PRINT
Click here to get a PDF of this article that is much nicer for printing (right click to save to your computer).

SPEAKING AND CONSULTING
Of course, we also do speaking and consulting on this topic. Learn more here.

And if you just can't get enough of what Jamie has to say, you can subscribe to his blog!

Jamie also wrote a Squidoo Lens on Organizational Conflict

If you want to get an email about new articles that get put up here (and other news; no more than four times per year), sign up here.

Still need more?! You'll have to CALL JAMIE: (240) 603-7693 (or email).

By Jamie Notter and Madelyn Blair

(This was published in the Journal of Association Leadership, Fall 2004, Volume 2, Number 2. (c) Center for Association Leadership)

Introduction

The fields of organizational leadership and management have always held “best practices” in high regard. Scholars and practitioners spend years studying the best organizations in every field attempting to discern the most effective, the most efficient, the most innovative, or the most powerful way to organize, make decisions, plan, implement, structure work, ensure quality, and manage people. Much of this effort has been focused on the tangible and concrete: organizational structure, specific business processes for ensuring quality, controlling costs, linking strategy to operations-solutions that can be objectively transferred from one organization to another, helping to prevent the eternal reinvention of the wheel.

Recently, however, some of the notable best practice studies have been turning their attention to the less tangible (but no less important) elements of human relationships and systems. Of particular note is the issue of organizational culture. Jim Collins' famous “Good to Great” study identified a “culture of discipline” as a key factor explaining the difference between great companies and merely good ones. Another longitudinal study designed to identify characteristics of organizations with sustainable success found that culture was one of four main distinguishing factors.

Yet culture rarely makes it onto the “dashboards” leaders look to when measuring organizational health. In fact, culture is rarely well understood in organizations, let alone well managed. This is partly because culture is the “water” that we as “fish” in organizations simply cannot see. Management theorist Edgar Schein calls culture “the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment.” Marvin Bower, author of The Will to Manage, described the informal cultural elements of a business simply as “the way we do things around here.”

“The way we do things” in organizations is incredibly powerful, and that is precisely why culture is showing up in current best practices studies. Changing the way things “are done” will show up in every single business process in the organization, not just one or two. We have optimized technology and business processes to a point of diminishing returns, but we have only scratched the surface of the performance gains to be realized in organizations through more effective human relationships. The way we communicate, the way we engage in conflict, the way we manage emotions, the way we handle trust and betrayal-these are now being linked more directly to organizational performance.

Two of these factors-conflict and trust-are critical to associations who wish to build cultures that support increased levels of performance. Conflict and trust are part of all human relationships and are important outgrowths of organizational culture. They can be understood, and leaders can take concrete actions to improve them. This paper examines conflict and trust in more detail as they relate to increasing organizational performance in associations.

Harnessing Conflict for Organizational Success

Although conflict is everywhere (it is a natural part of life), it tends to be seen in a negative light in organizations. Conflict among people and groups is often cited as a tremendous drain on productivity and morale. Consider the following organizational conflict at an association with forty staff at the international headquarters, including a CEO and six Vice Presidents on the senior management team:

A Program Vice President is falling behind on her responsibilities because she has been spending more and more time fielding complaints from her staff about the incompetence of one particular staff member in the IT department. He has consistently been described as being confrontational, abrasive, and unhelpful. Around the water cooler she has heard similar stories from other VPs who are dealing with complaints from their staff about the same person. Yet at senior management meetings (or at any other time), not one of them confronts the VP of Administration about the problem. They are concerned that bringing up the conflict will only make matters worse. So they continue to waste time and resources by avoiding the conflict.

Situations like these are all too common in organizations. Fear of what might happen if conflict were confronted causes otherwise proactive people to hesitate, and the cost of this hesitation is significant. Consider first the cost of all those Vice Presidents' time as they continue to try to appease their unhappy staff, as well as the opportunity costs they incurred while not handling their other responsibilities. In addition, performance is dropping at the staff level for the same reasons, since staff will continue their complaining as long as the senior managers avoid dealing with the problem. As problems go unsolved and conflicts gather momentum, performance goes down. Truly successful organizations cannot tolerate this level of inefficiency.

Ironically, in most cases, these costly conflicts are not that difficult to resolve, but the managers and employees in question lack the skills, experience, and perspective to deal with them effectively. To master the human side of organizational success, leaders must understand some basic tenets of the conflict resolution field. That field is expansive, but below we will explore two critical and immediately applicable facets: interest-based negotiation, and interpersonal conflict resolution skills.

Interest-Based Negotiation

Negotiation was traditionally taught as a win/lose discipline. Skillful negotiators were able to achieve their objectives more often (win), but always at the expense of their adversaries (lose). As the field of conflict resolution developed, theorists and practitioners demonstrated that it is possible (and preferable in most cases) to negotiate so that getting what one party wants and needs does not have to be at the expense of the needs or desires of the other party. Roger Fisher, a professor at Harvard Law School, has been a champion of this field, called interest-based negotiation. The book he co-authored with William Ury in 1981, Getting to Yes: How to Negotiate Agreement without Giving In, is the classic text in this field.

The essence of interest-based negotiation is the observation that in most adversarial negotiations, the parties in the conflict are arguing about proposed solutions to a problem that are mutually exclusive. In the terminology of Fisher and Ury, they are arguing over “positions.” In the association scenario above, the Program Vice President whose staff has been complaining to her approaches the Vice President of Administration with the “position” that the IT staff person in question is inadequate and should be disciplined. That is her proposed solution to this problem.

Adversarial negotiation is often inefficient and ineffective. In the association example, if the Program Vice President approaches the VP of Administration by focusing on her positions or solutions (“Your inaction with that employee is unacceptable; fire him or I will bring this up with the CEO.”), then she will likely be met with a defensive reaction (“You don't understand. This person is a great database expert. I know he's quirky, but tell your people to deal with it.”), and the two of them will be further away from solving the problem. The two Vice Presidents begin to defend their positions and could eventually stand by them even if they later realize there is a better option. In adversarial negotiations, parties routinely choose strategies that take them further away from their stated goals. Interest-based negotiation offers a more effective alternative. By examining the interests that underlie the conflicting positions, parties in conflict have the opportunity to design creative solutions to meet shared interests.

Both Vice Presidents, for example, share an interest in overall organizational performance. Instead of telling her colleague what to do, the Program VP could start the conversation by identifying her concern about organizational performance based on the complaints she has heard from her team about the IT staff person. Sharing the concern for performance, the VP of Administration is more likely to engage more productively in the conversation and explore options for addressing the problem. Options could range from restructuring the abrasive employee's job to reduce internal customer interaction, to providing training to non-technical staff to enable them to communicate better with the IT people, to simply giving the abrasive employee two weeks notice. Whatever they choose, however, will be a joint decision that both Vice Presidents support. In reality, the two Vice Presidents had this discussion during a facilitated senior management retreat, and together they designed an action strategy for dealing with this particular employee.

It may not have looked like a classic “negotiation,” but by applying interest-based negotiation techniques, the Vice Presidents reached a solution that they both supported and could implement in a very short time frame. Their success, however, did rely on professional facilitation at a senior management retreat. Despite the obvious value of interest-based negotiation, it is often under utilized in organizations, because too many in organizations lack the fundamental skills of interpersonal conflict resolution to even begin those productive negotiations.

Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Skills

In order for those two association Vice Presidents to deal with that conflict on their own, they would need competence in the basic skills of interpersonal conflict resolution. These skills are varied, but they understandably center on the ability to communicate effectively. Learning how to listen well, how to ask open-ended questions, how to give effective feedback, and how to discuss emotional matters are all critical skills for resolving conflict. Books like Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most and When Goliaths Clash: Managing Executive Conflict To Build a More Dynamic Organization provide excellent discussions of the concrete skills needed to succeed in managing interpersonal conflict in organizational settings.

Reading about these skills in books and articles is helpful, but mastery of the skills obviously requires practice. Communication habits, however, tend to be deeply ingrained and hard to change. Even when people know the right skills to employ, when the conflict starts, they revert to old patterns that are not as effective. For example, imagine a senior manager confronts a colleague, expressing frustration that the colleague's division is making work more difficult for the other divisions by isolating itself and lacking a “team” attitude. That colleague may know that at this point it would be wise to ask the senior manager to clarify her position, explore why she came to that conclusion, and acknowledge her frustration, but as the old patterns kick in, he may end up “hitting back,” by asking biting questions that imply her division has not produced up to expectations, and the conflict will only get worse from there.

As facilitators of leaders in conflict, we have discovered a very simple framework, called the “ladder of inference,” that has proven to be useful as a tool for changing communication patterns in conflict settings. By consciously applying the framework to discussions of conflict, the parties in conflict can more easily slow the conversation down and focus their dialogue in a way that uncovers interests behind positions and facilitates brainstorming of appropriate solutions. Using the ladder of inference actually provides opportunities to practice the communication skills that are integral to successful interpersonal conflict resolution.

Developed by management theorist Chris Argyris, the ladder of inference simply maps out the natural human process of observing the world, making sense of it, and then acting on it. In interpersonal conflicts, just as in adversarial negotiations, we argue about differing conclusions, yet we rarely take the time to explore how we came to those conclusions. It is in that “making sense of it” stage where parties often discover the source of misunderstanding and the opportunity for creative problem solving in most conflict situations. The ladder of inference facilitates this by mapping out the process of moving from what we observe to what we conclude (see figure).

Draw Conclusions

Make Assumptions

Add Meaning

Select Data

Observable Data

At the bottom of the figure is a “pool” of observable data, as a video camera would record it-all that people could possibly see, hear, feel, or experience. Moving up the ladder, our first step is to select data out of that pool. No matter how hard we try, we cannot notice everything, or even remember all that we notice. Our next step up the ladder is to add meaning to that limited collection of data, and also make assumptions about it. This is the critical step of interpreting what we see. Based on personal and cultural backgrounds, different people will add different meaning to the same observable event. Furthermore, we use assumptions to fill in the gaps of what we either did not notice or did not remember. For example, when we observe someone doing something that hurts us, we often quickly assume that their intention was to hurt us, when often that is not the case. The final step up the ladder is to draw conclusions about the situation and act on it.

For people in organizations to use this model in conflict situations, they must take the time to work their way “down” the ladder of inference in both the statements they make and the questions they ask. Consider the Program Vice President and the complaints she was getting from her staff about the abrasive IT worker. Her initial approach would be to confront the VP of Administration only with conclusions and actions (“You are mishandling the situation with that underperforming employee”). That one sentence, however, is rich with interpretive information that could help to resolve the conflict, if the Program VP would use the ladder to explore it more deeply. Consider the following alternatives:

By stating as a fact that the employee is “underperforming” she is leading with a conclusion. Instead, the Program VP should provide the data and interpretation that led her to that conclusion: “Three of my employees have complained about this person.” She could then explain the specific behaviors or incidents in question. The more observable data she includes, the better. If her employees tried to address the situation directly, but failed, provide those details as well. All of this could be new information to the VP of Administration.

Similarly, by then stating that the VP of Administration is “mishandling the situation,” the Program VP is ignoring most of the ladder of inference. Instead, she needs to explain her interpretation of the situation. She should remind him of the times that she has brought this to his attention in the past and explain that she has not witnessed or heard about him addressing the issue with the employee. Her best strategy would be to ask questions to try to fill in the gaps in her knowledge. Has he talked to the employee? What happened? Has he asked the CEO for advice? Without this information, she assumed he did nothing, which frustrated her-making this a difficult conversation at first.

In reality, the two Vice Presidents were able to explore the situation using the Ladder of Inference. The Program VP learned that the VP of Administration had in fact been attending to the situation quite seriously, and had already discussed the situation with the CEO. The VP of Administration had been resisting a more direct confrontation of this performance issue with the employee in question, but with the coaching and support of the rest of the Senior Management team, he identified a specific plan for managing that employee's impact on others in the organization.

Ineffective conflict management clearly limits an organization's potential for success. The skills and frameworks above will help leaders to deal more effectively with conflict situations and translate that success into organizational performance gains. Harnessing the power of conflict, however, requires more than the scattered application of skills. It requires that these skills and frameworks be built into the everyday operation of the organization-that is, they become part of the culture. To do that, leaders must understand more than just how people deal with conflict. They must explore a more fundamental aspect of culture that is related to conflict: trust.

The Power of a Trusting Environment

Approximately twenty-five years ago, America went through its first major wave of “down-sizing,” and that is when Americans lost their innocence about (lost their trust in) companies. It bred a new generation that demands partnership with the places where they work. Combined with the enormity of information available from the Internet, young Americans demand authenticity and can find out when an organization is or is not authentic. Today associations and corporations alike find that their employees are demanding more of them-it is a matter of trust.

Even without an increased interest in trust by employees, associations should recognize the value of trust because fundamentally associations are designed to improve our world or, in short, to create change. Trust is a key component of change. Deal and Kennedy write, “Individuals who trust one another may not communicate accurately, but this doesn't need to be an impediment to getting something done! Because they trust, they feel that it is not absolutely necessary to figure out precisely what the other is trying to say. Openness and trust in the change process therefore influence whether and how change occurs.” And, “Full disclosure leads to deeper, more honest conversations and it creates a culture that values authenticity.” It's still a matter of trust.

A trusting environment is not an environment that is in unanimity or uniformity or where agreement is easy to come by. A trusting environment is where individuals feel a sense of comfort in knowing the intentions of their colleagues are not designed to harm them but rather to achieve the objectives of the organization. In this environment, conflict is not destructive-it represents an opportunity for creative problem solving. This section will discuss what constitutes a trusting environment and how it can be built, one step at a time until the steps become part of the normal “way things are done.” It will show how the tactical behaviors mentioned in the section on conflict can become innate in the organization and an environment of trust can be built.

BOX

When a group of association leaders were asked what trust meant to them, they responded:

• Trust is the basis of all good working relationships.

• Trust is a benchmark for integrity.

• Organizations can't exist without trust.

• Trust maximizes contributions.

• Trust allows for risk.

• Trust helps people devote themselves to your cause.

• Trust removes fear.

END BOX

The Four Dimensions of Trust

Building trust is done in steps and over time. Trust has an organic nature - it doesn't just pop off the assembly line, it grows through our own actions. Senge et al. have said, “Cultures exist only as we bring them into being moment by moment.” For the leader, there must be a commitment to taking the necessary steps while, at the same time, having patience and allowing time for trust to grow. Impatience will be like pulling up a plant to see if the roots have taken hold. The very act will tear off the new roots, and the process must begin anew. The good news is that there are simple steps that can be taken one at a time.

Listen

We have explored issues of culture and trust in organizations (including internationally), and we have found that when people describe the behavior they associate with being treated with “respect,” they routinely summarize it as: “The other person listened to me and took what I said into account. The other person may not have agreed with me, but they listened.” This is the first step toward building a relationship of trust. Thus, the first behavior that a leader wants to promote to encourage trust is listening. She must (1) model it by actually listening and (2) allow time for listening to happen in a group setting.

One association executive routinely addressed concerns that her employees raised by quickly explaining the logic of the decision in question. She thought she was being a supportive leader by explaining her rationale rather than just dictating what was to be done, but her quick responses-without acknowledging that she fully heard what the employee was saying-actually eroded trust. Even when her justifications were legitimate, the employees began to wonder if she really supported them, and their lack of trust eventually caused them to withhold their suggestions and input, to the detriment of the organization.

Encourage expression of ideas

In order to demonstrate listening, it is essential to have something to listen to. Thus, creating space for people to contribute their thinking is essential. The space does not have to be lengthy; it can be enough to say that for the next ten minutes (this is a purely arbitrary time limit as an example), the issue will be discussed by the group. In this way, the group sees that space has been set aside for their ideas. Obviously, listening to the ideas as they are offered is critical as well (yes, this is a cumulative strategy). And paraphrasing the ideas back to the speaker (known as “active listening”) helps the person see that you have truly listened to what they have said. Critiquing an idea that has been expressed during this open time can simply cut off the next idea.

One way to promote the expression of ideas is to engage in brainstorming sessions. It is important, however, to understand what this truly means. There are rules to real brainstorming-no interrupting the speaker while they are speaking, anyone can speak once the speaker is finished, and no critical comments on another's idea during the brainstorming, even outlandish ideas are welcome as they often spark a sound, workable idea. When these simple rules are followed, the number of ideas generated can be quite astounding, and when employees are able to express their ideas freely, levels of trust will increase.

Create safe avenues for expressing concerns and opinions

In IBM, there used to be something called the ”Speak-up.” It meant that any person could take a problem or issue to their management, and if they were not satisfied with the response, they could continue up the management line. It was guaranteed that your concern would not be held against you in future. Managers themselves were measured on how well they dealt with these 'speak-ups'. IBMers genuinely felt comfortable to bring up issues to management as a result. It didn't work perfectly, but it solved many problems along the way - and earlier rather than later. In a recent experience with an established association, the executives became so fixed in a fund-raising mind-set that they desperately avoided offending anyone (for fear of losing a donation). As a result, their own conversations became so masked that communication became devoid of real content. Even among themselves, it was not possible to offer criticism. The end result was a lack of forward movement.

You don't need to set up a formal process as did IBM, but you do need to decide if you will create a means for people to speak out their concerns and opinions. Be aware that as a leader, this may feel risky-that is because it is. The ability to take risks is a critical component of building trust. Leaders must open themselves up and make themselves vulnerable, because taking this risk will inspire others to do the same, dramatically opening up the communication process and building trust.

Allow mistakes

Part of building a trusting environment is the allowance of mistakes. We all know that someone who makes mistakes one after another needs management correction, but we often think this has to be done every time. Taking time to assess the relative exposure of the mistake allows for flexibility in handling mistakes - a flexibility that can say, “We trust that this was an unusual situation and that you will learn from this.” “We learn how to do something truly new only through doing it, then adjusting.”

This is one of the harder levels to achieve, because it puts the manager at risk. The strategies for dealing with mistakes must be almost case specific. Two stories will illustrate this. A young Jack Welch (before he became CEO of General Electric) blew up a company building one day. Management wasn't “very happy to have a wrecked building on their hands, but they were much more concerned that Jack learn from his mistake rather than breaking the bond of trust by punishing him … for an honest mistake.” And so began a legend. In another situation, a successful World Bank manager turned around a group by saying, “I don't want to know the history of the problem. I want to know what you are going to do about it.” Although mistakes had obviously been made, blame got transformed into creative thinking. In less than a year, the group became a top-performing unit.

In the case of the two association Vice Presidents from the conflict section above, their entire conflict could have been transformed had that management team more openly supported each other in making mistakes. Had their not been a harsh judgment against the VP of administration for simply having made a mistake and, more importantly, had either of them been able to talk openly about their own mistakes, much of the “charge” of the conversation would have dissipated earlier on in the process. The skills of building trust are ones that work hand-in-glove with conflict resolution.

Trust and Values

By listening effectively, encouraging the expression of ideas, creating safe avenues for expressing concerns, and allowing people to make mistakes, leaders can build trust levels in their organizations. But trust should not be built only for trust's sake. As mentioned above, trusting environments can transform the negative impact of conflict that was described in the first section. Beyond that, trusting environments support the growth of certain organizational values that are clearly linked to improved organizational performance.

Every person has something to contribute. Remember that each person was hired because they have something to contribute. The job of every staff person is to remember to allow each other the opportunity to make that contribution. When people feel a sense of being heard, productivity goes up.

Open sharing of ideas leads to better solutions. If the world had only simple problems to solve, there would be far fewer associations. But the world is filled with complex problems that demand the thinking of many minds to understand and create possible solutions. Limiting the number of ideas that can be expressed only delays finding those solutions. At Grapevine Canyon Ranch, a housekeeper noticed that guests were often using regular sized tablets to exchange a few lines of information that was usually a person's contact information. Suggesting the house provide business-sized pieces of paper with spaces for contact information, the housekeeper saved money for the ranch and made guests happier. An environment where only managers had permission to share ideas and solve problems would never have produced this innovation.

Needs of staff are important to business decisions. Management is only part of an organization. Because management has the authority to make decisions does not mean that it can ignore the needs of staff. Kevin Roberts explores why corporations will only achieve full potential when there is a full recognition that consumers must feel a real and personal connection with the product. Originally called the Trustmark, he now calls it the Lovemark. In associations, members can be seen as the consumers who must feel a real and personal connection to the association's mission.

When a group of association leaders explored the question, “How does trust change when you view it from your members' perspective?” they responded:

• The members are listened to and actions are based on their concerns

• The association asks for ideas and acts on new ideas, even unsolicited ideas. Timely response to ideas is a part of this.

• The association makes every member feel valued by responding, which, in turn, engenders my loyalty.

• As a member, I must allow the organization to make mistakes and correct them.

• Members expect the organization to live up to standards.

• Members have responsibilities to give back to the organization.  

Action says more than words alone. When all else fails, staff (and members) look to actions to determine how well they can trust management decisions. Building trust is not just about saying the right things. Leaders must back up their verbal commitment to trust with consistent actions.

In the end, trust is more than merely a rational analysis of whether or not an individual will do as they say they will (although that is obviously a piece of it). Trust is a cornerstone of an organization's operating environment, and when leaders can establish an environment of trust, they will be developing values and behavior that will contribute to organizational success.

BOX

Some actions that can be taken to begin building the trust you want in your organization.

• Really listen and show through paraphrasing

• Ask for ideas and then give time to respond

• Never use retribution to a naysayer

• Acknowledge mistakes but test intentions

• END BOX

Conclusion

ASAE is currently doing a study of associations modeled after Jim Collins' Good to Great project. Hopefully this study will be able to identify themes or characteristics that distinguish “great” associations from the merely good ones. Whether it identifies organizational culture or the more specific issues of conflict and trust remains to be seen.

Either way, we have demonstrated in this article the importance of effective conflict management and environments of trust in creating organizational cultures that support increased performance. Best practice studies are not recipes for success. Because each organization is unique, the application of those high-level principles will vary considerably from organization to organization.

We challenge leaders in associations to spend more time understanding their own culture and the impact it is having on their organization's performance. The issues of conflict and trust provide a context for that exploration. Leaders have the opportunity to analyze how conflict is managed at all levels in the organization. Is it encouraged? Is it ignored? Is it feared? How skilled are employees in getting to the heart of problems and creatively solving them? As leaders get answers to these questions, they have the opportunity to introduce the skills and frameworks identified in this paper to increase their organization's capacity for managing conflict.

Trust provides the same opportunity for exploration. Do people listen? Do people take risks? Will people say what they want to say? Do behaviors match the words? The learning generated from such exploration also allows leaders to make changes in “the way things are done” that will build a more trusting environment.

As leaders change their own behaviors around conflict resolution and trust and help others to do the same, the slow process of creating a new culture will begin. Like building trust, changing culture takes time and the concerted effort of people at all levels of the organization to help it evolve.

Trust and conflict resolution are only two loci for where culture change can occur. But they are real ones that can lead to improved performance along the way. And while culture change is complex, this complexity should not dissuade leaders from working actively on their culture. The reward for that effort can be the difference between good and great.

Endnotes

Collins, Jim, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don't (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001)

Joyce, William, Nitin Nohria, and Bruce Roberson, What Really Works: the 4+2 Formula for Sustained Business Success (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002)

Schein, Edgar H., 1987. Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987)

Bower, Marvin, The Will to Manage: Corporate Success Through Programmed Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966)

Fisher, Roger and William Ury, Getting to Yes: How to Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin Books, 1981)

Stone, Douglas, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most (New York: Penguin Books, 1999)

Guttman, Howard M., When Goliaths Clash: Managing Executive Conflict to Build a More Dynamic Organization (New York: American Management Association, 2003)

Argyris, Chris, Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When They're Getting Good Advice and When They're Not (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Adapted from Senge, Peter M., et al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 243.

Deal, Terrence E. and Allen A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1982), p. 264.

Freiberg, Keven and Jackie Freiberg, Guts: Companies that Blow the Doors Off Business-As-Usual (New York: Doubleday, 2004)

Senge, Peter, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers, Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future (Cambridge: The Society for Organizational Learning, 2004)

Blair, Madelyn, A Conversation on Gender: Women and Men Working in International Organizations: Using Research as a Catalyst to Address the Issues of Women (Jefferson: Pelerei, 2000)

Senge, Peter, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers, Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future (Cambridge: The Society for Organizational Learning, 2004)

Badowski, Rosanne, “A Master Course in Leadership,” Leader to Leader, (Number 30, Fall 2003), p. 39.

Blair, Madelyn, A Conversation on Gender: Women and Men Working in International Organizations: Using Research as a Catalyst to Address the Issues of Women (Jefferson: Pelerei, 2000)

Blair, Madelyn and Robert Clymire, The Teams, They are a Changin' (www.storyatwork.org, 2002)

Robinson, Alan G., “Five Questions About… Getting the Best Employee Ideas,” Harvard Management Update, (Vol 9, Number 6, June 2004), p. 12.

Roberts, Kevin, Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands (New York: Powerhouse Books, 2004)

Schein, Edgar H., The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense About Culture Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999)