Good leadership, whether formal or informal, is helping other people rise to their full potential while accomplishing the mission and goals of the organization. All members of an organization, who are responsible for the work of others, have the potential to be good leaders if properly developed.
––Bob Mason1
The service leadership values discussed in previous chapters have focused on individual efforts to model service. This chapter will focus on how to sustain the service organization culture. In order for an organization, such as a library, to sustain a service culture, it must embed the vision and values in all of its efforts; they must become part of its organizational identity, part of policies, procedures, and the internal governance systems such as evaluation and project management.
The service culture is built on the vision and purpose of the organization. All other values and activities are dependent on this commitment of service being a shared vision. For the organization to sustain this vision, individuals must be committed to it as well. Service leaders help advocate for this vision and get other individuals involved and move them toward a desired future.
Perhaps the single most effective unifying factor in an organization is its purpose. A purpose is the reason the library exists, its reason for being, that unites all the individuals in an organization. Northouse asserts that it is the leader who “influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.”2 After all, people will choose to work for an organization and a leader that aligns with their own values. This is particularly true in a public service organization, where the focus is on the public good and the values of the organization reflect that purpose. In public service organizations, service is obviously the defining value. However, it is curious that such an organization may limit its service ethic to the public and treat its employees as something less, as collegiality that is not a service in itself. This says something about the organization that is not very positive.
Vision is the potential of an organization that reflects its purpose and values. It is the building of community values that is key: call it climate or organizational culture, but it is the internalization of these service leadership values that sustain them. It is the role of leadership to frame the values for the organization and to socialize employees into them: “A common goal requires that the leader and followers agree on the direction to be taken by the group.”3
There are a number of efforts, functions, and practices used to sustain an established service-oriented organization, but the key to sustaining it is the organization’s culture and, specifically, its defining culture of purpose—a commitment to service both within and outside the organization. This culture empowers the organization to “strategize its promises, design its processes, and engage its people in a proactive quest for competitive advantage.”4 Lueneburger supports this by asserting that “cultures of purpose power winning organizations. And although leaders are right to track innovation, differentiation, and profitability, it is in the cultures of purpose that any of these last.”5
The culture of purpose is critical, but how is it determined and sustained? In many cases the purpose is intertwined with the mission and vision statement of the library. This is only true, however, if the mission statement is more than a political document. So often the mission and vision statements may be reflective of the director rather than an expression of what the organization is truly committed to. If those with management authority in the library make top-down decisions about service standards and values, then they ignore the library team and individuals on the front line whose jobs are to serve patrons and the public in light of those standards. Will this new mission and vision be embraced and sustained by the team? Probably not, particularly if they don’t value it. Consequently, how will this director, who has positional authority, sustain the new library’s culture? Particularly, when employees “see something going right or wrong with a group or organization and then attribute the result to the leader.”6 If employees do not believe in their director’s vision and mission, how can the organization’s new culture and the purpose of the organization be sustained?
There are many studies in the management and psychology literature that report that the top leadership sets the tone. Although, leadership certainly has a huge impact on the organizational climate, it is the employees that sustain the culture. This means that even a mid-level manager can have a huge effect, positive or negative, on sustaining the service culture. How important is it, personally, to have a manager that you can trust and respect and who is supportive? The literature says that the number-one reason that people leave their job is their supervisor—even if everything else in the work environment is okay. Regardless of how much a person professionally accomplishes, how fulfilled she may feel by successfully performing her job duties, and how committed to the organization she is, it is impossible to entirely compartmentalize the negativity of a bad leadership relationship.
It may be that the direct supervisor is very supportive, respected, and trusted—and may be an effective buffer between the individual employee and the administration. However, a supervisor cannot filter everything—and as they may try to protect their direct employees, it has the potential to make it worse. Because such an action could engender loyalty to the manager but a sense of unfairness with the administration, particularly as an employee sees how it could negatively impact their manager.
What you do has more impact than what you say—ideally, they should be consistent. In the absence of that, it is a truism but no less true that actions will speak louder than words.
The classic leader in libraries has been influenced by the traditional hierarchical structure, which has been largely unchanged in the profession, even if everything else is in flux. The communication style may be directive; the supervisory style authoritarian, and the organization rule-bound, with the leader focused on command and control. Leaders, particularly those with a vision-of-service orientation, will strive to create an organization that fits that image. When authority is concentrated in the top of an organization, the vision and direction change with the leadership, which may ultimately impact climate and engagement. A leader who is more focused on status or power will try to remake the organization in his own image, build a power base, and do whatever it takes to make himself look good. A service leader will make an effort to align their behavior with the foundational values of the organization and lead through shared governance, promoting buy-in and sustainability. So, how can service leadership be sustained in an organization regardless of the authority at the top?
We have previously discussed other values, characteristics, and behavior that are indicative of service leadership and help to create a service climate. Greenleaf highlighted some of these values when he stated, “There really is a set of values, a sense of fairness, honesty, respect, and contribution that transcends culture—something that is timeless that transcends the ages and that is also self-evident. It is as self-evident as the requirement of trustworthiness to produce trust.”7 His reference to trust is a significant one because it is fundamental to the integrity of a service leader and it also is critical to sustaining a service culture.
Building an environment of trust—this sounds like it is pretty easy, right? After all, everyone is committed to service and has good intentions. However, this may be the single most difficult area to address. And if an organization has trust issues, it is difficult, but not impossible, for employees to recover. There are a number of issues that influence trust, including equity and favoritism, transparency in decision-making and procedural justice.
Those in positional authority have a certain right by virtue of that authority, and they have a job to do just like everyone else. However, sometimes the exercise of this authority is done in such a way that employees feel victimized. Just as surprising your boss is to be avoided, management by ambush is an equally bad idea. Colin Powell raises this concern in the context of what is a standard practice in organizations: “I avoid reorganizations like the plague. They are something that you do to somebody rather than for somebody.”8
In organizations, individuals who voice concern may be considered detractors, rabble-rousers, or change resistant. Interestingly, this says less about the individuals who question managerial decisions and more about the decision-makers and the culture of the organization. Instead of marginalizing individuals who have questions, concerns or differing opinions, they could be brought into the process early, which could result in a better outcome: “Often potential problems or resistance can be reduced or even eliminated by including in the decision-making process itself those most likely to be affected.”9 Haass describes the concept of inoculating those who may be impacted by change, letting them participate in the planning of it so they are prepared.10 This not only makes the change more likely to succeed, but it also gains the trust of the team and ultimately sustains the service culture.
There have been numerous references to teams in libraries, and teaming has been a trend in the business literature, although that is not why it is so prevalent in libraries. Librarianship, by its very nature, is a very collaborative endeavor. As a basic example, look at the number of library staff that process a book, from those who make the request and place the order to those who receive and catalog it. Many of the services in libraries are very interdependent, with each individual playing a different role and making a different contribution to the whole effort. The team can act as a microcosm for the larger organization or it can be a cohesive unit. Part of the benefit of teams is the diversity that it brings to organizational efforts. In most cases, diversity is viewed as a social construct, those “explicit differences among group members in social category membership, such as race, gender and ethnicity.”11 While this definition of diversity is the most recognized and, for organizations, the most concerning because of organizational values or the potential legal situations around protected classes. Perhaps it is natural that there are different types of diversity as well. Informational diversity “refers to differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group.”12 Value diversity “occurs when members of a workgroup differ in terms of what they think the group’s real task, goal, target, or mission should be.”13 In other words, groups may have differing opinions and expectations that can impact their effectiveness. That said, it is widely accepted that while diversity can create conflict, it can also bring issues to the surface that result in a more successful outcome. Different perspectives bring up different issues and implications, potentially identifying weaknesses or gaps in a plan.
Another issue around building an environment of trust is transparency, which is a buzzword right along with big government. Transparency is one way to assure that everyone is aware of the process, that there is nothing questionable about what you are about to do. This can be done before you implement change by asking yourself not only: “whether what you are doing or are planning to do passes a legal test, but also whether it passes the smell test … If it does not feel right, if it could cause serious problems, forget it.”14 If you can’t defend an action or a decision with sincerity, then don’t do it because it will affect your trust relationship with your employees.
Respect is another value that is highly embedded in the concept of service and is critical to sustaining the service organizational culture. An organization that values respect and cares for its patrons should also model this value for its employees. Too often there is a disconnect between how patrons and employees are treated, and this undermines the true value of the organization. The service ethic of respect should be modeled in all situations because the “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.”15 While this may sound too warm and fuzzy, there are many studies that indicate that employees who feel respected and empowered provide better patron service and are more engaged in the organization, ultimately benefiting that organization and sustaining the created culture. Senge supported the idea of respect when he quoted the president of an insurance company, “Our traditional organizations are designed to provide for the first three levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs: food, shelter, and belonging. Since these are now widely available to members of industrial society, our organizations do not provide significantly unique opportunities to command the loyalty and commitment of our people. The ferment in management will continue until organizations begin to address the higher order needs: self-respect and self-actualization.”16 Having an organization with leaders who believe that it is their job to help employees succeed has a lot of impact. Jeremy Brandt, CEO of FastHomeOffers.com, began asking questions. What problems do you have? How can I help you? … “At the company, I solve people’s problems,” he says. “I give them what they need so they can grow and blossom.”17
Respect for employees can be shown in the way that credit is given. In organizations in which authority is closely held at the top, very little decision-making is delegated to the employees, regardless of how much they know. Consequently, those in positional authority tend to claim the credit for successes (and conversely, push the blame down) when they had little or no involvement in them. This kind of environment is diametrically opposed to a service culture. When titled leadership signals that this kind of culture is the norm, it can have implications for other behaviors such as harassment and bullying.
Although the focus is on the individual, the larger picture—the library’s mission—remains important. Its importance is tempered, however, by the view that when the vital pieces receive priority, the others will fall into place … If the [servant leader] (1) focuses on the needs of employees; (2) expects, encourages, and models results through valuing relationships; and (3) recognizes people for their contributions, the likely outcome will be a greater sense of trust and accountability, leading to more risk-taking, creativity, and innovation. This in turn will create a strong team that multiplies its abilities to meet customer needs; it will also increase empowerment of individuals to solve problems at the grassroots level. The solutions will be better, there will be increased feelings of self-worth, and productivity will be higher.”18
As indicated, organizational hierarchy has profound implications for setting a service culture. A flatter organization that distributes responsibility and encourages empowerment will be more effective in providing service as well.
Once the service culture has been implemented, the service leader must ensure that all her employees and users clearly understand what the service culture is, how it will be provided, and the standards in which it is to be delivered as a way of sustaining the culture. In order to achieve this consistent service delivery, the service leader will need to establish measures that are understood, shared, performed, and achieved by both employees and patrons.
In the following vignette, one can see that the service culture broke down because the employee did not follow a consistent service delivery protocol that was clearly understood by the second library patron. Exceptional service is a goal, but by definition, it is an exception. This inconsistency in protocol, while it benefits one patron, may then bring up questions of equity or procedural justice for others. The waiting list was a method to provide a more service-oriented effort, but it was circumvented. The failure in service culture was noted when the second library patron went to the administration office to give the library director feedback on the botched service interaction.
SERVICE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
At noon Paul walks up to the reserves desk and asks to check out a book that is on reserve for his 211 engineering class. Paul, a slow reader, quickly realizes that the loan period for the item is only two hours, and he will not be able to complete the reading before the textbook is due. Paul looks up to the librarian and asks if she can make an exception because he needs the item longer. The librarian looks at Paul and, without checking to see if there was a waiting list for the piece, allowed Paul an extra two hours. At two o’clock Desmond walks up to the reserve desk and asks for the same 211 engineering textbook so that he can do the assigned reading. The librarian says that someone already had taken the item out at noon and that it would be back at four o’clock that afternoon. Shocked, Desmond says, “I thought that it was a two-hour checkout, and when I asked to check the textbook out yesterday for more than two hours you told me ‘no.’ My name was on the waiting list to get the item at two this afternoon. This is unfair.” Desmond turns away from the desk and goes to the library’s administration office to complain about the breach in delivery of service.
The investment of time and money in programs such as training and mentoring can be considerable, but the payoff may be less tangible and identifiable. However, this is a perspective that it both short-sighted and focused on the profit-motive. “Training is not an expense but an investment.”19
Far too often organizational leaders struggle to understand the importance of mentoring in the effort to create a learning organization. They brush off the idea that employees need to develop their professional knowledge and encourage them to do it on their own time, not company time. They fail to recognize that, as times change, so do their employees’ skill levels. In order to stay competitive and relevant, their employees’ skills must match or exceed those needed to meet the changing environment. What this means is that employees must continually update their knowledge. When leaders turn their back on professional development, some employees take it as a sign that the leaders of the organization do not care about their future and, consequently, the employees may become unwilling to expend the additional time or money to update their core skills for an uncaring company. How does this affect the company? When they are hired, employees are highly skilled for the position that they hold, but as time passes and things change, their skill level and knowledge remains where it was when they were first hired. Without updating their core skills through professional development, the job opportunities for these employees within the company become restricted because the discrepancy between what they can and cannot do increases. The gap in job tasks requires the organization to continue to pay wages for unqualified people to do the jobs that may no longer be needed and to hire in new talent, at a higher wage that has the necessary skills and expertise.
It is important to look at organizational learning in order to cultivate the service-oriented outlook within the organization, to improve the employees’ knowledge which is required to provide exceptional patron service and as a way to continual developmental training and coaching in order to sustain the patron service organizational culture. Openness to learning is critical in a service-driven organization because change is necessary to be responsive to those you serve. Continuous change requires not just effective but outstanding leadership. This is not limited to the individual at the top of the organization or to those in management positions but includes anyone who has an opportunity to contribute to the organization, serve the public, and collaborate as part of a team. Improving a specific aspect of development, such a communication skills, can ultimately lead to proficiency in other aspects of service leadership and, in turn, prompt others within the organization to improve as well: “ … enhancement of a leader’s communication attitudes and practices might facilitate servant leader formation.”20
This service leadership model is the antithesis of traditional academic libraries, which are procedurally based and hierarchically organized and reduces organization commitment.21 Research indicates that team-based structures are preferable to a hierarchy; a flatter organizational structure that embraces shared governance would be more effective.
It is critical to establish integrity in the change process, at both an organizational and an individual level, and build support for organizational goals. In order to achieve these goals, a service leader is critical of his own beliefs while making the effort to know and understand his employees’ beliefs and concerns related to the mission of the library. This knowledge gives a service leader the information needed to anticipate changing environments and communicate these changes before or as they are happening so that employees can continually improve.22 Change is never easy, however, and the service leader needs to focus on what the will of the group is by being attentive to his surroundings. As a result, the service leader can anticipate the needs of the employee before the he or she lets the service leader know.
The service leader provides an environment in which there is trust, nurturance, and empathy, an environment in which the employee is coached rather than punished for the risks she took to solve difficult issues, even if her efforts failed. “In a supportive context, followers feel safe to confront hard problems.”23
Senge’s concept of a learning organization is descriptive of a transformational organization, “What fundamentally will distinguish learning organizations from traditional authoritarian ‘controlling organizations’ will be the mastery of certain principles.”24 Among these principles are personal mastery (competency), mental models and shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. This paradigm also aligns well with service organizations in its responsiveness. Finally, because it requires continuous learning and assessment, it also has affinity with the purpose of higher education and academic libraries. The fundamental focus is responsiveness and growth.
A very traditional model of instructional design is not unrelated to the ADDIE model mentioned in chapter 7. This model comes from a military background and looks at analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Note that it begins with analysis and ends with evaluation, both of which are focused on assessment of the situation or project. In this way it closes the loop on the continuous learning process. The time for reflection and intention is critical. This model is usually centered around a project, and assessment is often tied to a formal effort or metric. But assessment can also be a process of slowing down, stop and smell the roses, breathe and contemplate. It is also an opportunity to check in with peers or employees, to renew the connection and see how they are. This can lead to realizations that may be more profound than a measurement.
There are times when mentoring and developing individuals may be indicated by “helping them out of the organization.” This may happen for any number of reasons, but the major drivers are related to person-organization fit or performance. First, if an individual has different values or expectations than the organization, it is probably in everyone’s best interest to have a conversation about the mismatch; it may be that a compromise can be reached. If not, however, that individual may be more successful in another organization. The second possibility is related to performance and opportunity. The obvious take on that is that the individual is not performing (thus has no opportunity) and should be shown the door. The less obvious circumstance, but one that happens more often than people may recognize, is when a high performer who continues to excel and grow tops out. The response to this situation is one that is highly emblematic of a service leadership value: the high performing, committed individual should be encouraged in her growth even if it takes her to a different organization.
Encouragement and accountability are both necessary elements and were discussed previously in theory. Perhaps the most critical system related to performance assessment and feedback is the reward system (or, conversely, those processes related to sanctioning or remediation). People tend to do what they are rewarded for. If a librarian sees that people gets raises (or promotions) for behaving in a certain way or performing a certain task, he is likely to do it as well, regardless of whether the desirable behavior has been articulated in the strategic plan or even individual goals. By the same token, if a librarian puts in a lot of time on an exhibition or program but it is largely overlooked by those who evaluate and give rewards, he is unlikely to put himself out again. Skinner’s reinforcement theory and extinction theory both indicate that feedback is key to either maintaining or changing behavior.
Leban and Stone state that there are nine key employee motivators that can be used in an empowered environment:
• material rewards—seeking possessions, wealth, and a high standard of living;
• power/influence—seeking to be in control of people and resources;
• search for meaning—seeking to do things that are believed valuable for their own sake;
• expertise—seeking a high level of accomplishment in a specialized field;
• creativity—seeking to innovate and be identified with original output;
• affiliation—seeking nourishing relationship with others;
• autonomy—seeking to be independent and able to make decisions for oneself;
• security—seeking a solid and predictable future;
• status—seeking to be recognized, admired, and respected from the community at large.25
The first couple of motivators or rewards listed above are the ones that are regularly employed in organizations and tend to be the most obvious. They can be correlated with merit, raises, and promotions, those tangible indicators of success in the organization. However, they are not motivators in and of themselves. In fact, as Frederick Herzberg’s theory indicates, they are demotivators.26 Tangible rewards such as raises are considered hygiene factors and are ephemeral: the glow from a raise lasts as long as the individual considers it new—which is only about as long as it takes him to get used to it. Motivators, particularly for those individuals drawn to a service organization, are likely to be more in the realm of higher order needs, as defined by Maslow.27
Innovation may also be a value in an organization. Certainly, with the advances in technology, many organizations, libraries among them, explore the possibilities of how to employ technology. The interesting thing is, so often, technology is the driver for innovations in service; however the effort should be driven by what the customer needs and technology may be the vehicle or the means for meeting that need. Otherwise, innovation is being developed in a vacuum—and it is not a case of “If you build it, they will come.”
In order to successfully transform an organization, the traditional model of top-down decision-making and behavior must be unlearned in order for services to be constantly questioned and enhanced, aligning them with the service culture:
… the largest gap between the principles of quality and the library may come in the aspect of employee involvement in decision-making. Libraries have relied on comprehensive policies and standardized procedures to eliminate the need for individual decisions. The value of consistency has sometimes outweighed the value of customer satisfaction. The emphasis has been on quality control instead of quality improvement.28
A more inclusive approach to organizational management can more effectively manage change. “Distributed power, open and decentralized communication systems, participative decision-making, and acceptance of conflict have been identified as contributing to successful changes.”29 This shift to a more collaborative effort builds community and shared interest. Kovel-Jarboe goes on to discuss barriers or resistance to change:
1. “Perception that the change would interfere with future promotions.
2. Reasons for change were not clear to those expected to change most.
3. Perception that the change was not important to continued success.
4. Change decreased or eliminated rewarding aspects of jobs.
5. Change not compatible with prevailing values.
6. People felt coerced to adopt change.
7. A hostile working climate existed in the organization.
8. Resistance to change was not dealt with constructively.
9. Functional or territorial boundaries prevented collaboration.
10. Sponsors of the planned change lacked agreement on key goals.”30
These efforts are not just transformational in the organization but for individuals as well: “In moving toward mutual goals, both the leader and the followers are changed.”31 While it may seem like a chicken-or-egg question, it is truly about openness to change and to learning.
Organizational citizenship, which Vondey defines as interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism, is consistent with service and stewardship.32 This is distinct from regular expectations because “individuals have discretion in the degree to which they comply.”33 Kathleen Patterson put it eloquently with her statement that servant leaders “seek to serve the future.”34
But a critical factor in this attribute is how to sustain it within the organization. Sustainability is now a loaded term that conjures images of old growth forests and the ongoing debate between tree-huggers and consumers. Lueneburger discusses the sustainability of organizations, and while he is referring to sustainability in the environmental sense, he is also referring to sustainability in terms of the survival and success of the organization itself. But sustainability is also a service-oriented effort with a focus on purpose: “Because it captures an ideal, a purpose goes beyond profitable growth, shareholder value, or any other measure of whether you are doing things right. A purpose, instead, is a pledge to do the right things.”35
It also has a definition related particularly to service organizations and their fundamental purpose, that stewardship or to “hold something in trust for another” is a responsibility for the individuals and the organization. This is significant to the purpose and its perpetuation:
“Senge contended that one of the important tasks of leaders in learning organizations is to be the steward (servant) of the vision within the organization. Being a steward means clarifying and nurturing a vision that is greater than oneself. This means not being self-centered, but rather integrating one’s self or vision with that of others in the organization. Effective leaders see their own personal vision as part of something larger than themselves—a part of the organization and the community at large.”36
SERVICE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
Logan, a new web designer, was hired to develop a state-of-the-art website for a large academic library. During his interview it was stressed that the organizational environment and culture was one of encouragement and creative thinking, where a person was supported and not penalized when employees took risks even when the risk didn’t pay off. However, two weeks after Logan was hired, he began to perceive behavior—specifically, his boss’ attitude toward risk-taking—that was completely opposite of what he’d been told. Logan began seeing his boss penalizing other team members for taking risks and even chastising employees openly during meetings for taking risks, saying that “they should not have taken such a careless risk.” Gradually, Logan began to believe that the tolerant environment he thought he was working in didn’t actually exist. He realized the organizational culture that the leader continually espoused was not real and that creative thinking, whether the person was successful or not, was actually frowned on instead of celebrated.
Dupree offers a detailed list of signs that an organization is in entropy (stagnation), including a tendency toward superficiality; tension among key people; lack of time for celebration; differing definitions of service, trust, or responsibility; more problem-makers than problem-solvers; a focus on control rather than liberation; loss of grace and civility; reliance on structures rather than people; considering customers as impositions rather than opportunities to serve.37
Lueneburger discusses sustainability, focusing on handprints as opposed to footprints. “Instead of focusing on reducing bad unintended consequences, let’s talk about maximizing the positive impact we can actively pursue as a primary objective. Convey your information in the context of what can be done beneficially rather than in the negative context of what has to stop.”38 He also addresses some signs of success in terms of sustaining purpose, stating that the “goals are so clear and they’ve been embraced so completely that people take it upon themselves to do something.”39 Changes may occur, small or large, that align with the purpose but without the managers knowing; “when the culture of purpose is so ingrained in the company that it starts to spread the message outward to customers and vendors.”40
Libraries and other service organizations, because of their role as a public good, have this responsibility as well. Sustainability may be indicated in the performance of employees and their adherence to service leadership values: “The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers. Are the followers reaching their potential? Are they learning? Serving? Do they achieve the required results? Do they change with grace? Manage conflict?”41 More broadly, these criteria show sustainability:
• evangelizing the culture—how patrons can perpetuate it;
• commitment to the future of the organization; and
• building of the library community.
Sustaining can also refer to following through—that is, doing what you say at an individual level and, at an organizational level, fulfilling your purpose. Developing and sustaining these principles takes intention and commitment. Leadership models are like diet programs; they come and go, advocating various philosophies or practices that an individual or an organization may observe for a while. But either reality intrudes and they revert to their traditional behavior or they assume the next flavor-of-the-month fad. Just as self-help and diet programs have started to underscore the need for a lifestyle change, leadership ideologies, to be successful, must create an environment that fosters the principles they espouse but one that can sustain them.
1. Think about your biggest successes, where you have had the most positive impact. As you think of them, are they projects or are they people?
2. As you think about other individuals you have worked with, how many other leaders have you grown or nurtured?
3. Change places with someone in your group for a day.
4. In considering your vision, surface your assumptions. What are the implications of these?
5. Thinks about how you treat your patrons. What is the service standard in the organization?
6. With that service standard in mind, do you treat your colleagues within the organization the same way? Is there a different standard of service internally?
1. Dan McCarthy, “What Is Leadership? 30 Definitions,” http://management.about.com/od/leadership/fl/What-is-Leadership-30-Definitions.htm.
2. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 6th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2013), 15.
3. Ibid., 436.
4. Svafa Grönfeldt and Judith Strother, Service Leadership: The Quest for Competitive Advantage (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 79.
5. 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), 1.
6. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Powers to Lead (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), 3.
7. Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1977), 5.
8. Richard N. Haass, The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: How to Be Effective in Any Unruly Organization (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999), 92.
9. Ibid., 42.
10. Ibid.
11. Karen A. Jehn, Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale, “Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 4 (1999): 745.
12. Ibid., 743.
13. Ibid., 745.
14. Richard N. Haass, The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: How to be Effective in Any Unruly Organization (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999), 51.
15. Filippa Marullo Anzalone, Servant Leadership: A New Model for Law Library Leaders,” Law Library Journal 99 no. 4 (2007): 802.
16. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 347.
17. Leigh Buchanan, “In Praise of Selflessness: Why the Best Leaders are Servants,” Inc Magazine (May 2007): 35.
18. John Doncevic, “Servant-Leadership as a Model for Library Administration,” Catholic Library World 73, no. 3 (2003): 173.
19. Al Gore, “World Class Courtesy: A Best Practices Report,” A Report of the National Performance Review National Performance Review (US), and Albert Gore, World-class Courtesy: A Best Practices Report: A Report of the National Performance Review. (The Review, 1997), 8.
20. Mark A. Rennaker, Listening and Persuasion: Examining the Communicative Patterns of Servant Leadership (Regent University, 2008), 2.
21. Song Yang, “A Contextual Analysis of Organizational Commitment,” Sociological Focus 36, no. 1 (2003): 49–64.
22. Fons Trompenaars and Ed Voerman, Servant-Leadership Across Cultures (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2010), 37–38.
23. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 6th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2013), 429.
24. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 5.
25. Bill Leban and Romuald Stone, Managing Organizational Change, 2nd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2008), 136.
26. Fredrick I Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland, OH: World Publishing, 1966).
27. Abraham Harold Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50, no. 4 (1943): 370.
28. Patricia Kovel-Jarboe, “Quality Improvement: A Strategy for Planned Organizational Change,” Library Trends 44, no. 3 (1996): 610.
29. Ibid., 612.
30. Ibid., 613.
31. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 6th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2013), 437
32. Michelle Vondey, “The Relationships Among Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Person-Organization Fit, and Organizational Identification,” International Journal of Leadership Studies 6, no. 1 (2010): 3.
33. Ibid., 5.
34. Kathleen A. Patterson, “Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model,” (dissertation, Regent University, 2003), 7.
35. 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), 2
36. Peter G. Northouse, Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), 388.
37. Max Dupree, Leadership Is an Art (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1987), 111–112.
38. 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), 25.
39. Ibid., 23
40. Ibid., 24
41. Max Dupree Leadership is an Art (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1987), 12.