Reflective Practice in Curriculum Leadership Matthew Sterner-Neely


This is the first in a series of posts that I will reflect upon regarding leadership and various facets of leadership, particularly with regards to questionnaires and surveys in Peter Northouse’s Leadership Theory and Practice. Each post will take on a similar format:

  1. Short description of the instrument;
  2. Report on my score on the instrument;
  3. Explanation of my score using the scoring guide provided in the textbook
  4. Reflection on how it applies (or might apply) to your practice as an educator and/or curriculum leader. In my reflection, I will use examples from my practice with support from the literature (including Northouse’s text).

Week One: Trait Approach

Diamond Traits


This first post deals with the results of a Leadership Traits Questionnaire that I completed at the end of Northouse’s chapter on the Trait Approach (chapter 2) to leadership. This questionnaire asked me to rate myself using a Likert scale on 14 leadership traits as seen below. It also asked me to invite five others to rate me on the same traits using the same scale, and to compare those results (Northouse, 2016, pp. 38-39.


The data is as follows (These data are inclusive of the first five responses and my own response. Note: I received many more responses than I needed (n=37), I was able to only include the first five responses as instructed in the Northouse text.):

Leadership Trait Questionnaire

Questionnaire Data
Leadership Questionnaire Graph: Others vs Me


Northouse (2016) directly states that no “best ratings” exist on this questionnaire (p. 39). He does, however, emphasize that these ratings show where my perceptions are similar or different than others’ perceptions. I find it interesting that the two lines fit the same pathway almost exactly, though I have much lower self-perception of my own leadership traits than others do. This is especially evident on questions three and four, which seems to reflect my perceptions as a whole – that is, that I have strong leadership traits except for my self-confidence and self-assuredness.


Goleman (Nati Stander, 2015) describes five components of “emotional quotients,” the “personal and social competencies” (Northouse, 2015, p. 28) that separates adequate leaders from great leaders. The components include self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Northouse (2015) describes emotional quotient as a way of “assessing the impacts of traits on leadership.” (p. 27). When considered along with the differences in styles – transactional and transformational – that are described in Train in a Day’s (2015) video, I can see definite moments when my own emotional quotient has been key in both leadership styles.

In general, I operate as a transformational leader. Two specific examples demonstrate this: first, that in the classroom, I teach in such a way as to build strong relationships with my students, and only after that, do I look for ways to get concrete lessons and assessments completed. Second, I have spent about three years developing a strong relationship with my colleagues who teach literature across community colleges in Colorado. I served as the co-chair of the discipline for a year (2016-2017), and I have been active in providing input and empathy regarding curricular mandates from the Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE) as well as discipline-level conflicts with curriculum redesign efforts. I always seek to first become better people when I “lead” a group (in the classroom or at the discipline), and only then to become more skilled at whatever we are working on.

This changes when there are more immediate efforts, during which I shift from a transformational leader to a transactional leader (Train in a Day, 2015). This happens, generally speaking, when deadlines loom in class, or as in the following example: I spent the last three years developing relationships with children’s literature professor’s across Colorado. The core class for future elementary educators in the Colorado Community College System is LIT 255: [Intro to] Children’s Literature, and some form of that class must be taken by every future elementary education teacher and early childhood education teacher. However, this class is not included in the statewide transfer agreements among two-year and four-year colleges, and this has been, in my experience, mostly due to the “Children’s” in “Children’s Literature.” When the opportunity presented itself to move the course forward, and the current discipline chair asked for a leadership team, I absolutely jumped at the chance. I was task-oriented and externally motivated, with the “reward” being the inclusion of the course as a Guaranteed Transfer course. I already had relationships established across the state, and I certainly used those relationships to solicit support for this cause. Within just a few weeks, I had support from education and English departments from three of the largest flagship universities in the state (CU-Boulder, CSU-Ft. Collins, and the University of Northern Colorado), and de-facto support from other four-year colleges (such as previously agreed to articulation agreements, such as the one between my own college, Pueblo Community College, and the education department at Colorado State university-Pueblo, as well as support from the literature discipline as a whole. The course went through each portion of the approval process, and is currently awaiting approval from the CDHE after a mandated 30-day waiting and comment period.

That said, when I reflect like this, I can see my successes clearly, but when I think of myself as a whole, I have a very difficult time understanding my own contributions both as a transformational leader and a transactional leader. However, I know that reflection is a useful learning tool (McConne, 2018; Poldner, Van der Schaaf, Simons, Van Tartwijk, & Wijngaards, 2014), and with a more accurate and reliable sense of my own abilities, I can consistently become a better teacher. The questionnaire above reflects a reliable sense of my own abilities (as shown by how the lines match in peaks and dips), but not an accurate sense of my own abilities. Therefore, reflection is a crucial part of my own practice as well as my own research.

Week One: Skills Approach

Skills Approach


This instrument assesses an inventory of skills that Northouse (2016) has identified as important in a skills-based approach to leadership, and contains technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills (p. 46) reflective of the levels of skills inherent in different levels of organizational management as explicated by Katz (in Northouse, 2016, p. 46).


The data is as follows:

  • Technical Skill: 15
  • Human Skill: 28
  • Conceptual Skill: 23


Northouse (2016) offers an interpretation scale for this skills inventory:

  • 23-30 High Range
  • 14-22 Moderate Range
  • 6-13 Low Range (p. 68).

Therefore, I scored in the moderate range (on the low end) for technical skills, in the high range for human skills, and in the high range (on the low end) for conceptual skills.


If I consider each skills as Northouse (2016) describes as the management skills necessary at various levels of management (p. 46), then anyone who has ever read my work (especially the first chapter of my dissertation – sorry Dr. Tamim!) can attest to my desire to operate on the conceptual level of organizational management. I can do the technical parts, but I don’t believe that I naturally think in those ways: for example, I can describe the philosophical underpinnings of classroom management in a progressivist setting far better than I can give step-by-step instructions for classroom management itself. This fits with Northouse’s assertion that the “skills approach is primarily descriptive...provid[ing] a structure for understanding the nature of effective leadership” (p. 56). When the need arises, I can access the technical skills, but I operate more consistently moving through each skill for whatever problem I am dealing with. This is not to say that I haven’t had some big difficulties with the technical side of things. I have certainly grown in the last year, but with respect to the day-to-day operations of running a classroom (or writing a Dissertation in Practice) it takes a great deal of effort to access those skills.

Cover of FM 22-100, August 1999

One final (and very interesting, in my opinion) element to add to this reflection. I was in the Army for 10 years, from June of 1994-December of 2004. During that time, I participated in both formal and informal leadership development, including the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC – essentially the school to become a sergeant), and the Basic Non-Commissioned Officers Course (BNCOC – the school to become a staff sergeant/squad leader), but I knew that the Army went through a major shift in how they trained Non-Commissions Officers (NCOs). I looked up the old leadership field manual (FM 22-100, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1999) and compared it with the new manual (FM 6-22, Headquarter, Department of the Army, 2006). Northouse (2015) describes the research that the Army and the Department of Defense has done in developing leaders, and this resulted in the “Be, Know, Do” model in FM 22-100 (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1999, p. 1-6). This was replaced in the mid 2000s with FM 6-22, and the same model still exists, but is much less emphasized in FM 6-22, calling the model an “enduring expression for Army leadership” (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006, p. 1-1). Thinking about this, the timeline fits with the skills-based models researched in the 1990s (Northouse, 2016, p. 47), especially with respect to the following: Northouse states, “rather than emphasizing what leaders do, the skills approach frames leadership as the capabilities (knowledge and skills) that make effective leadership possible” (p. 47). This model for leadership is not only much more realistic, it is also much more palatable for someone like me, who loathes the idea of using force to accomplish an end, something that, quite obviously, a military must do. I see this as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it makes the “professional soldier” more appealing, and on the other hand, the leadership model as outlined in Northouse’s text and exemplified in FM 6-22 is incredibly robust. Also, Northouse is cited in FM 6-22 as a “conceptual foundation” (p. References-15) for the manual, and I appreciate the poetry in that. (See what I mean about conceptual things being in the forefront? Yikes!)

Cover of FM 22-100, October 2006

Week Two: Leadership Behavior Questionnaire

Questionable Behavior


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter assesses two “orientations [towards] leadership” (p. 87), include those behaviors that are more geared towards results and those behavior more directed towards building relationships.


The data is as follows:

  • Task Score: 29
  • Relationship Score: 48


Northouse (2016) offers an interpretation scale for this questionnaire:

  • 45-50 Very High Range
  • 40-44 High Range
  • 35-39 Moderately High Range
  • 30-34 Moderately Low Range
  • 25-29 Low Range
  • 10-24 Very Low Range (p. 89).

Therefore, I scored in the Very High Range for the amount of human skills I emphasize in my leadership, and I scored in the Low Range with respect to how much I emphasize task-oriented behaviors in my leadership.


The scores here very accurately reflect my own behaviors with respect to tasks and relationships. I don’t think that I necessarily avoid task-based leadership; I just see the relational elements as far more important.

I have been thinking about this with respect to my dissertation. I have written multiple drafts of my chapter one, and some of them have been simple revisions, and some have been complete, start-from-scratch rewrites. Much of this has been in an effort to reconcile what I believe about education and what must be done in the classroom. Coffey, Anyinam, & Zitzelsberger (2018) use the term “meaningful engagement” to describe the intersection of the personal and the professional, and that, combined with that I understand based on my own experiences leads me to believe that in the context of a classroom – that is, a setting in which tasks are incredibly important, and are expressed, often as competencies – a relational element is needed. The relational element, besides what is described in Northouse (2016) is most consistent with being interested, I think, in something that my students are already know and understand. I experienced a concrete example of this years ago:


When I taught middle school, I advocated, quite often, for the use of social media in the classroom. Using Instagram as a portfolio and Facebook as a way to conduct literary analysis – these things are parts of students lives (or they were at that point – now, my students tell me that only old people use Facebook). Out of these experiences and my experiences researching during my M.Ed. program, my proposition was that the use of social media can increase skills in literary analysis. A larger statement – perhaps an inductive conclusion – is that using elements that students already understand can lead to an increase in specific skills, both competencies in the classroom and soft skills. It is the “elements that students already understand” that is relational, and the “competencies” that are task-oriented. That said, as soon as I determine that thing X or thing Y is the “right” way to operate in the classroom, I fall into the trap that Dr. Ellen Langer (Harvard Business Review, 2010) cautions, that “when you think you know, you aren’t paying attention.” I think that this is why I have written so many drafts – I am rarely certain about my work, but I work hard, and I want to do not just my best, but the best that I can. My students deserve nothing less than that. My colleagues and my mentors and my family deserve that as well. Relational elements of leadership are far fickler than task-based elements, but in working towards the absolute best pedagogy, I see relational elements as being far more important. Nevertheless, I will continue to reflect on this balance, and most of all, I think that this will better help me serve my students, which meets my fundamental beliefs about leadership.

Week Two: Situational Leadership Questionnaire Sample

Evaluate the Situation


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is a set of sample questions from a Situational Leadership ® questionnaire.


Situation 1: Developmental Level D4 | Action A (Assign the project and let the individual determine how to accomplish it.)

Situation 2: Developmental Level D1 | Action C (Define the steps necessary for the individual to complete the assigned tasks and monitor the individual’s performance frequently. I initially got this item wrong – I chose B, which said to incorporate the individual’s suggestions.)

Situation 3: Developmental Level D2 | A(ction C Continue to define group activities but involve the group members more in decision making and incorporate their ideas.)

Situation 4: Developmental Level D3 | Action C (Listen to the individual’s concerns but assure him he can do the job and support his efforts.)


Northouse (2016) also asks to select two followers and asses their current development level. What follows is the matrix for that evaluation:


I have to say, I was most thrown off by this leadership approach. Ideally, situational leadership (with a small s and a small l) is what, I think, we should be doing in the classroom or in any leader-follower situation. Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi (2000) discuss how important this is in their text from which this chapter in the Northouse (2016) is based. They state that “there is nothing so unequal as the unequal treatment of unequals” (p. 33). (Incidentally, I agree with this statement, but the word choice leaves something to be desired – it sounds a bit derogatory.) The idea behind this is commendable – it makes sense to use leadership skills and styles that shift as the need arises, but codified – and in this particular way? It seems more like a marketing scam than a leadership approach. I remember thinking this as well when I read Blanchard’s book the first time in the Army.

In addition, the prescriptive nature of this approach is really confusing – especially when combined with the previous version of the matrix that Northouse (2016) describes. The progression through leadership styles just doesn’t make sense to me. I have certainly seen myself and people I have worked with go through each of these, but not in the linear way that exists in the Situational Leadership ™ model. The first version of this matrix as outlined by Northouse (2016, p. 100) seems to make more sense. Nevertheless, I appreciate the idea behind the approach, that different situations need different behaviors. Still, this seems to be fairly basic common sense. In truth, I am having trouble with this approach, and I wonder if I have missed something important.

Week Two: Path-Goal Theory Questionnaire



The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter evaluates strengths in four areas: directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement oriented leadership.


I scored as follows:

  • Directive leadership 23/35
  • Supportive leadership 30/35
  • Participative leadership 30/35
  • Achievement oriented leadership 31/35


According to Northouse (2016), my scores fall into the following ranges:

  • Directive leadership 23/35 Common (23-27)
  • Supportive leadership 30/35 Common (28-32)
  • Participative leadership 30/35 High (26-35)
  • Achievement oriented leadership 31/35 High (24-35)


Jonathan Doochin, of the Leadership Institute at Harvard University (Harvard Business Review, 2010), says that the biggest mistake a leader can make is in not taking a step back to reflect, even if that reflection is just for a moment. He points out that this approach is strong in the long run and the short run, and this has certainly been my experience as well. I see a lot of areas where Doochin’s words can be considered along with the Path-Goal theory to help leaders and followers mesh in stronger ways than have been shown in earlier chapters in this book. Unfortunately, and as Northouse (2016) states, this particular approach to leadership can be confusing due to its complexity. In terms of the scores reflected here, I am surprised that I scored as low as I did on the Supportive style, though I am not at all surprised about the other three scores. This doesn’t invalidate the approach for my own use, but it does make me want to do as Doochin suggests – to take a step back and consider the issue – in this case, how my teaching can situate this approach to leadership.

Designing Complexity

To illustrate this, I offer the following example: in terms of how I prepare for a class, I can rank my own effectiveness in the following way (these are ranked in order of instructional effectiveness, as I see it within my own teaching):

  • Moderately well-planned (loose outline but not a lot of background knowledge): poorly-executed lesson;
  • Extremely well-planned (such as a prescriptive lesson): moderately well-executed lesson;
  • Loosely planned (not unplanned, but with a reasonable amount of background or theoretical knowledge): Moderately well-executed lesson;
  • Unplanned (a guiding question or two, but strong theoretical knowledge on my part): Well-executed lesson;
  • Unplanned to moderately well-planned (loose outline, but with very strong theoretical knowledge and a strong sense of where my students are, both in the moment and in the class): Very well-executed lesson

I can be as prepared as I want to be, but without knowing the context, I can execute a reasonably-strong lesson – but never my best. Being responsive to my students’ needs as well as understanding the background knowledge of the topic – that is, being willing to change things in the moment – this is the best application of both what Doochin suggests and the application of the Path-Goal theory. However, this level of preparation is extremely difficult, and requires a great deal of reflection and preparation (but not necessarily with the lesson itself). The point, here, I think, is similar to the strengths and weaknesses of the Path-Goal theory: that it offers a wonderful theoretical framework to operate in as a leader, and that it is enormously complex. I really like this theory – I think, and I will be able to use it effectively in my classroom – I think. But to dig into this at the level that Northouse offers is simply not enough – I appreciate this theory, but the complexity is such that it’s not useful unless I understand it well.

Week Three: LMX 7 Questionnaire

Relational Leadership


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is the LMX 7 Questionnaire. The questionnaire asks the reader to consider either the reader’s leader or one of the reader’s followers. I chose to highlight the leadership of the chair of my department, who I consider, overall, to be a caring and dynamic leader.


I gave my chair a total of 33.5/35.


Northouse (2016) explains that a score from 30-35 reflects a “strong, high-quality leader-member exchange” (p. 156), and this is supported by my own experiences as well.

"Who" is an example of a great leader? (Yes, I went there.)


I have been extremely lucky to have had Dustin as my chair. In fact, during my time teaching at my current job – a small community college in Southern Colorado – I have had incredible departmental leadership. As a K-12 teacher, I have also experienced leaders who have not valued interpersonal relationships as much. An incredible examples of Dustin’s leadership:

Last year, when my dad passed away (in March of 2018), Dustin knew me well enough to check in with me on a daily basis. This was not an easy time for me, and it was the culmination of years of caring for my father and helping him navigate his last years, then months, and finally days and hours. I can’t even begin to explain how many times I dropped the ball at work. Rather than admonition, which I had come to expect from my educational leaders, Dustin helped me to frame my experiences as a “rebuilding year.” He led the department in finding me a children’s book that spoke to my unique situation (the book is titled Tear Soup), and as a children’s literature teacher, that meant a great deal to me. When I struggle with lessons or professional presentations, Dustin is always available to visit with me and to build the relationship even as he mentors me. This speaks to the strengths of LMX, especially that “LMX [is] both transactional and transformational...the evolution of highly effective relationships results in the emergence of transformative behaviors for both parties” (Power, 2013, p. 280). In short, and as Northouse points out, a high-quality relationship between leaders and followers results in better products. Regardless of my own leadership developmental level, I want to be a leader who focuses on the task at hand while also offering ways to become better people and members of the organization.

Week Three: MLQ Questionnaire Form 5X-Short (Sample)

"Instrument," Because It's 2th Hurty


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is the MLQ Questionnaire 5x-Short Sample.


The data is as follows:

Transformational Transactional Passive / Avoidant

Self-Assessed (Average) 2.8 3 2

Peer-Assessed (Average) 3.8 3 1.5


I usually write a great deal for these, and that is important to me in order to fully reflect upon these scores, but I recently had an elephant stand on my face, and by “elephant,” I mean dentist, and by “stand on” I mean pull a tooth out of, and by “face,” I mean face. It was fine until the other day, when I got a dry socket.

I say this not for sympathy (but if you have a bucket of orajel just lying around, please mail it to me), but rather, to illustrate a really important point: the difference between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. My daughter told me that I need to brush my teeth and take care of them, and that would have helped me keep my teeth from having to be pulled. She went to the bathroom to brush her teeth. She is seven, and I blame the school system. See, her school is so awesome – they do Stephen Covey’s Leader-in-Me program. And she saw an immediate issue and internalized it. She did something with it.

My own parenting, today, could be called “laissez-faire.” I have done little to keep my children from jumping on and off the furniture, but thankfully, I have an awesome partner who takes care of me and them very well. My daughter exhibited transactional leadership with respect to me because she pointed out my mistakes and told me what to do. I am so thankful for her.

What I see most acutely is that through the intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and idealized influence of my daughter’s school, my daughter responded to transformational leadership. Like I said, I blame the school system, and I hope that as a teacher, I get blamed for my own transformational leadership as well.

Either that, or the Vicodin is kicking in.

Week Four: Servant Leadership Questionnaire

Servant Leadership


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is the Servant Leadership Questionnaire, which measure the seven dimensions of servant leadership as outlined by Northouse in this chapter.


The data is as follows:

Scores from Northouse's (2016) Servant Leadership Questionnaire (pp. 250-251)

Score Ranges

  • 23-28 high servant leadership behavior
  • 14-22 moderate servant leadership behavior
  • 8-13 low servant leadership behavior
  • 0-7 very low servant leadership behavior

The averages indicate that I scored high in most areas. I spoke with my department chair about a couple of the scores, and he thought that they didn’t quite apply to me, but there was not a place to say N/A. I should have explained it better, I think.


Out of all of the leadership approaches discussed in Northouse (2016), this one makes the most sense to me. Anderson (2008) in his interpretive analysis of Greenleaf’s writings on servant leadership, mentioned a shortcoming of Greenleaf’s: that he does not mention that servant leadership should be practiced in institutional structures simply because it is “the right thing to do” (p. 13). I very much relate to this, and my classroom reflects this value. It is simply the right thing to do to know and build up my students. It is simply the right thing to do to help them to become better writers. It is simply the right thing to do to be lenient when leniency is important, and to invite excellence what that is warranted.

That said, I also recognize that this is not a black and white issue. Many people have very different approaches than I do. Part of my own philosophy stemming from many of the ideals in servant leadership come from a sense of faith that I had for a long time. I don’t know that I would categorize myself as very pious or devout anymore, and indeed, part of that comes from what I have seen people do in the name of faith. But it doesn’t change the ideal – the ideal is to serve others to the point that I am seeking their best interest before my own – to build in myself a sense of selflessness so that I can serve others with a high degree of integrity.

No one is more important to me than family and students and the people who make up a global citizenship. Let others be in charge. I really don’t care about that – if I am to lead, then I want to serve – with one caveat: if the people I am leading through servanthood are not having their needs met by that leadership, I am willing to change so that their needs can be met.

In that case, not being a servant leader would simply be the right thing to do.

Week Four: Adaptive Leadership Questionnaire



The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is the Adaptive Leadership Questionnaire, which measures the six components of the adaptive leadership process as outlined by Northouse in chapter 11.


The data is as follows:

Adaptive Leadership Questionnaire Results

Scores ranges are as follows:

  • 21-25 strongly inclined adaptive leadership behavior
  • 16-20 moderately inclined adaptive leadership behavior
  • 11-15 at-times inclined adaptive leadership behavior
  • 5-10 Seldom inclined adaptive leadership behavior

The averages indicate that I scored high in most areas. I ended up sharing this with my spouse and my kids, and they helped me to inform the average scores. This was a different approach, but it gave me some insight into how I parent, and it is from that perspective that I will offer a reflection.


One of the things that I really appreciate about adaptive leadership is the focus on adaptive challenges. Northouse offers some perspective on this regarding an example using hospice care. He states, “while hospice workers can give support and informal feedback about the dying process, the patient and his or her family have to come to grips with how they want to approach the patient’s final days” (p. 262). This is similar to a Love and Logic approach (Fay & Fay, 2000). I try to use this with both my children and my students – empowering them to face challenges, whether those are not hitting each other (my children) or getting assignments in on time (my students), is not just helpful at that time, and the way that the issue is addressed changes from context to context.

Additionally, it was interesting to understand my daughter’s perspective on this. For almost every question, responded with, “you help me solve my problems!” or “you make me solve my problems.” I asked her if I met her emotional needs, and once we talked about what those needs were, she said that I did. Then again, she also said that I was great at “the elephant in the room.” Some of this questionnaire might have been influenced by my position as parent, but I am grateful that she feels loved. :-)

Week Four: Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader Questionnaire

Team Leadership


The instrument that Northouse (2016) offers in this chapter is the Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader Questionnaire, which indicates the strength of “a team to which [I] belong” (p. 390). I am using my own department as the team, and each item will be scored and the reflection will follow in the table. The scoring is as follows:

  • 1 = False
  • 2 = More false than true
  • 3 = More true than false
  • 4 = True


The data is as follows:


I wish I could adequately express my love for the people and my appreciation for the climate in the department. One story that exemplifies their incredible-ness:

Last year on March 17, my dad died after a years-long illness during which my partner and I provided the primary care. During the last month of his life, he was bedridden – we had started our doctoral cohort in January, and I was a mess. I barely kept my head above water, and my work performance suffered. But like I mentioned above, I was not admonished, as I have been at other places (my last school and the Army, namely), I was asked, “How can I help.”

When my dad finally passed, just based on my work, I did not deserve a raise or a decent score on my yearly evaluation. But my chair called it a “rebuilding year,” and gave me a “Commendable” rating anyway. What followed was a children’s book, called Tear Soup (Schwiebert & DeKlyen, 2000), and my whole department had written messages to me. I have never felt so loved and so loyal to a department or an organization.

This is the last reflection I am writing for this book, and it has been a lot of heavy thinking – not difficult thinking, but heavy and important, I think. More than that, it has given me a sense of appreciation for then folks in my department and in this program. Leadership as a discipline is the hardest discipline, in my opinion, because it deals with so many facets – these facets are people, more than anything else. I have been lucky to share leaders who have been kind and loving, and I have been lucky enough to practice such humanitarianism myself unter the tutelage of my mentors and colleagues. I am grateful.


  • Anderson, J. (2008, May). The writings of Robert K. Greenleaf: An interpretive analysis and the future of servant leadership. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – May 2008, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Retrieved from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2008/anderson.pdf
  • Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P, & Zigarmi, D. (2000). Leadership and the one minute manager. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
  • Coffey, S., Anyinam, C., & Zitzelsberger, H. (2018). Meaningful engagement with academic integrity through a focus on context and relationship. New Directions for Community Colleges, (183), 15–23.
  • Fay, J. & Fay, C. (2000). Love and logic magic for early childhood: Practical parenting from birth to six years. Golden, CO: Love and Logic Institute.
  • Harvard Business Review. (2010, August 31). The biggest mistake a leader can make. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/iiorMUkqqDY
  • Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1999). Army leadership: Be, know, and do (FM 22-100). Retrieved from http://www.armyheritage.org/images/Education/FMs/FM%2022-100%20Aug99.pdf
  • Headquarters, Department of the Army. (2006). Army leadership: Competent, confident, and agile (FM 6-22). Retrieved from https://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/Materials/fm6-22.pdf
  • McConne, J. (2018). “Why are we doing this?”: Using digital reflection to increase student engagement. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 11(2), 13–22. doi:10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v11i02/13-22.
  • Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Nati Stander. (2015, September 11). Daniel Goleman: What makes a leader [Video file]? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/WICq_Pj8ZUk
  • Poldner, E., Van der Schaaf, M., Simons, P., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wijngaards, G. (2014). Assessing student teachers’ reflective writing through quantitative content analysis. European journal of teacher education, 37(3), 348–373.
  • Power, R. (2013). Leader-member exchange theory in higher and distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 277-284.
  • Schwiebert, P. & DeKlyen, C. (2000). Tear Soup. Portland, OR: Lincoln & Allen.
  • Train in a Day. (2015, July 23). Leadership styles: Which type of leader are you [Video file]? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ddt_IGMMOrI


Created with images by Trevor Gerzen - "Murky childhood reflection" • PublicDomainPictures - "diamond black rich" • TeroVesalainen - "checklist check list" • geralt - "change board door" • geralt - "road sign town sign training" • Hans - "dwarf gnome kobold" • cocoparisienne - "einstein professor humor" • Elena Koycheva - "untitled image" • SPOTSOFLIGHT - "justitia justice blindness" • stevepb - "road direction path" • Zhu Hongzhi - "untitled image" • Priscilla Du Preez - "untitled image" • Kdsphotos - "grey owl large owl owl" • Dan Gold - "untitled image" • ArtisticOperations - "houston fire department houston texas" • mrthoif0 - "chameleon background isolated" • Tim Marshall - "untitled image"

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a copyright violation, please follow the DMCA section in the Terms of Use.