Crosby B.C., Bryson J.M. - Leadership for the Common Good (2005)(en)

REFERENCES 389

Useem, M. The Leadership Moment. New York: Times Business, 1998. Vaill, P. B. Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Per-

manent Whitewater. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., and Venkataraman, S. The Innovation Journey. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Van der Heijden, K., and others. The Sixth Sense: Accelerating Organizational Learning with Scenarios. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2002.

Vangen, S., and Huxham, C. “Enacting Leadership for Collaboration Advantage.” British Journal of Management, 2003, 15(1), 39–55.

Van Horn, C. E., Baumer, D. C., and Gormley, W. T. Politics and Public Policy (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001. van Schendelen, R. Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU. Am-

sterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam Press, 2002. Vecchio, R. P. “Leadership and Gender Advantage.” Leadership Quarterly,

2002, 13(6), 643–671.

Vickers, G. The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995.

Volkema, R. J. “Problem Formulation as a Purposive Activity.” Strategic Management Journal, 1986, 7, 267–279.

Walker, A. By the Light of My Father’s Smile. New York: Ballantine Books, 1999.

Wallace, D., and White, J. B. “Building Integrity of Organizations.” New Management, 1988, 6(1), 30–35.

Walzer, M. “The Idea of a Civil Society.” Kettering Review, Winter 1997, pp. 8–22.

Waste, R. J. Ecology of City Policymaking. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1947.

Weick, K. E. “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems.” American Psychologist, 1984, 39(1), 40–49.

Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995.

Weick, K. E., and Sutcliffe, K. M. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K., and Obstfeld, D. “High Reliability: The Power of Mindfulness.” In F. Hesselbein and R. Johnston (eds.), On High Performance Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Weimer, D. L., and Vining, A. R. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Winer, M. “Balancing Power Precedes Other Group Processes in Collaborations and Partnerships.” In P. Hibbert (ed.), Co-Creacting

390 REFERENCES

Emergent Insight. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde Graduate School of Business, 2003.

Weisbord, M., and Janoff, S. Future Search. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1995.

Weisbord, M. R., and others. Discovering Common Ground: How Future Search Conferences Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Collaborative Action. San Francisco: BarrettKoehler, 1993.

Weisman, C. Secrets of Successful Retreats: The Best from the Non-Profit Pros.

St. Louis: Robbins, 2003.

West, C. Race Matters. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Wheatley, M. J. Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1999.

Wheatley, M. J. Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002.

Wheelan, S. A. Creating Effective Teams: A Guide for Members and Leaders.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999.

Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., and Newcomer, K. E. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Wildavsky, A. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis.

Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.

Williamson, O. E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press, 1985.

Wilson, J. Q. “Innovation in Organizations: Notes Toward a Theory.” In J. D. Thompson (ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.

Wilson, J. Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books, 1989.

Wilson, J. Q., and DiIulio Jr., J. J. American Government (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

Winer, M., and Ray, K. Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey. St. Paul, Minn.: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1994.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Stakeholder Dialogue Toolkit. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2001.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Annual Review 2002. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2003.

Young, I. M. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Youngblood, M. D. Life at the Edge of Chaos: Creating the Quantum Organization. Dallas: Perceval, 1997.

REFERENCES 391

Zaccaro, S. J., and Banks, D. J. “Leadership Vision, and Organizational Effectiveness.” In S. J. Zaccaro and R. J. Klimoski (eds.), The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Zaccaro, S. J., and Klimoski, R. J. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership.” In S. J. Zaccaro and R. J. Klimoski (eds.), The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., and Marks, M. A. “Team Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly, 2001, 12, 451–483.

Zinn, H. A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present. New York: HarperPerennial, 2001.

396 RESOURCE B

of the group. Flipchart sheets should overlap one another by one inch, so that the entire rectangle can be taken down and moved easily.

2.The facilitator asks each group member to think of solutions or responses to the problem being considered and write those ideas on the ovals, one idea per oval, using the black markers.

For example, if the problem were female illiteracy, the facilitator might pose the question, “What should we do to increase female literacy?”

The facilitator directs the group to express their solutions as imperatives—for example, “Have reading materials with female heroes.” Each idea should be expressed in no more than ten words. When most members of the group are finished writing, they post their ovals on the flipchart-covered wall.

The process assumes that participants can all read and write the same language. If participants do not, an alternative process is to draw pictures that represent possible actions. The pictures can be displayed to serve as a visual backdrop for talking about the actions.

3.The facilitator then leads participants in clustering the ovals according to common themes or subjects. Within the clusters, the more general, abstract, or goal-oriented ovals are moved toward the top and the more concrete, specific, and detailed ovals toward the bottom. The facilitator asks participants to name the clusters and then places a new oval with a name above each cluster. These clusters typically represent strategic issue or option areas.

4.The facilitator works with participants to pencil in arrows indicating linkage within and between clusters. An arrow pointing upward from oval A to oval B indicates that the action described on oval A causes, influences, or precedes the action described on B; conversely the action on oval B is an effect, outcome, or followup to the action on A. Once the group agrees on the placement of the arrows, they can be drawn in permanently with a marker.

5.The group now has a map of clusters in which specific actions or options are located toward the bottom, strategic options are in the middle, and more goal-oriented statements are toward the top. (See the graphic representations of this arrangement in Figures B.1 and B.2, in which the oval map is now referred to as an “Action-Oriented Strategy Map”). The facilitator then encourages

RESOURCE B 397

the group to think further about what they hope to achieve by pursuing the strategic options on the map. The responses, or “higher,” goals can be placed on new ovals at the top of the map, and arrows drawn from ovals that would contribute to those goals.

6. Finally, the group may want to decide on what it actually believes should be done, how, and why through an extended workshop process. It may wish to prioritize the actions, strategies, and goals on the map. The facilitator might give everyone five red dots to place on the five ovals considered most vital. This process can be much more elaborate, but the simple version presented here is adequate for constructing a preliminary strategic plan for what the group thinks should be done, how it should be done, and why.

The map so produced can be preserved as is, translated into an outline, or reproduced using computer graphics.

Figure B.1. Overall Logic of an Oval Map

(Action-Oriented Strategy Map).