My leadership style draws from a variety of established organizational theories and styles and how these theories and styles work in combination. I value leadership theories such as closed system theory, open system theory, anti-positivistic theory (strategic choice and critical theory), and thin-slicing as well as the transformational leadership style. For purposes of this paper, I will explain my personal leadership style as it relates to my definition of leadership, case study examples of successful leaders, practical application of my leadership style, as well as the overarching idea of what I will be adding to my leadership “toolbox” after the conclusion of this course.
Defining Leadership
Those who are teachers would have to accommodate ourselves to lives as clerks or functionaries if we did not have in mind a quest for a better state of things for those we teach and for the world we all share. It is simply not enough for us to reproduce the way things are. (Maxine Greene)
Before this course, my definition of leadership was abstract. Looking back at my previous response to the question, “What is leadership from your perspective?” I felt as though my response was vague and unclear. I stated the following in response to this question:
In my perspective, there is a difference between someone who is in a leadership position and one who defines the essence of leadership; those that take command and are natural leaders that others will follow, either by example, by virtue, by vision, etc. For instance, many individuals find themselves in leadership positions without actually thinking about what a leader means and what their personal philosophy or approach to leadership may be. How are these individuals’ effective leaders if they are not developing their cognitive awareness about what leading others means or encouraging/motivating their staff to develop their own leadership skills? On the other hand, there are those individuals that may not necessarily hold a “leadership” position or job title, but are leaders in their personal, social, or community lives. A quote that rings true about this concept is: “Does what you do reflect who you are and where you want to go?” (Lee & King, 2001), or put another way, does what you do as a leader reflect who you are and where you want your organization/institution, family, relationships, community, etc. to go?
Now, after taking this course, I feel as though my definition of leadership is more concrete and refined. Throughout the rest of this section, I will provide a definition of leadership as it relates to specific organizational theories and leadership styles that will be added to my leadership “toolbox.”
Closed System Versus Open System Theories
Frederick Taylor is known for inspiring the scientific management movement, which is one machine theory underneath the umbrella of closed system theory. Machine theory focuses on “ignoring worker needs and conceptualize organization and leadership much as one would approach the management of machinery” (Marion, 2002, p. 21), hence its name. According to Taylor, the most efficient method for performing a task was only part of the process, and that management techniques needed to be developed in order for standardized procedures to be carried out (Marion, 2002). From this and his “time and motion” studies, Taylor conceptualized his work into four main principles. They are as follows:
1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.
3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed.
4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks. (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, 2010)
Taylor’s ideas have been used in a variety of business settings, like in automobile factories such as Ford (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, 2010), but with little implication for education.
Taylor’s ideas of management set the scene for others whom followed machine theory, especially with regard to education. John Dewey, for example, is responsible for creating a decision-making model that approaches workflow in much the same way as Taylor; however, his meaning of workflow was specific to public education instruction (Marion, 2002). According to Dewey, genuine educational goals come from within a person, and from the person’s own activity in the environment. The sole goal of education is growth, which means, “that a person is learning more effective, meaningful, and satisfying ways to live, in order to deal with a changing reality and direct the course of her or his own life” (Gutek, 2004, p. 76). He contended that if students learned by experience, then they would not only gain knowledge, but would develop skills, habits, and attitudes necessary in solving a wide variety of problems. He put the “learner in the learning” (Terry, 2006). That is, he involved the learner in the learning process, which for the first time, connected the student to their environment and allowed the student to see how their interests, needs, or problems connected to their education. Therefore, instead of the learner’s actions being interpreted by others, the learner is interpreting their own actions and determining the correct decision to be made based upon their own thought process (Terry, 2006).
According to Dewey, real thinking occurs when we use the scientific method to solve problems. The following is Dewey’s five-step adaptation of the scientific method or a model for decision-making that he termed The Complete Act of Thought:
1. Identify a problem
2. Analyze the problem by figuring out what is blocking our ongoing activity
3. Brainstorm all possible solutions to the problem even if they seem “off the wall”
4. Analyze each possible solution, considering the pros and cons of each
5. Choose a decision after weighing the pros and cons of each and carry out the best plan of action. If the desired outcome does not occur, then one cannot move forward until it is solved. Therefore, to solve the problem, the process needs to be reviewed again, changes need to be made, and the process needs to be completed over again.
Therefore, based on Dewey’s rendition of the scientific method, our thinking is complete when we test our ideas. From this, we arrive at the most effective method of teaching and learning which is process-based problem solving. A method that can be applied to different types of problems that occur, no matter the magnitude. Hence, problem solving, according to the scientific method, requires individuals to act and judge a solution by its consequences, whether that individual is a student, teacher, or administrator (Gutek, 2004).
However, there are several assumptions associated with closed system theories. As with Taylor, Dewey, and machine theory, they assume there is one best solution to any problem and the scientific method is the way in which to solve the problem. That is, they assume there is only one optimal process for making decisions and carrying out managerial procedures. All relevant variables of and within the problem can be known and controlled. This which over-simplifies the decision-making process, when in reality, the process of decision-making is complicated with complex causations and multiple goals or agendas. Closed system theories ultimately assume that all “goals and causations are manageable…[and that all] problems can be logically solved” (Marion, 2002, p. 27). Meaning, with regard to organizational management, “efficiency is the only organizational concern, and if science can answer all questions of efficiency, then solutions to problems can be clearly mapped and rational decisions can be formulated” (Marion, 2002, p. 27).
Moreover, there are other drawbacks to closed system theory. While Taylor and Dewey’s ideas improved productivity, it also increased the boredom or dullness of the work. There were several core job dimensions such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback that were missing from scientific management. All of which are important aspects of the job that managers need to address and be aware of when leading others (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, 2010).
In open systems theory, Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba are best known for their model of social behavior in educational organizations. Their model is termed the Getzels-Guba model. The first version of this model was presented in 1965, and focused on the organization as a social system that included both elements of psychology (individual) and sociology (group). They defined social system as “the interdependence of parts, their integration into some sort of whole, and the intrinsic presence of both individuals and institutions” (Marion, 2002, p. 98). From this, two dimensions of social activity were termed, nomothetic and idiographic. Nomothetic structures refer to generalized phenomena and described in terms of “laws”, while idiographic structures refer to phenomena that cannot be generalized and are locally defined and meaningful. According to Getzels and Guba, institutions are “purposive (established to carry out goals), peopled (actors with functions to perform), structured (actors are organized by rules), normative (there are expected modes of behavior), and sanction-bearing (having the capability to enforce norms)” (Marion, 2002, p. 99). These institutions produce a variety of organizational roles, which are defined as expected behavior rather than actual behavior. Therefore, it is the discrepancy between the expected and actual role that managers use to evaluate the performance of their workers.
As time passed, their model was revised to include culture, an environmental dimension, making this model first a closed system theory and after revision, an open system theory. Then, their model was revised yet again and the dimension of culture was changed to community with numerous interactive subcommunities termed “collective identities.”
There are many pros of Getzels-Guba’s model with regard to education. One is its inclusion of community relations and how to assess the community or group needs. By understanding these needs, leaders can better serve the organization’s community members outside of the institution. According to this model, there are three levels of evaluation; first, community or cultural level, second, a specific group (nomothetic) level, and lastly, an individual (idiographic) level. A positive is that assessments for each of these three levels account for the complexities that surround the decision-making process for leaders using a combination of strategies (i.e., survey questionnaires, focus groups, examination of documents, and interaction with the community) rather than just one strategy like that of Taylor and Dewey. Therefore, leaders whom follow the Getzels-Guba’s model are able to take the surrounding community into account when they make any type of decision with respect to their organization.
There are critiques of the Getzels-Guba model with regard to multicultural issues. One issue related to this model is that it fails to include or notice the female experience with respect to work on role and role conflict. According to Shakeshaft and Nowell (1984), Getzels-Guba’s idea of social behavior excludes family altogether. They assume that women are not workers within the organization; they are “keepers of the private realm” (p. 190) and the work of the organization is populated by males and only includes male concerns. However, when the female experience is mentioned, they fail to include the possible conflicts females have that are different than males, like that of the conflict between a females role of a mother and their responsibilities related to work (Shakeshaft & Nowell, 1984).
There are implications of both closed and open systems theories in relation to educational leadership. In a closed system, managing tasks and supervising people follow an authoritative style of leadership, where there is clearly a superior with several subordinates underneath. As Taylor found from his research, workers began “soldering” or banning together to work against the boss so that none of them would receive negative consequences, so they all produced the same results. While on the other hand, in an open system, more of an authoritarian style of leadership is used, making workers more motivated. In addition, it followed more of an open communication style, where workers were able to directly speak with their superiors if there were problems, rather than in a closed system, where workers did not have the ability to directly voice their concerns with their bosses.
Summary. There are several aspects of closed system theory and open system theory that interest me. The most interesting aspect of closed system theory is Dewey’s concept of putting the “learner in the learning.” That is, the fact that students learn best when they are in charge of thinking for themselves and applying what they learn in the classroom to a real-world experience. With regard to open system theory, the most interesting aspect is that life roles outside of work affect a workers performance, that there is not a way to separate the role of work with other life roles.
Strategic Choice Theory
Strategic choice theory is under the anti-positivist theory umbrella. Anti-positivist theories are dramatically different than closed and open system theories, because they require a new way of thinking. Anti-positivist theories presume that organizational structure and behavior is unstable as it is largely determined by “humanness, beliefs, culture, and philosophies” (Marion, 2002, p. 165) rather than determined by a science. In short, open system and closed system theories focus on predestination, while anti-positivist theories focus on free will (Marion, 2002).
There are several implications of strategic theory as it relates to educational leadership. First, with regard to decision-making, leaders need to understand that one simple answer does not exist. When managers make decisions that have “unilateral causations, independent and dependent variables, origins, and terminations” (Marion, 2002, p. 177), they just make things more difficult on themselves. In reality, there are no simple answers to questions especially in relation to human behavior. Rather, Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) (as cited by Marion, 2002), compared decision-making to a garbage can and states that there are four streams that swirl within it. First, is fluid participation, which refers to the idea that there are typically random participants involved in the decision-making process, and they are often entangled accidentally. Second, there are choice opportunities or situations where choices must and can be made. Third and fourth, solutions (third) and problems (fourth) move in and out of the decision-makers vision, and often they are unrelated until someone links them together. Therefore, leaders need to specifically be aware of the latter and need to be able to maintain a “full and dynamic supply of solutions” (Marion, 2002, p. 179), in fact, as the common phrase states, the more the merrier, in order to be successful.
Second, with regard to learning and how communication is disbursed, when one speaks of successful leaders, excellent communication skills are always mentioned. But, what does this mean exactly? What are the communication skills successful leaders possess? Marion (2002) crystallizes this notion and mentions that leaders need to learn the “tricks of the trade” or the “quirks of their raw material” (p. 184). These “tricks” are the following:
1) Know what to pay attention to and what not to
2) Know whom to approach to acquire information and how to approach them
3) Knowledge of what has been done, what needs to be done, and what should not be done
4) Knowledge of actions that cause trouble and learned to avoid them
5) Possess acquired expertise of what their responsibilities are and what they are not
6) Learn shortcuts, “know the ropes,” and how to be effective in their positions (Marion, 2002)
These specific communication skills are needed in order to become a successful leader.
Third, with regard to problem-solving versus problem-finding, leaders need to have an intuitive sense of what it means to be a “problem-solver” or a “problem-finder.” Problem-solvers are those leaders that deal with problems as they arise. They typically spend lots of time running from one problem to another without being able to settle on a routine. While on the other hand, problem-finders are those leaders that learn how to structure their activities so that they neutralize many problems before they even arise. They can do this in several ways, such as, via rules and regulations, learning to anticipate problems before they happen, or establishing certain expectations of their subordinates and fostering dependable behaviors in themselves. However, as with the most experienced great leaders, they are unable to specifically pinpoint how they are problem-finders instead of problem-solvers. Therefore, as leaders mature, they will learn how to function within their organization and the organization will learn how to function with its leader, and as a result, both leader and organization become exponentially effective (Marion, 2002). A prime example of a leader who practiced strategic choice theory is Paul Van Riper, a great military leader. He was notorious for being a problem-finder instead of a problem-solver. Below is his story.
Paul Van Riper. Paul Van Riper was a highly decorated United States Marine who participated in many tours during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. After his first tour in Vietnam, he returned a second time, this time as a commander of Mike Company (Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, First Marine Division). He was a tall and lean man with a rough, commanding voice. He was once described by his gunnery sergeant in Mike Company as
Concise. Confident, without a lot of icing on the cake. That’s how he was, and he maintained that every day of the war. He had an office in our combat area…but he was never there. He was always out in the field or out near his bunker, figuring out what to do next. If he had an idea and he had a scrap of paper in his pocket, he would write the idea on the scrap, and then, when we had a meeting, he would pull our seven or eight little pieces of paper. Once he and I were in the jungle a few yards away from a river, and he wanted to reconnoiter over certain areas, but he couldn’t get the view he wanted. The bush was in the way. Damned if he didn’t take off his shoes, dive into the river, swim out to the middle, and tread water so he could see downstream. (Gladwell, 2005, p. 100)
He was known to be strict, fair, and a student of war with clear ideas about how his men should conduct themselves when in combat, and was always aggressive but in a way that his men had no problems with doing what he asked them to do. His gunnery sergeant can remember one time when he received a call from Van Riper in the middle of the night when his squad was out on a night ambush. Van Riper told him that one hundred and twenty-one Vietnamese were heading toward the squad surrounding them and it was his job to resist them. He claimed that he told Van Riper that there were only nine of them and his response was that “he would bring out a reactionary force if [he] needed one” (Gladwell, 2005, p. 101). There was no doubt in Van Riper’s mind that his gunnery sergeant’s squad had to engage the surrounding Vietnamese. No matter when Van Riper was leading, the enemy was always “put off by his tactics” (Gladwell, 2005, p. 101). Van Riper was not a ‘live and let live’ kind of leader (Gladwell, 2005).
Van Riper was the type of leader that told his team at the beginning of battle that he would be in command and out of control. What he meant by this is that he and his senior leadership would provide the overall guidance and intent, however, when in the field, the team would be left to use their own intuition and innovations to move themselves forward. They would not depend on orders from the top. That the team would be able to use the wisdom, experience, and the good judgment they possessed to make decisions. When it comes to war, the team should not sit back and wait to get in touch with him to discuss a rational process of decision-making for action, it was this that would get the team killed. Rather, when in battle, the team needed to make decisions based upon sizing up the situation immediately and acting on the situation immediately by drawing upon their own experience and intuition. Hence, when a leader focuses on mechanics and the process they are not looking at the problem holistically. Therefore, “in the act of tearing something apart, you lose its meaning” (Gladwell, 2005, p. 125). In sum, Van Riper strategy during battle is a practical example of how strategic choice theory can be demonstrated with regard to an implemented leadership style.
Summary. There are several aspects of strategic choice theory that interest me. The most interesting aspect of strategic choice theory is what it does for workers. That is, it allows for workers to make their own decisions based upon their knowledge and experiences. It gives workers freedom and the ability to choose. To decide for themselves how decisions should be made. Therefore, strategic choice theory in my personal opinion is highly valuable with regard to leadership effectiveness. It fosters the development and self-esteem in its workers by allowing them to do the work the way they feel it is done best. Overall, this leadership style builds motivated and confident staff.
Critical Theory
Critical theory is anti-positivistic, but a little different than other anti-positivistic theories. Critical theory focuses on “what organizational control does to people” and not “about how to control organizations and increase productivity” (Marion, 2002, p. 252). Although there are several organizational theories that take a more humanistic approach, critical theorists argue that these theories take an elitist perspective when leading staff. Therefore, critical theory exposes the abuse suffered by staff from this elitist perspective and provides an alternative that is more democratic in nature and models an egalitarian methodology. Ultimately, critical theory combats the elitist perspective not in regards to profit, but rather in regards to power and how those in power promote the oppression of their workers (Marion, 2002).
There are several traditional leadership strategies critical theorists oppose. First, they do not believe in management by objectives. The idea that worker performance is evaluated at the end of each cycle based upon formulated individual work objectives with input from administrators. Critical theorists believe this just a ruse for advancing the power preferences of leaders. Second, with regard to educational mentoring, typically new teachers are paired with experienced teachers. Based upon self-examinations and self-reflections with regard to teaching effectiveness, the ideas from the new teacher may not be heard by the experienced teacher, because the experienced teacher is more concerned with teaching effectiveness as outlined by district policy. Therefore, the new teacher eventually becomes a “district clone” (Marion, 2002, p. 263). Third, critical theorists argue that strategic planning, which is a rational process, controls organizational behavior by controlling the language of how participants within the organization define their activities or goals. Control over the language of proposed goals not only influences the objectives of the organization, but also shapes the worldview or minds of participants. Fourth, critical theorists believe that team-based, decentralized decision making and empowerment management strategies are in fact effective at increasing productivity, however, they do this at the expense of exploiting worker morale and stress levels. Last, with enhanced technology, workers are many times deceived in believing that management trusts their work performance, all while workers are being surveillanced. One example of this would be the standardized test movement, where the reputation of low scores hangs over educators’ heads. The threat of administrators or colleagues coming into the classroom for instance on a whim to report deviancy is always in the back of an educators mind if their classroom is known for producing low test scores (Marion, 2002). In sum, critical theorists believe many traditional organizational theories oppress some groups and not others by their practical applications, whether they are aware they are doing this or not. Therefore, critical theorists primary focus is to show how each of these theories is flawed and how traditional theories’ practices need to be re-evaluated.
I feel as though critical theory plays an important role in terms of leadership and organizational morality. Morality is at the heart of critical theory. Critical theorists believe that social organizations are designed to serve the elite class and that other groups whom are non-dominant are systematically excluded from full and satisfying participation in society. They believe that organizational managements primary objective is to have efficient production and control subordinates, when it should be focused on providing fulfilling work experiences for workers. Elites are self-serving and immoral. Ultimately, elites are opportunists with the mentality that no matter the circumstance, they are going to get what they want and serve their own needs first rather than serving the needs of those working for them (Marion, 2002). Therefore, I feel as though critical theory is important with regard to successful leadership in relation to social justice.
Thin-Slicing Theory
As briefly aforementioned in the section discussion of Strategic Choice Theory and Paul Van Riper, thin-slicing theory, which is closely related, is a concept that refers to an ability of our unconscious to determine patterns of behavior by just “narrow slices of experience” (Gladwell, 2005, p. 23). Gladwell (2005) states, “And the truth is that our unconscious is really good at this, to the point where thin-slicing often delivers a better answer than more deliberative and exhaustive ways to thinking” (p. 34).
Gladwell (2005) also discusses thin-slicing in terms of how we as human beings do not listen to that “gut instinct” of ours most of the time. We tend to overanalyze situations and experiences believing that the more thought we put into something, the better the results. Another interesting point Gladwell (2005) argues is related to subjectivity during a professionals’ early career. That is, he states,
Ortiz’s explanation is that Langlotz had bought the sculpture as a very young man, before he acquired much of his formidable expertise…[he] fell in love with this piece; when you are a young man, you do fall in love with your first purchase, and perhaps this was his first love. Notwithstanding his unbelievable knowledge, he was obviously unable to question his first assessment (p. 15).
It was the cause of love that drove him to believe that the statue was real. He did not rely on his “gut instinct” or knowledgeable self to determine if the statue was real at the very beginning, rather, he relied on his over-analysis in making the decision. Therefore, Gladwell (2005) introduced the fact that instead of relying on the scientific method for problem-solving that is popularly taught, one should rely on the feelings of our bodies within the first few seconds to determine our reactions. For the latter gives us the true objectivity we need to arrive at a decision. If we wait too long to make a decision, then we slowly lose our objectivity and our reactions become more subjective.
Transformational Leadership
The primary focus of transformational leadership is for leaders to build a relationship with their workers via mutual stimulation and evaluation for purposes of converting followers into leaders. Leaders not only play to their wants or desires but to there followers’ wants or desires as well, which is similar to the aforementioned focus of critical theory. It basically follows the familiar phrase, “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours.” Transformational leadership conjoins the “systemsworld” with the “lifeworld.” As a result, there are key multicultural dynamics and leadership considerations. For example, it allows schools to not only focus on the child’s academics as influenced only by the school, but how their home life contributes to their academics as well. This can have positive and negative effects. Either the home life can help or hinder the student’s academic development. This reminds me of conversations in other classes involving this topic in relation to how a student’s home life can have devastating effects on a student’s academic development. Many students who come from low-income families struggle excelling academically because of the home life pressures that are placed on them. For instance, I have heard several students state, “we [my family and I] focus on surviving not studying.” When we look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, how do educators foster a student’s development in school when the student and their family are focused more on their basic needs, like food, water, shelter, etc. rather than “extra” needs like that of education? How do you convince parents of the benefit of education in the long-term when they live in the short-term? Transformational leadership ultimately focuses on balancing workers “home-life” needs with their “work-life” needs in combination rather than separation.
Summary
Overall, there are many theories, influential leaders, and forms of leadership that have shaped what I feel needs to be included in my leadership “toolbox.” Each of these have been aforementioned and described in detail as separate entities. The next section, My Leadership “Toolbox”: Practical Application, will discuss my leadership style as it uses the aforementioned theories, influential leaders, and forms of leadership in combination for practical application.
My Leadership “Toolbox”: Practical Application
We are freed when we begin to put justice, heartfelt relationships and the service of others and of truth over and above our own needs for love, success, or our fears of failure. (Jean Vanier)
The relationship between theory and practice is a difficult relationship to explain. Up to this point, I would comment on what their relationship is not; not one of causality, linearity, or stability. Meaning, one does not cause the other, their interactions are not linear, and the relationship is sometimes, but not always stable. Therefore, based upon the “nots,” I believe that theory and practice are related by the way organizational leaders take action (practice) based upon certain premises (theory). That is, a theory “sets up” the scene(s) so that actors can “act out” the scene(s). But, sometimes the actors have to adapt and “act out” the scene(s) even when a theory fails to “set up” the scene(s) correctly. Ultimately, as mentioned in Marion (2002), “the personality of an organization…is in what it does (the operative goals) and not necessarily in what is professes to do” (p. 69). This is why it is important for school/college administrators to really think about their strategic plans and if this is what is being promoted on campus within each division and within each department and/or program. In sum, are we as administrators fostering a “true” relationship between theory and practice? Or are we fostering a “false” relationship where the action-taking place is not agreeing with strategies that have been laid out?
The “true” relationship between theory and practice needs to include a combination of approaches, as addressed aforementioned in the defining leadership section, in order for one to lead others. Therefore, in building my leadership “toolbox,” I would include the following:
1) Effective communication
2) Clear, concise expectations of workers
3) Presence known; high visibility
4) Implementing research skills for the betterment of decision-making
5) Being organized
6) Possess excellent conflict resolution strategies
7) Lead by example
8) Consistently developing my awareness
9) Be available for workers to express ideas and needs
10) Foster an open environment so workers feel comfortable in sharing their stories
11) Build rapport with workers; get to know them on a personal level
12) Provide timely feedback
13) Be strict, but fair
14) Be structured, but flexible
15) Being able to see the forest and the trees; see the big picture and the details
16) Instilling worker motivation and building worker self-confidence via “easy” monitoring and regulation
17) Possess vision for the direction of the organization and to articulate and infuse my vision into the purpose of the organization
18) Being transparent, possessing a high level of integrity, and promoting accountability
19) Possessing rational and irrational decision-making skills
20) Value independent worker tasks as well as collaborative worker tasks
Conclusion
Does what you do reflect who you are and where you want to go?
(Lee and King, 2001, p. 11)
The framework I have used in developing my personal leadership style includes dynamics of my vision for the future, the values I find significant, finding balance and the art of moderation, and being self-aware (Lee & King, 2001). Ultimately, we as leaders need to ask ourselves the above question “does what you do reflect who you are and where you want to go?” and do you lead by virtue of who you are?
References
Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: WLC Books. (Original work published 1916)
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
Gutek, G. L. (2004). Philosophical and ideological voices in education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Internet Center for Management and Business Administration. (2010). Retrieved from: http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/.
Lee, R. J. & King, S.N. (2001). Discovering the leader in you. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Shakeshaft, C. & Nowell, I. (1984). Research on theories, concepts, and models of organizational behavior: The influence of gender. Issues in Education, 11(3), 186-203.
Terry, A. (2006). A K-12 developmental service-learning typology. International Journal of Learning, 12(9), 321-330.
