifying the competences required in a complementarity system,
organisation, and culture. Finally, Chap. 9 will present 20 important con-
clusions and outline the benefits of taking a more comprehensive, holistic
perspective when considering the areas of strategy, leadership, manage-
ment, talent and engagement and highlight the benefits of so doing.
Excellence in the singularity of a strategy—such as cost leadership or
differentiation, or the vision of charismatic leaders or innovations in
operational management- underpinned the achievement of competitive
advantage. But now, a confluence of technologies will transform how
organisations operate; how they design and create their products and ser-
vices and how they distribute them to market. These developments will
benefit organisations that are able to adapt and to integrate their opera-
tions and services in an ‘extended ecosystem.’ The context within which
business takes place will be radically different—a great reset or a great
transformation. The challenge will be to put in place business models to
take advantage of the opportunities, but the question is, what is the best
business model—‘as our knowledge becomes wider, we must always be
prepared therefore to expect alterations in the points of view best suited for the
ordering of our experience.’ (Bohr, 1929)
We are on the brink of a Fourth Industrial Revolution which will fun-
damentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. ‘In its
scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything
humankind has experienced before.’ Robotics, advanced materials, genetic
modifications, the Internet of Things, drones, neuro-technologies,
autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, and machine vision, will
become integrated into physical, social, and political spaces, altering
behaviours, relationships, and meaning. Fundamentally, Society 4.0. and
Industry 4.0. will bring about significant shifts in the way that economic,
political, and social value is created, exchanged, and distributed. In this
context, an important question is how can commercial organisations
adapt their business models and modus operandi to compete success-
fully? This book seeks to address the point by applying the concept of
complementarity to business areas that are usually dealt with indepen-
dently—these being Strategy, Leadership, Management, Talent and
Engagement. The point of view is that organisational success will come
about not only by singularity—discreet interventions in these areas—
but also by complementarity—organisation wide interventions that
have synchronicity—connecting each of the functions to a broader pur-
pose. Complementarity means organisational constructs and actions that
are collaborative, multi layered, multi-faceted and add to the competi-
tiveness of the whole organisation. The argument being put forward is
that whilst the factors of an organisation will continue to affect each
other in one of three ways: independent, substitutive, and complemen-
tary, it will be towards the latter that a greater level of importance is
attached.
References
Ahlstrad, B., Lampel, J., & Mintzberg, H. (1998). Strategy safari. Pearson.
Albrecht, S., Breidahl, E., & Marty, A. (2018). Organizational resources, orga-
nizational engagement climate, and employee engagement. The Career
Development International, 23(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/
CDI-04-2017-0064
26 P. Turner
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2003, March 16). Under the influ-
ence. People Management, 32–35.
Bakker, A. (2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement.
Special Issue: Employee Engagement, Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 67–75.
Baldwin, C. Y. (2018). Design rules, volume 2: How technology shapes organ-
isations, Chapter 5 Complementarity. Working Paper 19-036. Harvard
Business School, USA.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The
Free Press.
Bohr, N. (1929). Atomic theory and the description of nature. Cambridge
University Press, 1961.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Milgrom, P. (2013). Complementarity in organizations. In
R. S. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organisational economics.
Princeton University Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard
Business Review.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2016). The search for global competence:
From international HR to talent management. Journal of World Business,
51(1), 10909516.
Cavaco, S., & Crifo, P. (2014). CSR and financial performance: Complementarity
between environmental, social and business behaviours. Applied Economics,
46(27), 3323–3338.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels,
E. G. (1998b). The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3.
Chambers, E. G., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels, E. G.,
III. (1998a). Win the war for top talent. Workforce, 77(12), 50.
Child, J. (1969). British management thought—A critical analysis. George
Allen & Unwin.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A
quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual perfor-
mance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
CIPD. (2017). Employee engagement and motivation. Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development, London, UK. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowl-
edge/fundamentals/relations/engagement/factsheet#6227
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review
and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2013). Commentary on: “Talent—innate or

acquired? Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent man-
agement”. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 10534822.
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2015). Talent management prog-
ress and prospects. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 233.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Harper Business.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organisations.
Sage Publications.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. Butterworth-Heinemann
Edition (2007).
Drucker, P. (1974). Management, tasks, responsibilities, practices (2011 ed.).
Routledge.
Edger, C. (2012). Effective multi-unit leadership: Local leadership in multi-site
situations. Gower Applied Research Press.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. F. (2013). What is the
meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management
Review, 23(4), 290–300.
Giri, S., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2019). Behavioural momentum in hierarchical
and non-hierarchical organizations. Behavioural Development, 24(1), 1–5.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you. Harvard
Business School Press.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Bloomsbury.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A chemistry of organization: Combinatory
analysis and design. Organisation Studies, 29(3), 459.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), (2010)
Leading organisations—Perspectives for a new era. Sage Publications Ltd.
Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Handy, C. (1976). Understanding organisations. Penguin.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Resource
complementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organiza-
tional alliances. Journal of Management, 27(6), 679.
Henderson, B. D. (1989, November–December). The origin of strategy. Harvard
Business Review.
Hlupic, V. (2014). The management shift. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hong, B., Kueng, L., & Yang, M. J. (2015). Estimating management practice
complementarity between decentralization and performance. NBER Working
Paper No. 20845.
28 P. Turner
Hsu, P. F. (2013). Integrating ERP and e-business: Resource complementarity in

business value creation. Decision Support Systems, 56, 334–347.
Huggett, M. (2009, August 18). Engagement depends on a clear psychological
contract between employee and employer. HR Magazine.
Jackson, G., & Ni, N. (2013). Understanding complementarities as organiza-
tional configurations: Using set theoretical methods. In Configurational the-
ory and methods in organizational research 38.
Kay, J., McKiernan, P., & Faulkner, D. O. (2006). The history of strategy and
some thoughts about the future. In A. Campbell & D. O. Faulkner (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of strategy: A strategy overview and competitive strategy.
Oxford University Press.
Kilburg, R. R., & Donohue, M. D. (2011). Toward a ‘grand unifying theory’ of
leadership: Implications for consulting psychology. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 63(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023053
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. Jossey-Bass.
Kraaijenbrink, J. (2019). 20 reasons why strategy execution fails. Forbes. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/09/10/20-reasons-why-
strategy-execution-fails/?sh=32f836041ebe
Lanteri, A. (2021). Strategic drivers for the fourth industrial revolution.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 63(3), 273–283.
Lenfant, J.-S. (2006). Complementarity and demand theory: From the 1920s to
the 1940s. History of Political Economy, 38(Suppl 1), 48–85. Duke
University Press.
Magalhaes, R. (2018). Design discourse for organization design: Foundations in
human-centered design. Design Issues, 34(3), 6–16.
Martin, R. L. (2014, January–February). The big lie of strategic planning.
Harvard Business Review.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations
cause personal stress and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing:
Technology, strategy, and organization. The American Economic Review,
80(3), 511–528.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24,
934–948. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review.
Mintzberg, H. (2011). Managing. FT Prentice Hall.
Moreno, V., Felipe Elias Lobo Vieira da Silva, Ferreira, R., & Filardi, F. (2019).
Complementarity as a driver of value in business intelligence and analytics
adoption processes. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 18(1), 57–70.
Muldoon, J., Gould, A., & McMurray, A. (2020). The Palgrave handbook of
management history. Springer International Publishing.
Nakata, C., Zhu, Z., & Izberk-Bilgin, E. (2010). Integrating marketing and
information services functions: A complementarity and competence perspec-
tive. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 700.
Parker, M. (2020). Humble Pi. Penguin Books.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. The Free Press.
Roser, M. (2013). Economic growth. https://ourworldindata.org/economic-
growth
Rumelt, R. (2011). Good strategy, Bad strategy. Profile Books.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice.
Organizational Dynamics, 46, 76–86.
Samuelson, P. (1974). Complementarity: An essay on the 40th anniversary of
the Hicks-Allen revolution in demand theory. Journal of Economic Literature,
12(4), 1255–1289.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293.
Schoenwaelder, T. (2019). 3 reasons good strategies fail. Wall Street Journal.
https://deloitte.wsj.com/cmo/2019/12/18/3-reasons-good-strategies-fail
Schwarz, T. (2012). New research: How employee engagement hits the bottom
line. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/11/creating-sustainable-
employee.html
Sytch, M., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. (2018). Collaborative by design?
How matrix organizations see/do alliances. Organisation Science, 29(6), 1130.
Tansley, C., et al. (2007). Talent: Strategy, management, measurement. CIPD.
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature
review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of
World Business, 45, 122–133.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for
integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,
15, 285–305.
Turner, P. A. (2019). Leadership in healthcare. Palgrave Macmillan.
Turner, P. A. (2020). Employee engagement. Palgrave Macmillan.
30 P. Turner
Turner, P. A. (2021). The making of the modern manager. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2011). What is talent. Michigan Ross School of
Business, Executive White Paper Series. execed.bus.umich.edu/execdev/.../
dulrich_wp_what_is_talent.
Vance, R. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment, SHRM. https://
www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-
views/Documents/Employee-Engagement-Commitment.pdf
Wilson, J. F., & Thomson, A. (2009). The making of modern management.
Oxford University Press.
World Economic Forum. (2019a). The importance of collaboration in a connected
world. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-collaboration-is-
the-modern-company-s-secret-weapon/
World Economic Forum. (2019b). HR4.0: Shaping people strategies in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_NES_White
paper_HR4.0.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2019c). 3 ways firms can master the digital challenges
of the 4IR. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/3-ways-digital-
c hallenges-f ourth-i ndustrial-r evolution-c ybersecurity-a i-a rtificial-
intelligence/
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organisations. Pearson.
2
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
F ourth Industrial Revolution—‘Unlike

Anything Humankind has Experienced Before’
We are on the cusp of a technological revolution that will have ramifica-
tions for the world’s economies and societies.
It comes about during a 250-year cycle in which the development of
the modern capitalist world can be set within a framework of Four
Industrial Revolutions. A common theme running through the First,
Second and Third was the belief that society was entering a new age in
which existing technologies would become largely obsolete, setting off a
migration of physical, financial, and human capital from established or
traditional to alternative sources of value creation. Each revolution was
accompanied by social, political and economic change. And each change
was considered to be more dramatic than the one that had gone before.
With each revolution came new ways of living and new means to live.
And with each revolution came new ways to work, with technology
development being the common denominator. In these scenarios, indus-
trial and commercial organisations progressed through a sequence of
challenge and response, which, for the most successful, led to innovations
in organisation, business strategy, leadership and management.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 31

P. Turner, Complementarity in Organizations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10654-5_2
32 P. Turner
Excellence was achieved by focus- on such strategic options as cost

leadership or differentiation- or by visionary leaders persuading others to
follow their charismatic style in pursuit of an exciting vision, or by inno-
vations in operational management, revolutionising production pro-
cesses. And now, a Fourth Industrial Revolution will, by both its scope,
velocity, and system impact once again change the competitive landscape
with radical alterations to the structure and functions of socio-economic
systems to cope with a complex, knowledge-based economy. It will pres-
ent opportunities such as lower barriers between inventors and markets;
a more active role for artificial intelligence and the integration of differ-
ent technics and domains (fusion). (Laursen & Foss, 2003; Ghislieri
et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2018; Turner, 2021) These dynamics will involve
the transformation of production, management, and governance.
Organisational competitiveness will depend on the ability to adapt to
these new circumstances as well as integrate new technologies across the
value chain from product design to sourcing of materials in the supply
chain to manufacture to marketing. However, it is not just concerned
with technology applications and as McKinsey (2022) note, the Fourth
Industrial Revolution will be people powered—‘Companies at the fore-
front of the technology frontier are empowering their workers with digi-
tal technologies—and the skills they need to use them.’
Pervasive machine automation applications, together with borderless
and dynamic environments will converge in almost every aspect of indus-
try and commerce, from smart factories using the new developments to
increase productivity and efficiency, to smart offices combining digital
systems to create new products and services. Undoubtedly, the consolida-
tion of technologies into ‘a new innovative ecosystem’ has created high
expectations. Its characteristics are the integration of the physical, digital,
and biological worlds through Cyber-Physical Systems which communi-
cate via the Internet of Things. They connect infrastructure, physical
objectives, humans, machines and processes ‘across organisational bound-
aries, enabling the fusion between physical and virtual world, exploiting
sensors, actuators, and computation power to transmit data in real-time
for decentralised decision-making processes.’ The Fourth Industrial
Revolution will be a continuous sequence that is likely to last for years or
even decades as the application of technological innovations continues to
grow, with the confluence of technologies forecast to reach its apogee in

around 2030. It has been described as ‘markedly different from its prede-
cessors’ (Schafer, 2018; Morgan, 2019; Díaz-Chao et al., 2021; Zheng
et al., 2021) because of a combination of integrated circuits on micro-
chips, memory units to store information, networks that help to enhance
communication, software applications that provide a direct link to con-
sumers’ needs and sensor capacity that allows artificial intelligence to
analyse most things which were previously only accessible to the human
mind. In business its impact will be the transformation of the frame-
works of production, management, and governance.
It will present opportunities to harness technology and extend the
range of human capability. Some of the impact and potential responses
are included in Fig. 2.1. The challenge is to ‘stay on the right side of his-
tory when the rules of engagement are changing so rapidly.’ (Johnson &
• A confluence of technologies
• Cloud Computing
• Artificial Intelligence
• Blockchain
• Mobile devices
Fourth Industrial • Internet of Things
Revolution • Digital Energy, Health, Transportation,Communications, Production
• Transformation of the frameworks of production, management, and governance

• Industry 4.0.
• Pervasive machine automation applications
• Smart and Collaborative Robots
Impact on • Cyber physical systems
Business and • Smart Worplaces
Commerce • Borderless commerce
• Progression multifaceted and connected

• Strategic progression on multiple fronts
• Organisation from hierarchy to ecosystem
• Leasership and Management competence and agile governance
Organisational • Workforce Progression- knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours
Response • A holistic view of business- complementarities and synergies sought
Fig. 2.1 The Fourth Industrial Revolution—characteristics, impact and response

34 P. Turner
Markey, 2020; Peccarelli, 2020) These developments will benefit organ-

isations that are able to adapt and to integrate their operations through a
‘great reset’ or ‘great transformation.’ It is forecast that competitive advan-
tage will become more transitory thereby requiring organisations to adopt
radically new types of competitive strategy, from maintaining cost com-
petitiveness but also delivering customer service or attracting talent. For
some it will be an opportunity to inspire, and foster collaboration, a rein-
vention, a reshaping of how organisations operate with positive, comple-
mentary and synergistic experiences in intercultural management
interactions (Barmeyer & Mayer, 2020; BCG, 2020; Deloitte, 2020;
McKinsey, 2020)
Confluence of Technologies and Their

A
Applications—From the Analytical
to the Predictive
Inevitably, technologies underpin the Fourth Industrial Revolution and
Industry 4.0. where Industry 4.0 largely represents the ‘factory of the
future’, smart manufacturing technologies and the convergence of a wave
of innovative operational technologies with Internet-driven IT. (Martinelli
et al., 2019) The core themes will be the fusion of smart and intelligent
systems, automation, and digitalized production. These include the
cyber-physical—a collection of transformative technologies that con-
nects the operations of physical assets and computational capabilities and
often go hand in hand with the Internet of Things—a world-wide infor-
mation network of interconnected physical objects (sensors, machines,
cars, buildings, and other items) that enables the collection and exchange
of data, allowing interaction and cooperation of these objects; and based
on standard communication protocols. The decisions within these sys-
tems are informed by Big Data—the collection and analysis of large
amount of available data, processed in higher volumes, with higher veloc-
ities and in greater variety. The foundations for these activities are Cloud
Technology Systems which provide online storage services for all applica-
tions, programmes, and data within virtual servers- rather than locally or
on a personal computer.
Artificial Intelligence that ‘thinks’ in a rational way—includes machine

learning to recollect patterns and features directly from data leading to
actions based on algorithms—will drive both strategy and operations
with the disciplines of natural language processing, knowledge represen-
tation, automated reasoning, machine learning, computer vision and
robotics. Systems security will be enhanced by Blockchain which is a
database that creates a distributed and secure ‘digital ledger of transac-
tions, including timestamps of blocks maintained by every participating
node.’ A combination of these multiple systems will enable Augmented
and Virtual Reality applying technologies to create an interactive world as
well as extensive automation and industrial robots. (Zheng et al., 2021)
The connected things, automation, people and organisations are bound
by data and information interactions which operate on five dimensions—
connection, collection, computation, communications and co-creation.
(Bonamigo & Frech, 2020; Fakhar et al., 2021; Hamdan et al., 2021) The
breadth and depth of new technologies will form a ‘fertile layer’ of inno-
vation which will span most industrial and commercial organisation from
software development to industrial production to supply chain services.
Furthermore, technology is moving beyond the analytical to the pre-
dictive. Smart workplaces will see physical systems cooperating and com-
municating not only with each other but with humans in real time,
integrating systems horizontally—for example, from supplier to cus-
tomer- and vertically from the shop floor to enterprise resource planning
in smart factories or in smart service provision. To this latter point are the
incidence of such things as wearables to facilitate access, supplies or mes-
saging; work performance informed by real-time metrics and supported
by machine learning for root cause problem-solving of issues; monitoring
of equipment in real-time to predict faults and then allowing machines to
learn from their own mistakes and adjust their settings to improve quality
output. The power of combining these new technologies will enhance the
application of robotics, advanced materials, genetic modifications,
drones, neuro-technologies, autonomous vehicles, and machine vision.
(McKinsey, 2018; Skilton & Hovsepian, 2018) The outcomes will be
cost savings by improvements to supply chains; time savings from real-
time data; and new product developments by processing massive amounts
of data in product design and productivity gains.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
In the Council’s collection are:—
[418]Ornamental plaster ceiling in Board Room on first floor
(photograph).
[418]Carved deal chimneypiece in Board Room (photograph).
[418]Ornamental plaster ceiling in Grand Secretary’s Room, first floor
(photograph).
XL.—GREAT QUEEN STREET CHAPEL
(Demolished).
General description and date of
structure.
Before its destruction in 1910 the Wesleyan Chapel in Great
Queen Street occupied the greater portion of the sites of three houses
with their gardens. These were Nos. 66 to 68, intervening between
Conway House and the stream which divided Aldwych Close from
Purse Field.
The land on which these three houses were erected was
roughly the shape of a truncated right-angled triangle, the base of
which was represented by Great Queen Street, the perpendicular by
the line of Middle Yard, and the hypotenuse by the course of the
stream. The land in question was leased[419] by Newton to Peter
Mills[420], of Christchurch, London, bricklayer, and it would seem
that at that date (15th September, 1639) no houses had been erected
thereon.[421] The building was therefore carried out probably in 1640;
at any rate No. 66 is known to have been occupied in December,
1641. No information can be gleaned from the ratebooks as to when
the three houses were rebuilt, but at least one (No. 67) seems to have
been still standing at about 1817, when an illustration of it was
included in Parton’s Hospital and Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.
The first reference that has been found to the building of a
chapel of ease for the parish occurs in the Vestry Minutes under the
year 1693:[422] “Ordered, to inquire of the gentry in Lincoln’s Inn
Fields, which of them will take pews in case a chappell should be
erected in the neighbourhood of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and report to
be made to the next Vestry.” It was, however, left to private
enterprise to provide such a building.
In 1706 a Mr. Baguley took a house (apparently No. 67)[423],
built a chapel in the rear, and seems even to have officiated therein,
although not in Priest’s orders. Naturally enough, he soon got into
trouble with the Rector of St. Giles, who, as Baguley affirmed,[424]
induced the vendor of the house and land to break off his agreement
with Baguley, and sell to “one Burges, a coachmaker.” According,
however, to the ratebooks the house occupied by Burges was No. 68.
Between 1720 and 1723 the assessment of No. 68 also dropped.
Whether this implies an extension of the chapel over a portion of the
ground in the rear of that house is uncertain, but it will be seen that
when the chapel comes, as it were, into the light of day, at the
beginning of the 19th century, it covers nearly the whole of the rear
of both houses.
The whole of its early history, however, is shrouded in
obscurity, and no reference to it or to the services held therein has
been found between 1728[425] and its acquisition by the Rev. Thomas
Francklyn. Even the date at which this occurred cannot be definitely
stated. The chapel seems to have been in his hands in February,
1758, for on the 17th of that month he preached a sermon there,
which he published in the same year.[426] In 1759 his name appears in
the parish ratebook in connection with the chapel.[427] His residence
at the house (No. 67) does not seem to have begun until 1761. On
Francklyn’s death in 1784, his executors appear to have carried on
the work of the chapel. On 19th July, 1798, Mrs. Francklyn’s
executors sold to the Society formerly carrying on the West Street
Chapel, Seven Dials, their leasehold interest in the two houses and
the chapel for £3,507 10s.[428]
The chapel was at that time, says Blott,[429] a very homely
structure; it was dark, and, lying below the level of the street, could
not easily be kept clean, and the entrance to it was by a passage
through a dwelling house. The surrounding houses overlooking it
were at times a means of annoyance during service. Negotiations
were therefore entered into with the owners of No. 66, and on 14th
March, 1815, a purchase was effected of the whole of the back part of
the premises, bounded by Middle Yard on the one side and the old
chapel on the other, and having a length of 102½ feet and a breadth
of 31 feet.[430] The new chapel was opened on 25th September, 1817.
[431]
Alterations were carried out in 1840, when an improved frontage
and new portico were constructed.[432]
The elevation to Great Queen Street (Plate 32) was of brick
faced with stucco, the lower part having a portico of four Greek Ionic
columns the full width of the building, executed in Talacre stone
from North Wales.[432] Above this, in the main wall of the chapel was
a three light window with Corinthian columns and pilasters
supporting an entablature, over which was a semi-circular pediment
and tympanum. Crowning the whole was a bold modillion cornice.
The interior (Plate 33) had a horseshoe gallery supported by
Ionic columns; above the back of the side galleries were other
smaller galleries. Facing the entrance was an apse ornamented with
Corinthian columns, pilasters and entablature carrying an elliptical
arch. Covering the whole area was a flat ornamental ceiling.
There is preserved by the West London Mission a measured
drawing of the elevation of the Chapel to Great Queen Street with the
adjacent buildings by R. Payne, Architect, June 21 (18)56, and an
internal view in perspective drawn with ink and coloured, probably
executed by the same hand and about the same date. Both these
drawings agree with the illustrations taken in 1906, and reproduced
in Plates 32 and 33. The premises were demolished in 1910, and new
buildings erected. The room over the portico was used at first as a
day school room, but in 1860 the school was removed to new
premises in the rear.
Biographical Notes.
No. 66.
The first occupant of No. 66, of whom any record has been found,
was the Countess of Essex, who was there in December, 1641.[433] This was
Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir William Paulet, who, in 1631, became the
second wife of Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex. The marriage turned
out very unhappily, and eventually a separation took place. Subsequently
she married Thomas Higgons (knighted after her death), who survived her.
She died in 1656.[434]
The Subsidy Roll for 1646 contains the item: “The Lord Kensington
in the Countes of Essex house.” This was presumably Robert Rich, son of
Henry Rich, first Earl of Holland, the latter having been created Baron
Kensington in 1623. The former in 1673 succeeded his cousin Charles, as
fifth Earl of Warwick.
In 1665 and 1666 Magdalen Elliott is shown at the house, and in 1673
Lady Porter. The entries in the Hearth Tax Rolls, Jury Presentment Rolls
and sewer ratebook from this time until 1700 vary between “Lady Porter,”
“Lady Diana Portland,” and “Lady Ann Porter.” There can be no doubt that
they all refer to the same individual, viz., Lady Diana Porter. She was a
daughter of George Goring, Earl of Norwich, and married (1) Thomas
Covert, of Slaugham, Essex, and (2) George Porter,[435] eldest son of
Endymion Porter, royalist and patron of literature. George Porter served as
lieutenant-general in the western royal army, under the command of his
brother-in-law, Lord Goring. The latter described him as “the best company,
but the worst officer that ever served the king.” Porter died in 1683.
The ratebook for 1703 contains the name “Ralph Lane” crossed out,
and “Wortley” substituted. This seems to point to Lane having recently
moved and “Wortley” taken his place. The “Ralph Lane” in question is no
doubt the person of the same name, who had in the previous year purchased
the house to the west of Conway House (see p. 74). His residence at No. 66
could not have lasted more than about two years. The “Wortley” of the 1703
ratebook is expanded in the records of 1709 and 1715 to “Wortley Montague,
Esq.” and “Sidney Wortley als Montague, Esq.” This was Sidney, second son
of Edward Montagu, first Earl of Sandwich, who married Anne, daughter
and heir of Sir Francis Wortley, Bt., and assumed the surname of Wortley.
His eldest son, Edward Wortley Montagu, married Lady Mary Pierrepont,
the famous Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Sidney Montagu died in 1727.
After Montagu’s residence the occupiers of No. 66 seem to have been
as follows:—
Before 1720 until after 1723. Martin Wright.
Before 1730. Elizabeth Perry.
1730–42. William Aspin.
1743–45. Dr. John Taylor.
1746. —— Davis.
1747. Lilley Smith.
1748. “Augusti” Arne.
1749–51. Col. Guy Dickens.
1753–61. Elizabeth Falconer.
1761–62. —— Davis.
1762–63. The Rev. Mr. Francklin.
1763–64. Miss Faulkner.
1764–83. —— Davis.
1783–87. —— Saunders.
1789–94. Ric. Sadler.
1795– J. Savage.
“Augusti” Arne is almost certainly Thomas Augustine Arne, the

celebrated composer. He was the son of Thomas Arne, an upholsterer, and
was born in 1710. On leaving school he was placed in a lawyer’s office, but
his love of music overcame all obstacles, and eventually his father was
induced to allow him to cultivate his talent in this respect. His first work, a
setting of Addison’s Rosamond, was produced at Lincoln’s Inn Fields
Theatre in 1733. This proving successful, it was quickly followed by the
Opera of Operas and Dido and Æneas. In 1738 he established his
reputation by his music to Comus, and in 1740 he wrote the music to
Thomson and Mallet’s Masque of Alfred, containing Rule Britannia. His
later works included the songs Where the bee sucks, Under the greenwood
tree, Blow, blow, thou winter wind, the oratorios Abel and Judith, and the
opera Artaxerxes. In 1769 he set to music the ode by Garrick, performed at
the Shakespeare jubilee at Stratford on Avon. He died in 1778.
No allusions have been found to his residence at No. 66, Great Queen
Street. He is stated to have been living “next door to the Crown in Great
Queen Street,” in 1744[436] but that must refer to a different house. The
sewer ratebook for 1734 shows a “Mr. Arne” resident at No. 34, Great Queen
Street, but there is no proof that this was the musician. His residence at No.
215, King’s Road, Chelsea, has already been mentioned.[437]
No. 67.
Early records of the residents at No. 67 are wanting. The first
mention of the house occurs in the Hearth Tax Roll for 1665, which gives
“Lady Thimbleby” as the occupier. This was Elizabeth, one of the six
daughters of Sir Thomas Savage and Elizabeth, Countess Rivers (see p. 67).
She married Sir John Thimbleby of Irnham, in Lincolnshire.[438] How long
she had been at No. 67 in 1665 is unknown, but it is permissible to suggest
that she was there while her mother was still living three doors away. It
seems likely that during Lady Thimbleby’s stay here, her sister, Henrietta
Maria, who had married Ralph Sheldon, of Beoley,[439] also came to live
close by, for the Jury Presentment Roll for 1683 shows “Ralph Sheldon,” in
occupation of No. 69. Another sister, Anne, who had married Robert
Brudenell, afterwards second Earl of Cardigan, was also only a short
distance away, on the south side of Lincoln’s Inn Fields.[440]
Lady Thimbleby’s residence lasted until between 1700 and 1703, and
in the latter year the name of John Thimbleby appears in respect of the
house. He had left before 1709, when the house is shown as empty. The
occupiers after that date were as follows:—
1715. Mr. Vaune.

1720. Mr. Froude.[441]
Before 1723 until 1734. Mary Forrester.
1735–51. Adam Hallam.
1751–54. William Pritchard.
1755–61. Stephen Hunt.
1761–84. The Rev. Thomas Francklin.
1784–95. Mrs. Francklin.
1795–98. Francis Const.[442]
1798. —— Rowley.
Thomas Francklin, son of Richard Francklin, a bookseller of Covent

Garden, was born in 1721. He was educated at Westminster School and
Trinity College, Cambridge. For some time he found employment as usher
in his old school, and in 1750 he became Greek professor at Cambridge, a
position which he held until 1759, when he was presented to the vicarage of
Ware. At the same time he was fulfilling other clerical duties in London. As
early as 1749 he seems to have held a chapel in Bloomsbury, for in June of
that year he performed the marriage ceremony for Garrick there.[443] By
1758 he had obtained the lectureship at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, and was
installed in the Great Queen Street Chapel. He was appointed King’s
chaplain in 1767, and ten years later he vacated the living at Ware for the
rectory of Brasted, in Kent. Through the influence of Dr. Johnson and Sir
Joshua Reynolds, he was appointed chaplain to the Royal Academy, and on
the death of Goldsmith in 1774 he obtained the professorship of ancient
history. His literary output was considerable. In 1757 he brought out a
periodical paper called The Centinel, which only lasted two years. He wrote
four plays, the most important of which was The Earl of Warwick. His
translations were numerous, those of Sophocles’ tragedies being long
considered the best in the English language. After a laborious life he died in
his house in Great Queen Street[444] in March, 1784. His widow died in
1796.[445]
No. 68.
In the case of No. 68 also, no records of the names of any occupiers

exist before the Hearth Tax Roll for 1665. In that document the occupant’s
name is given as “Sir Willm. Hartupp.” This seems to have been Sir William
Hartopp, of Rotherby, son of Sir Thomas Hartopp, of Burton Lazars. Sir
William married Agnes, daughter of Sir Martin Lister.[446]
The Hearth Tax Roll for 1666 shows the house “Empty,” and that for
1672, “Empty—Mr. Bradshaw owner.” It seems probable that between these
dates occurred the joint occupancy of Lord Roos and Lady Chaworth, if
indeed that can be referred to this house at all. An item in Lord Roos’s
expenditure under date of 25th February, 1667–8, runs: “Paid Major Seales
for Sir William Hartopp for one quarter’s rent for the house in Queen Street,
beginning the 18th October, when his Lordship had the keyes, at 80li per
annum, Lady Ch[aworth] is to pay the next quarter, 20li.”[447] That Sir
William Hartopp’s house in 1667 was the same as that in 1665 is probable,
but unfortunately cannot be considered certain. Assuming, however, that
such is the case, Lord Roos’s occupation is seen to have commenced on 18th
October, 1667.
John Manners, third son of the eighth Earl of Rutland, was born in
1638. On the death of his two elder brothers, he assumed, apparently
without right,[448] the title of Lord Roos.[449] His first marriage, in 1658, to
Lady Anne Pierrepoint, was unhappy, and he was divorced from her by Act
of Parliament in 1670. In 1677 he was made Lord Lieutenant of
Leicestershire. He succeeded to the earldom in 1679. At the coronation of
James II. in 1685 he bore the Queen’s sceptre, but he does not seem to have
been in favour and in 1687 was dismissed from his lord lieutenancy. He
supported William at the Revolution, and was soon after restored to his
office. In 1703 he was created Marquess of Granby and Duke of Rutland. He
died in 1711.
His sister Grace married Patricius Chaworth, third Viscount
Chaworth.[450] Apparently the expenses of the house in Great Queen Street
were shared equally between her and her brother, for numerous items such
as the following occur in the Accounts of Lord Roos’s Expenditure
contained in the Duke of Rutland’s MSS.:—[451]
“1670. April 21. For the repaires of the parish church and maimed
soldiers, etc., this Queene Street house is taxed 5s., whereof Lady Chaworth
paying ½, his lordship ½, comes to 2s. 6d.”
“To the beadle for watching the Queene Street house ending the
above said Christmasse [1671] 4s.; Lady Cha[worth] paying ½, his lordship
other ½, comes to 2s.”
“July 3, 1669. The hire of paper windowes last year, 1668, to save the
hangings in the dining roome and drawing roome, the ½ of cost, Lady
Cha[worth] payes the other half, 5s.”
Some indication of the reason that influenced Lady Chaworth in
setting up housekeeping with her brother may be afforded from a letter
dated 25th June, 1670, from Lord Chaworth to his wife, at Lord Roos’s
house in Great Queen Street, requesting her to return to him, and offering
to receive her with respect and affection.[452]
In the Hearth Tax Roll for 1673, the house is shown as “Empty.” Two
years later “The Lady Morpeth” is shown in occupation. This was Elizabeth,
dowager lady Berkeley, wife of Edward Howard, Viscount Morpeth,
afterwards second Earl of Carlisle. It was in this same year that her eldest
son Charles, afterwards third earl, was born. Later occupants of the house
were:—
1683. Sir Edward Mosen.
Before 1698 until after 1709. Mrs. Eleanor Complin.
Before 1715 until after 1720. Thomas Burges.
Before 1723 until 1732. Ashburnham Froude and Thomas Burges.[453]
1733. Ashburnhame Froud.
1733–1740. Madame Eaton.
1740–44. Madame Pain (Paign).
1746. —— Davis.
1747–51. Elizabeth Falconer.
1753–55. James Ward.
1755–57. G. Stewart.
1758–70. Thos. Brock (Brooke).
1770–74. Thos. Rudd.
1775–78. Ric. Rudd.
1779. —— Thomas.
1780–86. Mrs. Thomas.
1786– John Arthur.
In the Council’s collection are:—
[454]Exterior(photograph).
Side entrance in Middle Yard, erected 1859–60 (photograph).
Interior from the gallery (photograph).
Interior looking south (photograph).
Interior looking north (photograph).
Fanlight under stairs (photograph).
Staircase (photograph).
Lantern light over staircase (photograph).
Loculi in crypt (photograph).
Two silver chalices dated MDCIIIC, originally presented for use in
West Street Chapel (photograph).
XLI.—SITE OF WELD HOUSE.
The history of that part of Aldwych Close lying within the

angle formed by Great Queen Street and Wild Street has already
been traced[455] up to the division of the greater portion of it between
Sir Edward Stradling and Sir Kenelm Digby in 1629. Eleven years
previously, Henry Holford had leased to John Ittery the extreme
southern portion, reaching 100 feet northwards from Sardinia Street,
and a trench had been dug separating Ittery’s portion from that lying
to the north. On the transfer of the latter to Sir W. Calley and Geo.
Strode in trust for Stradling and Digby, Ittery’s portion was included,
and added to Stradling’s share. Stradling without delay began the
erection on his portion of “a faire mansion house with stables and
other outhouses.”[456] On 12th December, 1632, the ground, with the
mansion, etc., was sold by Calley and Strode to Stradling, and was
then described as extending south from the partition wall[457]
between Digby’s and Stradling’s portions “together with that parte
formerly demised to the said John Ittery, and then enclosed together
with the same, at the end next Drewry Lane by a square lyne 300
foote, and at the other end next Lincolne’s Inne Feildes 296 foote.”
By 1632 Stradling had also divided his portion into two by a brick
wall, “beginninge at the west end towards Drewry Lane and
extendinge itselfe eastwards towards Lincolne’s Inne Feildes 144
foote, and then towards the north in length 132 foote, and then again
eastwards towards Lincolne’s Inne Feildes 132 foote, and standinge
distant at the west end thereof from the fore-mentioned partition
wall 157 foote, and at the other end next Lincolne’s Inne Feildes 31
foote.”[458]
On 20th December, 1632, Stradling sold that part lying to the
north of this second partition wall, including the house, etc., to
George Gage. The house had not yet been completed, but a provision
was subsequently made that Strode was to finish, before Easter,
1634, “the dwelling house and buildings now erected or begun to be
erected, within and without ... in all respects, fitt and necessary for
one or more dwelling house or houses.”[459]
The date of completion of the house may therefore be ascribed
with probability to the year 1634.
Gage used the house as his own residence, and while “lyeinge
sicke in the said messuage of the sickness whereof he died” made his
will on 14th August, 1638, bequeathing the premises,[460] together
with other property, to William Darrell and William Bierly to sell for
the payment of his debts. On 25th February, 1639–40, it was
purchased by Humphrey Weld for £2,600.[461]
The portion of Stradling’s property which lay to the south of
the second partition wall, and which extended to the southern limits
of Aldwych Close, Stradling seems to have sold to Dr. Gifford for 500
years for £400 without right of redemption.[462] In 1649 Andrew
Gifford sold the property for £650 to Weld, who assigned it to his
mother, Dame Frances Weld, in trust. Three years later she re-
assigned it to him.
Humphrey Weld thus became possessed of the whole of
Aldwych Close lying to the east of Wild Street, and to the south of the
gardens of the Great Queen Street houses, and he now began to
develop the property by building. A reference to Hollar’s Plan of 1658
(Plate 3) shows that by that year the whole of the east side of Wild
Street, south of Weld House, and all the north side of Sardinia Street
had been covered with houses.[463] Weld himself stated about 1670,
that he had by that time laid out £15,600 in building.[461]
The street which had at least since 1629,[464] and probably
since 1618,[465] led from Great Queen Street to Kemble Street, then
Princes Street, seems for some time to have been without a name. It
is referred to in early deeds as “the back side of Drury Lane,” “a way
leading from Princes Street to Queen Street on the back side of Drury
Lane,” etc. In the Subsidy Rolls up to 1646 inclusive, it is merged in
“Cockpit Side.” The earliest instance of the name Weld Street or Wild
Street[466] so far discovered is in a deed of 24th April, 1658,[467] which
refers to “the street now called Wild Street, but heretofore called a
way or passage of 40 foote breadth leading from Queenes Street to
Princes Streete.”
How far Weld House was identical with the mansion built by
Stradling and Strode is uncertain. Blott, after mentioning the latter,
says: “Adjoining it, on the south side, were the grounds and premises
of Weld House, Drury Lane, occupied by Lady Frances Weld, widow.
In 1657, Weld House and Stradling House underwent a complete
transformation, the two houses were united together and became
one building, having, besides extensive additions made to it, a
chapel[468] built in the garden; the front arranged to face Aldwyche
Close instead of Drury Lane, and an approach made to it called Weld
Street. This extraordinary enlargement was not to make the building
a residence suitable to the dignity of the Welds, but rather for State
purposes, such as the accommodation of princes and ambassadors in
London.”[469]
Blott gives no authority for his statements, one of which,
relating to the formation of Weld Street, is demonstrably wrong. The
statement that the “extraordinary enlargement” was carried out with
a view to the reception of princes and ambassadors in the building is
probably only an inference from the indisputable fact that
ambassadors did afterwards reside in a portion of the house.[470]
Nevertheless the view of the house given in Hollar’s Plan of 1658
(Plate 3) certainly does suggest the amalgamation of two distinct
houses, and the Subsidy Roll for 1646 shows that at that date two
large residences existed side by side,[471] although of course these may
have been only portions of one very large house.
As early as 1664 the house (or houses) seems to have been
split up among a number of occupants. The entries in the Hearth Tax
Rolls for 1664–1674 in respect of this portion of the street (amending
the wrong order of the first roll) are as follows. The numbers in
brackets represent the number of hearths taxed.
1665. 1666.
Sam Nelson (6) Samuel Nelson (6)
Lord Baltimore (15) Cecill, Lord Baltimore (15)
Lord Marquess of Winchester in 2 houses
Lady Spencer (16)
(30)[472]
A. Gilbt. Crouch, Esq. (7) Widow Tattershall (6)
B. John Wolstenholm (14) John Wolstenholme, Esq. (14)
C. Humph. Wild, Esq. (14)
The Portugall Embassador’s E (20)
House.
D. Humph. Wild, Esq. (16) Humfrey Weild, Esq. (16)
E. Countess of Exeter (9) E (10)
F. Mary Sanders (9) Mrs. Mary Sanders (9)
G. John Worsley (3) John Worsley, Marcht of Intercost (6)
1673. 1675.
Samuel Nelson (6) Samuel Nelson (6)
Lord Baltimore (15) The Lady Baltimore (15)
Marquess of Winchester (3) Marquess of Winchester (30)
A. Thomas Hawker[473] (7) Thomas Hawker (7)
B. Mary James (13) E (13)
C. The French Embassadour
Spanish Ambassador (20)
(20)
D. Humphrey Wild, Esq. (16) Humphrey Wild, Esq. (16)
E. Thomas Weedon, Esq. (5) Madd. James (5)
F. Mary Saunders (9) Mary Saunders (9)
Mary Watson (1) Mrs. Watson (1)
G. John Worseley (6) John Worsley (6)
Of these neither (A)[473] nor (G)[474] formed part of Weld

House, and (B) is doubtful. (C) and (F) however, certainly did, the
former being the ambassadorial residence (see below) and the latter
being mentioned in a deed of 1673, quoted by Parton[475], as “the
wing of the said great house, late in Mary Saunders’s possession.”
The house was therefore at this time in at least four distinct
occupations.[476]
The two chief residences thus formed were evidently the
house occupied by Weld himself and the ambassadorial house,
immediately adjoining on the south. The former was the scene of a
wild riot in 1671, when, Humphrey Weld having attempted to arrest
the ringleaders in a tumult close by, the rabble, in a fury, attacked his
house.[477]
The Portuguese Ambassador seems to have taken up his
residence at Weld House in 1659, for on 9th July in that year he
(Francisco de Mello) wrote from “Wild Street” to William Lenthall,
announcing the arrival of his credentials, and asking for an audience.
[478]
The extracts from the Hearth Tax Rolls given above show that he
was still there in 1665, gone in 1666, that the French Ambassador
was there in 1673,[479] and the Spanish Ambassador in 1675.
Numerous references to the residence of the last mentioned occur.
[480]
On the flight of James II. in December, 1688, the mob sacked the
ambassador’s house.
Shortly afterwards Weld House and the ground belonging to it
were purchased by Isaac Foxcroft, who let out the property on
building lease.[481] The house, or a portion of it, was however, still
standing in 1694.[482]
In the Council’s Collection is:—
North-east side of Great Wild Street, in 1906, looking south-east
(photograph).
XLII.–XLIII.—Nos. 6 and 7, WILD COURT.
The Society for the Improvement of the Condition of the

Labouring Classes are the ground landlords of these houses.
The only objects of interest which the premises contain are
four 18th-century hob grates, illustrated below.
The Council’s collection contains:—
[483]Four cast-iron hob grates (measured drawing).

Complementarity in Organizations Strategy Leadership Management Talent and Engagement in The Fourth Industrial Revolution Paul Turner Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complementarity in Organizations Strategy Leadership Management Talent and Engagement in The Fourth Industrial Revolution Paul Turner Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complementarity in Organizations:

Strategy, Leadership, Management,

ISBN 978-3-031-10653-8 ISBN 978-3-031-10654-5 (eBook)

1 From Singularity to Complementarity 1

2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution 31

3 The Origins of Complementarity 59

4 Complementarity and Business Strategy 87

5 Complementarity in Leadership and Management115

6 Complementarity in Talent and Workforce Engagement143

8 Complementarity and Competence-­knowledge, Skills,

Paul Turner has held Professorial appointments at Universities in Leeds,

Fig. 1.1 Business progression—complementarity, strategy and devel-

 ompetitive Progression—Achieving Economic

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

There is a panoply of strategic thought as to how organisations can

advantage—to craft how they go about leveraging any potential comple-

Complementarity is the interaction of business strategies and manage-

How to apply this interpretation will depend on those responsible

(Rumelt, 2011; Schoenwaelder, 2019; Lanteri, 2021) An understanding

 usiness Strategy—More than a Reflexive,

given its focus on the exploitation of internal resources in the achieve-

organisation, the agency of strategy, stewardship, and policy provide the

Leadership and Management—Influencing

integrity, trust and delegation, honesty, and consistency. Or leadership

seeds of Scientific Management were sown and cultivated. However, an

management were wrong because ‘managing is controlling and doing and

F rom Exclusive to Inclusive—Defining Talent

roles of global specialists (such as project managers who were able to

non-engaged co-workers. The US based Society for Human Resource

A compelling conclusion about both talent and workforce engagement

In all cases organisations are both collections of individuals and politi-

‘Significant complementarities in a rapidly changing environment pro-

 ources of Progression over Four

by effective strategy resepct for diversity

through cost identify and build

with agile governance synergies through

Fig. 1.1 Business progression—complementarity, strategy and development

These models have increased in their incidence and sophistication, in

carrying out their roles. Informed and influential business leaders or

prowess and effective management aligned to international trade and glo-

industrial and commercial ventures reflected a willingness to learn and to

 omplementarity is the Antithesis

• The performance of the whole organisation will be improved when

Fig. 1.2 Complementarity—at the core and at the periphery

A confluence of technologies will transform every aspect of how organ-

The Structure of the Book

more detail at the characteristics and nature of the Fourth Industrial

Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2013). Commentary on: “Talent—innate or

Hsu, P. F. (2013). Integrating ERP and e-business: Resource complementarity in

Turner, P. A. (2021). The making of the modern manager. Palgrave Macmillan.

F ourth Industrial Revolution—‘Unlike

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 31

Excellence was achieved by focus- on such strategic options as cost

grow, with the confluence of technologies forecast to reach its apogee in

• Transformation of the frameworks of production, management, and governance

• Progression multifaceted and connected

Fig. 2.1 The Fourth Industrial Revolution—characteristics, impact and response

Markey, 2020; Peccarelli, 2020) These developments will benefit organ-

 Confluence of Technologies and Their

Artificial Intelligence that ‘thinks’ in a rational way—includes machine

“Augusti” Arne is almost certainly Thomas Augustine Arne, the

1715. Mr. Vaune.

Thomas Francklin, son of Richard Francklin, a bookseller of Covent

1 From Singularity to Complementarity 1

2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution 31

3 The Origins of Complementarity 59

4 Complementarity and Business Strategy 87

5 Complementarity in Leadership and Management115

6 Complementarity in Talent and Workforce Engagement143

8 Complementarity and Competence-knowledge, Skills,

ompetitive Progression—Achieving Economic

usiness Strategy—More than a Reflexive,

Leadership and Management—Influencing

F rom Exclusive to Inclusive—Defining Talent

ources of Progression over Four

omplementarity is the Antithesis

The Structure of the Book

F ourth Industrial Revolution—‘Unlike

Confluence of Technologies and Their