"Good leadership springs from a genuine passion for the work and a genuine concern for other people. Great Leaders are people who love what they do and want to share that love with others. " (Daft, 2005:20). During an informal discussion with my husband Hugo Daniels, the leader in this Action Research Case Study, it became apparent that lawyers do not attend a single module or complete a single subject during their formal training at university to obtain their law degree that is related to the field of leadership and how to lead, inspire and motivate followers. The discussion centered on the problems the leader was experiencing in his East London law firm, problems he believed to be as a result of his lack of knowledge in the field of leadership. And so this research project began. It was obvious from the start that to intervene in the firm in order to bring about change would need the participation of everyone in the firm. The first step towards facilitating change would be to change the leadership style of the director of the firm. He would be required to gain knowledge in the field of leadership and the effects that different leadership styles have on followers. At the same time staff's perception of the current leadership style would have to be determined, as well as the desired style for their leader. The research process could then begin, based on the needs expressed by the staff and with participation from all levels in the firm. The case involved 27 members of staff made up of three heads of departments, twenty three general staff members and the leader. Data was gathered through formal interviews with the leader and the heads of departments, as well as from personal journals kept by two heads of departments and the leader. General staff members were first asked to complete The Productive Practice Survey (Hall 1987) to determine their perceptions of the current leadership style in the firm and what they thought they needed from their leader if the firm is to move forward. The Productive Practice Survey (Hall 1987) was not used with the intention of gathering quantitative data, but rather as a means of gathering information of staff's perception in general while ensuring anonymity, so as to facilitate a discussion during a feedback session. The Productive Survey's (Hall 1987) content and working is explained in further detail in Chapter 3 on page 44. Initially participants were skeptical of the process and used the survey as a medium to lash out against the firm and Hugo Daniels as a leader, leaving no room for suggestions for improvement, an "it is what it is" approach. During the feedback session general staff members became more open when they realized that change would benefit them, as changes would be suggested by them and implemented with their participation. They became less reluctant about change and provided valuable input during the session. All participants understood that this Participatory Action Research intervention was only the beginning of change in the firm and the sustainability of the changes rests on the firm as a whole, and working towards it would be a continuous process not ending with the Participatory Action Research process.