TOWARDS A GENETIC BUSINESS CODE FOR GROWTH IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

As with each living organism, it is proposed that an organisation possesses a genetic code. In the fast-changing business environment it would be invaluable to know what constitutes organisational growth and success in terms of such a code. To identify this genetic code a quantitative methodological framework, supplemented by a qualitative approach, was used and the views of top management in the Transport Industry were solicited. The Repertory Grid was used as the primary data-collection method. Through a phased data-analysis process an integrated profile of first- and second-order constructs, and opposite poles, was compiled. By utilising deductive and inductive strategies three strands of a Genetic Business Growth Code were identified, namely a Leadership Strand, Organisational Architecture Strand and Internal Orientation Strand. The study confirmed the value of a Genetic Business Code for growth in the Transport Industry. Opsomming Daar word voorgestel dat ’n organisasie, soos elke lewende organisme, oor ’n genetiese kode beskik. In die snelveranderende sake-omgewing sal dit onskatbaar wees om te weet wat organisasiegroei en –sukses veroorsaak. ’n Kwantitatiewe metodologie-raamwerk, aangevul deur ’n kwalitatiewe benadering is gebruik om hierdie genetiese kode te identifiseer, en die menings van topbestuur in die Vervoerbedryf is ingewin met behulp van die “Repertory Grid" as die vernaamste metode van data-insameling. ’n Geintegreerde profiel van eerste- en tweedeordekonstrukte, met hulle teenoorgestelde pole, is opgestel. Drie stringe van ’n Genetiese Sakegroeikode, nl. ’n Leierskapstring, die Organisasieargitektuur-string en die Innerlike-ingesteldheidstring is geidentifiseer deur deduktiewe en induktiewe strategiee te gebruik. Die studie bevestig die waarde van ’n Genetiese Sakekode vir groei in die Vervoerbedryf.

"Business will never be the same" -this seems to be the new slogan for present and future Chief Executive Managers.The fact of the matter is that the business environment is changing at a frightening pace.The question is -"what can we expect to happen in the business environment?"In an attempt to answer this question authors such as Nadler and Tushman (1999); Peters (1997); Grulke and Silber (2000); Davis (1988);and McCrimmon (1997) identified important key characteristics of business success in pursuit of competitive advantage in an uncertain world.
Inevitably, the rules of the business game are being redefined as changes occur in the business environment.An interesting topic of discussion thus is "what are these new rules now?" and what will they be in the future.The challenge for CEOs, as key element in organisational success in the new millennium, is "How do I face the new environment and make a success of my company?"Determining the performance drivers of organisations, the rules, is nothing new.Many authors have spent much time and effort on this topic.They have expressed early warnings about change; given explanations of the change process and how to make the best of change; and also offered perfect 20-20 hindsight explanations of why the change had happened and what can be learned from it.The question, however, is what the new rules are in the changing environment which will enable business success and growth.
The use of the analogy of a "Genetic Code", or sometimes referred to as the DNA Code of organisations, shows some promise of shedding light on the variables affecting business success and growth.A genetic code provides the means by which organisms can grow successfully in their environments.The genetic code of any organism is the key to life.It is the means by which genetic information is stored as sequences of nucleotide bases in the chromosal DNA (Complete Wordfinder, 1993) enabling (or disenabling) the organism to live and grow successfully in its environment.It seems reasonable to argue that if a Genetic Business Code for Growth could be developed it would serve as a crucial enabler of business growth.
The concept of a Genetic Code for organisations is not new.Cannon (1996) stated that the value of the genetic code of organisations is shaped by the environment in which the organisation has to attain success.He elucidated that such a code largely prescribes how an organisation responds to conditions and stimuli.This Code is deeply embedded in the enterprise and rooted in the culture and values of the organisation.Identifying the basic genetics of successful organisations is the objective of this research.
The concerted effort to grow organisations in volatile times requires an understanding of the capabilities and competencies of organisations, which are held together by the organisation's make-up (i.e. the way in which the organisation is put together and held together to deliver value on a sustainable basis).The CEO must have a very clear view of the challenges that the organisation faces, but s/he must also understand the genetic code for organisational success.The ways in which these capabilities of the organisational genetic code combine and interact with one another will determine the success of the organisation.According to Cannon (1996) this will create a competitive advantage for the company.It is generally believed that the development of a Genetic Business Code for growth will assist managers in understanding business change and will dispel the

AIMS
The first aim of this study was to identify a Genetic Business Code for Growth.Referring back to the changing business environment it would indeed be a daunting task to determine what "really" makes an organisation grow and prosper.Based on scientific beliefs related to both positivistic and humanistic philosophical assumptions, the second aim was to develop an appropriate methodology to develop the Business Code.Differently phrased, the challenge here is to apply qualitative and quantitative methodological elements to gather relevant data to develop the Business Code.The third aim was to use the results of this study as a departure point to explore the possibility of developing an assessment tool to assess organisations; determine their current "Code"; and identify gaps for renewal interventions.

RESEARCH DESIGN
Research can be categorised into two distinct styles: qualitative and quantitative.The former concentrates on people's feelings and emotions as expressed by, inter alia, words and observations used to conceptualise social reality and attempt to describe people in their natural situations or habitat.In contrast, the quantitative approach grew out of a strong academic tradition that places considerable trust, inter alia, in quantification by means of numbers, frequencies and concepts or variables.I.e., indicators and measurements of people's perceptions and opinions.It goes without saying that when researchers opt for a combination of these two approaches the study's complexity increases and clarif ying its approach becomes a crucial responsibility of the researcher.This study used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative styles.
It is difficult to find an unambiguous and definite statement of what qualitative research compromises in business growth.This is, inter alia, due to the fact that the vast majority of research regarding success factors in business is quantitatively orientated.However, the researcher surmises from this study, i.e. determining the Genetic Business Code for Growth, that qualitative research has, amongst others, the following features: carefully collecting data that focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings; highlighting the complexity of growth in the everyday business reality; providing ample "rich descriptions", nested in a real-life context, for interpretation; reflecting on the views and experiences of CEOs and Executive Managers, these descriptions can be studied, compared and analysed in the field of business; and locating the meanings CEOs and Executive Managers place on events and processes in organisations, because these constructions are "lived experiences".
The research in this study was, for the greater part, done within a quantitative methodological framework, supplemented by a qualitative approach.As far as the data collection process was concerned, the study is quantitative since (a) a semi-structured interview (the Repertory Grid) was used providing certain themes (regarded as important by the researcher) to the research participants; and (b) a definition of business growth was presented in cases where the research participants needed clarification.The collected data are qualitative because (a) the research participants were requested to provide their views and experiences of the topics freely, i.e. no structured answer possibilities were provided (a qualitative characteristic of the Repertory Grid); (b) the researcher spent some time with the research participants in their natural habitat and at least played some role in discussing their construction of constructs with them; and (c) the perceptions of the research participants were captured in relatively detailed field notes.

Theoretical framework adopted
In order to meet the principle research objective, mainly to describe and explain the views of CEOs regarding business success, a research design was opted for that utilises both quantitative and qualitative assumptions.Symbolic interactionism provided a theoretical framework for this mixed methodology since it describes in a meaningful, intelligible way how research participants perceive and manage their business.In addition, symbolic interactionism also enables researchers to approach social reality by means of positivistic logic when they implicitly or explicitly count and measure their data.Denzin and Lincoln (1994) explain that symbolic interactionism rests on three premises: Firstly, human beings act toward the physical objects and other beings in their environment on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them.Secondly, these meanings derive from the social interaction between individuals.Thirdly, these meanings are established and modified through an interpretive process.Symbolic interactionism requires that the inquirer actively enter the worlds of people being studied in order to "see the situation, as it is seen by the actor, observing what the actor takes into account, observing how he interprets what is taken into account" (Mead, G.H. & Blumer, H., as cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 1994. p. 56).

The participants
The transport organisation that was selected to participate in this study is a diverse national company, operating from all major centres across the country with a turnover of R35, 8 billion and employing more than 80 000 people.
In this study 22 people participated.Their characteristics can be summarised as follows: Males dominated the sample, 18 males out of the sample of 22.
Six CEOs, seven General Managers, six Executive Managers, one Chief Operations Manager and two Senior Managers were interviewed.86% of the South African transport industry was represented in this study.231 constructs were developed.The average time spent on an interview was 90 minutes.20 interviews were conducted in the natural habitat of the research participant while two interviews were conducted in the office of the researcher due to logistical reasons.
The breakdown of the sample in terms of designation, gender, and industry representation is summarised in Table 1.

Data collection
The real challenge in this study was not to distinguish between successful and less successful organisations, but to identify those capabilities that actually made the difference.The challenge was to apply managerial subjectivity and perspective and to harness them in such fashion that a realistic Genetic Business Code for Growth could be produced.Therefore, what was required was a tool to quantify the "unquantifiable".It was decided the Repertory Grid presented such a tool.
The Repertory Grid is extremely valuable and enable managers to give some shape to their vague ideas and notions about business success and growth and help them to voice their attitudes, beliefs, feelings and perceptions in a nonthreatening way.The constructs listed by the research respondents were recorded on specially prepared perception sheets.These perception sheets displayed, on the left-hand side, all the similarities of the elements and on the right-hand side all the differences.Between them all the elements were listed, because the research participants were asked to rank each of the constructs.Ranking the constructs allowed one to see how each construct was used and to compare constructs, if necessary.The ranking of the constructs can be done in two ways, namely by using the Acrossmethod or the Down-method.
Considering the above, the researcher decided to: Interview Chief Executive Officers and Executive Managers in 9 Business units of this transport organisation.Use the flowchart, as depicted in Figure 1 as guideline during the data collection process.
Use the Triads of Elements, and specifically the Minimum Contest Card Form, as construct elicitation method because of its simplicity and user-friendliness.
Elicit the constructs by allowing the research participant to develop his/her own views and ideas in a free-flow manner.Therefore, the research participant was not influenced in the elicitation process.
Use the Across-method in the ranking of constructs because this method leads to neater constructs -there is more opportunity and incentive to re-define the construct in use on the one hand, and to eliminate the perceived complexity of the Repertory Grid on the other.

Data analysis
The Repertory Grid produced 231 constructs from 22 research participants.The classification of these constructs involved inductive, as well as deductive reasoning.In the inductive reasoning the first-order constructs were scrutinised in order to establish some sort of revealing pattern that would assist in the classification of the constructs into Strands.
In the deductive reasoning existing findings, views and opinions of scholars in the fields of leadership and organisational management were used to assist in the clustering of constructs in a particular Strand, and into different components.The strategy was to use the views and opinions of current national and international scholars, particularly in the Leadership, Organisational and Human fields of study.
A flowchart of the data analysis process is given in Figure 2.This process flowchart consists of ten different phases and each phase will be discussed separately to facilitate understanding.
Phase 1: Data-gathering: All the constructs captured on the final perception sheets were used.That is, all of the 231 constructs obtained from the 22 participants during the data collection phase.
Phase 2: Classification: This entailed the classification of elements that were used in this study.As this study is interested in the border between performing Business Units and nonperforming Business Units a range of Business Units were selected that can be described as performers and non-performers.
To classify these Business Units the Corporate Financial Office of this transport organisation was requested to classify the nine Business Units in terms of performers and non-performers.The formula that was used was not prescribed, but reflects the generic formula of Net Operating Profit after financial cost for the year 2001/2.The Business Units were classified in terms of their percentage improvement.
According to the classification the top performers were identified as Business Unit 1, Business Unit 2, Business Unit 3 and Business Unit 4, all with positive improvement results.These four Business Units will ultimately be used to identify the capabilities that will make up the Genetic Business Code for Growth.The non-performers were Business Units 5,6,7,8 and 9.These Business Units will be used to highlight the absence of a Genetic Business Code for Growth ("negative code").
Phase 3: Data combination # 1: This phase involved the following: The gathering of all constructs that were developed for each business unit; as various research participants developed these constructs, all the contributions were combined into one table consisting of the second-order construct, as well as the opposite pole of the construct.
Phase 4: Data reduction # 1: This phase dealt with the elimination of duplication.This procedure involved the following: The physical listing of all the constructs that were developed; the identification of duplicated constructs between research participants; and the elimination of the duplicated constructs.
The end result of this process was the compilation of nine profiles of second-order constructs.Now I will give you another set of three organisations and we will follow the same process.
I'm going to turn each of the bipolar constructs that you have developed into a 5-point scale and ask you to rate the nine organisations in terms of that particular construct.
Anything else organisations 1&2 have in common that differs from 3? What you are saying is that organisation 1 & 2 are the same because of the following constructs.
And organisation 3 is different because of the following constructs.

Write down perceptions
Does this apply to organisation # 3?

Write down perceptions
On what basis are they alike?(Why?)

Decision is made
Which two organisations are alike and why?
Give 3 cards Explain the objective of the interview, as well as the area of concern -that is Business Growth Process flowchart of the Repertory Grid R: Can I give you another set of cards that depicts different business units?R: On that specific construct I will put the business units that you identified on the "one" of this Likert type scale and the third business unit as "five" on the scale.Please rate each of these other business units on the Likert-type scale.
R: Any other similarities between business units one and three?P: No, it is only Leadership style.R: Can I reflect that your first construct is one of Leadership style, in particular the people approach to employees?P: Yes, that is what I said.
R: What do you mean with "Leadership Style"?P: Everyone in those organisations respect their leaders because of their personal approach to people.R: How does this differ from the third business unit?P: The leader of this unit is not a "people's person".
R: Which two business units are similar and different from the third?P: Business unit one (Transport industry) and three (Esselenpark) are similar.R: Why are one and three similar?P: Both of these business units are successful because of the Leadership style.
R: I will give you a combination of three cards.
On each card is the name of one business unit.
Your job is to select two of those business units, which are similar in some way, and different from the third.
R: There are nine business units that were identified as the elements in this study.
R: Welcome to the interview and thank you for your time.The objective of this interview is to obtain your own thoughts and perceptions on what makes organisations successful.
Example of the free flowing opinionated perceptions of the participant Phase 6: Data reduction # 2: This phase encompassed the identification and elimination of all duplication of the compiled profiles developed in the previous phase.The end result of this phase was four profiles of the highest-ranked constructs without duplication.
Phase 7: Data combination # 3: This phase dealt with the compilation of an integrated profile of first-and secondorder constructs.
Phase 8: Data reduction # 3: This phase included the identification and elimination of the duplication between the four profiles.The end result of this phase was an integrated profile of first-and second-order constructs, without duplicated constructs.
Phase 9: Data classification # 1: This phase involved the classification of the constructs into "themes".The procedure in this phase involved the scrutinising of the constructs and by the inductive way of reasoning underlying similarities or themes were identified.The constructs were then classified into specific themes based on the underlying meaning and themes.
Phase 10: Data finalisation: This phase dealt with the identification of components within the identified Strands through inductive and deductive reasoning.
Table 2 summarises the results of the data analysis reduction process (i.e.Phases 1 to 6).

RESULTS
The Integrated Profile The integrated profile was the result of Phases one to eight in the data analysis process and consisted of 207 constructs.After three processes of data reduction it was evident that the "business language" of the research participants in this transport organisation was relatively similar.This was substantiated by the fact that 120 duplications were eliminated to produce the final integrated profile of just 89 constructs.The integrated profile with the first-and second-order constructs is given in Table 3.
The first-order constructs listed are the "raw" constructs as identified and developed by the research participants, as they conveyed them to the researcher.In clarification of some of these constructs the Laddering method was used as described by Stewart and Stewart (1990).It is obvious that there are comprehensive similarities between the first-and second-order constructs.The researcher did not add ideas or change constructs in order to make sense of the final constructs.
The constructs that were most frequently duplicated were: "alignment of business processes"; "clarity of purpose"; "integration of processes"; "innovation"; "leadership"; and also people issues, such as "people development" and "retention of talent".

The identification of Strands
Within the 89 constructs given in Table 3 lies the Genetic Business Code for Growth.These 89 constructs are the views and beliefs of 22 research participants of what makes an organisation successful.In the identification of the first Strand the 89 constructs of the integrated profile were scrutinised using an inductive strategy in order to establish meaningful relationships or patterns.The field notes were also scrutinised to assist with the establishment of relationships, resulting in 22 constructs that showed a strong relationship with respect to the leadership dimension (the first order constructs 1 to 22 in Table 3).In fact, the construct leadership was one of the most duplicated constructs.These constructs also showed similarities in terms of human behaviour, ethical behaviour, in fact all the "soft" capabilities and competencies that are expected of leaders.
In the deductive approach specific efforts were made to obtain the views of specialists regarding leadership, ethical behaviour, as well as the different components of leadership.These views are summarised in Table 4.It is a fact that the "under-performance of organisations, nations, families and sporting endeavors can be directly ascribed to ineffectual leadership" (Charlton, 2000, p. 29).Charan and Tichy (1998), Garratt (2000) and Maxwell (1998)  By using these views it seems that the following components of Leadership can be identified: Purpose; Personal competence; Ethical competence; and Transformational competence.
The identified 22 constructs (constructs 1 to 22 in Table 3) showed similarities with the above-mentioned classification.The constructs that supported this classification are given in Table 5.
The following meaning can be attributed to the identification of these constructs: It is clear that the research participants ranked the following constructs very high: clarity of purpose; strategic partnerships; sensitivity towards the environment; and leadership.This view is indicative of what is happening in this environment at this stage.The construct "understanding the global environment" seems out of place, but if the first-order construct is studied, it is clear that this construct belonged to this dimension.
The emphasis on values and the management thereof in this organisation can be attributed to the leadership style of the Managing Director and the Board.It is also evident that very few research participants identified specific values.This can be attributed to the lack of consensus with regard to specific values.In the recent past some very high-ranking individuals in this organisation had been disciplined.This also has send a very clear message regarding certain values.The constructs, "innovation culture" and the "predisposition to change", dominated the transformational competence component.In this environment the introduction of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool focused business units with regard to four perspectives, namely Financial performance, Customer satisfaction, Internal Business Processes, and Innovation and Growth.Innovation and transformation is presently very visible because of the measurable criteria linked to it in the Balanced Scorecard.
The visualisation of the Leadership Strand is given in Figure 3.
To achieve this objective it was decided to apply the opposite construct pole in the same manner as with the Leadership Strand to visualise the opposite dimensions and components.With this approach a clearer vision of leadership, as it was developed in this study, would be created.As this opposite pole indicates several deficiencies in leadership as it was developed in this study, this Strand was aptly named the Leadership-deficiency Strand.Given space constraints this Strand could not be included in the article but it is available in Vermeulen (2002, p.65).The same methodological approach was followed in the development of the second Strand.By using an inductive approach the first-and second-order constructs were scrutinised, and based on the meaning the research participants gave to these, 55 constructs were identified that showed certain similarities with business processes in an organisation (constructs 23 to 77 in Table 3).Processes such as performance management, cost management, and decision-making were mentioned.Where the previous constructs focused on the "soft" issues in an organisation, these constructs focused more on the "hard" aspects of an organisation.
A deductive approach was followed in identifying the components of the organisational architecture environment."After all we have said about the characteristics of the 21st century Corporation and the drivers of change, the new markets, the information technology, the stakeholders, and so forth, what can we say about what the new corporation looks like?What's its architecture?"(Wind & Main, 1999. p. 301).On the same subject Veldsman (2002) emphasises that, "Architecture is one of the most important means to bridge the strategic gap between the organisation's present and desired future positions.Decisions regarding architecture determine how the organisation interfaces with its markets and clients, where the organisation focuses its energies, influences the deployment of resources, facilitates or constrains the accomplishments of work, motivates various types of job performance, and shapes the pattern of formal and informal interactions and relationships that unfold over time" (p.103).The components indicated by literature are presented in Table 6 to guide the classification process.
Table 7 reflects these components as supported by the constructs.
In order to attach meaning to these elicited constructs the following comments are appropriate: The majority of constructs were developed in the customer centricity, people effectiveness and operating efficiency components.This can be ascribed to a degree of uncertainty that exists in this environment with regard to strategic direction.It seems that the majority of research participants identified the following constructs: "build strong image", "customer centric culture", "drive a strategy to grow the market", "fast decision-making speed", "fast reaction to new opportunities" and "reposition to market".The first-order constructs were scrutinised and the source of these constructs seemed to be all of the Business Units.This result could be ascribed to the introduction of the Balanced Scorecard in this environment.
The "people effectiveness" component was dominated by one Construct, namely "drive people development".The source of this component was all of the Business Units involved in this study.
The constructs "internal relationships with employees" and "empowerment culture" were the only two constructs that were not that obviously related to the development of people.
The first-order constructs, however, indicated that these constructs definitely belonged to this component.The fact that the majority of research participants identified the "people development" construct, but few broke it down into other components can be attributed to the fact that in this environment heavy emphasis is currently placed on human development.
The constructs "recruit talented people" and "retention of talent" indicated the urgency in this organisation to manage talent.This could also indicate the undersupply of appropriate talent in the Transport Industry.
The fact that the "alignment and integration of processes" received so much attention, whereas the construct "introduction of technology" received so little attention, was difficult to explain, as this environment is strongly technology driven.With regard to "safety" and "cost-driven" the source of these constructs was only one Business Unit.This seemed acceptable as especially the safety issue is of the utmost importance to this Business Unit as several accidents had influenced its image during 2000/1.
Taking the above-mentioned into consideration, the second set of constructs were classified as the Organisational Architecture Strand.This Strand is visualised in Figure 4.The opposite Construct pole was applied in the same manner as with the Leadership Strand to visualise the contrasting dimensions and components.As this opposite pole indicates confusion with regard to direction, a total lack of movement (or speed) and a lack of pro-active decision-making it was decided to name the opposite strand the Dinosaur Strand.Clegg and Birch (1998) also refered to this type of characteristics as "dinosaur" characteristics (see Vermeulen, 2002, p.74 for a visual representation of this Strand).
The identification of the first two Strands paved the way to classify the rest of the constructs into a third Strand.The field notes were scrutinised to assist with the establishment of relationships.Twelve constructs showed a strong relationship with respect to a mental attitude that is needed to ensure growth (constructs 78 to 89 in Table 3).It seems that these constructs indicated that, besides the behavioural competencies and the organisational capabilities, a third "theme" was necessary to ensure organisational success.This "theme" included an "attitude" or "personality" that individuals possess and impose onto their respective organisations which made a difference.
An inductive way of reasoning was also used in order to classify the identified constructs into components.Charan and Tichy (1998) mentioned that the one factor that distinguishes organisations that grow from organisations that cannot grow is not the businesses they are in, because there are losers in growth industries or markets, and winners in declining ones.Neither is it the tactics they use.It is rather "a state of mind".This "state of mind" seems to be the "third" element that ensures sustainable growth.De Geus (1997) proposed that it is "the innate spirit that moves and propels a company".He explains that an organisation is not just a bundle of individuals or a combination of assets and individuals.Each living being has an undifferentiated wholeness, with its own character, which can be called its "Persona".Zohar (1997) calls this "one factor" the "instinct" of an organisation.She explains that deep transformational change requires that one literally rewire one's brain, that one grow new neural connections.
A GENETIC BUSINESS CODE 11 Business Units 1,2 and 3 had been identified as high performers in the initial classification of the Business Units.Business Unit 9, although not participating in the study, was highly ranked by the research participants.This exercise showed a high correlation with the initial classification of the Business Units in terms of hard performance measurements (Phase 2 of data analysis).The validity of the Strands is therefore confirmed by the high relationship between the classification of the participating Business Units in terms of performance measures and their profiling in terms of the Strands.
The performance averages on the different strands is depicted in Table 11.
In order to develop patterns it is essential to look at the average performances in the different Strands.As the classification showed that Business Units 2 and 3 were adequate in all three Strands (see Table 11) the pattern typifying these Business Units were entitled as Wealth Creators.
Organisations that displayed such a balanced profile usually create wealth in the environment in which they operate.This type of organisation has all the potential to unlock the vision level as described in the discussion of the Integrated Genetic Business Code Model (see Figure 6).Because there are creative resources available, the organisation moves effortlessly to the collective human energy level that enables the organisation to use individual drive and passion to apply strategic thinking.Both these Business Units were rated relatively high on the Organisational Architecture Strand, which means that they are perceived to have clarity with regard to their strategic direction; that the majority of the employees are sensitive to the customer; and that the people are effective and the processes efficient.The perceived strength of both these Business Units lie in the Leadership Strand.
Business Units 1,8 and 9 were classified as manifesting the Wealth Inhibitor pattern.All three Business Units were perceived to be insufficiently strong in the Internal Orientation Strand.Although these Business Units displayed a certain amount of purpose, personal competence, ethical competence and transformational competence (i.e.Leadership Strand), the weak link, were that they lack the Internal Orientation Strand that produces creative ideas for growth; the collective human energy; and drive and passion for application.The value of the Internal Orientation Strand was evident in this case.If this deficiency is not addressed the chances are that these Business Units could lose momentum in the quest for success because this distinct pattern hinders or restrains action.
Business Units 4,5 and 7 displayed the Wealth Terminator pattern.The characteristic of this pattern is that it destroys the organisation from the inside.All three these Business Units were perceived to have certain leadership competencies.Although there seems to be purpose supported by certain personal, ethical and transformational competence, the "constructing" and "structuring" functions were absent.This means that the organisational environment is not conducive to leadership influences, resulting in the lack of unleashing the transformational leadership competence.Although the workforce might understand the purpose, there is not enough drive, passion and collective human energy to apply transformation.In turn, this influences the Organisational Architecture Strand with a subsequent underperformance in customer centricity, people effectiveness and operating efficiency.
The last distinct pattern was named the Wealth Demolisher pattern.This pattern depicted an organisation that is underperforming in all three Strands.Business Unit 6 was perceived by the research participants to be in this category.This pattern is characterised by the total breakdown of essential processes, competence and ideas.It is believed that the majority of the workforce would be frustrated in this type of environment.No vertical and horisontal alignment would exist between the Strands because of the breakdown in trust.In this type of work environment people would just doing enough to stay out of trouble, resulting in an under-performing organisation.

CONCLUSION
A quantitative methodological framework, supplemented by a qualitative approach was used to identif y a Genetic Business Code for Growth consisting of a Leadership Strand, an Organisational Architecture Strand and an Internal Orientation Strand.
The development of a Genetic Business Code for the Transport Industry described above, could add value in terms of: performance improvement: the introduction of the Code can assist organisations in improving their financial performance, delivery and customer satisfaction; establishing a holistic approach to business growth within organisations, in this way establishing systemic thinking; developing an assessment tool to identify strengths and weaknesses regarding their Genetic Business Codes; and assisting Business Units in developing appropriate measurable criteria for inclusion in their respective Balanced Scorecards.
VERMEULEN, VELDSMAN, ROODT, SCHURINK 14 The major strengths of the study are that a Genetic Code of Business Growth was developed, applied empirically and validated; the research design adopted a combination of qualitative and quantitative research; and the opportunities the study opens up for future research.The major weaknesses are that the study was limited to a single organisation dominating a single industry, hence the generalisation of the findings is limited at this point in time; and the unfamiliarity of the researcher initially with a qualitative research approach may have hampered the optimal execution of the study.All in all it is believed, however, that the strengths of the study outweigh its weaknesses.

Figure 3 :
The Leadership Strand

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: The Organisational Architecture Strand It is not so much the change but the reaction to it and the ability to handle Ability to handle change it.Ability to handle change is a characteristic of a good leader.2Theabilitytocommunicateissuestolower levels is crucial.You need to instill values in the organisation.Show me a successful business Entrench values in the organisation and I will show you Values, the opposite is painfully also true.The Leader will focus on operational efficiency in this way he will Focus on operational efficiency influence its profitability, by transforming the present operations.I believe that no organisation has ever changed without being efficient first.10This is sometimes the only decision the CEO can take to survive, it is Forming strategic partnerships to ensure existence.This is a strategic decision taken by the CEO.I would expect a Leader to take such a decision.Sometimes an organisation cannot exist without strategic partnerships.It is a characteristic of a good leader to instill direction.In today's world you need to be innovative.If your EXCO is innovative Innovation culture everybody will be -people are scared of innovation.You can only transform if you innovate.You need to nurture that competency.14Thisvalue is according to me the most important value to consider.What Integrity clearly visible People do not realise is that values is a top-down approach and not a bottom-up approach 15 By setting an example you are leading by example.If you lead by exampleLead by example you are passionate.16Asthere is ongoing change you must have a predisposition to change.Predisposition to change They have a predisposition to change.17Thereaction to change will make the difference and how the leader will Reaction to change crucial react to change.Change transforms people, as well as organisations 18 To re-engineer means you are not satisfied with the status quo, you need Re-engineer systems to improve service delivery to transform your business.The leadership must understand the global environment.24Alignmentwill create value.Alignment will improve productivity.Integration Alignment of operational processes to gain competitiveness.Integration of process is a seamless approach.25Theyhave alternatives in delivery.Alternatives in service delivery 26 Otherwise the customer will not get to know you.The image drive is for Build a strong image the customer.Image is important for the retention of the market.27Not the clarity of the Vision but clarity of the mission.If you are doing Clarity of their mission the wrong things you will never get to your destination 28 They have complex internal business processes.
39 If you are too big for your own shoes you need to go across border.ButExpansion strategies across border it is strategic decision, can influence your purpose.
Only two Business Units, namely Business Unit 2 and 3, performed well in all the Strands.It is believed that if less than 50% of the components of the Genetic Business Code for Growth are present it shows a weakness in that specific Strand, and if more than 50% is present it indicates adequate representation.All possible permutations were present in the sample, namely a fit with all three Strands being adequately present; secondly two Strands being adequately present; thirdly only one Strand being adequately present; and lastly no Strands being adequately present.These four types of combinations were used to establish patterns.As this method of classification has not yet been tested extensively to establish its validity and reliability, it is difficult to assess which of the Strands are relatively more valuable in predicting organisational success.However, it is hypothesised that the Internal Orientation Strand will be the first Strand to show a weakness when an organisation is faced with a challenge, because this Strand provides orientation and strength towards problem solving.The second Strand to show weakness will be the Organisational Architecture Strand, followed by the Leadership Strand.