It is from this context that I
began considering the theme of discernment and its application in the
decision-making process employed by school leaders. As my thinking about
discernment progressed through presentations and discussions with peers, who
are preparing future leaders for service in schools, it became evident that
discernment first begins in situations where we are challenged to understand
how to provide space for extending the conversation, and is then shaped by
accurately determining when and anticipating which voices to invite. Ideas and
thinking about the how, when, and with whom decisions are made are shared in
this blog to consider and understand 1) individual discernment in workplace
decisions, 2) community discernment in schools, 3) applications of servant
leadership style and relational skills in discernment, and 4) discerning
fruitful processes for making technical or adaptive decisions. But first, it is
important to clearly establish the focus as setting parameters for discernment
in decision-making and then to properly define discernment in the context of
community where most educational decisions happen.
Continue Reading …
Discernment in
Decision-Making Defined
Discernment is defined as the
quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure; and the ability
to see and understand people, things, or situations clearly and intelligently
(Merriam-Webster Online)—through a keenness of intellectual perception (Oxford
Universal Dictionary). Discernment assumes a certain knowledge or wisdom to
apply perceptions appropriately when faced with dilemmas or difficult
decisions.
In situations that can
significantly change an individual or an organization, discernment in
decision-making is more about taking time to keenly shape an informed judgment
than to make hasty decrees. This is where the important work of making
decisions, which press the organization and its people to change, requires
leaders to open up the process of discernment, especially in adaptive
challenges as described by Ronald Heifetz (1994). But, leaders sometimes
misinterpret interests of efficacy, efficiency, and expertise—repeating
self-serving phrases such as ‘I am the leader, so I must have the answers’—over
encouraging decisions that are beneficial and fruitful to others and to the
organization.
The “tyranny of the urgent”
(Hummel, 1967) and self-promotion wins the day, instead of purposeful planning
to make prudent decisions in a spirit of collaboration. It takes additional
planning time and space to invite voices into the boardroom and into the
principal’s office, but it also provides ample space to listen and discern well
during the decision-making process, which can result in moving in a direction
most meaningful and beneficial to the organization.
Individual
Discernment in Workplace Decisions
Individuals desire an opportunity
to participate fully, or at least to the level of one’s choosing, in the
process of organizational decision-making. Work that is meaningful and
rewarding creates satisfied workers (Sergiovanni, 1992), and processes that
encourage shared decision-making improve the opportunity to hear a broader
range of voices speaking into decisions. Kutcher, Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki,
and Masco (2010) researched the connection between faith and employee
satisfaction and commitment to the workplace, invoking the term “organizational
citizenship behavior” (p. 319). As Kutcher et al. suggest, these organizational
behaviors are informed by employees’ “religious beliefs (that) form their
self-identities and guide their actions and decisions” (p. 335). Along this
line, James Madison once stated, “In a free government the security for civil
rights must be the same as that for religious rights” (Madison, 1788). This
perspective also implies that proper self-government means pursuing
opportunities for active and meaningful involvement in the workplace, and
subsequently in its decisions. However, these actions should not be simply a
matter of preference or by proclaiming a right; fruitful participation is
really a moral obligation conducted out of one’s sense of duty as an
organizational citizen.
The English word for citizen is
derived from the Latin word civitas,
which is similar to civic. If
government is the structure or function of authority and controls to govern
one’s actions, then self-government is one’s accepting personal responsibility
to control personal actions and private rights within corporate government,
such as we accept by living as a citizen in a country and working in community
with others within any organization. Citizenship is an important educational
goal; citizens, who exercise individual rights especially by participating in
decision-making, enable society to benefit from their perspectives of
understanding and knowledge.
But
that wisdom, which I have stated to be the chief, is the knowledge of things
divine and human, which comprehends the fellowship of gods and men, and their
society within themselves … it follows of course that the duty resulting from
this fellowship is the highest of all duties. For the knowledge and
contemplation of nature is in a manner lame and unfinished, if it is followed
by no activity; now activity is most perspicuous when it is exerted in
protecting the rights of mankind [care for the well-being of mankind].
(p. 113)
Living in community is what we are naturally created to do
(Grenz, 1998), reinforced by our country’s unique declaration that “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. Declaration of Independence,
1776). When leaders are aware of individual interests to meaningfully
participate in decision-making, then employee satisfaction and well-being
results. This phenomenon of including people in processes of discernment is often
referred to as employee buy-in or more recently as vetting a decision, which
improves the quality of decisions, the quality of implementing those decisions,
and the quality of the place where individuals work.
The management theory and practice
of site-based decision-making is up for debate as to what degree it is present
in an environment of high-stakes accountability and within the
“buck-stops-here” perspective of board of directors, but it does strengthen
decisions by bringing them to the level where most decisions are implemented.
Participatory decision-making within a community not only values principles of
a free society, it limits negative perceptions that decisions are being made
‘without our input,’ from the top down, which can have a detrimental effect on
employee satisfaction, organizational culture, and workplace climate. Shared
decision-making also ensures that individuals flourish to be blessed and happy
within an organization that values the expertise, wisdom, and knowledge of
others by inviting discernment in the process of making decisions—and
encourages positive behavior from more of its citizens.
Understanding
Discernment in School Communities
An open and transparent
decision-making process not only establishes controls to check power in
educational organizations, it also creates opportunities for leaders to listen
well to the needs of others. As most American schools exist to provide a
service of educating children and adults, schools operate within a society that
values, but does not mandate, individual participation in decision-making, such
as voting in a general election. Proper discernment includes an open process to
create opportunities for students’ voices to be heard in major classroom or
school-wide policies and procedures, especially as they progress through the
secondary level.
Perhaps schools can respond to
limit the criticism that ‘my voice and opinions don’t matter’ by teaching and
modeling that self-government through practicing the discipline of public
involvement in community decisions can and does make a difference. As most
teachers and administrators are a product of the American system of education,
it follows that staff members in most schools expect an invitation to
participate in decisions—to be part of the discernment in decision-making
processes. Effective leadership requires leaders to determine what type of
decisions to open up through an invitation to participate and which decisions
are best made through a streamlined process.
An accepted goal of education is to
ensure that children become productive and successful members of
society—modeling that children have a voice in some classroom decisions may
translate to increased participation in a society’s organizations as adults.
John Amos Comenius is noted for influencing the reform of human society through
education, including the American system of schools. His was a world in the
17th century where religious and political strivings for allegiance and power
led to war after war instead of a society where a spirit of collaboration and
discernment shaped important decisions. This strife led to his philosophical
foundation of pansophy (a universal wisdom or knowledge) in hopes of ending war
or at least not perpetually fighting wars to resolve conflicts.
In his book, The Great Didactic (Didactica Magna), Comenius (1649) contends that
“. . . the whole of the human race may become educated, men of all ages, all
conditions, both sexes and all nations,” which would mean that “. . . all men
should be educated to full humanity—to rationality, morality, and happiness”
(p. 11). He hoped this social reform led by education would lead to a unity of
humanity by asserting:
I call a school that fulfills its
function perfectly, one which is a true forging-place: where the minds of those
who learn are illuminated by the light of wisdom, so as to penetrate with ease
all that is manifest and all that is secret, where the emotions and the desires
are brought into harmony with virtue, and where the heart is filled with and permeated
by divine love, so that all who are handed over to Christian schools to be
imbued with true wisdom may be taught to live a heavenly life on earth; in a
word, where all men are taught all things thoroughly. (p. 14)
Perhaps an education to “full humanity—to
rationality, morality, and happiness” means an education that leads one to
live, but for what end? As an educational reformer John Comenius was far ahead
of his time in viewing that a quality education could lead to a changed world.
He believed that teachers should understand how a child’s mind develops and
learns, which caused him to be convinced that all children should attend school
and receive the same education about the civilization in which they live, so
that they could understand and know how best to solve problems in society. In
the same way, understanding and recognizing this important role and
responsibility, which involvement in decision-making offers people in a free
society, should lead leaders to adopt a process that supports and encourages
open discernment in decision-making, to help people ‘fulfill their function
perfectly.’
A century after Comenius, this
foundation of education for discernment was continued by James Madison (1788)
who penned The Federalist No. 51, a
paper entitled The Structure of the
Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different
Departments. Like Comenius, Madison saw the frailty of humans and stressed
the importance of education through writings that proposed adding an element of
checks and balances through government designed to ensure that the means of
power and control lead to higher ends. More specifically, Madison stated, “But
what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern
men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”
(1788).
As we continue to think about
discernment in the light of educational and political thinkers, we follow
Comenius and Madison’s line of reasoning that both these structures are
important for life. We observe that governance structures in educational
organizations are basic hierarchies—where boards control superintendents,
superintendents control principals, principals control teachers, and teachers
control students. These dual structures of education to fully develop human
functioning and government to control human shortcomings then require that
people in each of these roles of authority see the need for established checks
on making unilateral decisions, which serve to limit participation and
potential serve self-interests for power.
Some people within organizations
trust leaders to make decisions for them and for the good of others—just doing
the work as assigned is satisfying enough. Others perceive that to live fully
within an organization means being able to create or innovate or to participate
actively in decisions that will affect them personally. In this case, being
included in a process to discern the best decision becomes more of a right and
a moral responsibility that can only be fulfilled by being able to participate
in a discernment process to act on one’s belief that my opinions do matter, and
more importantly that God may be speaking wisdom into the process of discerning
the right course of action through an individual member of the organization.
Leadership
Implications for Discernment in Decision-Making
Understanding, recognizing, or
anticipating that involvement in decision-making processes matters to some
people are leadership skills best accomplished by an active and involved
leader. If a leader accepts the premise that an individual’s obligation to
weigh-in on a decision should be recognized and protected, then there are
leadership implications that are best addressed through discerning the most
appropriate style, skills, and decision-making process to implement as a leader
informed by putting leadership theory into practice.
Leadership style
Perhaps, servant leadership
provides the best model for discernment in decision-making. Robert Greenleaf (1977) implies that the
complete range of human nature is reflected in the continuum between
leader-first behavior, striving to achieve personal power or gain, and
servant-first behaviors. This style requiring leaders to strive for a more
balanced approach or style when he wrote:
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
this: do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 27)
Effective and successful leaders are those who best
understand and know the needs of others and measure success through the lens of
personal and professional growth of all people within the organization
(Luthans, 2010). Leaders who encourage others to participate in decision-making
to resolve challenging situations ensure a broader understanding, knowledge,
and wisdom during this type of discernment process.
Larry Spears continued directing
the work of The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership after Greenleaf’s
death. Spears introduced the book he edited, The Power of Servant Leadership, (Greenleaf, 1998) depicting how he
sifted through the writings of Greenleaf to identify “ten characteristics of
the servant leader” (p. 5), which shape leaders to lead from a servant-leader perspective.
The top two characteristics that Spears references for servant leadership are
listening: “communication and decision-making skills . . . reinforced by a deep
commitment to listening intently to others” and persuasion, defined as a
. . . reliance on persuasion,
rather than on one’s positional authority, in making decisions within an
organization. The servant-leader seeks to convince others, rather than coerce
compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions
between the traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership. The
servant-leader is effective at building consensus within groups. (p. 6)
Perhaps the major implication for using discernment in
decision-making is in the area of professional growth and development of
leaders: both principal and teacher leaders. We tend to teach as we have been
taught, so it follows that most of us lead in a style that we have been
led. Servant leadership is becoming more
prevalent and utilizes a style of behaving as a leader that causes a leader to
consider the interests of others, which in turn requires a leader to be willing
to ask and to listen to others in the process for discernment in
decision-making.
Leadership skills
Discerning when and how to create
space and to plan time for shared decision-making are important leadership
skills, along with understanding who needs to be at the table. Fred Luthans
(1988) researched the day-to-day work of managers to determine that effective
principals operate mainly in traditional management skills or tasks of content
and craft knowledge, and human resource management skills in developing
interpersonal relationships resulting in a organizational culture marked by
high satisfaction, commitment, and performance. However, these were not
necessarily skills that resulted in the successful principal being promoted to
positions “up and out”—up the organizational ladder based on understanding
political landscapes and working the system leading to moving out of
building-level leadership. But, effective and successful leaders also are able
to understand the implications for involving others in decision-making
processes by developing relationships within and outside of the school. A
balanced leadership approach is one where leaders use skills to understand what
needs to be done, know how best to accomplish organizational goals, and
effectively communicate this process to parents, teachers, and students
(Luthans, 2010).
Discerning
Decision-making Processes
Although developing a style and
utilizing skills conducive to positive behavior allow leaders to move from
theory into fruitful practices, so does the ability to understand when and to
know how to move from a traditional model of managing technical decisions.
Challenges that will require an organization to adapt and change require an
organization to use a more collaborative process of discernment in
decision-making. Ronald Heifetz (1994) addresses the difference between
resolving technical challenges versus those situations that create adaptive
challenges; it is through understanding and knowing these differences that
leaders can provide a process leading to better discernment, which leads to
making better decisions. These technical challenges can cause frustration and
discomfort within an organization for a short period of time, but most people
associated with the organization know that the expertise and resolve to find a
solution already exists. An adaptive challenge is one that causes the
organization to invest more time and attention to find a resolution because it
is one that will result in significant change for individuals within the
organization. Perhaps there is no decision that requires more discernment than
a challenge that the school has not faced before or, worse yet, one where
people are not aware of potential and unintended consequences by making quick
or wrong decisions.
Technical challenges
One mistake that leaders make is to
convene a staff meeting to get input on how to solve or discern technical
challenges. It is in the process of making these decisions that leaders quickly
find most people don’t want to be involved or someone wants to be involved to a
level that creates an entirely different challenge. For example, determining
the bell schedule or class schedule is usually a technical challenge that is
influenced by assessing available space in the facility, considering bus
transportation systems including parent drop-off or pick-up procedures, working
on the master schedule logistics to resolve scheduling conflicts of teachers
and rooms, or determining the time it takes students to move between classrooms
with fewest disruptions. Convening a
large meeting to hear from a variety of voices can only complicate this
decision-making process. If the school leadership team knows what the issue is
and technically how to best resolve it, then it becomes less difficult and
important to determine who to invite to make the best decision to change the
bell or class schedule. Most teachers trust administrators to convene the group
that needs to be around the table, so decisions like this are often made in the
summer before the school year starts. In the case of challenges requiring a
technical solution, encouraging more people to get involved or lengthening the
time to make sure opportunities for discernment happen will not result in
making a better decision, but might lead to more frustration caused by people
having to wait for something to happen.
In the area of technical decisions
where the organization knows how best to resolve the situation, an open and
transparent process is still beneficial to relieve the short-term frustration
that people face, but the answer does not require much discernment as it is
usually obvious once a small group collects and analyzes the facts of the
situation—a consensus decision-making model will only serve to add frustration
within the organization. Most of these technical decisions come down to leaders
just doing what leaders are supposed to do, so don’t confuse the issue by
suggesting that there may be larger implications that will change the
organization through a long, drawn out process. The resolution is the key to
stabilizing the temporary stress and it often provides an opportunity to
recognize the good work of the person or team that resolved the challenge so
quickly.
These are usually those decisions
where people expect the leader to lead, and, as such, these challenges should
be resolved sooner and more efficiently with less input needed to discern the
best solution. By involving more people than is needed to resolve a technical
challenge, the leader opens up the possibility that trust will be broken. Most
evaluations of a leader’s performance, both formally and informally, are based
on the degree to which the leader does what has been promised or expected.
Even though perception is reality
in assessing this standard, personal integrity or lack thereof is either
affirmed or laid out for all to see and to judge. When people are asked for
their input and they rightfully take time to participate in the process, the
leader is often confronted with choosing competing options. So instead of
picking one, the leader makes a different decision creating the appearance that
the leader already determined the decision and wasted time asking for
individual input. Since little discernment is needed to resolve a technical
challenge, I have observed where this error can cause fewer people to get
involved in future decision-making processes. This is especially detrimental
when important decisions arise that could change the structure of an
organization.
Adaptive challenges
It is this area where people within
the organization will be required to adapt, that leaders make consequential
mistakes. Leaders unaware of when to convene a process to encourage
discernment, try to apply the same process as used in the technical challenge.
The leader has potentially lost trust before the decision-making process lifts
off the ground, as a select group is convened to make a hasty decision. Those
decisions to address challenges that will significantly change an organization
are best made through a strategically planned process, allowing for additional
time and space.
For the purpose of discussing a
scenario that creates an adaptive challenge for a school, let’s assume that we
are rethinking the bell or class schedule because we are considering a move to
a block schedule at a secondary school or a blended grade levels at an
elementary school. This consideration changes the challenge from a technical
decision to one that will create a change in the school’s basic structure: the
classroom. Immediately, there will be questions of why this change is being
considered and who will make the final decision, which is a good indication
that this will require people within the community to adapt to a significant
change; it is more than just deciding how to adjust the bells, so it requires a
discernment process to include perspectives representative of all groups within
the organization. It will also require leaders to anticipate who to include in
the decision-making process, or others who may be impacted by this decision
within and outside of the school community.
Without addressing the details that
would take leaders within a school system at least a couple of months to plan
in process alone, I provide a couple of considerations to demonstrate the
magnitude of such an adaptive challenge. This also serves to reinforce why
discernment needs to infuse the entire process within the context of shared
decision-making, a process that should be expanded far beyond what is required
for making technical decisions. The initial level of planning relates to
considering the immediate question posed by the community: why? Prior to
announcing the plan for the process, the teaching and support staff, parents,
students, and the superintendent and governing board (if this change hasn’t
been directed by them), will want to hear the issue presented with facts and
rationale for why the change is needed. This step is already evident in a
technical challenge as those appear front and center begging to be resolved; a
technical challenge is similar to getting a flat tire on your car as we don’t
have to know why it happened, but we need to know how to fix it to get back on
the road as soon as possible.
An adaptive change is not so
obvious, so even before answering the question of why, leaders should have
floated the idea to prepare people within the community for change.
Professional learning communities within schools provide staff time and
resources to consider options. Common readings on the educational benefits to
student learning and barriers to implementation provide an opportunity to look
at the issue using a 360-degree approach (Hord, 1997). The town hall concept
with parent groups and meetings in the larger community can be beneficial to
the process of presenting facts and the rationale, as well as providing a forum
to listen to the perspectives of others. Perhaps the largest consideration to
discern in this decision will be the professional training required to
implement such a change in instruction and content delivery; teachers will need
to understand how the block schedule at the middle school or blending grade
levels in our elementary classrooms will change teaching and learning. Most of
all, this will take time and money, both precious resources for schools today.
So, making sure that people have been part of a process to discern the best way
forward is critical to prepare well to best implement the decision.
Decisions leading to change is no
less a time to lead. It is not a time to abdicate leadership responsibilities,
as formal leaders are important to the success of eventually implementing
decisions (Elmore, 1979–80). Remember, adaptive challenges require multiple
perspectives, and are best heard in a decision-making process that includes
time and space for discernment by people who want to participate in these
decisions. These types of decisions require leaders to use a differentiated
leadership style to discern who to invite into the discussion, and when and how
to initiate the process based on the situation (Hersey & Blanchard,
2000). There is a tool to help leaders
determine which staff members express interest in being involved in various
roles of leadership, including participating in open decision-making processes
(Birky, Shelton, & Headley, 2006, p. 98). Expanding leadership
opportunities to others who wish to participate in a process to discern the
best way forward, a process typically limited to administrators, not only
provides opportunities for multiple voices to be heard in the process of
discernment, but reduces stress on administrators by lightening the load and
isolation inherent to personally owning a unilateral decision.
This discernment process changes
the context—from limiting understanding and restricting involvement in a
decision by restricting the process to fewer eyes, ears, and brains to sharing
the making of decisions to discern the best steps to resolve a situation. The
willingness of leaders to change the process to include discernment in
decision-making results in stronger decisions that represent shared values more
aligned to the organization’s purpose as demonstrated by its mission and goals,
both in its operations and in its decisions.
Concluding Thoughts
on Discernment in Decision-Making
Hopefully, presenting a perspective
suggesting discernment in decision-making is an encouragement—a call to
consider the interests of others and to seek guidance to make wise decisions.
Leading from a style of acting as a servant first; responding effectively to
adaptive challenges by properly understanding how these decisions will change
and shape people within organizations; and incorporating spiritual disciplines
in leadership experiences of everyday life is not necessarily the default
perspective. Lest we make the mistake that faithful teaching invokes a narrow
view that focuses on one faith tradition, many denominations facilitate
discernment in decision-making and teach that beliefs should inform daily
practices.
In current discourse, there are
those who would say that spiritual disciplines, such as discernment, have no
place in the forum of public or even private conversations, including
decision-making. Seeing one’s actions as moral obligations—as a contributing
member of society within organizations—is not a topic included in many
leadership texts (Sergiovanni, 1996) and a viewpoint that can raise the hackles
of those who interpret any expression of faith as suspect in the public arena.
A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal quoted a United States
representative, who cited a teaching that has informed actions of individuals
within civic organizations, churches, and charities dating back to 1891:
A person’s faith is central to how
they conduct themselves in public and in private. So to me, using my Catholic
faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is how do you apply the
doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a layperson …where we
interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good. (Henninger,
p. A15)
The unity that comes by living faithfully in alignment with
the common good of others is not just theoretical but is foundationally
practical; it should not be reserved for only religious roles, but in secular
roles as it affirms our common work of caring for the common good through discernment
in community decisions. Or in other words: actions that affirm our love of our
neighbors.
Art Kleiner (2008) uses religious
nomenclature in his book, The Age of
Heretics, to describe the work to move organizational behavior away from
scientific measurements to social interactions where relationships matter.
Moving to this relational process may cause one to pay more attention to the
voice of the few who are discerning the best direction differently—and may
cause an organization to focus less on effectiveness, efficiency, and
productivity and more on work that is meaningful, beneficial, and fruitful to
measure success. Kurt Lewin (1939), whose social psychology theories shaped
current perspectives on organizational culture, coined the term “democratic
leadership” to describe skills leaders use through participatory
decision-making to positively encourage engagement and maintain motivation
(Bavelas & Lewin, 1942). Again, as Thomas Sergiovanni (2006) postulates,
“What is rewarding get done” (p.26) and at an even better quality than work
that is rewarded.
In educating our children and in
working together with other adults in the collaborative and collegial work of
education, ours is a twofold purpose. First, we strive to work well to prepare
future generations with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute in a
civilized society. But it is also an important endeavor to listen and to be led
by working well with each other in making clear and wise decisions based on a
collective process of discerning together in community.
References
This blog is excerpted from:
Shelton, M. (2012). Discernment. In A. L. Dee & G. C.
Tiffin (Eds.). Faithful education: Themes
and values for teaching, learning, and
leading. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, PICKWICK
Publications.
Bavelas, A.,
& Lewin, K. (1942). Training in democratic leadership. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37(1), 115–119.
Birky, V.D.,
Shelton, M., & Headley, W.S. (2006). An administrator's challenge:
Encouraging teachers to be leaders. NASSP
Bulletin 90(2), 87–101.
Cicero, M.T.
(1902) De officiis (On duty). In Arthur
L. Humphreys ed., Cicero: De Officiis.
London: Editor.
Comenius, J.A.
(1649). The great didactic (Didactica
Magna). London: Roehampton University. Retrieved from
http://core.roehampton.ac.uk/digital/froarc/comgre/.
Elmore, R. F.
(Winter, 1979–1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy
decisions. Political Science Quarterly,
94, 601–616.
Greenleaf, R. K.
(1977). Servant leadership: A journey
into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press.
Greenleaf, R. K.
(1998). The power of servant leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Grenz, S. J.
(1998). Created for community: Connecting
Christian belief with Christian living. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Heifetz, Ronald
A. (1994). Leadership without easy
answers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Henninger, D.
(2012, April 12). Demolishing Paul Ryan. The
Wall Street Journal, p. A15.
Hersey, P., &
Blanchard, K. H. (2000). Management of
organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (8th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hord, S. M.
(1997). Professional learning
communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Hummel, C.E.
(1967). Tyranny of the urgent.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship.
Kleiner, A.
(2008). The age of heretics: A history of
radical thinkers who reinvented corporate management (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kutcher, E.J.,
Bragger, J.D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., & Masco, J.L. (2010). The role of religiosity in stress,
job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 319–337.
Lewin, K.,
Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301.
Luthans, F.
(1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2(2), 127–132.
Luthans, F.
(2010). Organizational behavior (12th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Madison, J.
(1788) The federalist No. 51: The
structure of the government must furnish the proper checks and balances between
the different departments. Retrieved from
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=10&page=transcript
Sergiovanni,
Thomas. (1996). Moral leadership: Getting
to the heart of school improvement.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
