It is a shame that so many leaders spend their time pondering their rights as leaders instead of their awesome responsibilities as leaders.
––James C. Hunter1
Encouragement and accountability are flip sides of the same coin: the positive support and reinforcement given to an individual to take a risk, to do something innovative or new, and the stimulus to take responsibility for such actions (or inactions) and their results. The effort to communicate this message, encouraging or critical, to make an impact on someone else, can also be interpreted as influence.
Influence is largely tied to finding out what motivates people. If an individual is attentive to what motivates someone else, she can speak to what that person finds meaningful and help him achieve it. This builds rapport and community within the organization and influence for the individual making efforts. Some might call it manipulation. Looking at what motivates individuals or what people need and employing that information to forge a connection with them may be considered strategic in a business environment but called manipulative in a public service environment. However, it may breed better communication and mutual understanding, and when it is applied for purposes of public service, results in a more effective and mutually beneficial outcome.
The concept of soft power, as developed by Joseph Nye, is similar to influence.2 It is the use of diplomacy to achieve goals as opposed to hard power, which takes more aggressive measures. In the environment of international relations, hard power may be the use of economic sanctions or even military action; in the context of an organization, hard power may the use of raises or penalties like demotions. Nye asserted that “soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade,” but this assumes that the focus is still on service, benefiting the individual and organization.3 It is distinctive from a more political perspective: “A Machiavellian leader would in many ways stand in a stark contrast to a servant leader. In a typical leader-follower relationship, the former subscribes to the view that the end justifies the means, whereas the latter believes that both the ends and means should be morally justifiable.”4 Service leadership and the ability to influence others come from an ethical platform. “When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced,” and it is this platform that allows a service leader to influence others and be effective in the organization.5
Charan reports that 30 to 50 percent of leaders are unsuccessful in accomplishing their goals.6 One reason for this failure may be that the leader exhibits negative behaviors that undermine her ability to be effective, such as the one mentioned above by Hunter. Although there are numerous negative leadership behaviors, such as: conceit, dishonesty, irritability, selfishness, insensitivity, and aggressiveness, research has shown that there are five common behaviors that have led leaders to fail:
1. emotional instability;
2. defensiveness;
3. lack of integrity;
4. poor communication; and
5. overestimation of their own importance and power.
It may not be apparent what these behaviors have to do with encouragement and accountability, but they are actually quite relevant. Personal accountability is important to service leaders. Not only should they understand the policies and procedures that are the nuts and bolts of their organization, they should make decisions based on them. Once they model this behavior, others will follow; conversely, if a leader does not model this behavior, it sends a mixed message that might prompt confusion or feelings of inequity. Aligning action to words and modeling policies and values are critical, particularly in terms of setting standards of behavior in an organization.
All of us have known supervisors who are too busy to nurture their teams because they are consumed with trying to figure out their own job or, worse, attaining their own personal goals, such as gaining more power or attaining favor with the library director or university administration. Their self-interest is so strong that they take all the credit when their team performs a job well done and blames them when things go wrong. However, in trying to achieve their personal goals, these leaders neglect to connect with their team, resulting in a lack of understanding of the role that individual members of their team play in their support of the organization. This lack of understanding causes the leader to begin making errors, and these errors cause the team to lose confidence in their leader. Over time, the team will become self-protective and, consequently, lose focus on their assignment, instead concentrating more on their supervisor’s lack of understanding and unpredictable behavior. This loss of support begins to distort the team’s view of the entire library’s leadership. Questions are raised. They may ask why the library director or university administration doesn’t do something to address the incompetence of the supervisor or why they are not holding the leader accountable for his repeated errors.
SERVICE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
Gabriel was a reference librarian with 30 years of experience working in a small academic college. Two years before Gabriel is set to retire, his library once again reorganizes and Gabriel finds himself reporting to a new supervisor, John. With this reorganization comes a new strategic plan that the reference unit must carry out. Although Gabriel was never excited about the countless number of supervisors that came before, John had already earned his respect because he was an outstanding veteran reference librarian who had worked alongside Gabriel for years. Gabriel believed that John’s invaluable reference knowledge would make him a great supervisor. However, within weeks Gabriel begins to see John flip-flopping on decisions, saying one thing to one person and saying something completely different to another. Within a few months, these decisions come back to haunt the reference unit as staff members begin to feel like John is playing favorites, allowing one person to do one thing while allowing another to do something completely different. Finally, Gabriel makes an appointment with John to discuss the inconsistencies that he and the reference team have been facing. At the meeting, John becomes defensive, yelling at Gabriel and asserting that he is the boss and that Gabriel is an exempt employee and works for the institution ‘24 hours a day, 7 days a week.’ Johns says that if Gabriel doesn’t like the way he made decisions, he is free to resign. Within hours, Gabriel is sitting in the library director’s office filling out a formal complaint against John. Although John was an outstanding reference librarian, that experience did not mean he would be an outstanding leader. Not only could John not control his emotions, he could not recognize his own flaws and became defensive, making it look to Gabriel that John was making decisions based on who was asking, not on the actual situation. John’s attitude was that it’s my way or the highway, overstepping his own authority. Had John recognized Gabriel’s sincerity and been able to recognize that perhaps he (John) had made a mistake or been inconsistent in his decision-making, he might have encouraged Gabriel to feel empowered to engage in a dialogue and a constructive way to address these issues, such as drafting policies as a way to remain consistent. Instead of working on implementing the new strategic plan, the plan was set aside by the unit in order to address their leadership problems.
The transition from employee to manager seems to be one that is less intentional or thought out than other strategic efforts. At best, there is a current position description for the manager. However, so often there no management expectations or goals, no way of getting feedback for development, and no relevant training beyond how to use the timesheet program or access the budget. Those identified for the greatness of management apparently already have the skills? Or perhaps they are born just knowing how (pursuant to trait theory). Just as there are expectations for different positions, there should be expectations for managers—and they should be explicit if not highly detailed. Just as with any other area of evaluation, there should be metrics or indicators related to performance and impact. There should be feedback, whether encouragement or accountability. It is not fair to hold an employee accountable to performance standards if they are not made explicitly known to the employee; why are managers any different? Managing personnel is largely looked upon as a soft skill—hard to measure and open to interpretation, situation, and style. As such, articulating expectations around management outcomes and behavior can avert costly misunderstandings and human resources issues.
There are numerous examples of individuals who were very effective as specialists but remarkably less so when promoted to a position of authority. It is not uncommon to hear such comments in organizations: “I remember so and so, he/she was a great cataloger but a horrible supervisor” or “He was so immature that he never encouraged me to do anything and whenever stuff hit the fan, he blamed everything on the unit, saying we were not team players instead of looking in the mirror for the true problem.” At one time or another, most employees can point to a person who was elevated to the status of leader who was not effective. Known as the Peter Principle, a high performing individual may be elevated to the status of a manager and reach what is called “their own level of incompetence.” These leaders (and we use the term loosely) might have demonstrated extraordinary skills as a subject selector or technical expert, and administration misunderstands this extraordinary skill as leadership or assumes that the success in one area is transferable to another. Library administration then promotes this person to be the supervisor of all subject selectors although the new supervisor may never have wanted to be a supervisor and has no leadership interest or skills whatsoever. As a result, this new supervisor is not only incompetent but also apathetic about the new positional responsibilities. She doesn’t appear to be listening or encouraging her employees, and she doesn’t make the necessary decisions to advance the organization. To some employees, it seems that this new supervisor is not being held accountable to the institution and that she is just filling all her time waiting for retirement. Think back, how many Deans or Directors have you had that you have said this is their retirement job. It is a little hard to swallow when employees are asked to be accountable to their actions but leaders aren’t.
Have you ever sat in a meeting and heard this: “I want everyone in this room to feel empowered to make change.” But when a person does show initiative, their supervisor comes down on them like a ton of bricks for not coming to him/her first with the idea. The employee is then penalized when he is reassigned to another job in a remote part of the library under the guise that his expertise is needed. That transplanted employee probably is not going to volunteer for anything in the library again, and the library likely just created another disgruntled employee who will be looking for a new job as fast as he can. Instead of encouraging this employee to continue feeling empowered, the supervisor sent the employee away, using him as an example of what not to do. However, nothing is done in a vacuum, and other employees in the organization understand what is truly happening and see this as another example of poor management. Ironically, the supervisor is not held accountable for her poor communication style but hailed as a strong leader for dealing with the rebel rouser. However, the employee’s feelings may come back to haunt the supervisor eventually in the form of a grievance.
Emotional intelligence, according to Salovey and Mayer, involves a person’s capability to examine, analyze, and separate her own and others’ emotions from different situations, so that she uses this new insight to guide her actions and decision-making process.7 Service leaders do this when they listen, not only to themselves but to others, colleagues, patrons, or team members. Gradually, researchers began redefining what emotional intelligence is and developing new methods for its measurement. As a result of this reexamination, Mayer et al. expanded their previous definition of emotional intelligence so that it encompassed the ability of a person to relate their emotions with other’s and also correlate the significance of those emotions to specific types of situations.8 Once this linkage was established, the person could use this information during the decision-making process to navigate the bumps of conflict found on the road ahead. This ability is necessary for an effective leader to be able to encourage their team members and facilitate an effective and productive effort. Emotions, whether they are positive or negative, are strong and lasting feelings that influence the way a person not only thinks but how he reacts. They determined whether an individual will speak up and say how they truly feel about a certain project, say nothing and disengage or approach the situation in a negative way.
In order to help people to navigate the roller coasters of their own and other people’s emotions, Caruso and Salovey developed a process model that can provide service leaders with a common method to better recognize and understand an emotionally charged situation and also to manage these precarious conditions. This hierarchical process, called the emotional blueprint,9 is made up of four related but different abilities: identifying, using, understanding, and managing emotions. A service leader should begin by correctly identifying the emotions that she is experiencing about a specific situation and distinguish them from those that others are feeling. The second step for a service leader, when employing the emotional blueprint, is to use the knowledge gained in step one by generating emotions and using them to achieve goals. Having gathered the information from the first and second step of the blueprint, a service leader can better understand the emotional situation, what causes the emotion, its progression and combinations, so that she will know what she will be facing and will be able to try to predict how the emotions of her team members may change depending on different situations. Once these three steps have been accomplished, a service leader can manage the emotional investment of various team members and factor them into decisions and behavior to help attain positive results.10
Service leaders are successful running their organizations when they possess emotional intelligence traits. For example, “a person strongly displaying the traits of engagement and curiosity, for instance, is likely to develop a high level of the competency that these two traits enable: influencing.”11 Certain traits or behaviors may build upon each other and result in other behaviors or competencies.
Leaders, particularly in academic institutions like libraries, are not exclusive to the library director. All too often there are others who don’t necessarily have positional authority but end up being leaders within the organization simply because they can influence those around them, consequently impacting not only the library director’s effectiveness but also holding the library director accountable. In a more hierarchical organization, however, service leadership behavior may be discouraged by anyone not in a position of authority. If an organization says that they value innovation and initiative, there should be encouragement to back that up. However, if in a meeting an individual is encouraged to feel empowered to make changes but is later ostracized for taking initiative, this sends an implicit message to that individual and to others in the organization that has a profound effect: people will not speak up in meetings, make suggestions, act on innovative ideas, or take risks. This effect also is true for upper library administration. Rarely do library directors work directly with every library staff member every day, even though he ultimately makes the decisions about performance evaluation and either remediation or rewards. In general there is a senior leadership team that manages the daily library functions. It is critical that these senior leaders are accountable and understand, just like the library director, the value of emotional intelligence as a way of encouraging and growing their employees.12
Empowerment is a term generally used in business literature to describe an organization’s efforts to encourage all employees in the institution to participate in the decision-making process. Employees “can be empowered more by increasing their autonomy and discretionary opportunities and getting support from the higher authority for their efforts.”13 Leaders can arrange for employees who have social equity in the organization to signal their public commitment to new goals. This sort of encouragement by fellow employees can help move the process along for the organization. However, the key is that a service leader must also be held accountable by employees for communicating the new goals, and a service leader must hold the employees accountable to upward feedback.
Individuals embrace empowerment practices if they want to encourage their employee’s participation in the organization so that it can be successful. Service leaders have their employees engage in empowering situations relevant to their interest and experience, but may also be growth opportunities. However, the opportunities should be relevant to the experience and interest of the employee. Asking a cataloger who has never worked a public service desk for her opinion on virtual reference software is neither helpful to the organization nor very concerned about her experience and engagement in the organization. It would be more effective to encourage the cataloger to participate in decision-making issues related to her area and level of expertise. She would then have the acknowledgement that her expertise was both known and valued, and she would feel some investment in the question being explored. Encouraging participation is critical, but only when there is an understanding of the reason for being asked. However, in order for a library to be successful, library leaders must also empower their users; after all, they know what they want better than library staff does. Services such as patron-driven acquisitions, for example, empower users to make decisions about the future of the library’s collection. Usability studies organized by library leaders are one way to empower library patrons to have a say in how the library looks and how it runs. Such patron feedback also holds libraries accountable to ensure that the desires of the users are heard.
Encouraging empowerment goes beyond just active employee participation in an organization’s decision-making process. It also encompasses giving authority and autonomy to an employee or employees so that they can accomplish a goal for the organization. A service leader trusts that the authority they have given to an employee was not given in vain. At the same time, service leaders must give the employee the autonomy needed to get the task done. That doesn’t mean walking away from the employee once he has taken on the project and not checking in once in a while to make sure progress is being made and the employee doesn’t need anything. When an employee is entrusted to lead a project, service leaders need to continue to be supportive of the employee’s ability to get the project completed and must learn to lead from behind. Leading from behind gives the employee the autonomy needed to complete the assignment. When a leader checks in once in a while, it doesn’t mean micromanaging the employee to the point where they are not allowing the employee the opportunity or encouragement to lead. All too often employees complain about their supervisor’s inability to trust their knowledge and ability to complete job responsibilities. Some supervisors take over the employee’s responsibilities without giving sufficient time to complete the assignment.
Researchers such as Yukl have examined the consequences of empowerment and discovered that there are both possible benefits and costs to this management practice. Some benefits of empowerment are that employees feel:
• a stronger commitment not only to the task at hand or team but also to the organization, which can result in increased quality of customer service;
• increased initiative, enthusiasm, and productivity, particularly when faced with obstacles; and
• an increase in job satisfaction, resulting in less employee turnover and increased morale.14
Although empowerment is often seen in a positive light, service leaders need to recognize that there are potential costs to the organization if they do empower their employees to make decisions. Yukl believes that higher costs could be attributed to:
• recruiting skilled employees with leadership abilities;
• increased financial cost for professional development classes to aid employees to become leaders;
• bad or incorrect decisions being made by some employees;
• resistance by some employees who believe that others are being favored; and
• opposition by middle managers who feel their positional authority is being threatened.15
Just as encouragement is balanced with accountability in terms of feedback, there is also the balance in terms of what individuals take responsibility for and what they choose not to engage on. Lueneburger asserts that: “There are two kinds of problems: My problems, and not-my-problems. What you are talking about is not my problem. Figure it out.”16 This sounds similar to the whine (yes, I meant to use the word whine) of “That is not my job” and an abdication of responsibility which undermines the service ethic. However, “for those who seek to be effective influencers, the problems of others, their challenges and aspirations, are pay dirt.”17
Understanding what others need, serving them, builds rapport, community, and shared purpose, and in helping them achieve their goals, they are empowered. However, there is an instance in which one should not take on another’s problem—that is, when taking on their problem, the leader takes their power. This situation should be avoided, particularly when people are trying to abdicate responsibility or when the experience of solving their own issue will help them grow.
Not unrelated to engagement and setting personal boundaries of responsibility is the concept of work-life balance. While respecting an individual’s privacy and affirming that their personal life is personal, there should also be balance of concern for the person as an individual: “The servant leader appreciates the professional, personal, and spiritual dimensions of each person’s life outside of the tangible everyday efforts of the individual in the workplace.”18 There are times that serving an individual or helping an employee may seem like it is compromising the organization as a whole; however, organizations can afford to take the long-term perspective and ultimately an investment in or accommodation for an individual will benefit the organization and its culture.
Not unrelated to culture is the concept of justice. While justice is generally associated with the legal system and dependent on an ethical framework, it also manifests in organizations at various levels. Social justice, particularly, addresses fairness within a society (or organization) particularly as it relates to benefits, rights, and opportunities. More specifically, procedural justice describes evenhandedness in how processes, such as promotions and development, are employed. Within procedural justice is distributive justice, which looks at the equity of rewards, benefits, and opportunities.
According to Kontakos, “fairness strives to make the employees’ place of work better and has become more than just adequate pay, benefits, and opportunities. The thought is that if an organization treats its employees well, they will give back as much or more in terms of both physical and emotional commitment.”19
Not every manager or staff member will support the principles of service leadership, and this is why the management characteristic of justice plays a key role. During an organizational change, team members have little to no time for a leader’s political agenda. The team needs a leader who will communicate clearly to them and not cloud the change message with what-if suppositions and possibilities. This is particularly crucial when not all members of the team have bought into the new goals. What service leaders need to do is be accountable to their team and encourage them to feel comfortable speaking up and challenging the leader. However, this accountability goes two ways; not only does a service leader need to hold herself accountable to her employees, she must also hold the employees accountable to the organization. For example, after a service leader has done everything to help a change-resistant staff member cope with the change over time, if the person remains resistant, it is time for the leader to talk with the staff member to determine whether he should leave the organization. As discussed in previous chapters, it is important for a leader to be true to herself as well as others. If an employee is unhappy, then it is the responsibility of the leader to help him find his way, even if his way is out the door.
One of the most important factors affecting motivation in an organization is fair treatment of employees by their leader. Employees value fairness from their boss, and when they believe that they are not being treated fairly, their job performance suffers. According to Wren, “Followers are said to be most satisfied when they believe that what they put into an activity or job and what they get out of it are roughly equivalent to what others put into and get out of it.”20
In the following scenario, the employee is facing what is called a distributive justice issue. Distributive justice “refers to the perceived fairness of the amounts of compensation employees receive.”21 Service leaders need to be cognizant of employees’ concerns about fairness because it will affect their job performance and will create an organizational culture of distrust and frustration. However, distributive justice issues are just the tip of the iceberg for employees. Procedural justice, for example, is becoming more and more prevalent. According to McFarline and Sweeney, “procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means used to determine those amounts”22 of compensation an employee receives. This is prevalent when procedures are written down but ignored by library administration. Service leaders must communicate decisions to their employees so that they understand why decisions were made, and they must follow correct organizational procedures and processes. Imagine for a moment that a call goes out to nominate a team for a specific award. The procedures sent around to everyone who wishes to nominate a team clearly state that the nominations must be in to library administration by Thursday. The day after the nominations close, a nomination for the library administration team is sent in and is accepted by the library leader. Is this fair? How do you think the employees would feel about this? Justice issues, regardless if they are distributive or procedural, lead employees to believe that other employees are being favored. Favoritism creates feelings of resentment and an organizational culture of hostility and mistrust not only toward the leader but also toward the person who the employees view as being favored. Saks believes that an employee’s perception of fairness and justice are two things that can be directly associated with an employee’s engagement at work.23 In this type of environment, employee retention is low and turnover is high. Service leaders hold themselves accountable to the procedures and policies of the library because they will lose an employee’s trust and work effort if they do not.
SERVICE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
John has been working for the library for six months. He is asked to work in a team that needs to complete a difficult and time-sensitive project. John soon discovers that his team members are not equipped to handle the project. Not only do they not understand the problem, but they also don’t have the know-how to complete it. As a result, John spends most of his time explaining the issues to the team. Soon John realizes that in order to complete the project on schedule, he will need to take the lead and take a lot of the project home. When John explains what he needs to do to the team, they agree with John. When the project is completed successfully, John discovers that regardless of all the extra time and hard work that he put into the project, another member of his team was rewarded with a $500 bonus for working extra hard work to complete the project. When John approaches other members of the team and asks for clarification, a team member says, “Allen is the boss’s favorite. He always gets the bonuses.” How do you think this makes John feel? Do you believe that he will be motivated to work hard again to complete a time sensitive project? Probably not.
Larson and Murtadha state that “our institutions mirror our society.”24 This rings true every time we open our iPads to read our local newspaper. Across the screen we read stories of arrests for political corruption, bullying, racism, sexual harassment, and discrimination. Today, people seem resigned to the fact that these things happen, and they do little, if anything, to undo the injustice because they believe there is nothing they can do about it. Today people have accepted injustice in their life, and when the few rise up and fight this injustice, they become outcasts of the organization, destined to be ignored and labelled rabble-rousers by their colleagues. Service leaders, however, are the rabble-rousers of organizations. They tend not only to question but to challenge the status quo of the social injustices. Service leaders continually reach for greater opportunity and justice for all.25 Service leaders understand that the only way to make a change and end social injustice in the workplace is to hold themselves accountable to take action.
Workplace bullying is an example of social injustice. Devonish defines workplace bullying as “situations where a person repeatedly and over a period of time is exposed to negative acts (i.e., constant abuse, offensive remarks or teasing, ridicule or social exclusion) on the part of coworkers, supervisors, or subordinates.”26 This type of negative and destructive behavior creates a hostile work environment for the targeted employee, who can feel threatened and humiliated by these damaging actions. In an effort to protect themselves, targeted employees often begin to isolate themselves from other people in their organization. Rarely do they speak up in a meeting to voice their opinion and or dissent. Teresa Daniel states,
The physical or emotional health (and sometimes both) of employees working in organizations where these types of actions are taking place are often severely impacted. In addition, the confidence of the targeted employee is frequently so destroyed by the repeated negative actions that they lack even the courage necessary to leave such a toxic environment. Instead, they find themselves trapped in a world of psychological abuse—targets of a phenomenon that had been labeled workplace bullying.27
Most people who are targets of bullies often do not report the problem because they fear that they will be retaliated against. However, when grievances are filed against the perpetrator, the offender is often shocked. According to a 2007 survey, 53 percent of employees in the U.S. workplace have experienced workplace bullying and 45 percent of the employees have stated that this has interfered with their ability to do their jobs.28 Adding to this situation and reflecting back on accountability, other employees are witnessing bad behavior. Often they wonder why administration allows this to keep happening and keep silent about what they witness in fear that since the administration has done nothing to stop the bullying behavior it is condoning it. Adding to their stress if they say anything about what they witnessed or experienced, is the concern that they may be bullied next. In order to have a productive and motivated team, employees need to feel safe in their work environment. They need to trust that they have distributive, procedural and social justice in the workplace and that service leaders will make that happen. In order to achieve this safe environment, service leaders must continue to encourage their employees to speak up and also their employee relations unit (or more commonly called HR units) to support rather than discourage employees from seeking remediation and filing grievances. In addition, employee services or the personnel department needs to investigate employee turnover to see why the employee is leaving. Employee services must also recognize and support an employee when they are voluntarily or involuntarily leaving their position. As stated above, service leaders will not keep employees who are not performing their job responsibilities satisfactorily, but this is only after they have done everything to help that employee be successful in the organization. For this reason, timely and specific constructive and positive feedback is a necessity. People can only learn from their mistakes if they know that they did wrong and are able to take responsibility. Thus, they can learn from their mistakes and correct them. A lack of feedback for negative behaviors or issues in performance will result in no change in future behavior. The lack of feedback also have implications for encouraging positive behaviors: related to extinction theory, no acknowledgment of positive performance often results in the employee seeing no incentive to continue the positive behavior.
1. Make an appointment with your supervisor to discuss their expectations of you and your expectations of them. Then discuss how they will hold you accountable for their expectations and how you will hold them accountable for theirs.
2. Think back over the last six months. Have you witnessed any injustice (distributive, procedural, or social) in your library? List each one you witnessed and the type of injustice it was. Now, next to each, write what you did (if anything) to address this injustice. Now reflect back on why you did or did not address the injustice. What do you think that says about you and your institution?
3. Using what you have learned about yourself and your institution from the second exercise, in the next month speak out, just once, when you recognize an injustice occurring. After you speak out, assess how it makes you feel and how you were viewed by your fellow team members and library administration?
4. At the beginning of the next big project encourage one of your team members to take the reins. Hold yourself accountable and have the team hold you accountable for supporting your team member but not micromanaging him. Now watch and see how the new team leader embraces the challenge and how the team comes together to support one another.
NOTES
1. James C. Hunter, The Servant: A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership (New York, NY: Random House, 2012), 63–64.
2. Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: NY: Public Affairs, 2004).
3. Ibid.
4. Sen Sendjaya and Brian Cooper, “Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A Hierarchical Model and Test of Construct Validity,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20, no. 3 (2011): 421.
5. Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: NY: Public Affairs, 2004), x.
6. Ram Charan, “Why CEOs Fail,” Fortune 139 no. 12 (1999): 68–75.
7. Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, “Emotional Intelligence,” Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9, no. 3 (1989–90): 186–187.
8. John Mayer, et al., “Emotional Intelligence as a Standard Intelligence”, Emotion 1, no. 3 (2001): 232–242.
9. David R. Caruso and Peter Salovey, The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to Develop and Use the Four Key Emotional Skills of Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 24.
10. Susan A. Kornacki and David R. Caruso, “A Theory-Based, Practical Approach to Emotional Intelligence Training: Ten Ways to Increase Emotional Skills,” in Applying Emotional Intelligence: A Practitioner’s Guide, eds. Joseph Ciarrochi and John D. Mayer (New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2007), 55.
11. Christoph Lueneburger, A Culture of Purpose: How to Choose the Right People and Make the Right People Choose You (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014), 5.
12. Patricia A. Kreitz, “Leadership and Emotional Intelligence: A Study of University Library Directors and Their Senior Management Teams,” College & Research Libraries 70, no. 6 (2009): 531–554.
13. Bernard M. Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1990), 213.
14. Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006), 108.
15. Ibid.
16. Christoph Lueneburger, A Culture of Purpose: How to Choose the Right People and Make the Right People Choose You (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014), 31.
17. Ibid.
18. Filippa Marullo Anzalone, “Servant Leadership: A New Model for Law Library Leaders,” Law Library Journal 99, no. 4 (2007): 802.
19. Anne-Marie Kontakos, “Employee Engagement and Fairness in the Workplace,” Center for Advanced Human Resources Studies (2007), 18, www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs/research/whitepapers/upload/EmployeeEngagement_FairWorkplace.pdf.
20. J. Thomas Wren, The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1995), 331.
21. Dean B. McFarlin and Paul D. Sweeney, “Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes,” Academy of Management Journal 35, no. 3 (1992): 626.
22. Ibid.
23. Alan M. Saks, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, no. 7 (2006): 600–619.
24. Colleen L. Larson and Khaula Murtadha, “Leadership for Social Justice,” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 101, no. 1 (2002): 134.
25. Ibid., 135.
26. Dwayne Devonish, “Workplace Bullying, Employee Performance and Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Psychological Well-Being,” Employee Relations 35, no. 6 (2013): 630.
27. Teresa A. Daniel, Stop Bullying at Work: Strategies and Tools for HR and Legal Professionals (Alexandria, Va.: Society for Human Resource Management, 2009), 1.
28. Ibid., 9.