Richard F. Bowman, Jr., Winona State University

Edward D. Garten, University of Dayton

Abstract

In contemporary academe, it is often lamented that faculties rarely converse across unit lines.  It seems especially rare to secure opportunities to dialogue about models of leadership in praxis.  What follows is a professional dialogue between a longtime senior administrator associated with a Catholic university and a longtime professor of educational foundations associated with a state university.  Dialogical colleagues over many years, both share the urgent belief that new models of academic leadership must emerge if the quality of conversation regarding, and response to, cascading change in academe is to occur in meaningful fashion.  In the end the authors argue:  Can higher education make itself matter again? Implicitly, they argue that higher education needs new work if academic excellence is to be achieved and that this work requires the values and behaviors foundational to the servant-leadership way of relationship.

At Winona State University, the catalyst for rethinking and renewing faculty leadership, followership, and citizenship roles has been a collective commitment to community as the organizing principle. Leadership exists as part of a duality. Leaders forge and sustain relationships with followers. Exceptional leaders not only view themselves as life-size but are equally adept at enabling self-knowledge in others.

Followership implies commitment, but never without conditions. Followers respond to leaders who create three emotional responses: feelings of significance, community, and excitement. Citizenship reflects the collective need to be accountable for the well-being of the larger institution. It is accountability that is self-inflicted.

At the University of Dayton, the catalyst for rethinking and renewing library faculty leadership has been the focus on a major dimension within the charism of the University’s founding and sustaining religious order:  The formation of servant leaders in community.  Servant leadership is more than an option at Dayton; rather, it has become an altogether different way of framing the purpose of leadership, the true role of the leader, and the potential of those being led.  The servant leader at Dayton sees leadership not primarily as a vehicle for accomplishing the organization’s objectives, but as an opportunity to serve others who share those objectives.  Leadership at Dayton is modeled not as position, recognition, status or prestige; nor is it about controlling people. Importantly, it is about freeing people to meet their full potential in community.  Because leadership is all encompassing, it becomes the responsibility of everyone within the University of Dayton libraries. 

WINONA:  EVOLVING FACULTY ROLES OF LEADERSHIP, FOLLOWSHIP, AND CITIZENSHIP

In an interview in 1991, the Nobel Prize-winning author Laurens Van der Post proclaimed that the era of leaders is over (Block, 1998). A decade later, the topic of breakthrough leadership was the subject of the first special issue in the Harvard Business Review’s seventy-nine year history. Leadership has endured as a consuming issue in both personal and organizational life since Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince was written in 1513. In truth, however, leadership exists as part of a duality: Leaders forge and sustain relationships with followers (Goffee & Jones, 2001).  Strikingly, Hitler sensed this duality. In a speech to his personal guard corps, he exclaimed: “All that you are, you are through me; all that I am, I am through you alone” (Kellerman, 2001, p. 21).

Citizenship defines followers’ capacity to create for themselves what they have traditionally expected their leaders to accomplish.  Moreover, it is the “agreement to receive rights and privileges from the community” in return for living within certain boundaries and “acting in the interest of the whole” (Block, 1998, p. 90). Henry Rosovksy, former dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard University, declared that “when it concerns our most important obligations—faculty citizenship—neither rule nor custom is any longer compelling” (Braskamp & Ory, 1994, p. 10). Relatedly, he intimated that perhaps it is time for faculty members to rethink their association with the academy. At Winona State University, the impetus for rethinking and renewing faculty leadership, followership, and citizenship roles has been a collective commitment to “community as the organizing principle” (Bowman, 1999, p. 24).

What is a leader, anyway? What is it that impactful leaders do? What are their most important tasks? How do leaders win the respect and allegiance of followers?  If there are established principles of leadership, are there also acknowledged principles of followership? Specifically, what is it that followers want and need from leaders? And how does one create a culture of citizenship dedicated to caring for the well-being of the larger institution?  Does rediscovering citizenship begin, for example, with paying special attention to the way we come together—the way that we convene? Finally, does the workplace have the “potential to be the place where community is revived and common purpose is reawakened?” (Block, 1998, p. 92).

Elements of Leadership

Anthropologist Lionel Tiger (“All in a day’s work,” 2001) has observed that “all primate groups create—cannot exist without—leaders” (p. 57). Without a leader, the “group’s energy is spent on internal jockeying for dominance,” (p. 57) with real work left undone.  In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Freud “suggests that groups of any kind depend on a leader, even one weak and flawed, for their identity and sense of purpose” (Kellerman, 2001, p. 17). As leaders, the character traits of those who have occupied the Oval Office have truly been a deck of cards. Whether Washington, Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton, or Bush, we still tend to organize our perceptions of the country’s interests and business around those individuals, “even though we may judge them ineffectual or unworthy” (Kellerman, p. 17).

Fundamentally, leadership is personal. It is a “personal quest, one that can produce blazing triumphs even as it plunges the leader into the darkest, most mysterious reaches of the self” (Collingwood, 2001, p. 8).  One of the legendary titans of American enterprise, George Eastman, the father of mass-market photography, penned a dark suicide note that read: “To my friends: My work is done—why wait?” (Tedlow, 2001, p. 78). Socrates argued that the “unexamined life is not worth living.” Exceptional leaders honor that haunting summons to examine what animates one inwardly. Parker Palmer (2001) contended that an inner journey was a prerequisite to authentic leadership. Moreover, he exclaims that the examined life—one rich in inner awareness—is an essential source of leadership strength. Relatedly, he observes that “in our time, we’ve seen the impact of people like Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, and Vaclav Havel, who have found the courage to lead from their own deepest truths” (Palmer, p. 26). Thus, before vision and mission and strategy comes self-knowledge. Exceptional leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. not only view themselves as life-size but also are equally adept at enabling self-knowledge in others.

During a brainstorming exercise in the Department of Education at Winona State, faculty members identified more than fifty discrete roles and leadership demands central to key aspects of the Department’s daily operations (Bowman, 2002). Philosophically, colleagues spoke with one voice: Leadership is everyone’s responsibility. In a culture of dispersed leadership, the real work of academic leaders begins with inviting probing questions that uncover problems that can threaten the very existence of the organization. Cross-examining reality, moreover, demands an uncommon courage of both leader and follower. Politically, interrogating reality demands giving voices to colleagues and students by listening to their stories and songs.

Importantly, the real work of faculty leaders involves inviting and orchestrating the very penetrating, perceptive, probing questions that often give rise to the tension, dissent, and constructive stress that are essential to defining reality and creating positive organizational change (Bowman, 1999). Impact leaders recognize the “cost of insights unshared and constructive criticism unspoken” (Heenan & Bennis, 1999, p. 300). Treating constructive conflict as a vital resource for organizational learning circumscribes the real work of faculty leaders in a culture of restless self-renewal.

Academic chairs function as leaders when they focus relentlessly on key aspects of organizational culture: mission, vision, engagement, and adaptability (Bowman, 2002). Mission pinpoints the department’s purpose and direction, its reason for existence. Vision represents what a department strives to be, its aspirations, its ambitions.  Adaptability mirrors colleagues’ ability to embrace “common purpose” in responding to changing workplace demands. There is, however, a distinctive difference between being a department with a vision and a mission and being a visionary organization. That difference lies in creating alignment. The real work of academic leaders centers on creating and sustaining an alignment that preserves an organization’s values, reinforces its mission, stimulates progress toward it aspirations, and invites and affirms colleagues’ engaged contributions in pursuit of mission and vision (Collins & Porras, 1997).

In my daily work with student teachers, there is a heightened fascination with the construct of teacher as leader. Initially, student teachers experience intrusive thoughts and infectious anxieties related to “managing student behavior.” Within a few weeks, however, developing student teachers shift their focus from managing students’ behavior to “managing students’ instructional interactions.” As the end of the student teaching draws near, one or more of the student teachers will wondrously begin to “amplify student interactions.” The tipping point occurs when “learning replaces instruction, participation replaces presentation, and questions become more important than answers” (Block, p. 88). As teacher as leader, the commitment is no longer that of controlling energy in others or even in managing energy in others but rather releasing creative, combustible energy in others.

Finally, peeling the leadership onion reveals that leadership is a “multifaceted and nuanced capability,” much of which appears “hardwired in people before they reach their early or mid-twenties” (Sorcher & Brant, 2002, p. 83). Admittedly, there is far more interest in leadership than there is agreement upon just what it is. In fact, what strikes preeminent leadership scholars like Warren Bennis is how difficult it is to describe anyone’s leadership. Pointedly, Bennis (2002) contends that “leadership is not a science. It’s not a recipe. It’s not the five rules about this or the six effective habits of that. It is an art, and as Georges Braque wrote, ‘The only thing that matters in art is the part that can’t be explained’” (p. 98). In the deepest sense, leadership represents our collective best efforts to understand and respond to the inexplicable in our midst.

Elements of Followership

It is axiomatic that one cannot be a leader without followers. Like leadership, followership is deeply personal. The sociological and psychological literature on the follower’s experience “tells us that people seek, admire, and respect—that is, they follow—leaders who produce within them three emotional responses” (Goffee & Jones, 2002, p. 148). 

The first emotional response is a feeling of significance. Colleagues seek to be appreciated and affirmed for a job well done, not just through formal recognition programs but also informally through little things like hand-written notes, positive voice-mail, and e-mail messages. In truth, every communication offers a chance to recognize and affirm colleagues’ value to the organization (Nelson, 2002). Recently, the State of Minnesota witnessed the largest state workers’ strike in Minnesota history. Dozens of Winona State office workers and maintenance workers walked the picket lines in full ferment. Administrative leaders across the campus ventured out to the picket lines, assuring workers that they understood workers’ needs, appreciated their contributions to the University, and had workers’ best interests at heart, by not hiring much-needed replacements from outside the union’s ranks. Kouzes and Posner (1995) note that while titles are granted, it’s your behavior that wins you respect, loyalty, and followership.

The second emotional response that followers want from their leaders is a feeling of community. Goffee and Jones (2001) contend that “community occurs when people feel a unity of purpose around work, and simultaneously, a willingness to relate to each other as human beings” (p.148). Faculty members in the Winona State Department of Education share a deeply-embedded belief that the defining elements of community are “perceived interdependence” and “generosity” (Pinchot, 1998, p. 44). In fact, those beliefs were implicit in the Department’s recent invitation to the University President, Vice-President, and Dean of the College of Education to join faculty members in two hours of “dialogue as inquiry” regarding a perplexing programmatic issue. Briefly, the administration’s acceptance and subsequent participation in that dialogue signaled a powerful, public caring about the consequences of colleagues’ work. Importantly, that public caring functioned as a “foundation of community” (Pinchot, p. 44). Generosity is another of the defining principles of community. The administration’s participation allowed faculty to sense that generosity palpably. When a feeling of community is “successfully engineered, it is so deeply gratifying that followers will call the person who created it their leader” (Goffee & Jones, 2001, p. 148.)

Thirdly, “followers will tell you that a leader is nearby when they get a buzzing feeling” (Goffe & Jones, p. 148). That feeling is triggered by a leader’s orientation toward the inexorability of tomorrow (“All in a day,” 2001, p. 56). In a phrase, followers respond to the gravitational pull of a department, school system, or university in which the future is actively under construction. 

Freud believed that the “primal need to follow grows out of the infant’s need for care and protection” and “ ‘the longing for the father that lives in each of us from our childhood days’” (Kellerman, 2001, p. 20). While followership implies need and commitment, that commitment is never without conditions. The follower demands that the leader create feelings of significance, community, and excitement.

Elements of Citizenship

An exploration of the elements of citizenship unearths the collective need to be accountable for the well being of both the larger institution and society. Too often in the past, accountability was entrusted only to those in positions of authority. Block (1998) asserts that “one reason we seek leadership and lose faith in the principle of self-governing systems is that we live in a culture of entitlement” (p. 90). From the public perspective, there is an aura of narcissistic entitlement in higher education. Faculty members genuflect at the altar of academic freedom, wield their union contracts with religious fervor, pay homage to rank and tenure, and view office hours as something akin to penance. To the uninitiated public, there is scant evidence of a faculty willing to give up territory. Moreover, to the degree that narcissistic entitlement constitutes claiming rights without full payment, it threatens and destroys institutions and community. In contrast, “citizenship is accountability that is chosen” (Block, 1998, p. 90). It is a  responsibility for the common good which is self-inflicted.

Block argues compellingly that “citizenship, self-management, and engagement come together when we collectively learn to rethink and redesign the place where we assemble” (p. 94). In the Winona State Department of Education, colleagues are experimenting with a community structure that has been christened “The Faculty Forum” (Bowman, 1999). The bimonthly forum is clearly distinct from regularly scheduled faculty meetings. In important ways, the two structures reveal the characteristics of both traditional and emerging workplaces. The Faculty Forum draws upon community as the organizing metaphor. Implicitly, forums confront colleagues with four questions: “Who am I? What am I a part of? What connects me to the rest of the world? What relationships matter to me?” (Bressler & Grantham, 2000, p. 161). Because Roberts’ Rules of Order are not honored formally in The Faculty Forums, colleagues are characteristically able to value  tension and manage constructive stress across weeks of dialogue and debate on particularly contentious issues. In those instances, there is a sustained, shared sense of a collective good-faith search for common ground among powerful equals. The attending sensitivities and behaviors of openness, inclusiveness, trust, engagement, and creative collaboration reflect a commitment to common cause, communal success, and faculty citizenship

Max DePree (1992) has described leadership as “serious meddling in other peoples’ lives” (p. 17). If we are committed as faculty to meddling seriously in the lives of students and colleagues in a spirit of servant-leadership, we should do so with the conscious intent that those served become healthier, wiser, freer, and more autonomous (Greenleaf, 1977).  Secondly, followership can be tracked along two continua. The first runs from uncritical, dependent thinking to critical, independent thinking. The second runs from passive engagement to active engagement. Those who are at the high end of each scale are exemplary followers. The growing demands of organizational life today require higher and higher levels of critical, independent thinking and active engagement—what Robert Kelly (1998) has defined as exemplary followership. Thirdly, citizenship takes form and is lived out in community when colleagues reclaim choice for themselves and others. At its core, citizenship involves creating and sustaining relationships around a shared sense of purpose and accountability for the whole. Thus, leadership, followership, and citizenship all involve processes of inner growth followed by outer organizational consequences.

Dayton:  Invitation to Service Leadership

In the late twentieth century, Robert Greenleaf brought renewed attention to the concept of servant leadership.  His well known “test” of servant leadership triggered an energized dialogue among modern leadership theorists.

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.  The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons?  Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? (1970, p. 7)

Greenleaf became the reference point for leadership writers such as Kouzes and Posner (1995), Wheatley (1994), Heifetz (1994) and Senge (1990) who found in servant leadership a way to create new organizations built on a different leadership model.  Senge, for example, stressed that “dynamic learning organizations are built and maintained by servant leaders who lead because they choose to serve” (1997, p. 17). 

Dayton’s desire to give voice to this model of leadership is not one that is trendy or transient; rather it is rooted in the University’s most ethical and moral posture.  Students are urged to adopt a servant leader style through their involvement in a vast array of service-learning opportunities off-campus.  In faculty reviews—both tenure leading and post-tenure—“service” is truly an equal leg of the three-legged academic milking stool of “service, teaching, and research.”   Leadership works because it is based on how people should be treated, motivated and led.  This is the kind of leadership that administrators and faculty expect at the University of Dayton and the model of leadership intentionally modeled by library staff.

At Dayton, servant leadership is an altogether different way of framing the purpose of leadership, the essential and authentic role of the leader, and the potential of those being led.  Because leadership becomes the responsibility of everyone within the Libraries the faculty and staff are accountable for the ways and manners in which they effect the servant leader disposition during yearly and mid-year Portfolio Review conversations.  The Portfolio Review is the peer review model that Dayton library faculty members employ for yearly performance assessment and development of future goals.  It is premised on the belief that individual effort must be aligned with library direction and vision.  Conversations over prior year’s attainments and anticipation of future year objectives concentrate on (1) Attainment of focus: Broken focus ends in failure but concentrated and well-planned and shared goals end in high performing departments and individual librarians; (2) Alignment of effort with the Libraries’ mission: open and trusting relations and communication result in coordinated efforts in moving the Libraries toward their vision and priorities; (3) Individual accountability: What gets measured also gets managed and accomplished; (4) Manner of goal execution: In accomplishing your goals how will you build trust, promote involvement, provide structure, facilitate learning and provide generative thinking, and built a healthy organizational culture that improves morale and reduces conflict and cynicism.  Servant leaders at Dayton are specifically asked to use their positions and influence to empower those they lead, working alongside those being led as partners and in community.  As Max DePree has so eloquently observed: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality, the last is to say thank you, and in between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor” (1989, p. 11). 

Quite literally, until recent years, the power inherent in the servant leadership model had never been properly researched or made operational. Jim Laub (1999) undertook this task through an extensive research project in which he employed a team of fourteen experts in the field of servant leadership to come to consensus on the essential qualities of the servant leader.  Those writers included Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner (1995), Larry Spears (1995), Bill Millard (1995), and Lea Williams (1996).  Laub used the results of his study to create an operational definition of servant leadership as well as an expanded servant leadership model.  His Organizational Leadership Assessment resulted from this study and provided a model by which servant leadership could be studied and measured systematically in organizations.  Library faculty at Dayton will soon adapt this model (Figure 1) to use, as one touchstone for reflection during yearly and mid-year Portfolio Review conversations.

“Leaders are perpetual learners.” (Bennis & Nanus 1985, p. 176)  Servant leaders know they don’t have all the answers.  They know they are still growing and becoming.  They are open to input from all levels of the organization because they understand that each person is a necessary, unique, and valuable part of the whole. Servant leaders need people; they need their potential, creativity, knowledge, questions, and ideas. Servant leaders are committed to freeing people to fulfill their potential, thus allowing people to grow individually and to contribute to the shared mission of the organization and its teams.

Figure 1

 Servant Leadership at Dayton

Evolves into an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the provision of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the organization

Personal Authenticity as Essential Element

Leadership is a matter of how to be, not how to do (Hesselbein, 1966, p. 4).  Importantly, leadership is about becoming an integrated human being.  Such integration includes one’s values, talents, personality, and self-image. Leadership excellence requires being in touch with one’s mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual aspects (Nahavandi, 2000), including one’s gifts, passions (Vicere & Fulmer, 1997), personality, intellect, competencies, personal aspirations, and family and community life (McCauley, Moxley, & Velsor, 1998). Effective leaders understand themselves, learn to set personal goals, and work to achieve those goals through their self-selected plans and abilities (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). This type of self-understanding includes areas such as strengths, weaknesses (Nahavandi, 2000), authenticity (Ruderman & Rogolsky, 2001), and self-leadership (Sims & Manz, 1997). Personal development as a leader is a process that includes discovering who you are, as well as what skills you possess (Bennis, 1989). Bennis (as cited in Kouzes & Posner, 1993) observed that, “Until you truly know yourself, strengths and weaknesses, know what you want to do and why you want to do it, you cannot succeed in any but the most superficial sense of the word” (p. 59).  Specifically, Nouwen (1996) indicated that future leaders who embrace a Christian worldview will be most effective when they rediscover their true identities and stand before the world authentically.

That leaders should be authentic, self-aware, and able to act on the basis of that awareness is a key premise of the servant leader model at the University of Dayton libraries.  M. N. Ruderman has concretely observed that: “Feeling authentic, living a life that is strongly connected to one’s belief system, is energizing and promotes growth, learning, and psychological well-being—all important elements of effective leadership and leadership development. Conversely, inauthenticity can often be recognized by others and become a disruptive, negative force in the organization” (Ruderman & Rogolsky, 2001, p. 86). Authentic leaders are more agile in their behavior, more effective in decision making, clearer about motivations and expectations of others, and more flexible in adjusting to new situations (Lee & King, 2001).  Authentic leaders have a deep sense of purpose for their leadership and are true to their core values.  They are people of the highest integrity who are committed to building enduring organizations.  Authentic leaders see themselves as stewards of the assets they inherit and servants of all their stakeholders (George, 2003, p. 9).

Certain skills are necessary in order to remain authentic as a leader: learning to increase self-awareness, including discernment of things that are important and things that are not, and taking time to reflect on those things; learning to assess and evaluate one’s deeply held values; deciding to take action regarding priorities and potential life changes; and learning how to secure support for achieving one’s goals (Ruderman & Rogolsky, 2001). The benefits of practicing these skills are that leaders become more effective in working with others, and become more flexible and confident in their approaches to goal achievement (Lee & King, 2001).

Becoming the Learning Organization

To nurture leadership that makes a difference in the lives of others there is a compelling need for visionary leaders to demonstrate:  (1) a commitment to build a collaborative culture of trust; (2) a personal mastery of the principles and practices to lead a generative learning organization; and (3) creative, conceptual, and collaborative acumen to implement systems theory within one’s unit and throughout the organization.   At Dayton, librarians and members of the Dean’s Leadership Team are asked during yearly and mid-term appraisals to describe they have assisted their colleagues in reframing approaches to leadership to better effect a servant modality and to derive actionable organizational learning.

Organizational learning is an interactive construction that transforms knowledge into informed practices. This occurs in a reflective process when accountability is assigned by the organization. Such learning is complete when it is internalized and acted upon by individuals and teams (Brown & Packman, 1999).  The learning organization incorporates the full realm of theory, praxis, and practice in recognition of its norms and values. At the same time, it reflects on the organizational culture to generate further learning to foster self-renewal and self-organization (Argyris, et al., 1985; Senge, 1990; Hodgkinson, 1991).  Bennis summarizes the function of visionary leadership, within the context of a learning organization culture, by emphasizing the importance of purposes, beliefs, and vision as essential to the continuous improvement of people and programs (1984). 

Without question, the work of Peter Senge has advanced the practice of systems thinking substantially.  And, Senge (1990, 1994) promoted the building of learning organizations in which people continually expand their capacity to produce optimal results while fostering new and expansive patterns of thinking. In a learning organization, shared vision and collective intelligence are set free, and leaders and employees continually learn how to learn and grow together (1990).  Deming believed in the inherent desire of workers to learn, grow, and transform themselves and organizations through directed effort.  He outlined his framework for leadership transformation in fourteen points.  Two of the fourteen points focused on institutionalizing on-the-job training and a vigorous program of education and self-improvement (Deming, 1986).  Senge built on the practice of learning in organizations by advocating the continuous testing of experience through reflective dialogue, and transforming that experience into knowledge accessible to the entire workforce in alignment with the mission, values, and vision of the organization (1994).  Kolb (1984) promoted the concept of an individual learning cycle (i.e., reflecting, connecting, deciding, and doing) while Spears (1995) advanced the individual learning cycle. Handy’s (1990) concept of the learning wheel transformed into a variation that applied to teams (i.e., public reflection, shared meaning, joint planning, and coordinated action).  Senge later incorporated team learning into his five disciplines (i.e., personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking). 

Charan & Tichy (1998) discovered that winning organizations need to go beyond learning organizations and become teaching organizations.  In their work with outstanding companies they suggest that teaching organizations are more inventive, agile, and come up with more responsive strategies.  Dotlich and Noel (1998) furthered the concept of team learning and the work of Charan and Tichy by institutionalizing the Action Learning framework at Honeywell and General Electric.  Action Learning became widely recognized as a collaborative process through which to enable organizations to respond to major business problems and opportunities while developing key employees with the capacity to lead organizations in the desired strategic direction.  Finally, Heifetz (1994) asserted that leadership is the process of influencing workers, units, and organizations to learn to solve their own problems rather than build dependency or co-dependency.  We would suggest that this is the essence of the learning organization.

Receptivity to Innovation and Change

Since organizations are most effective when the members share values, servant leader librarians learn that leaders should view organizational culture as a valuable resource to manage.  However, if a leader takes up the difficult and time-consuming challenge to change the organization’s existing culture, the task may provoke anxiety because of the deeper levels of cultural assumptions.  As students of leadership learn to reveal underlying assumptions within themselves, as well as develop a servant spirit that values the members of the organization (Laub 1999), they become more adept at creating a culture of trust across their organizations.

An in-depth understanding of the dynamics of innovation and change is critical to understanding the very nature of leadership.  The ability to be servant leaders who bring about informed and positive change in the world lies at the very core of the University of Dayton Mission Statement.  Kotter (1996) contended that this ability to achieve positive change is essential to any kind of effective leadership, concluding that “leadership is a set of processes that creates organizations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances.”  Faculty and staff passion to become change agents, however, must come from a strong sense of value and purpose.  Tellingly, Fullan (2001) proposed that moral purposes and noble crusades will lead to nothing more than martyrdom without an understanding of the dynamics of change. 

Advisedly, any solid study of change theory must inform the astute servant leader.  A review of the classical associated with Lewin’s (1951) unfreezing, movement, refreezing approach is helpful; but more critically, today’s focus must be on more modern approaches that would include Wheatley’s (1999) look at the new sciences, Senge’s (1990 and 1999) learning organization approach to change, and much earlier, Koesler’s (1967) landmark exploration of chaos theory.  Additionally, Hord, et al. (1987) stressed the need to address concerns in the change process and developed the Concerns Based Adoption Model.  Millard (1994) expanded this concept to create the Change Concern Cycle, proposing that this process is constantly cyclical because each previous cycle ends with the introduction of revisions and new ideas, which automatically initiates the process all over again.  Understanding the role and relationship between individuals and organizations is critical in the change process.  Critically, Black and Gregersen (2002) observed that most approaches are backward, trying to change all layers of an organization in hopes that the individuals will follow.  They concluded that lasting change occurs when individuals are changed first, with the organization following.

One of the most important components in developing a servant leader may be his or her dexterity in the application of ethical principles that must necessarily govern and administer the organization.  Such principles are, unfortunately, rarely surfaced and brought to the conversation table.  Pointedly, they need to be.  Librarians at Dayton are urged to reflect on the organizational culture by attending to the details of organizational structure, organizational relationships, and the clarification of roles.

Such analysis includes not only structures and roles, but also operational processes and systems design. Moorhead and Griffin (1995) suggest that one of the most critical roles of understanding governance is “the structural policies that affect operations and prescribe or restrict how employees behave in their organizational structure” (391). As library leaders grow to understand structural models, they likely will apply them to the servant leadership and collegial models. (Laub, 1999),  Each member of the Dean’s Leadership Team has attended, over recent years, the ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute and, accordingly, is able to apply at learning experience’s focus on the Bolman and Deal (1997) frames of leadership (the political, human resource frame, symbolic, and structural frames) through which to assist them with leading through governance issues.

The management of any organization must take place within an ethical framework. As a Catholic and Marianist university, the University of Dayton holds that the ethical context of an organization is central to its effective functioning.  Greenleaf (1991) suggested that the ethical component is always a part of the servant leader mentality--a moral principle to be trusted. Library and information service professionals at Dayton are urged to evaluate ethical dilemmas in organizational leadership and suggest concrete means through which to resolve such dilemmas. 

THE AUTHORS DIALOGUE

We have explored two different, yet mutually-reinforcing models of organizational commitment to the

formation of the learning organization:  One grounded in important notions of leadership, followership, and citizenship and the other steeped in theory that underpins a servant style of leadership. 

Winona Author:  In their breakthrough study, Geeks and Geezers, Bennis and Thomas (2002) probed the powerful processes through which leaders of any era emerge.  Specifically, they focused upon how era and values shaped those leaders who grew up in the shadows of the Depression and World War II versus those who matured in the phosphorescent glow of computer screens.  In a essence, their research findings suggested that true leaders of any age share a cluster of critical qualities: adaptive capacity, the ability to engage others in shared meaning, a distinctive and compelling voice, and a sense of integrity.  But, what of the perceived negative reaction some might have to the phrase “servant leader,” especially given the religious connotations sometimes laid upon that phrase?

Dayton Author:  I’m aware of the limitations that phrase often evokes because servant leadership remains a misunderstood concept.  In a recent paper Bill Millard (2001) has noted this fairly commonplace reaction, one that he notes has some have not found captivating or up-to-date.  He found this attitude to be one shared by quite a few others in the field of leadership and, subsequently, has been puzzled by that attitude.  Pointedly, however, he goes on to suggest that the power of servant leadership has never really been derived from terminology but, rather, from principle.  He notes that persons who are compelled by mission to be servant leaders, as is the case with the library staff at Dayton, do so because they believe that it to be the right way to lead.  Servant leadership as a theme or an idea has a lineage as old as the scriptures and perhaps even Hammurabi.  What appears to have slowed the development of servant-leadership literature in organizational science has been the sense of unease among scholars of ideas that have a religious salience.  Yet the principles that ground servant leadership mirror a universal ethic:  honesty, humility, trust, healing, empathy, community, and service  The playwright Arthur Miller observed that we know an era has ended when its basic allusions have been exhausted. What are the historical illusions about leaders and organizations that now appear shattered?

Winona Author:  Taylorism, the scientific management of work, focused on the improvement of the efficiency of the worker. In its broadest application, life was viewed mechanistically. The task of organizational leadership was to create a better functioning machine. Moreover, workers were “viewed as machines and controlled to perform with the same efficiency and predictability (Wheatley, 1998, p. 342). That engineering image of people led to organizational lives that ignored the deep realities of human existence. It allowed leaders to ignore that individuals carry spiritual questions and quests into their work that individuals need affirmation and love, and that emotions are an integral part of individuals’ work lives (Wheatley, 1998). Servant-leadership, in contrast, invites individuals and groups to pause and question their fundamental beliefs about each other,

the nature of their work, and their capacity for self-awareness, self-creation, and self-

organization. Pointedly, the exhausted illusions of Taylor’s mechanistic story have yielded to an emergent, deeper and richer image of who followers and leaders are.  Servant-leadership, at its core, is an expression of the need to push back against a story that excludes spirit, love, meaning, purpose, and legacy from the workplace. In a word, servant-leadership is about deep identity; it invites persons to lives closer to the human spirit.  Compellingly, servant-leadership poses the question: “What might our organizations accomplish if they trusted and called on the human spirit? (Wheatley, 1998, p. 350). Recently, a Minnesota State University received a five million dollar grant to launch a mentoring program pairing student teachers and veteran cooperating teachers.

Implicitly, the grant forces a fundamental question: Is the role of mentoring essentially helping a student teacher learn how to “be” as opposed to persuading a student teacher “what to do.” Greenleaf once described George Wythe’s house as the “place where Thomas Jefferson was born” because so much of what Jefferson was to become “as an intellectual force stemmed from Wythe’s example and Wythe’s person” (McCollum, 1998, p. 336). At the height of Taylorism, mentoring had a machine and parental dimension to it. Servant-leadership, in contrast, attaches a more spiritual quality to mentoring. For mentees, the focus would be on how to “be,” as opposed to how to “do.”

The student teacher would learn how to “be” in the classroom and “be” in professional

relationships, and “be” in society. Critical issues like classroom management, for example, would be viewed fundamentally as a matter of character, as opposed to merely a matter of technique.

Dayton Author:  Perhaps it was only a subliminal desire to maintain continuity with my Southern Appalachian roots, but recently one morning I found myself softly singing the words to an old hymn that includes the phrase: “Like a sheep he was humbled to His Father’s will.”  That then got me to thinking about what animal we might think of when we reflect on servant leadership…..and why?  Does such an overt religious-laden image create problems in our secular organizations?  Only a few days back I was skimming an unsolicited theological school newsletter that comes to my office and happened upon a dialogue by two seminarians, both of whom are also real life shepherdesses, one in Indiana and one in Wyoming.  Dialogically in the article, these two women speak about the nature and characteristics of the sheep they tend and how, over time, they have come to be closely attuned to those over whom they watch.  One of the women observed:

Sometimes on cold nights in the fall I would wake up at 1:00 a.m. and hear the coyotes howling.  My flock was still out there in the late pasture.  There wasn’t much I could do, but I did the one thing I needed to do.  I got up, got in the pickup, and drove out into the darkness to where the flock was sleeping.  And I shined a light out into the darkness as I drove.  I could catch pairs of eyes in the beam of my light, and the howling would stop.  The coyotes would slink off into the darkness, over the ridge, to seek other prey.  You could hear their calls fade into the distance as they went their way.  That is all we are called to

do as shepherds:  To care for the flock, and to shine a light in the darkness. (Moore, 2003, p. 16).

My friend, if we squarely face the uncomfortable truths of organizational life today and add in the sometimes haunting awareness of the snares that seem to be around every corner (some of them quite evil); perhaps the only correct and morally responsible leadership posture we can assume is that of the servant leader.  It seems we increasingly work in one wilderness or another, and some can be quite dark.  Perhaps all we are called to do as servant leaders is to care deeply in love for those whom we serve and, then, to shine lights into the darkness to ward off that which would undermine or destroy the rich learning communities we wish to create.  

Winona Author:   While all leaders have imperfections and shortcomings, servant-leaders resist the seductive tendency to deny them or cover them up by shining a bright light on their acknowledged weaknesses to under them better and to avoid falling prey to the dynamics of leader recklessness and folly that so dot the organizational landscape today.  In truth, Greenleaf acknowledged that the idea of servant is rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage. Clearly the words servant, serve, and service punctuate the pages of Holy Scripture. Historians tell us that Jesus was a leader. The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was also a servant: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35).  In both contemporary religious and secular organizations, however, servant-leadership has emerged as a guiding moral principle. The test of that moral principle in an organizational setting today is Greenleaf’s: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants?  At Winona State University, there is compelling evidence of the change in attitude and practice required to achieve Greenleaf’s ideals of servant leadership. The social architecture of the campus honors the deepest realities of human existence by promoting community, connection, interdependency, and the sharing of power in decision making. Today, fifty-five colorful banners fly high over the campus proclaiming  “A Community of Learners Dedicated to

Improving our World.” In concert, four faculty teams are currently engaged dialogically in designing a “new university” in which colleagues will intentionally explore a collective vision of organization as servant, with a deep desire to help others. 

Dayton Author:  The more we dialogue about the critical elements of leadership, followership, servanthood and indeed, citizenship within community, another old gospel song rambles in my mind; a tune brought home to me this past year given its place in the fabric of the love story that was Johnny and June Carter Cash.  Both musical geniuses in their own right, June was known to take the servant position to John in family and community matters; much less to mention her central role as healer in John’s long and finally overcome addictions.  Toward the end of both of their lives they sang this almost prescient metaphor of heaven:

I’ll be waiting on the far side banks of Jordan.

I’ll be sitting drawing pictures in the sand.

And when I see you coming, I will rise up with a shout

And come running through the shallow waters; reaching for your hand.

What are great leaders but those who work and wait in patience to invite persons into full citizenship in community (alert welcoming), that when fully realized, dazzles beyond our  imaginations?  Not only do servant leaders wait in patient concern, they welcome the opportunity to “rise up with a shout” in both hospitality and encouragement and to embody within themselves those characteristics that make for full entry and participation into earthy organizational forms.  Moreover, in true servant fashion, they wade out into the waters (they are courageous), reaching for the hands (the talents and the creative impulses) of those who can and will make flesh rich learning communities that ultimately embody the eternal qualities of humility, reflection, truth-telling, and action for the sake of others.  As guiding metaphors, citizenship in community and servant-hood in community mirror one another; indeed, they simply may be lens through which to address the simple but powerful questions that you raised earlier:  “Who am I? What am I a part of? What connects me to the rest of the world? What relationships matter to me?”  Richard, to restate what you suggested earlier, citizenship (and I believe servant leadership) both take form and are lived out in community when colleagues reclaim choice for themselves and others and act in humane and caring ways on behalf of the whole community.  Both citizenship and servant leadership involve creating and sustaining relationships around a shared sense of purpose and accountability for this whole community, whether that be a university, a hospital, a group of believers within a faith tradition, or any organization whose mission is to serve the higher needs of others.  Ego, as much as it can be, is left behind and humility and encouragement to task begin to rule.  As you have observed, leadership, followership, and citizenship all involve processes of inner growth followed by outer organizational consequences.  As I continue to reflect on our discussion here regarding those elements that might better anchor us in, as you term it in your context “leadership, followership, and citizenship,” and as I term it in my context “servant leadership” its apparent that we are both drawing upon intermingled and mutually supportive literatures and laying the groundwork for further dialogue on our respective campuses.

The Authors Conclude:  The social philosopher, Charles Handy, observed that in many ways the twentieth century was the Organization Century. It was clearly an age in which much of a worker’s identity came from the organization or enterprise that one worked for. Individuals in those organizations were often “plugged into predetermined slots or roles” and were known more by their job titles than their names (Handy, 2003, p. 90). Many workers were often slaves to the moment, moving from task to task, in a machine-like process. Relatedly, management styles were often exploitative and authoritarian.

Robert Greenleaf spent his first career of forty years at AT & T probing issues of power and authority. He searched for ways in which individuals could relate to others in less coercive and more creatively supporting ways. And he championed the belief that becoming a servant-leader begins with the natural feeling that one truly wants to serve—to serve first, then lead. Thus, servant-first and leader-first remained polarities for Greenleaf.  In practical terms, Greenleaf’s vision foreshadowed a twenty-first century in which workers would matter more than their roles; worker discretion would matter more than dutiful compliance; and shared purpose would matter more than efficiency.

In life, the most profound truths are often deceptively simple, yet almost impossible to apply in practice. Sustaining a university in which the authority of ideas, as opposed to the idea of authority, reigns supreme is admittedly problematic (Summers, 2003). The acknowledged difficulty in applying Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant-leadership in contemporary organizations, therefore, does not invalidate that philosophy. Nor does it invalidate Greenleaf’s test of servant-leadership: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants?  

At two different institutions—one a state university and the other a private one sustained by a faith tradition—we have chronicled complimentary and necessary forms of both community building and approaches to the establishment of the learning organization.  In truth, however, communities and learning organizations are not created by deans or department chairs, but rather by visionary servant-leaders at all levels who risk stepping forward one by one.  The strategy of those hopeful servant-leaders is captured disarmingly in a bit of verse from Edwin Markham’s “Outwitted”:

They drew a circle that shut me out,

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But love and I had the wit to win.

We drew a circle that took them in.

Servant leadership captures the markers of productive leadership with grace.  Servant leadership invites leaders at all levels to view their accomplishments and foibles with the detachment and discernment of one who is in service to others and to the organization.  Servant leadership exhorts leaders at all levels to focus on what truly matters in life, as a way of developing and sustaining the humility required of the servant leader.  Because servant leaders are intimately connected to the lives of others in their quest to “give something back,” they avoid the very dangers of becoming isolated and insulated from the realities of organizational life that have triggered the lapses in judgment and personal conduct that have stalked so many of today’s fallen leaders.  In daily practice, servant leadership reminds leaders at all levels that no one, including President Clinton, Cardinal Law, Ken Lay, and Martha Stewart, is exempt from the rules that govern other people’s

behavior.  And, in daily practice, servant leadership exhorts leaders at all levels to confront their self-enhancing illusions regarding their bloated sense of importance in organizational life, coupled with their exaggerated sense of entitlement to organizational resources.  In the ultimate sense, servant leadership is accountability that is self-inflicted in the service of others.  And, in the end, we would contend that true academic excellence can only be fully achieved within the context of a servant-leader model of community.

REFERENCES

All in a day’s work. (2001). Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 54-66.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith, D. (1985).  Action Science: Concepts, Methods,

            Skills for research and intervention.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bennis, W.  (1989). On becoming a leader.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W. (1984). Transformative Power and Leadership.  In: T.J. Sergiovannie & J. E.

Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 64-71).  Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Bennis, W. (2002). Will the legacy live on? Harvard Business Review, 80(2), 95-99.

Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks & Geezers: How Era, Values, and

Defining Moments Shape Leaders.  Boston:  Harvard Business School Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985).  Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge.  New

York: Harper & Row.

Black. J. S., & Gergersen, H. B. (2002).  Leading strategic change : breaking

through the brain barrier. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Block, P. (1998). From leadership to citizenship. In: L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on

Leadership (pp. 87-95). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bolman, Lee G., & Deal, T. E. (1997).  Reframing Organizations: Artistry,

Choice and Leadership.   San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowman, R. (1999). Community as the organizing principle. Catalyst for Change, 28(3),

23-24.

Bowman, R. (2002). The real work of department chair. The Clearing House, 75(3), 158-

162.

Braskamp, L., & Ory, J. (1994). Assessing faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bressler, S. E., & Grantham Sr., S. E. (2000).  Communities of commerce: 

building internet business communities to accelerate growth, minimize risk, and increase customer loyalty.  New York: McGraw Hill.

Brown, M., & Packman, R.  (1986).  Organizational learning, critical systems

thinking, and systemic learning (Centre for Systems Studies Research Memorandum 20).  Yorkshire, England: University of Hull.

Charan, R., & Tichy, N. M.  (1998).  Every business is a growth business:  how your

company can prosper year after year.  New York:  Times Business.

Collingwood, H. (2001). Know thyself. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 8.

Collins, J., & J. Porras. (1997). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Deming, W. E.  (1986). Out of Crises.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

DePree, M. (1989).  Leadership is an Art.  New York: Dell Publishing.

DePree, M. (1992).  Leadership jazz. New York: Doubleday.

Dotlich, D. L., and James L. Noel.  (1998).  Action learning:  how the world’s top

companies are recreating their leaders and themselves.  San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, Michael. (2001). Leading in a culture of change.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, B. (October 2003).  Harvard Management Update, 8(10).

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2001). Followership: it’s personal too. Harvard

Business Review, 79(11), 148.

Greenleaf, Robert K. (1991).  The servant as leader.  Indianapolis: The Robert K.

Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970).  The servant as  leader.  Indianapolis:  The Robert K.

            Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press

Handy, C.  (1990). The age of unreason.  Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Handy, C. (2003). Behind the numbers. Harvard Business Review, 81(8), 90.

Heenan, D., & Bennis, W. (1999). Co-leaders: the power of great partnerships. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Heifetz, R.A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Hesselbein, F. (1966).  The “how to be” leader. In: Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., and

Beckhard, R. (Eds). The leader of the future: new visions, strategies, and practices for the next era.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991).  Educational Leadership: The Moral Act.  Albany, NY: State

University of New York.

Hord, Shirley M., et al., (1987). Taking Charge of Change.  Alexandria, Va.: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kellerman, B. (2001). Required reading. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 15-24.

Kelly, R. (1998). Followership in a leadership world. In: L. C. Spears (Ed.),  Insights

on Leadership (pp. 170-184). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Koesler, A. (1967).  The ghost in the machine.  London: Hutchinson.

Kolb, D.  (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and

development.  Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

.

Kotter, John P. (1996).  Leading change.  Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner. (1993).  Credibility: how leaders gain and lose it, why

people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. (1995). The leadership challenge: how to

keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the Servant Organization: Development of the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) Instrument.  Boca Raton, FL: Dissertation.

Lee, R. J. & King, S. N.  (2001).  Discovering the leader in you: a guide to realizing

your personal leadership potential.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lewin, Kurt and D. Cartwright, ed. (1951).  Field theory in social science.  New York:

Harper and Row.

Markham, E. (2000).  Outwitted.  In: C. Nelson (Ed.), Anthology of Modern American

Poetry.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCauley, C. D., S. R. Moxley, and E. V. Velsor, eds.  (1998). Handbook of Leadership

Development.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

McCollum, J. (1998).  The Inside-out proposition: finding (and keeping) our balance

in contemporary organizations.  In: L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on Leadership (pp. 340-351).  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Millard, B. (1994).  ChangeQuest: a process for modifying your organization.  Ventura,

California: Life Discovery Publications.

Millard, B. (1995).   Servant-leadership—it’s right and It works!.  Colorado Springs: Life Discovery Publications.

Moore, K. (2003).  Like a shepherd leading the flock.  The Mosaic of Louisville

Seminary, 10(3), 13-16.

Moorhead, Gregory, and Ricky W. Griffin.  (1998)  Organizational Behavior: Managing

People and Organizations.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Nahavandi, A. (2000).  The Art and Science of Leadership.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Nelson, B. (2002). The rewards of recognition. Leader to Leader, 23, 16-19.

Nouwen, H. J. M. (1996).  In the name of Jesus: reflections on Christian leadership. 

NewYork: Crossroad.

Palmer, P. (2001). Leadership and the inner journey. Leader to Leader, 22, 26-33.

Pinchot, G. (1998). An alternative to hierarchy. Leader to Leader, 10, 41-46.

Rost, J. C. (1993).  Leadership for the twenty-first century.  Westport, CN: Praeger.

Ruderman, M. N. and S. Rogolsky. (2001). Getting real: how to lead authentically.

Leadership in action, 21, 3.

Senge, P. M. (1990).  The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization.  New York: Currency Doubleday.

Senge, P.M. (1997).  Creating learning communities.  Executive Excellence 14(3), 17-18

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B. & Smith, B. J. (1994).  The Fifth

            Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. 

            New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1997).  Company of Heroes: Unleashing the Power of Self

Leadership. Long Range Planning, 30, 1, p. 141.

Sorcher, M., & Brant, J. (2002). Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard

            Business Review, 80(2), 78-85.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: how Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers.  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership.  New York: Wiley.

Summers, L. (2003). The Authority of Ideas. Harvard Business Review, 81(8), 144.

Tedlow, R. (2001). What titans can teach is. Harvard Business Review,

 79(11), 70-79.

Vicere, A. A. and R. M. Fulmer. (1997).  Leadership by design.  Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Wheatley, M.J. (1994).   Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organizations From an Orderly Universe.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler..

Wheatley, M. J. (1998).  What is our work?  In:  L. C. Spears (Ed.),  Insights on

leadership (pp. 326-329).  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999).  Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a

chaotic world.  2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Williams, L.E. (1996).  Servants of the people: the 1960s legacy of African-American  leadership.  New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Click to open in MS Word Format