Spirit of Organization

EMPOWERING LEADERS DON’T JUST DELEGATE AND DISAPPEAR. They don’t give someone responsibility for an outcome for which that person is not trained or equipped to achieve. One of the worst situations in which you can find yourself is to have been given the responsibility for an outcome without the necessary resources to do anything differently whereby that outcome might be possible. Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr (2002) refer to that kind of behavior as “entrapment” (p. 53). Instead of feeling empowered, the employee ends up feeling that he was set up.

Empowering leaders equip their people so that they have a relatively good chance for success in the decisions they make. Of course, there will always be an element of risk when you empower others, but effective leaders do everything they can to ensure that the cause of the failure is not the lack of access to necessary resources, information, or to the lack of preparation needed for the task.

SKILL TRAINING is one aspect of this equipping. Marquardt (2002) suggests that the leadership of the organization map out all the knowledge and skills needed for each position-including future positions as called for by the strategic vision-and then have each employee develop a professional development plan for acquiring that knowledge and those skills (pp. 38, 40). The biblical book of Exodus chapter 18 records one of the greatest examples in history of empowerment through training, but one that is seldom recognized as such. You may already be familiar with the story as an example of delegation, but it is much more than that. It’s actually a great example of empowerment. Moses had been serving as judge for the entire nation of the ancient Hebrews, personally handling every case brought before him. When his father-in-law, Jethro, saw what was going on, he recommended that Moses divide up the work by appointing heads over groups of a thousand, a hundred, and fifty. Moses would only attend to the most serious cases that could not be handled by others. The part that is often overlooked is Jethro’s suggestion that Moses “teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way they are to walk and the work they are to do” (Exodus 18:20). In other words, Jethro was suggesting that Moses train these leaders prior to empowering them. In this way, these leaders would be fully equipped to “judge the people at all times” (v. 22).

In addition to training, an empowering leader also makes sure that employees have the necessary RESOURCES to accomplish the mandate before it is given (Spreitzer, 1996, p. 489). In religious organizations, this area may be underemphasized out of a misplaced understanding of faith. Employees of non-profit religious organizations may be expected to multiply the fishes to feed the multitude. Of course, God can do all things, but leaders in religious organizations need to remember that faith was never intended to be a source of employee abuse. While miracles can happen, God does not normally work through a miracle–otherwise it wouldn’t be a miracle. Leaders of any organization–including religious organizations–should make sure the resources are available before mandating a project.

Empowering leaders also need to make sure that their people have access to all the INFORMATION they need to accomplish the job. Kanter (1988) said it best when he wrote that organizations “must make more information more available to more people at more levels through more devices” (p. 5). Hording information is one of the oldest mechanisms despotic leaders use to protect themselves from critique and to retain power. Information is a primary source of power; empowerment necessarily involves making it available to a wider audience.

The biblical term for equipping is the Greek word KATARTISMOS, a word that has a wide range of nuances, including: to complete, furnish, mend, repair, fit out, prepare, strengthen, and perfect (Strong). According to the Apostle Paul, God provides leaders in the Church “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12, NASB). The writer of Hebrews speaks of God Himself equipping His people “in every good thing” (13:21). The concept of equipping includes the material kinds of equipment such as the tools and finances necessary to accomplish the task. It also includes a fourth kind of equipping that is directed at the individual’s spirit. Sometimes the greatest obstacles to success have nothing to do with the externals of the task, but entirely reside within the person. Empowering leaders know not only how to provide the “things” of the job, but they also know how to build the CHARACTER necessary to complete the task. Equipping has this dual focus: outward toward the physical resources needed and inward toward the emotional and spiritual resources of the individual.

In essence, the leader is helping the employee to be ABLE to complete the task successfully. This requires that the leader provide whatever is necessary for that ABILITY to come to the surface. This connection between power and ability is very clear in the Spanish language where the word power as a noun (poder) is spelled exactly the same as the verb to “be able” (poder). To be able means to be empowered. Whether it’s a team supervisor on a construction project or the pastor of a church, the goal is to equip others so that they are ABLE to do something successfully.

Thus far, I have attempted to describe the ingredients of an empowering system from the perspective of the leader. In other words, what are the implications of empowerment in terms of the leader’s behavior? To summarize, empowering leaders (1) influence others through the contexts they create, (2) create a culture of inclusion, (3) give away power and resist the temptation to take it back, (4) provide logistical and moral support to those they have empowered, (5) communicate a clearly-defined mandate, and (6) equip others for success. Much of the literature on empowerment gives the impression that leadership behavior is the only thing that matters when it comes to developing an empowering system. As I hope to show, however, in upcoming posts, the behavior and attitudes of the employee are just as important in the development of an empowering system.

Questions for Reflection

(1) What is the difference between delegation and empowerment? (2) What do you think Marquardt meant when he suggested that we map out skills needed for future positions? (3) Which of the four types of equipping are most notable for their absence in your organization? (4) How do empowering leaders develop the inner spirit of those they are trying to empower?

Post a Reply

Works Cited

Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible ®, Copyright © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanter, R. M. (1988, February 5-6). Empowering people to act on ideas. Executive Excellence.

Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization: Mastering the 5 elements for corporate learning (2nd ed.). Davies-Black.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of physchological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from ABI/Inform Global

Strong, J. (1987). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Holman.

It’s time to give some balance to this discussion about empowerment. From previous posts, it may be possible to draw the mistaken conclusion that empowerment is about relinquishing one’s concern for standards of quality and productivity. This would be to confuse empowerment with abdication. Abdication is what happens when a leader washes his hands of all responsibility for outcomes.True empowerment requires a clearly defined mandate. Without such a mandate, empowerment may lead to anarchy and the lowering of quality standards. There is a great paradox here. The act of giving power to others requires more, not less, definition of expectations. The need for specificity in the definition of the mandate increases rather than decreases.

The mandate is defined as the set of ultimate desired outcomes. What is it that you are empowering this individual to achieve? What will success look like? What will be the standards for measuring that success? These are questions that define the mandate. Where empowerment goes into effect is in decisions about the means of achieving these outcomes. In an empowering organization, top leadership defines the expected outcomes and quality standards but leaves decisions related to means and processes up to the empowered employee. In some cases, the top leadership may even specify some specific prohibitions related to means. But once these parameters have been defined, the employee is free to develop the program that he or she believes will take them toward the goal.

Think of it like a children’s playground. Usually playgrounds are enclosed within a fence so the children can’t run off or out in front of a car. There are also certain rules that the children must adhere to within the playground. Beyond these clearly defined parameters, the children are free to play. Using another metaphor, Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) write: “Let the individual or group run with the ball–but within the playing field” (p. 252). The mandate establishes the parameters within which the workers can play the game.

It may seem like a contradiction, but research supports the idea that people feel more empowered when expectations and limitations have been clearly defined (Spreitzer, 1996). The lack of a clear mandate is one of the most significant contributors to workplace stress. Evans (1992) writes: “Being held accountable for specific expectations and measurements is far better than consistently not knowing where you stand” (p. 121). Rather than hindering empowerment, a clearly defined mandate enhances empowerment. Some managers use “empowerment” to describe a process of dumping a project onto the plate of one of their employees and then disappearing from the scene. There is no coaching, no provisioning of resources necessary to carry out the mandate, no definition of expected outcomes, no training, and no effort to set up control milestones to measure progress and avoid disasters. Instead of empowering others, this kind of behavior only sets them up for failure.

As the term implies, empowerment is about giving away power; but not in any absolute sense. There is still a concern for the overall good of the organization. The organizational purpose, values, and vision provide the parameters within which the empowered worker exercises autonomous decisions. For empowerment to become an embedded organizational system, people need to be given this kind of clearly defined mandate. When employees are not sure about what they are supposed to be doing or about the limits of their decision-making power, they will hesitate. It is imperative that the leader clearly define the mandate, which includes the ultimate objective and the limitations or parameters within which the employee is otherwise free to act. Following is a condensed list of steps that can be taken:

1. Define the organizational purpose and vision.

• Why does the organization exist?
• How will the world be different as a result of this organization?

2. Define the organizational values.

• What are the non-negotiables?
• How should people treat each other?
• What are our ethical norms?

3. Define the outcomes that will determine success.

• What are our standards of quality?
• Are your outcomes measurable?

4. Set up a reporting system.

• What are some milestones that can be tracked as this project proceeds?
• What dates and measurable deliverables will be provided at each of these milestones?

5. State the limitations.

• What is the employee’s span of autonomy?
• What is the employee NOT allowed to do?
• What is he or she free to do?

A great example of this can be found in the New Testament book of Acts, chapter 6, where seven men are given the mandate to overlook the daily serving of food to the widows (v. 1). Though parameters are not specifically stated in this text, they are implied in the criteria for selecting the team that would be in charge of this task. They were to be men of “good reputation and full of the Holy Spirit” (v. 3, NASB). Most importantly, notice how the apostles do not specify HOW this task is to be performed; the means of accomplishing the mandate is left completely up to the empowered team.

By establishing parameters within which employees can freely PLAY, we are making space for people to develop. Within that space, they know what is expected of them and what the limitations of their autonomy are. More importantly, they know the span of authorization within which they are responsible to be creative, use their best judgment, and find solutions to the problems of their unit or department.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Why do you think some leaders find it difficult to communicate a clear mandate? (2) Can you describe a situation where you were unsure of what was expected of you? (3) Explain how empowerment will require more work, not less, from the leader. (4) How does a board of trustees define the line between too much and too little definition of the mandate?

Post a Reply

Works Cited

Evans, W. H., Jr. (1992) Managing the burnout factor. Mortgage Banking 53(1), 119-123. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from ABI/Inform Global

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from ABI/Inform Global

Photo by Clara Natoli. (October 16, 2007). Accessed November 18, 2007 from http://www.morguefile.com/forum/profile.php?username=clarita

The descendants of Joseph came to Joshua and asked, “Why have you given us only one portion of land when the Lord has given us so many people?”Joshua replied, “If the hill country of Ephraim is not enough for you, clear out the land for yourselves in the forest. . . .”They said, “The hill country is not enough for us and the Canaanites in the lowlands . . . have iron chariots–they are too strong for us.”Then Joshua said . . . , “Since you are so large and strong, you will be given more than one portion. The forests of the hill country will be yours as well. Clear as much of the land as you wish and live there. And I am sure you can drive out the Canaanites from the valleys, too, even though they are strong and have iron chariots” (Joshua 17:14-18, NLT).

ALL OF US HAVE PROBABLY HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF TRUSTING something to support us, only to find that the support was not there when we needed it. It reminds me of the time my family and I took a vacation in the hills of Humauaca, Argentina. Dawn and the kids were hunting for fossils but I was more interested in climbing. I left them behind and went on up the trail where I found an interesting hill and began crawling up the brown dusty stones. I was so into the experience that I didn’t realize how high I was getting. At one point, I looked around and noticed that I was actually on a ridge; a few feet to my right, there was a sheer drop-off. I’m not good at judging distances, so I won’t try to estimate how far it dropped, but it was like being on top of a building several stories high. I got a little nervous, so I decided that I should begin backing down. I tried to back out by placing my boot onto the rocks just below me, only to find that they were so loose they couldn’t support my weight. I had two problems: I couldn’t see where to place my feet and, when I tried, the stones would dislodge and create a little avalanche behind me. I was in trouble. I eventually managed to climb on up and OVER the cliff and then slide down on the other side.

It’s a strange feeling when you try to support yourself on something you trusted would be there only to find that it gives out on you. It’s a feeling of surprise mixed with panic. It’s even worse when the support you expected was that of another person. You may have had the experience of hearing people talk about an organizational problem and so you decide to bring the issue up in a staff meeting. However, in the meeting, those who had complained so boldly clam up, leaving you hanging high and dry. Worse yet is when a manager empowers an employee to do something, but then fails to support that employee when the going gets rough.

For empowerment to become a core organizational competence, employees need to feel that they have the support of their superiors when they make decisions. This feeling of being supported is the opposite of fear, the fear of reprimand or sanctions because the decision didn’t work out. An atmosphere of fear will chill all efforts to create an empowering organization.

One kind of support that empowered employees need is a public endorsement by the manager. This gives the employee legitimacy in the eyes of other members of the organization (Spreitzer, 1996). Describing his efforts to empower employees in an otherwise unempowered cultural context, Cesar Guajardo, General Director of Praxair in Mexico, writes:

I immediately gave people the responsibility and authority to do what they needed to improve performance in their areas. I did ask them to share large-scale decisions with me. But other-wise, I gave them the authority to make the decisions on their own. I also tried to get committees of two, three, or five persons to share ideas and get points of view. People needed to learn how to encourage other people to learn. Sometimes, I had to let them learn on their own by making mistakes. And at times, I had to support ideas that were not very good at the beginning, but at the end they worked just fine (Cited in Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr, 2002, p. 32).

This concept of support marks an important distinction between DELEGATING and EMPOWERING. Delegating simply means assigning a task to someone. Delegating doesn’t require a lot of support because usually both the ends and the means are dictated; the employee only supplies the manual labor. Empowerment, on the other hand, means that, with the responsibility, the employee is also given freedom to choose the means of accomplishing the task. It is in this choice where support is critical, especially when the choice is not exactly the one the manager would have made.

This requires an important shift in the way we think about the manager’s role. Rather than the traditional role of boss, the manager becomes a coach, with a focus of developing people toward empowerment.

Support is not always in the form of an affirmative; often it has to be a negative. For example, suppose the empowered employee runs into a bump in the process; maybe she has someone on her team who refuses to cooperate. Your first impulse will likely be to say something like: “OK, let me talk to him.” While this may seem like support, in reality it is disempowering because you have sent a clear message saying: “Obviously, you can’t handle this and I’m needed to resolve the issue.” You have taken the power back into your span of control. A more empowering response would have been: “I gave you this assignment because I believe you are able to handle situations just like this one.”

There is a great example of this principle in the biblical passage cited at the beginning of this post. To understand what’s going on in this text, you need a little background information. God had given the land of Canaan to the Hebrews as their inheritance. To possess the land, however, they first had to drive out their enemies, the Canaanites. After several years of struggle, the Hebrews had finally taken possession of Canaan (which later came to be referred to as Palestine). There were still pockets of resistance in the hills and in some of the valleys, where certain enemy tribes possessed chariots and horses, which made their defeat more difficult and costly.

Having taken possession of most of Canaan, Joshua, divided up the land giving a portion to each of the tribes of Israel. The descendants of Joseph, however, felt that the portion of land that had been given to them was not proportional to their numbers. They came to Joseph and asked for an additional allotment. The fact is, they had enough land; they just didn’t want to work for it by driving out the chariot-possessing Canaanites from the valley. They also didn’t want to go through the laborious task of clearing the hillside forests to make room for their people. What they wanted was for Joshua to resolve the problem for them by giving them another piece of property. This he refused to do.

Joshua’s answer was that, yes, they would have another portion of land by (1) clearing the forest and (2) driving out the chariot-equipped Canaanites in the valley. “Since you are so large and strong, . . . I am sure you can drive out the Canaanites.” The way to show support was not to rescue them but to affirm their ability to overcome and to repeat the mandate they had been given.

It reminds me of the time I felt overwhelmed by my missionary responsibilities and the projects that were part of my first year of doctoral studies with Regent University. I felt completely at a loss as to how I would find time to do everything. I telephoned Jacque King, the program director, and gave him my sob story. His reply shocked me. I expected a shoulder to cry on, but he said, “Greg, you’re working to become a doctor; doctors handle situations like this.” It was a solid NO, yet at the same time a resounding YES. It was a no to my impulse to shrink back and feel sorry for myself, but a YES to my ability to handle the situation. That is the kind of support that empowers.

Questions for Reflection

(1) What are some other ways that leaders disempower followers by their efforts to “rescue” them? (2) Why do you think leaders do this? (3) As a leader, how do you know when to step into a situation and when to allow the subordinate to handle it? (4) In what ways does God empower people through His support?

Sources Cited

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton: IL 60180. All rights reserved.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from ABI/Inform Global.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

José was a humble workman who served at an orphanage in northern Argentina. I became acquainted with him when I led a team of short-term missionaries to the area. We had come to offer our services in making repairs to the roof of the orphanage and to dig a well. José had proven himself to be an extremely valuable asset to our team. He was always present and ready to help us in whatever was needed. As we were completing the digging of the well, I remembered that we needed to take photos for our sending churches back in the U. S. I had instructed José about how to use the camera and our team lined up for the photos. He was ready to click the button when the director of the orphanage showed up with an entourage of important small-town politicians. She walked directly to José, grabbed the camera from his hand and took over the task of snapping our photo.

This may seem like a trivial event, but to me it was a glaring example of how leaders often feel compelled to take charge when there is no real need to. It showed a total disrespect for José and smacked of arrogance and opportunism. The leader of the orphanage, seeing an opportunity to gain points with the local authorities, trampled on the dignity of one of her workers.

Managers often get nervous because they are so accustomed to having direct hands-on control of every decision. This often happens when an organization is at the point of growing from a small family-sized organization to the next level where direct control is not possible. The leader’s inability to adjust to a new management style works to keep the organization from expanding as it could. This frequently occurs in churches when the pastor or elders sense that they are losing control of the congregation. Decisions that were being made by qualified members are brought back under the control of the top leadership team, creating a bureaucratic bottleneck and effectively slowing down the growth potential of the church.

A leader may start out with great enthusiasm about the idea of empowerment but then fall back into a controlling mode when faced with the ambiguities inherent in an empowering context. Empowering others means that you have to let go of some of the control. The attempt by the leader to reaffirm his or her control is likely to sabotage current and future efforts to empower others.

The driving force behind this impulse to take back the power is within the leader. It is spiritual in nature. Of course, if an empowered employee’s actions are posing a genuine threat to the organization or to the project as a whole, the leader must step in and avert disaster. What I’m talking about, however, are not genuine threats, but the impulse on the part of the leader to reaffirm control that stems from the leaders feelings of insecurity and loss of power. It becomes a type of what Argyris and Schön (1996) refer to as a secondary inhibitory loop (p. 99-100), a defensive reaction that sets in and prevents learning and growth. In this way, managers end up stifling employee creativity and commitment.

Organizations are full of such slogans such as: “we are a people-centered company,” “integrity is our name,” and “the customer knows best.” Often, however, there is a noticeable gap between what these slogans purport and the organization’s actual behavior. This is why Schein (1992) insists that “in analyzing values one must discriminate carefully between those that are congruent with underlying assumptions and those that are, in effect, either rationalizations or only aspirations for the future” (p. 21). In other words, organizations often have two sets of values: ideal values (aspirations) and real values (as evidenced by behavior). Empowerment can also become an empty slogan if the leader’s behavior negates the assertion of empowerment.

According to O’Neil (1993), “an inflated need to command comes from the shadow, from an irrational fear of losing control” (p. 104). Assuming the leader truly believes in the benefits and justice of empowering systems, he must begin to work on this inner shadow that is the source of the irrational feelings associated with the loss of control. Though it may feel uncomfortable, losing control can be a liberating experience because absolute control is an illusion. By divesting himself of this illusion, the leader is able to enter into a more realistic view of life. He is able to trust a higher source of control and purpose and this enables him to trust his subordinates. When we have no sense of purpose for our lives, we feel compelled to run from the paradoxes and ambiguities of life into the false security of dominance and control.

Leaders who are committed to creating an empowering context need to resist this urge to reestablish control, especially when the root of that urge has no basis in any real threat to the organization, but is simply a reaction to uncomfortable feelings resulting from the ambiguity created by giving control to others. When employees have been told that they have the authorization to make decisions based on their own judgment–only to have the leader get nervous and controvert that decision–they quickly understand that empowerment was just a meaningless slogan. A self-feeding loop may begin to develop where the leader’s reassertion of control triggers in the employees a reluctance to contribute creatively which triggers the leader’s attempt to ease up on his controlling behavior which again creates the sense that things are out of control, which triggers the leader’s reassertion of control and so on.

As employees begin to move into the role of empowered learner, managers begin to experience the workplace as unstable and unpredictable. As a result, management becomes increasingly insecure. It responds by tightening controls, and by undermining activities likely to facilitate learning. However, when controls become too tight, employees hold back, and creative input is inhibited. In order to encourage employees to invest more of themselves in work, controls are loosened and empowered learning begins to be encouraged again (Field, 1997, p. 153).

To stop this self-feeding loop, we have to understand that the problem is spiritual. Our spiritual nature has to do with the intangibles, the hidden dimensions of our being. That nature–when animated by the Spirit of God–will be a source of great strength and inner security. But when disconnected from the ultimate source of life, that same spiritual nature can compel us into irrational defensiveness and a clinging to control. In the absence of any other source, control gives us our sense of security. It is a false security, however, because no individual can control all outcomes; the most we can do is create an environment that increases the potential for positive results.

Leaders who want to embed an empowering organizational culture must resist this temptation to take back the power they have given to their subordinates. There is nothing that reduces motivation and loyalty more than to have a leader renege on his promises. So, what can a leader do to overcome this compulsive behavior?

First, you need to step away from the immediate situation. Take some time off and go on a personal renewal retreat. The objective of this retreat is to find some answers to two important questions: (a) what is in YOUR heart? and (b) what is the heart of your ORGANIZATION? The first question has to do not with your outward behavior, but with the driving forces that propel that behavior. The second question has to do with the core mission of your organization. Sometimes we get so caught up in the details that we lose sight of that core mission.

Second, you need to face your shadow. Can you identify some addictions or compulsive behaviors? Do you experience an oppressive dependency on the admiration and approval of others? As you look at these symptoms, remember that the question you need to explore is: “what is at the root of these symptoms?” Look also at your strengths because our strengths are often mechanisms for covering an underlying weakness.

Once you have identified elements of your shadow, commit yourself to personal renewal. Make the decision that you will do what it takes to turn your shadow into a positive force in your life, so that it no longer drives behavior that is harmful to yourself and your organization. Most importantly, remember that the essence of the solution is spiritual (O’Neil, 1993, p. 177). This is a heart issue and it must be treated in and through the heart.

Finally, use the insights you have gained to develop a larger perspective of the organization. Empowering leaders understand how their behavior has an influence that reverberates throughout the organization. Make some concrete decisions. Learn to distinguish between real threats and irrational fears. And ask a trustworthy friend for honest feedback. We need that feedback to gain a realistic perception of ourselves. As Merton (2005) put it:

The deep secrecy of my own being is often hidden from me by my own estimate of what I am. My idea of what I am is falsified by my admiration for what I do. And my illusions about myself are bred by contagion from the illusions of other men. We all seek to imitate one another’s imagined greatness (p. 132).

Questions for Reflection

(1) Do you agree that leaders have a shadow side? Why do you say that? (2) What are some practical things a leader can do to renew himself or herself? (3) What are some of the internal driving forces behind a leader’s compulsion to take back the control? (4) How can a leader distinguish those times when it is appropriate to take back control from those times when it is irrationally based?

Works Cited

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, & practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Field, L. (1997) Impediments to empowerment & learning within organizations. The Learning Organization 4(4), 149-158. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from Emerald Journals.

Merton, T. (2005). No man is an island. Boston: Shambhala Publications. (Original work published 1955).

O’Neil, J. R. (1993). The paradox of success: When winning at work means losing at life. New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture & leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Photo by Benjamin Dudoit (August 31, 2007). Accessed November 2, 2007 from http://www.morguefile.com/forum/profile.php?username=mantasmagorical 

Post a Response