Koinonia: Towards a Community Leadership Theory

David Ketter

HED 521: Leadership and Mentoring in Higher Education

April 29, 2011
Leadership Project
 In an interview on leadership with Geneva Collegeʼs Director of the Master of

Science in Organizational Leadership, Dr. Jim Dittmar put forward the notion that there

is not theory or model of team leadership that exists in its own right. Leadership models

pertaining to groups or teams are primarily theories about individual leadership applied

to team/group settings. While these most certainly have their benefits, in a cultural

climate within workplace, educational, and ecclesiastical life that is emphasizing team

leadership, more is needed. As I studied and wrote and researched, it became evident

that even a “team leadership” model is, in a sense, difficult to develop, because a team

is, for all intents and purposes, still a collection of individual leaders.1 This project is

intended to serve as some first steps in the development of a community leadership

model. This involves defining the nature of culture, leadership, leaders, followers,

discern the role of communication and explore how the idea of “tribes” may serve as a

helpful construct for understanding leadership.

Culture and Context

Before trying to establish any model or theory, attention should always be given

to place. The arena of any human activity is significant for its shape and direction. Just

as the texts in Genesis 1-11 set the arena for redemptive history in a good creation,

enslaved by sin, graciously preserved by a Creator from the deviance of fallen forces

(whether demonic or human) in hope of its final restoration. Part of that preservation is

the acknowledgment that Godʼs common grace is operating in the way that human

1 Bensimon and Neumann, for instance, point out that team leadership tends to be a confederation of
constituencies (1993, pg. 3). Throughout their book, Redesigning Collegiate Leadership (New York: Johns
Hopkins University Press), their discussion on the inevitable complexity of teams observes a good deal of
the baggage that comes with even the more refined models of team leadership: team members being
defensive of territory (pg. 82), feeling excluded (pg. 121), the tendency to be informative, instead of being
active (pg. 35), and a number of other weaknesses (pp. 9-13).
beings apprehend and describe the nature of the world around us. Understanding,

defining, and learning about culture and context is necessarily a part of that. Even the

simplest market strategy gives attention to context. So it should be in our model and

presentation of leadership. It necessarily begins with observing culture, and

understanding the various levels of culture as context. To this end, Kezar, Carducci, and

Contreras-McGavin (2006) provide a helpful definition:

Context from a cultural perspective examines the history, traditions, rituals,

and major assumptions of an institution [or society] that shape and frame
the way people make meaning. (pg. 51)

Any model or practice that is to be introduced to a culture, whether within an institution

or a broader society, will not be successfully integrated without prior attention to these

aspects of context highlighted by Kezar et al. Human societies and institutions are

products of the forces in their past and practices of the present with very definite goals

for the future. Ignorance, denial or violent rejection is a sure approach to failure at least,

oppression of humans at worst. But context itself has different levels: “macro-

culture” (the broader society) and “micro-culture” (the immediate institution or

community impacted).

Wren and Swatez (1995) provide a helpful diagram in understanding the

relationship between an organization, its leadership and macro-culture.2 As they

describe, it “portrays leadership as the interaction of leaders and followers within a

sequence of overlapping categories” which include its past and present influences and

contingencies (pg. 247). Whether a culture has been motivated by ideas of freedom and

laissez-faire economics will necessarily distinguish it from a culture that has endured the

2 See Appendix, Fig. 1 for diagram.

ages upholding family honor and faithfulness to religious mores. Effective leadership in

these respective historical contexts will necessarily differ in a number of ways.

But macro-culture is not restricted to what has gone on before, but also what is

happening. How a culture is interacting with itself (arts, education, media, etc.) and with

the world (diplomacy, trade, conflict, etc.) has significant influence on a cultureʼs values

and priorities. A country that is in active conflict will place priority on different elements

of security and defense, rather than the flourishing of the arts it would otherwise attend

to in peacetime.

Wren and Swatez include micro-culture in their diagram, but Kezar et al. (2006)

provide a more thorough understanding of what elements shape micro-culture through

the work of E.H. Schein. This is cast in a conception that can be pictured in this way:

Kezar et al. describe what is portrayed here in this manner:

In the first layer, the one closest to the surface, are visible organizational
behaviors and practices. Underlying those behaviors in the second layer
are espoused values that represent the organizational philosophies and
understandings. The third and deepest layer of culture consists of values
and core beliefs that construct the philosophies represented by
organizational actions. (pg. 53)

Micro-culture is where an organization or community defines its relationship with

macro-culture. Places where they conform, oppose, or alter the values and behaviors of
the broader will be found in each of the three layers listed. This level of context overlaps

with macro-cultural context in that it is oriented to the present, but also has an

orientation towards the future in its stated and implicit goals. And this micro-culture is

the active engagement of leadership, in whatever form it comes. Here is where leaders

meet their contexts in the most immediate way, and also where they participate in its

development, transition and change.

Given the significant influence of macro- and micro-culture on the nature and

direction of leadership, the ability to discern those contexts is vital to effective leadership

practice.3 Wren & Swatez (1995) provide several helpful questions in understanding our

immediate context, which serve well when adapted for a community (pg. 251).

1. Who are the important players/groups in this context?

2. What are their interests/aspirations?
3. What aspects of the historical background threaten or challenge these
interests/aspirations?
4. What aspects of the historical background support these interests/
aspirations?
5. How do societal beliefs and values impinge, favorably or unfavorably,
upon these interests/aspirations?
6. What cultural or subcultural precedents have been established that
might influence these interests/aspirations?
7. How can we, as a community or an organization use this knowledge to
maximize the potential for achieving our mutual goals?

Definition and Aspects of Leadership

Defining leadership is, admittedly, a complex enterprise. The study of leadership

contains more definitions than it has schools or theories. The task of defining becomes

more complex for those desiring to allow the Scriptures to be the foundation of their

definitions, while being attentive to the field, and so affirm Godʼs common grace at work.

3Schein states “In fact, one could argue that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create
and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to understand and work with
culture.” (Wren, 1995, pg. 273)
In approach, is to describe how the New Testament describes leadership and point out

the overlaps with the narratives and models of theories.

The New Testament has some interesting things to say about leadership, from its

descriptions of the work of apostles and prophets in Acts to the mention of leadership

gifts in Ephesians 4 down to Paulʼs outlining qualifications for what would become the

foundation for local church leadership in his pastoral epistles. The models of leadership

exemplified also provide a whole model for leadership in any arena that is under the

lordship of Jesus Christ, namely every arena.

There are a few assumptions embedded in the nature of leadership in the New

Testament that fit in any position of leadership that it describes or prescribes:

• The qualifications of leadership are character and competence (1 Timothy 3).

• The nature of leadership is service and sacrifice (Matthew 20:26-28).

• The standard of leadership is excellence (Romans 12:6-8).

• The purpose of leadership is to equip others for service (Ephesians 4:11-12)

• The telos of leadership is redemptive (Ephesians 2:10).

Leadership, then, could be defined in this way: “Leadership is that lifestyle lived by

people of character and competence in excellent service to others in order to equip

those others for service to the end that all creation is worked toward the restoration of

all things in Christ.” That definition is verbose, but it gets at how comprehensive

leadership is to life in general.

It also leaves leadership in the category of inherent goodness. It leaves no room

for “bad leadership” because it excludes people of bad character, who lack competence

and excellence, who seek their own good, and exercise authority to serve themselves
and their idols. In light of things that Jesus and the apostles have to say about

individuals who fit this description (Mark 10:42), it would seem that what they

demonstrate is not leadership, but a gross distortion of leadership: proud authority.

Thus, what we have is leadership as part of Godʼs design of creation, for what humans

are to engage in as Image-bearers, and for the redeemed humanity to exercise with

redemptive effectiveness.

That leadership necessarily must be “good” is acknowledged in Kezar et al.

(2006) with a summary of the critical paradigm on the role of values. Values, for this

paradigm, are “central for creating leadership that empowers and creates social

change” (pg. 16). Thus, for leadership to be leadership, it is not just value-laden, but

value-filled.

But let us examine, for a moment, the elements of leadership identified above.

Competence is an obvious component of leadership. In Leaders Who Last, Dave Kraft

(2010) identifies particularly what set of competencies enable someone to serve in

leadership:

The leader who lasts needs to have word gifts. This is not to say that they
donʼt serve. But what distinguishes them as leaders is their ability to use
words to accomplish the mission, communicate an agreed upon vision, climb
the mountain, and reach the goal. (pg. 89).

The competency of a leader is found in their ability to communicate and encourage a

community to move in faithfulness to its calling, and for individuals within that

community to engage with their respective callings. But for that to continue, it is

necessary for character. As Kraft phrases it, “Capacity and competence are like gliders.

They can fly, but not indefinitely [...] Character will stand the test of time and hold up

when the wind howls and the storm rages around you” (pg. 96). So, also, in the
requirements for eldership and the diaconate in 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, Paulʼs primary

concern is for the character of the leaders.

In a summary of significant contributions to the behavioral understanding of

leadership by Montez, Kezar et al. (2006) identify five dimensions of leadership as

being, by nature, integral, relational, credible, competent, and directed/goal-oriented

(pg. 105). These dimensions had enough overlap with findings in symbolic and team

leadership studies that Kezar et al. could assert the following for all of them:

Effective leadership is a combination of relational and task skills and

involves both transformational and transactional qualities. [Leadership
requires that one] develop cognitive complexity and become skilled in
acting as a symbolic leader, becoming politically savvy, maintain attention
to goals and objectives, an also build strong relationships. [...] In addition,
they recognize that leadership takes places in a particular context that has
a culture they need to learn and with which they must align their
leadership practices. Leaders who foster learning can create change. (pg.
135).

Kezar et al. does, however, include learning in the manifestation of leadership. It

may well be a temptation to restrict learning as an aspect of leadership to higher

education, but Osborne (2010) in a popular resource, Sticky Teams, suggests that

shared learning is key to a unified leadership experience, along with being necessary

for its excellence: “Ephesians 4:11-13 [...] implies that the one-man show is out, that we

all have a role to fill, that we need to be trained and equipped to fulfill it.” (pg. 129).

As important as these things are to qualifying for leadership, what leaders exist

for and how and why they do it is vital. Leaders exist to serve and sacrifice for those

who are being led, and to do it with excellence. That leadership is bound up with service

is connected with its contrast to management. Kotter (1995) sets this contrast as one

that is the difference between coping with complexity and coping with change.
Management copes with complexity because it “brings a degree of order and

consistency to [...] the quality and profitability of products.” (pg. 115). By contrast, coping

with change is ultimately “keeping people moving in the right direction, despite major

obstacles to change, by appealing to basic but often untapped human needs, values,

and emotions.” (pg. 116).

Jesusʼ command that the disciples should not be like the rulers of the Gentiles,

but to serve all, and Paulʼs later command to many different Christian communities,

“Imitate me!” tell us that excellent service and sacrifice are in the nature and tradition of

the leadership ethic we have inherited from Jesus. Its form and direction different from

that of many theories that are without the benefit of the Christian tradition. Its difference

is its strength, which is why Godin (2008) is able to write that “Heretics are the new

leaders. The ones who challenge the status quo, who get out in front of their tribes, who

create movements.” (pg. 11).

These “movements” all have leadership at work in them. But if we read Osborne

and Godin correctly, that leadership is not the affair of singularly gifted individuals or

“great men”, but is actually done in concert with others, we begin to see the significance

of networks within organizations for the purposes of leadership.4 Rost (1995) was

among the first as a scholar to see the potential for recognizing this communal nature of

leadership, and, working within the late modern constructs of leadership. He frames it in

this way:

...followers do not do followership, they do leadership. Both leaders and

followers form one relationship that is leadership. [...] Followers and

4Kezar et al. state that “Leaders are more successful if they develop networks (key individuals with
expertise or resources) to guide the leadership process. Networks have become increasingly important as
organizational change.” (pg. 114)
 leaders develop a relationship wherein they influence one another as well
as the organization and society, and that is leadership. (pg. 192)

It is leadership that is necessarily value-filled and directional. Astin & Astin (2000)

suggest that these values/purposes can be summarized in this fashion (pg. 11):

• To create a supportive environment where people can grow, thrive, and

live in peace with one another;
• To promote harmony with nature and thereby provide sustainability for
future generations; and
• To create communities of reciprocal care and shared responsibility
where every person matters and each personʼs welfare and dignity is
respected and supported.

It is an ideal vision, but one that is in sync with the intended goodness of leadership as

a created “thing” and its aim for the cultivation of creation and humanity as its stewards.

Thus, the aim, the telos of this leadership is redemptive: that is, it demonstrates the

Gospel, builds up the Kingdom by showing all who can see that Jesus is the Lord and

Top Leader of our lives. So, the areas in which we lead and that the way we lead is for

the building up of a creation that will be restored from its exile and brokenness. And

Jesusʼ lordship being universal (Col. 1) and embodied (1 Cor. 12) necessarily means

that leadership is played out in community, the nature of which will be explored later.

With that in mind, let us examine what it is to be a leader and a follower.

Leaders and Followers in Community

One of the curiosities about theory and definition in leadership studies is how

tightly-bound the idea is to action. You cannot sufficiently define leaders without

discussing what they do. It can seem that the actions relegated to leaders are about as

varied as attempting to define leadership. So, with that, let us examine the claims of a

few authors on the tasks of leaders:

 • “Critical theorists suggest the work of leaders is to liberate people to do what is
required of them in the most humane way.” (Kezar et al., 2006, pg. 22).

• “Leaders lead when they take positions, when they connect with their tribes,
and when they help the tribe connect to itself.” (Godin, 2008, pg. 17).

• Leaders are responsible for “transforming the shared interest into a passionate
goal and desire for change; providing tools to allow members to tighten their
communications; and leveraging the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new
members.” (pg. 25).

What is readily apparent from these claims is that leaders are human, are connected

with other humans, get involved in connecting humans with one another as leaders and

followers are engaged in distinctively human enterprises. If anything, the task of leaders

is to be human and to encourage and empower others in being human in a way that is

proper to the context of creation. But it doesnʼt answer who qualifies as leaders in a

group. One group of authors argues that leadership is exercised by the community/

group, rather than any one individual:

Leadership is a social influence process shared among all members of a

group. Leadership is not restricted to the influence exerted by someone in
a particular position or role; followers are part of the leadership process,
too. (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 1993, pg. 43).

Rost, along with Hughes, et al., recognized that leadership rightly understood,

inseparable from context, is also not something that can be assigned to any one

individual. In fact, leadership is participated in by all the members of a group. Kelley

anticipated this move in 1988 in his discussion of effective leaders and followers.

Leaders and followers, he argues, are not in an authority relationship, but are acting out

“equal but different activities” (pg. 201). While even Kelley may draw the distinction

between leaders and followers too strongly, his definition of an effective follower is

helpful:
 People who are effective in the follower role have the vision to see the
forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the
strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and
psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost
to either, and, above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the
accomplishment of some greater common purpose. (ibid.).

From the definition of leadership developed, we begin to understand who is involved in

this process. “Leadership is that lifestyle lived by people of character and competence in

excellent service to others in order to equip those others for service to the end that all

creation is worked toward the restoration of all things in Christ.” In Ephesians 4:11-16

(New International Version), the apostle Paul captures this with the metaphor of the

Body moving from naming the leadership of the gifts to the Church:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the
pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the
body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the
knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole
measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed
back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of
teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful
scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in
every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.
From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting
ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

So, in the Christian tradition, the fundamental humanness of leadership and its value-

laden nature, demanding that leaders be humans who empower others to be humans is

epitomized by no other than Jesus Christ, the God-man. From a Christian perspective,

we all operate in a community, a plurality of leaders/followers, aimed toward the

restoration of creation, which involves being human in the way God intended.

Though operating in a different set of leadership definitions, McKenna articulates

well for us that “Incarnation is more than a theological construct or personality profile. It

is also an interactive process in which the character of Jesus Christ engages His
environment” (1989, pg. 22). From observing the Incarnation and Christʼs life, McKenna

provides a helpful model for contextualizing Incarnation in leadership as we have

defined it.5

Contrary to modern theories of leadership, the ancient witness of Scripture and

the developing trends in contemporary leadership studies are more and more

demonstrating the necessity of plurality in leadership to accomplish any single aim of a

community or organization. The larger narrative of Scripture encompasses many

different aims by giving an eschatological direction towards restoration, and the

community of believers throughout the world is participating in leadership to accomplish

that.

And while the Church is a context for that growth, it is not the primary context of

leadership. That primary context is the Kingdom of God, as it expands throughout

creation, into all the spheres of human activity. So, believers in every sphere together

provide leadership, redirecting the structures of their contexts in the direction of

restoration.6 Since this leadership requires leaders to operate as a plurality in union, it

stands to reason that communication is an essential component to our model.

Communication in Community and Culture

Leadership in teams or communities both require a strong ethic of honest

dialogue. Kezar, et al. highlight that team leadership literature affirms that “dialogue

5 See Appendix, Fig. 2 for model illustration.

6The concept of structure and direction is further outlined by Albert Wolters in Creation Regained: Biblical
Basics for a Reformational Worldview (2nd edition, 2005. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company). Further discussion on Christian redemptive engagement with culture is also explored in
Plantinga, C., Jr. (2002). Engaging Godʼs World: a Christian Vision of Faith, Learning and Living. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Lyons, Gabe (2010). The Next Christians: the
Good News About the end of Christian America. New York: Doubleday Religion.
among team members with multiple interpretations of the context is encouraged,” that

“differences and specific interpretations in team settings are believed to advance

cognitive complexity” and “building relationships is emphasized” (2006, pg. 61).

How that is acted out in a community remains a question. Hackman and Johnson

(2004, pp. 187-188) point out a number of factors that are significant in order for healthy

communication to occur in the leadership process:

• A common purpose or goal

• Interdependence
• Mutual influence
• Face-to-face communication
• Specific size

These factors highlight plurality, unity of direction, and context. For any actions to be

taken, however, the community needs to make some decisions. Hackman and Johnson

(pp. 188-189) describe conclusions reached by B. Aubrey Fisher in a study on group

decision-making. Fisher discerned four phases in decision-making patterns: orientation,

conflict, emergence, and reinforcement. In these phases, a group evolves in regards to

the relational comfort of its members and its commitment to particular actions. These

phases presuppose a growing sense of intimacy within a community as members come

to know one anotherʼs differences and commonalities and reinforce the common

commitment to the stated aim of restoring something in creation. Thus, healthy

communication highlights the diversity in a community and reinforces the common

direction.7

7 In this evolution, the potential for Groupthink is always present. Janis provides compelling insights into
the nature of Groupthink and how leaders can work to subvert it within the community in Janis, I. (1971).
“Groupthink”. In J. T. Wren, ed. (1995). The leaderʼs companion: insights on leadership through the ages
(pp. 360-373). New York: The Free Press.
 Communication also occurs with the surrounding culture. A community that does

not engage or dialogue with its context cannot sustain itself or otherwise participate in

leadership of any kind. This level of communication is much more dialectic, with the

voice of the status quo maintaining its thesis and the community providing an antithesis

message. The dialectic here is what defines the community or organization as

“heretical” to the status quo (to borrow Godinʼs terminology), excluding those who are

not engaged in the leadership process, inviting others in the broader social context to

join and allowing the community to define its existence as a tribe.8

Community as Tribe

Godin defines a tribe as “a group of people connected to one another, connected

to [leaders], and connected to an idea. [...] A group only needs two things to be a tribe: a

shared interest and a way to communicate.” (2008, pp. 1-2). At face value, what the

concept of tribe does seem less binding than that of a community or organization. Yet,

as Godin goes on to explain, tribes also evolve, particularly when leadership takes

place.

...transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change;
providing tools to allow members to tighten their communications; and leveraging
the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members. (pg. 25).

Tribes are also the seeds for movements. Leadership that can transform groups of

people into tribes is the same type of leadership that places tribes on their mission,

evolving them into movements. Godin reports that Senator Bradley identifies movement

by three elements (pg. 27):

8As Godin states, “evangelism requires leadership. Leading someone toward giving up one worldview
and embracing yours isnʼt easy and itʼs not always comfortable.” (pg. 56).
 1. A narrative that tells a story about who we are and the future weʼre trying to
build.

2. A connection between and among the [leaders] and the tribe.

3. Something to do—the fewer limits, the better.

From the Christian perspective, then, the moment leadership is begins in a community,

it is well-equipped with a narrative/worldview/telos that is comprehensive and definitive.

The incarnate nature of Christian life as lived in the Church provides a solid foundation

for connections, and the reality of a world broken by the fall yearning for redemption

shows every believer what there is to be done.9 And there is yet much to do.

Conclusion

Any theory or model of leadership is, of course, remarkably unfinished. Like the

rest of creation, it remains under the sting of sin, groaning for redemption, for practice,

for ongoing refining. I remain convinced that the pursuit of an authentic, practical model

of community leadership should be pursued by Christians who want to engage the field

of leadership, be that as practitioners or scholars, in the church, business, higher

education, or the other arenas in their cultural contexts. Further research in this area

ought to be done, and were I to pursue and refine this any further, some of the

resources I would explore would be as follows:

Alston, J. A. (2002). Multi-leadership in urban schools: shifting paradigms

for administration and supervision in the new millennium. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., and Salas, E. (2004). “Leadership capacity in

teams.” The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6), 857-880.

9Incidentally, the Christian faith offers another thing Godin believes to be essential to leadership and
successful movements of “heretics” — belief (pg. 49).
 Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R., and Pisano, G. (2001). “Speeding up team
learning.” Harvard Business Review, 79 (9), 125-132.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., and McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring

leadership: for college students who want to make a difference. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: a leadership fable.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Osborne, L. (2006). The unity factor: developing a healthy church

leadership team, 4th edition. Vista, CA: Owlʼs Nest.

Osborne, L. (2008). Sticky church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Tierney, W. G. (1993a). Building communities of difference: higher

education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey.

Wood, J. A., Jr., and Winston, B. E. (2005). “Toward a New Understanding

of Leader Accountability: Defining a Critical Construct.” Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11 (3), 84-95.

While these sources would also be helpful in developing application and strategies for

implementing community leadership, I would like to explore more of the suggestions on

communication put forwards by Hackman and Johnson; the development of

micromovements in Godin; and encouraging leadership/mentorship culture in Astin &

Astin; as well as implementing suggestions for leadership succession and transition

(which would involve the question of whether community leadership requires a formal

succession process).

Several other facets that would otherwise be part of the theoretical work in

community leadership would be the place and methodology of learning, the

appropriation of community leadership in various spheres (church, higher education,

business, neighborhood life), and exploring the kind of work that would be necessary to

translate this (admittedly) Western concept into contexts in the Global South. These are
important questions, and there remains a great deal of work and experimentation to be

done before this model can be presented as viable or thorough. My hope here,

however, is that it is a strong foundation from which to build.

 Appendix

Fig. 1 — Wren, J. T. and Swatez, M. J. (1995). pg. 248

Fig. 2 — McKenna, D. L. (1989). pg. 22.
 References

Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., et al. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: engaging

higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg
Foundation.

Bensimon, E. M. and Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate

leadership: teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Godin, S. (2008). Tribes: we need you to lead us. New York: PORTFOLIO.

Hackman, M. Z. and Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: a communication

perspective, fourth edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., and Curphy, G. R. (1993). “What is

Leadership?”. In J. T. Wren, ed. (1995), The leaderʼs companion:
insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 39-43). New York: The
Free Press.

Kelley, R. E. (1988).”In Praise of Followers”. In J. T. Wren, ed. (1995), The

leaderʼs companion: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.
193-204). New York: The Free Press.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., and Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking

the “l” word in higher education: the revolution of research on
leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report: Vol. 31, No. 6. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). “What Leaders Really Do”. In J. T. Wren, ed. (1995),

The leaderʼs companion: insights on leadership through the ages
(pp. 114-123). New York: The Free Press.

Kraft, D. (2010). Leaders who last. Wheaton: Crossway.

McKenna, D. L. (1989). Power to follow, grace to lead. Dallas: Word

Publishing.

Osborne, L. (2010). Sticky teams: keeping your leadership team and staff
on the same page. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Rost, J. C. “Leaders and Followers Are the People in this Relationship”. In

J. T. Wren, ed. (1995), The leaderʼs companion: insights on
leadership through the ages (pp. 189-192). New York: The Free
Press.
Schein, E. H. (1995). “Defining Organizational Culture”. In J. T. Wren, ed.
(1995), The leaderʼs companion: insights on leadership through the
ages (pp. 271-281). New York: The Free Press.

Wren, J. T. and Swatez, M. J. (1995). “The Historical and Contemporary

Contexts of Leadership: A Conceptual Model”. In J. T. Wren, ed.
(1995),The leaderʼs companion: insights on leadership through the
ages (pp. 245-252). New York: The Free Press.