Control is not leadership; management is not leadership; leadership is leadership. If you seek to lead, invest at least 50% of your time in leading yourself—your own purpose, ethics, principles, motivation, conduct.
––Dee Hock1
Service leadership in libraries is derived, in some measure, from Robert Greenleaf’s leadership philosophy of servant leadership, although it also is informed by aspects of other leadership models. Greenleaf defines a leader as a person who is a servant first. But, the term servant, meaning an individual attending to the needs of others, or in a librarian’s case, the library user patron, often leaves a bad taste in the mouths’ of leaders. Because the term is often linked with more altruistic philosophies, it may be disregarded in academic settings, particularly with the growing culture of accountability and the application of business models in higher education.
Servant leadership is built on transformational leadership as well as on ethical or authentic leadership, with altruism at its core: The disparity between servant leaders and transformational leaders is that servant leaders make a priority of “selecting the needs of others and serving others as the leader’s main aim, whereas transformational leaders aim to align their own and others’ interests with the good of the group, organization, or society …”2 The fundamental tenet of servant leadership, as articulated by Greenleaf and reiterated by scholars in the field, is that “The servant-leader is servant first … It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.”3 This is consistent with the concept of “to guide by going in advance”—that the motivation or inspiration is not to lead as if at the head of some parade but to pioneer. Some seek to serve and are chosen to lead. Through their own values and motivation, through their desire to maintain integrity and help others—there are times when an individual may walk the path alone and there are times when they may look behind them, finding that there are those who follow their example. “ … Greenleaf is saying that leadership is a special case of service, he is not saying that service is a special case of leadership…. As I understand him, he is not asking, ‘What service can you render as a leader?’ but rather ‘What leadership can you exercise as a servant?’”4 Additionally “servant leadership shares similar key characteristics with authentic leadership in that both explicitly recognize the importance of positive moral perspective, self-awareness, self-regulation (i.e., authentic behavior), positive modeling, and a focus on follower development …”5
Intriguingly, there is some reticence within librarianship to identify servant leadership as a valuable model. Perhaps it is the seeming paradoxical nature of servant-leadership, that it is through service that one leads, or because librarians have long struggled to establish their professionalism and so they see any connection with servant as undermining these efforts, as pejorative in a way. However, the aspects of servant leadership, as defined by Greenleaf, are highly relevant to the profession:
1. Listening
2. Empathy
3. Healing
4. Awareness
5. Persuasion
6. Conceptualization
7. Foresight
8. Stewardship
9. Commitment to the growth of people
10. Building community6
Servant leadership has also been widely identified with spiritual and philanthropic efforts, though less with educational and academic ones such as libraries. Greenleaf’s philosophy thoroughly aligns with libraries, their role as a public good, and their mission and commitment to service.
Before discussing what service leadership is, one must first understand what service is and the context of the definition. Historically, service has been defined in a variety of ways ranging from the general, such as the primary function of an entire profession or practice, to the specific, focusing on the value created by a particular effort or function. For example, service can be “economic activities that produce time, place, form, or psychological utilities. Services are acts, deeds, or performances that are intangible.”7 Quinn et al., define service more descriptively, stating that service activities “include[s] all economic activities whose output is not a physical product or construction, is generally consumed at the time it is produced, and provides added value in forms (such as convenience, amusement, timelines, comfort, or health) that are essentially intangible concerns of its first purchaser.”8
Leonard Berry, largely considered the father of the service quality movement, defines service from a business perspective and from his many examples indicates that the definition of service is also very contextual. He asserts that “… customers are the sole judge of service quality. Customers assess service by comparing the service they receive (perceptions) with the service they desire (expectations).”9 That said, Berry puts service at the center of an organization’s purpose, indicating that strategy, planning, and process should all evolve from that purpose.
Grönfeldt and Strother refer to service as customer service, but the relationship in this sense is still fundamentally transactional. They believe that service has different characteristics from goods or tangible products, which are specific objects manufactured at one time and then sold or used later. In contrast, service is intangible. It is created and consumed simultaneously (or nearly simultaneously). This suggests that service cannot be stocked or easily demonstrated beforehand.10 The service definition proposed by Grönfeldt and Strother assumes a business or corporate environment, and the motivation for service in this environment is distinct from the concept of service in the nonprofit sector. Their definition assumes a fundamental economic authority, whereas public organizations are generally governed through political compliance.11 The fundamental mission of government entities, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations is service to the public: “The point is that service, service to people or service to a cause, is at the heart of the reason for being of all of these organizations.”12
The concept of the public good addresses the commitment that these organizations have to serve their constituencies— not for profit, not to promote themselves, and not to perpetuate their existence—but rather to fill the needs of others; fundamentally, their mission is to serve. This mission affords them a unique relationship with their customers or patrons: “Nonprofit organizations, especially public benefit organizations, exist and are granted specific privileges (as noted above) with the explicit understanding that they are committed in some way to serve the public good.”13 The philosophy and commitment to service extends, not only to the customer or patron, but to employees and colleagues within the organization. It is a matter of modeling the service ethic at all levels and in all relationships, ultimately permeating the organization: “… the willingness of managers and leaders to see themselves as servants of others may be crucial to focusing others in an organization on the organization’s commitment to serve.”14 In other words, by serving employees and colleagues, an organization is providing better service to its patrons. Conversely, in a business environment in which the relationship may be transactional and the motivation monetary, this value may also drive the organization. Many assume that management books tend to describe businesses and for-profit organizations because that audience is large, commercially driven, and focused on money. While that may be, it could also be posited that companies, as opposed to academic institutions or government agencies, are more plugged into their patrons (those they serve) and are asking the right questions and aligning their purpose with their patron’s needs and desires.
Similar to corporate entities who are generally selling something, service organizations, specifically libraries, must have something to offer the public at large. Through competence and objectivity, they provide information to their patrons, enabling them to educate themselves, address problems, make better decisions, and contribute to the world, ultimately perpetuating the public good.
One drawback to this concept of a public good is related to the intangibility of service and the inherent lack of transaction or valuing of the service:
A profession that inherently believes that it is a “public good” does not feel the need to demonstrate outcomes and articulate impact. There is a deeply held and tacit assumption that the “good” is widely recognized and the value of library service is universally appreciated. In the current environment of competition and of questioning every assumption, this deeply held value results in resistance to change and resistance to continuous assessment.15
In the context of libraries and other public service organizations, “a commitment to service should be manifest in those managers making practical and strategic choices that give precedence to fulfilling the mission of their organization over possibilities for advancing their own status and careers.”16 In other words, the modeling of service as a value should manifest in all activities and in all roles within the organization. While any individual can be a service leader or practice principles of service leadership, this service orientation is most effective when modeled by those with managerial responsibilities or supervisory authority.
Service leadership is more than a leadership theory; it is a cultural mindset that empowers all library employees to extend their customer service philosophy so that it can develop, becoming an organizational practice and cultural value. Strother and Grönfeldt address service leadership from a business perspective, stating:
A service leadership mindset of an entire organization will consider every employee-customer encounter to be an invaluable opportunity to improve customer service and engender customer loyalty. Under these conditions, every individual takes responsibility and pride in creating or protecting the organization’s leading position in service quality or in designated markets by carefully observing and communicating customer needs throughout the organization.18
SERVICE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
Yet They Serve … Leadership isn’t an are-you-aren’t-you proposition: it is really a continuum in multiple dimensions where individuals are more or less effective at different facets. That said, there are those rare individuals who are the entire package; more common are those who, in a holistic sense, are successful as leaders. Looking back, for as many managers and administrators as we have worked under or with or had the opportunity to be part of their organization, there is only one who stands out as a true servant leader and his leadership was certainly recognized on many levels and in many venues: Robert M. Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, director of the CIA and, in the role with which I am most familiar, president of Texas A&M University. His resume is long and distinguished but his own words exemplify the commitment of those who serve:
Each one in public service has his or her own story—and motives. But I believe, if you scratch deeply enough, you will find that those who serve—no matter how outwardly tough or jaded or egotistical—are, in their heart of hearts, romantics and idealists. And optimists. We actually believe we can make a difference, that we can make the lives of others better, that we can make a positive difference in the life of the greatest country in the history of the world—in President Lincoln’s words, ‘the last, best, hope of earth.’ Public servants are people willing to make sacrifices in the present for the future good—people who believe, to paraphrase Walter Lippmann, that we must plant trees that we may never get to sit under. They include those of my generation, who heard President Kennedy challenge us nearly 47 years ago, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” And people of a later generation heard this president, George H. W. Bush, affirm that “Public service is a noble calling.17
Gates was reluctant to leave Texas A&M, but in a message to all employees, he explained that he had been called to serve and must go do his duty.
In order to achieve a service leadership model throughout an organization, the leader who may or may not have positional authority, must embody the service leadership mindset by introducing the service leadership model into an organization’s culture through its mission statement and subsequent actions. However, there a number of steps that must be taken in order to achieve this goal:
1. The individual, through self-reflection, must become aware of who she is, what she believes in, what her values are, and how all of these factors motivate her to react.
2. After this self-reflection, the individual must be true, honest, and committed to behaving and reacting the same way in the same or similar situations.
3. The individual, after self-reflection, must become conscious of how their values and beliefs affect how they view and understand the people they work with and their patrons. They must understand that people have different opinions and that these opinions must be respected and considered in order for there to be social justice.
4. Following the individual self-reflection stage, the individual as leader must empower his team to be the best organization it can be, trusting in their professional experience.
5. Once the team’s professional experience has been assessed, the group must come together to identify the organization’s purpose and goals so that the organization has one mission statement that everyone understands and models.
Each individual needs to recognize that all employees, regardless of their positions, are essential to the organization. It is the employees who possess the intellectual capital and deliver efficient and effective service to their customers or patrons. These employees offer their customers unique service that is difficult to imitate through outsourcing.19 Individuals can model the values of service leadership and raise awareness in the organization, making localized changes. However, it is extremely difficult for the service leadership mindset to infiltrate the organizational culture without a leader who has positional authority. It is necessary for a leader high enough within the management hierarchy to influence employees to believe in, support, and promote the service leadership model so that everyone inside and outside of the business understands and supports the plan. Consequently, the organizational culture rests on the values created and communicated by the company president or organization executive and her administrative team. The key is that service leadership needs to go beyond wishing that the company’s mission is followed; individuals must make the mission true by leading by example.20 A service leader must not only communicate these values every day but embody these values consistently in everything that she does.
Libraries are the ultimate learning organization; their mission is to educate and empower people with information. They put this value into practice through critical inquiry and learning in their everyday work.
In spite of the increasing number of theories advocating communication flow between the employee and leader, historically, there was the underlying premise that the final decision-making remained in the hands of the person with positional authority. Gradually, there was a shift as theories began to surface around collective leadership and teaming in which leadership applied to all employees within an organization and was meant to foster a leadership mind-set for a whole organization.21 One of the first leadership theorists to promote collective leadership was Peter Senge. Senge gradually moved beyond the positional authoritarian definition of a leader and considered the importance of fostering leadership at all levels of an organization, not just the top echelon. During this “age of empowerment,” there was recognition that it is disempowering and demotivating for employees within an organization to believe that only top management can cause significant change.22 Senge states that:
Human beings are designed for learning. No one has to teach an infant to walk, or talk, or master the spatial relationships needed to stack eight building blocks that don’t topple. Children come fully equipped with an insatiable drive to explore and experiment. Unfortunately, the primary institutions of our society are oriented predominantly toward controlling rather than learning, rewarding individuals for performing for others rather than for cultivating their natural curiosity and impulse to learn.23
Cultivation of learning creates superior performance by the employee and for the organization, which can only be achieved if an employee is empowered, self-directed, and allowed to make mistakes and to learn from them. Senge believes that organizations can no longer afford to continue having only their leaders “learn for the organization.” This is because it is no longer possible for leaders with positional authority to “figure it out at the top” and then pass this vision down to the employees to implement. The success of the organization depends on giving “way to integrated thinking and acting at all levels.”24 In order to create a learning organization, Senge believed that there are five leadership learning disciplines, the foundations of which are built on the ethics, ideas, and values of the learning organization.
Senge’s model for organizational leadership also addresses the organization as a leader within its sector or industry and discusses how to lead such an organization. Senge’s vision of leadership, within the context of the learning organization, is similar to that of the model advocated herein and in both service and servant leadership, as “designers, stewards, and teachers.”25 He goes on to enumerate five principles or disciplines that are the foundations of the learning organization and asserts that a discipline is a “developmental path for acquiring certain skills or competencies,” thus underscoring the premise that leadership is a skill and can be learned:
1. Systems thinking is the fundamental recognition that there is no such thing as a closed system, that there are various inputs and outputs that may occur at various stages. It is the ability to see the big picture or both the forest and the trees.
2. Personal mastery is the commitment to the process of learning. This is the foundation of several other theories, such as Total Quality Management (TQM), and movements, such as the recent focus on assessment. An organization is the sum of employee’s performance or individual learning. A learning organization recognizes that the component most significant to organizational success is individual learning.
3. Mental models refer to the perspectives or assumptions held by both individuals and by organizations; weltanschauung is a similar concept, referring to the framework through which individuals view the world. A learning organization will challenge assumptions and encourage individuals to challenge their own.
4. Shared vision is critical because it provides both a context and an incentive for learning. It builds on the promise and commitment of everyone within the organization and, as such, is more likely to succeed and be sustained.
5. Team learning is the culmination of the individual learning and the realization that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; some would call it synergy (although it is much overused).26
The concept of the learning organization primarily informs sustainability and adaptability—in other words, how to effectively and successfully deal with change. Since change is not only a fact of life for libraries but a principal driver, these are primary considerations and principles that can successfully inform leadership in libraries.
Today, we live in a fast-paced environment in which all leaders within any organization are forced to examine and reexamine how their organization can stay relevant, continue to meet the changing needs of their patrons, and sustain their efforts. This competitive priority is as true for libraries as it is for companies, but libraries have the added problem of a lack of attention to effective leadership. In the early 1980s, Riggs reported that, although administration and management in librarianship were well-covered in the literature, there was a noticeable scarcity of material on library leadership.27 The reason for this scarcity was that most of the leadership literature dealing with libraries was not only redundant but it actually revolved around administration and management issues and not true leadership issues. Riggs was particularly concerned about this confusion over the difference between leadership and administration and management,28 which he believed caused librarians to be confused about what true leadership in the profession was since “the sum of the highest development of each (administration and management) does not add up to leadership.”29
Increasing the confusion about leadership in the library science profession was the lack of formal library science leadership education in degree-granting library and information science (LIS) programs. Library Science programs teach classes in library administration or management but do not teach true library leadership.30 This perpetuates the leadership problem in libraries because it reinforces a misunderstanding between what a library manager is and does versus a library leader. This creates an environment where some library leaders may not be library leaders at all but rather managers under the disguise of a leader.
This leadership problem is further exacerbated by the changing demographics in librarianship. As early as 1995, Wilder predicted that a large percentage of the ARL population would be retiring by 2020 thereby creating a vacuum of not only library leaders but also followers in academic libraries.31 This crisis was further echoed by Martin when he found that 40 percent of librarians would be retiring by 2014.32 Matarazzo believes that the LIS programs “do not have the capacity to replace the librarians who will be leaving the profession.”33 Consequently, not only will there be a shortage of librarians but there will also be fewer and fewer librarians who will be willing or even have the capability to step into leadership roles as the long-time leaders retire. Some libraries have begun to groom leaders within their institutions. However, this may contribute to an additional problem since, as Martin stresses, the “next generation of academic library leaders are simply a repackaging of the skills possessed by current library leaders.”34 They are not learning and developing skills for the current environment. Consequently, those groomed to be future library leaders may be taught management skills rather than leadership skills. This has created an environment where many “libraries are well managed, but many are under-led.”35
Why is it important for libraries, particularly during this time of flux, to foster leadership throughout the library? Schreiber and Shannon believe it is important because the “hyper speed of changes in information services now demands libraries that are lean, mobile, and strategic. They must be lean to meet expanding customer expectations within the confines of limited budgets; mobile to move quickly and easily with technological and other innovations; and strategic to anticipate and plan for market changes.”36
For libraries, the root of Schreiber and Shannon’s statement revolves around increased customer expectations where today’s technologically savvy users are looking for libraries to improve and implement new, faster, and innovative services to meet their needs. Libraries need leaders who can develop a strategy and then communicate it to everyone who has vested interest in the library—users, staff members, and decision-makers. The reason it is important for leaders to communicate their vision is because everyone, not just those with positional authority, must understand their library’s mission so that they can anticipate and respond successfully to the user’s needs.37 If library staff, for example do not respond successfully to their user’s needs and deliver what may be considered bad customer service, users will become dissatisfied with the library and will find alternatives for their information requirements and stop supporting the library altogether. This is because, in the world today, patron expectations have increased and library users believe that they should receive the same service from the library that companies such as Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and Google Scholar provide. If they don’t get this personal service, they will seek an alternative source to secure their information needs.38
Consequently, in an attempt to remain relevant in today’s fast-paced technological society, leadership needs to be spread throughout all levels of the library, and every employee must be able to foster a leadership mind-set for the whole organization. We must all examine and reexamine how the organization can remain competitive and meet the needs of their patrons. Grönfeldt and Strother stated that organizations need “to acquire a competitive advantage by placing an emphasis on a factor that is not as easy to copy as price or technology—namely, the quality of service they give to customers. Furthermore, increased competition has called attention to the growing importance of employee initiative, innovation, flexibility, and productivity as a response to pressures to adapt to external changes in the corporate environment. If organizations are to be expected to successfully plan and carry out continuous cycles of change to survive in today’s service-driven economy, the exciting question of leadership in service arises.”39
It is only through the examination of each individual service experience that libraries can survive. It is the end, or service experience, that informs the means, not the other way around. Although we need to give patrons what they need, we also need to consider that what they need may not necessarily be what they asked for or what they want. This responsibility is what makes service leadership different from all the other leadership theories.
The status quo in large organizations seems to be largely competitive and transactional: “ … society has conditioned people to act in certain ways: to keep thoughts hidden, to portray oneself in the most favorable light, to create rumors or allow them to perpetuate, to use slippery language, to employ subterfuge.”40 The circumstances described are diametrically opposed to the service leadership model for a number of reasons: service leadership necessitates that there is more collaboration, less power distance and a motivation to serve. For example, many people want to be president for the authority and influence that the position gives them, and many of those individuals say that they want to serve, but much of what a candidate must do to get elected is contrary to the values of servant leadership. The concept of servant leadership is anathema to the concept of wanting to be a leader, a decision-maker, or a person in authority. It is the mission to serve that comes first, with all that entails. In some cases, those individuals may be recognized with positional authority, but in all cases, they have enormous influence on those around them. Managers or those with positional authority may or may not practice servant leadership; certainly managers have a greater opportunity to put the tenets into practice, serve others, and have a more positive impact. Managers and “leaders have a special responsibility, because the nature of their leadership puts them in a special position in which they have a greater opportunity to influence others in significant ways.”41
Leadership is truly each of these: a trait, an ability, a skill, and a behavior. It is also a relationship between individuals and a value that can be inculcated into an organization. How the relationship is built will determine the climate in the organization and whether it is successful and sustainable.
NOTES
1. Eric Garner, The Art of Leadership, 46, www.stritapiret.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/the-art-of-leadership.pdf.
2. Jeanine Parolini, Kathleen Patterson, and Bruce Winston, “Distinguishing Between Transformational and Servant Leadership,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 30, no. 3 (2009): 274.
3. Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1977), 27.
4. Mark A. Rennaker, Listening and Persuasion: Examining the Communicative Patterns of Servant Leadership (Regent University, 2008), 38.
5. Sen Sendjaya, James C. Sarros, and Joseph C. Santora, “Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behavior in Organizations,” Journal of Management Studies 45, no. 1 (2008): 403–404.
6. Robert K Greenleaf, The Servant Leader Within: A Transformative Path (Mahwah, NJ: Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 2003).
7. Svafa Grönfeldt and Judith Strother, Service Leadership: The Quest for Competitive Advantage (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 24.
8. James Brian Quinn, Jordan J. Baruch, and Penny Cushman Paquette, “Technology in Service,” Scientific American 257, no. 6 (1987): 50.
9. Leonard L. Berry, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and A. Parasuraman, “Five Imperatives for Improving Service Quality,” MIT Sloan Management Review 31, no. 4 (1990), 29.
10. Svafa Grönfeldt and Judith Strother, Service Leadership: The Quest for Competitive Advantage (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 25.
11. Barry Bozeman, All Organizations are Public: Comparing Public and Private Organizations (Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass, 1987).
12. David O. Renz and Associates, The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Wiley, 2010), 196.
13. Ibid., 195.
14. Ibid., 196.
15. Amos Lakos and Shelley Phipps, “Creating a Culture of Assessment: A Catalyst for Organizational Change,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 3 (2004): 350.
16. David O. Renz and Associates, The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Wiley, 2010), 196.
17. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service, 2007, www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1190.
18. Judith B. Strother and Svafa Grönfeldt, “Service Leadership: The Challenge of Developing a New Paradigm,” 2005 IEEE International Professional Communications Conference Proceedings (2005): 65–71.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Jay A. Conger and Beth Benjamin, Building Leaders: How Successful Companies Develop the Next Generation (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, 1999).
22. Peter Senge, “Leading Learning Organizations: The Bold, the Powerful, and the Invisible,” in The Leader of the Future, eds. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 1996), 42.
23. Peter M. Senge. “The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations,” Sloan Management Review 32, no. 1 (1990): 7.
24. Ibid.
25. Peter M. Senge. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 340.
26. Ibid., 6–10.
27. Donald E. Riggs, “Crisis and Opportunities in Library Leadership,” in Library and Information Science Professions, ed. Mark D. Winston (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2001), 7.
28. Ibid.
29. Donald Riggs, Library Leadership: Visualizing the Future (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1982), v.
30. Donald E. Riggs, “Crisis and Opportunities in Library Leadership,” in Library and Information Science Professions, ed. Mark D. Winston (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2001), 8.
31. Stanley J. Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians: A Profession Apart (New York: NY: Routledge, 2000), 6.
32. Jason Martin, “The Art of Librarianship: Thoughts on Leadership Skills for Next Generation of Academic Library Leaders,” College & Research Libraries News 70, no.11 (2009): 652.
33. James M. Matarazzo, “Recruitment: The Way Ahead,” in Recruiting, Education and Training Cataloging Librarians: Solving the Problems, eds. Sheila S. Intner and Janet Swan Hill (New York, NY.: Greenwood Press, 1989), 26.
34. Jason Martin, “The Art of Librarianship: Thoughts on Leadership Skills for Next Generation of Academic Library Leaders,” College & Research Libraries News 70, no.11 (2009): 652.
35. Donald E. Riggs, “Crisis and Opportunities in Library Leadership,” in Library and Information Science Professions, ed. Mark D. Winston (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2001), 7.
36. Becky Schreiber and John Shannon, “Developing Library Leaders for the 21st Century,” in Leadership in the Library and Information Science Professions, ed. Mark Winston (Binghamton, NY.: Haworth, 2001), 35–49, 36.
37. Ibid.
38. Suzanne Walters, Customer Service: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Libraries (New York, NY: Neal-Schuman, 1994), 1.
39. Svafa Grönfeldt and Judith Strother, Service Leadership: The Quest for Competitive Advantage (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 5.
40. John Doncevic, “Servant-Leadership as a Model for Library Administration,” Catholic Library World 73, no. 3 (2003), 173.
41. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009), 382.