This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 21 October 2014, At: 15:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Higher EducationPolicy and ManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Investigating OrganizationalFit in a ParticipatoryLeadership EnvironmentAdrianna Kezar aa ERIC Clearing House on Higher Education , USAPublished online: 03 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Adrianna Kezar (2001) Investigating Organizational Fit in aParticipatory Leadership Environment, Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagement, 23:1, 85-101, DOI: 10.1080/13600800020047261

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800020047261

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2001

Investigating Organizational Fit in a Participatory LeadershipEnvironment

ADRIANNA KEZAR, ERIC Clearing House on Higher Education, USA

ABSTRACT This paper examines why colleges and universities will continue to confront organizational�t problems even as they move to more participatory leadership environments. The results of a case studyinvestigating an institution that had adopted servant leadership are presented, focusing on four mainthemes: (1) emergence of a singular leadership approach; (2) assimilation of a ‘participatory’ leadershipstyle; (3) coercing people to �t; and (4) lack of awareness about power. Principles from pluralisticleadership models are offered for alleviated organizational �t problems.

One of the strengths of the team centered leadership is that different personal-ity types, beliefs, and behaviors can be more effectively brought together inorder to make better decisions and to strengthen the organization. (Of� cialStatement of Values—Equivocal Community College)

Introduction and Context

As the introductory quote suggests, many higher education institutions have moved awayfrom traditional, hierarchical leadership toward participatory or collaborative leadershipapproaches with the goal of tapping into the wealth of expertise throughout theorganization, increasing commitment, and most importantly addressing organizational � tproblems. For decades the norm for presidential and administrative leadership has beenauthoritarian, hierarchical, control-oriented, and position based with one-way notions ofpower (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Bensimon et al., 1989). Even though colleges havea history of shared governance, research illustrates that this process is usually notcollaborative, either operating within the norms of hierarchical leadership or collectivism,management by majority or consensus (Parker, 1998). True participatory leadership hasbeen uncommon on most campuses.

Research on both hierarchical and collectivist approaches to leadership illustrated thatorganizational � t is a signi� cant problem for many groups of people, often crippling

ISSN 1360-080X (print)/ISSN 1469–9508 (online)/01/010085-17 Ó 2001 Association for Tertiary Education ManagementDOI: 10.1080/1360080002004726 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

86 A. Kezar

campuses’ potential to meet the challenges assigned to leadership (Ayman, 1993;Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). In particular, women and minorities have distinctiveviews of leadership (i.e. collective, empowerment based, non-hierarchical, etc.) that areoften not seen as valid within hierarchical approaches, resulting in them not � tting in.Within collectivist committees, women and minorities often have dissenting views thatare diminished (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Cox, 1993). Sti� ing or not acknowledgingdifference is a signi� cant problem that leads to inef� ciency and inability to meetorganizational goals (Ayman, 1993; Cox, 1993). Another problematic issue related toorganizational � t is assimilation. In the 1970s and 1980s, as women and people of colourbegan to obtain leadership positions, they were encouraged to assimilate the dominantleadership, i.e. hierarchy, one-way power, values often which contradicted their personalphilosophies (Acker, 1993; Amey & Tombley, 1992; Astin & Leland, 1991; Calas &Smirich, 1992). Assimilation has many negative side effects for both the individual andthe organization, such as decreased job satisfaction, lack of professional commitment,and turnover (Acker, 1993; Calas & Smirich, 1992). These outcomes are extremelytroubling in the academe where people are less likely to leave a position they areunhappy with than in other enterprises where people have mobility to move around iftheir values are incongruent. Campuses are becoming aware that creating an inclusiveleadership environment and avoiding organizational � t is a serious problem facing theacademy in the 21st century.

As a result of these concerns about accommodating the growing diversity of leadershipvoices and addressing the problems of organizational � t that result with hierarchical andcollectivist approaches, many higher education institutions have embraced participatoryor collaborative forms of leadership (Astin, 1994; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Theseapproaches to leadership focus on team efforts, drawing on different opinions and beliefs,and tend to be non-hierarchical. Yet, there is no empirical evidence to support that thesenew approaches will incorporate diverse voices or resolve organizational � t; it is merelyan assumption. Recent organizational research suggests that all participatory models maynot be able to incorporate diverse voices successfully because many models overlookpower conditions, intergroup relations, and strive toward consensus (Bensimon &Neumann, 1993; Astin, 1994). Yet, this literature is only suggestive, rather thanempirical.

The purpose of this article is to provide empirical evidence by examining whether andhow participatory leadership environments are capable of reducing organizational � t. Italso investigates whether collaborative leadership leads to the inclusion of diverse voices.This will be accomplished by presenting the results of a case study on a campus with aparticipatory form of leadership based on total quality management and collaborativeleadership principles called servant leadership. In addition to reinforcing the results ofprevious studies about the impact of organizational � t on employees (inef� ciency, loss ofhuman resources, miscommunication, etc.), this study sheds light on a new phenom-enon—organizational � t remaining a problem within participatory leadership environ-ments. In particular, the in-depth case study illuminates the reasons why a participatoryenvironment may not resolve organizational � t and provides reasons that new leadershipmodels are needed to facilitate the inclusion of diverse leadership voices.

Literature Review: organizational � t and new leadership models

In this section, I provide context for the case study by reviewing two key concepts:organizational � t and new leadership models. Reviewing organizational � t theory helps

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 87

the reader to understand that this phenomenon has been researched for over 40 years,with views changing from extremely positive, a means for increasing productivity, tonegative and harmful to both organizations and individuals. This realization of theproblems of organizational � t underscores the need to develop solutions. The researchon new leadership models may provide solutions to organizational � t, offering ways thatleadership can become more inclusive of diverse members of organizations. Together,these two literature bases help to frame the problem (organizational � t) presented in thecase study and ways to interpret the case by deciphering the assumptions underlying newapproaches to leadership.

Fit has been a central concept in the organizational literature since the 1960s whenperson–environment � t models became prevalent (Holland, 1973; Pace & Stern, 1958;Pervin, 1978; Pervin & Rubin, 1967). These models suggested that individuals were mostsuccessful and satis� ed when their skills, aptitudes, values and beliefs matched theorganizations. This resulted in companies hiring people who were similar to the overallorganizational focus and values or encouraged people to modify their values to � t in withthe predominant scheme (Holland, 1973; Meir & Hasson, 1982; Pascale, 1985). Researchbegan to examine individuals who modi� ed their values to � t the organization, � ndingit had many negative impacts on individuals, e.g. dissatisfaction with job, healthproblems, absenteeism, as well as impacts on the organization, e.g. turnover, lack ofcommitment (Chusmir, 1985; Cox, 1993). Thus, even though people are more produc-tive if they have alignment with institutional goals or values, assimilation or trying tomodify values does not have the same affect.

More recent literature in organizational theory has begun to challenge the assumptionsof person–environment � t theory suggesting that this is a conformist/assimilationistmodel (Cox, 1993). Organizational � t is re-examined and presented as the result of anoverarching culture or, in this case, conception of leadership. An overarching culture iscreated by power conditions, in which one group is able to de� ne the values for theenvironment. Books such as Taylor Cox’s Cultural Diversity in Organizations emphasize thatperson–environment � t models are not successful and have many unfortunate conse-quences for both individuals and organizations. These authoritative sources suggest thatindividuals often do not change, creating con� ict, or in the process of changing becomeresentful and unhappy (1993). For the organization, � t problems result in miscommuni-cation, inef� ciency due lack of ownership of initiatives, as well as absenteeism andturnover. In addition to being ineffective, he notes that they have an insidious side offorcing people to follow a dominant cultural approach, suggesting that this approach isnot socially just of equitable. Some organizations are striving to identify and adoptstrategies to address the growing diversity within organizations without forcing assimi-lation (Rosener, 1990). This search for strategies lead many organizations to adoptparticipatory leadership approaches.

Three leadership approaches emerged responding to the challenge that women andminorities approaches were not re� ected in current leadership models (or did not ‘� t’):(1) alternative models; (2) participatory models; and (3) pluralistic or multiculturalmodels. One strategy was the development of alternative leadership models that re� ectthe style of women and people of colour, for example, ‘women’s ways of leading’(Rosener, 1990). Rather than emphasizing hierarchy, individualism, power, and control,alternative models prescribe a new style—collective efforts, social justice, empowerment-oriented, non-positional, etc. (Helgesen, 1990). Although initially a promising approach,several problems have been identi� ed with this approach. For example, they can serveto categorize and stereotype people as well as exaggerate differences among people.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

88 A. Kezar

Moreover, alternative models can lead to one particular style of leadership being viewedas universal, the same problem as hierarchical models (Cox, 1993). Finally, they canlead to the alternative model becoming another dominant model. This is occurringwith ‘women’s ways of leading’; it is becoming the dominant approach to leadingorganizations.

Although collaborative or participatory leadership models of leadership have a longhistory in higher education, they have become even more popular as traditional,hierarchical approaches have fallen out of favour (Gardenschwartz & Rowe, 1994).Foundations and government organizations (Kellogg, FIPSE, Ford) are providing sub-stantial funding for efforts to develop team and collaborative forms of leadership. Ingeneral, participatory models share several assumptions: (1) leadership involves a team,group or community rather than an individual; (2) interdependence and connectednesswithin the organization/people as part of a larger system; (3) empowerment rather thanpower and control; (4) non-positional as well as positional leadership; and (5) learning iscentremost within these more collaborative, team-oriented approaches. These assump-tions are similar to those of ‘women’s ways of leading’; it is often noted that women andminorities gravitate toward being collaborative or participatory leaders. Most literatureon participatory leadership does not mention intergroup relations, con� ict, or power.

Two example of these models might help to elucidate these assumptions. TQMsuggests that leadership is no longer a pyramid with the president on top, but thepyramid is tilted on its side with the president as coach or coordinator (Westerman,1994). Since the employees are at the other end of the pyramid working directly with thecustomer, the leader wants to empower them to take initiative and make decisions. Asa result everyone is a leader, though there are different levels of leadership. It is assumedthat multiple voices will necessarily be represented if a broader number of individuals areinvolved in the process (Westerman, 1994). Another model is called servant leadership,which assumes that the role of the leader is to serve the organization and the individualswithin it. It evolved from biblical notions of Christ as the model leader. The qualitiesfocused on are working with others, as Jesus worked with the disciples, leading in a quiet,humble, empowerment focused manner.

Literature produced in the last decade has begun to challenge whether participatoryefforts truly brings forth diverse and multiple voices, which is particularly important increating an inclusive culture and eliminating organizational � t. As a result, a thirdleadership approach emerged called pluralistic or multicultural organizations. Thisapproach acknowledges difference in leadership approaches and openly addresses powerand different life experiences impacting perspective. Research illustrates attention toperspective and difference creates a positive diverse leadership group (Cox, 1993). Thiscontrasts participatory models focus on developing a common purpose, consensus, sharedvalues and understanding.

The characteristics of an effective diverse leadership environment include: (1) anunderstanding of different cultural norms and their impact on communication, problem-solving, and con� ict; (2) a cultivation of different viewpoints and acknowledgement thatpeople will have multiple understandings of leadership; (3) a desire for individual andcollective growth; (4) an openness to new experiences and processes—learning aboutother people’s viewpoints, problem-solving techniques, and communication styles; (5) anemphasis on self-awareness and identity; and (6) an awareness that power differences cancontribute to different viewpoints (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Gardenschwartz &Rowe, 1994). These principles are not discussed within the literature on participatory ofcollaborative leadership.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 89

Two models in higher education embody these new pluralistic beliefs and principlesabout leadership: Bensimon and Neumman’s ‘teams as cultures’ concept and the ‘socialchange model of leadership’. Although, the teams as cultures model emphasizes many ofthe familiar aspects of participatory leadership environments such as collective efforts,non-positional leadership, and empowerment, it also embraces the notions of multi-cultural approaches to leadership such as assuming differences exist and developingspeci� c mechanisms to tap into these differences. Bensimon and Neumann discard acommonly held belief about teams by illustrating that building consensus and focusing oncommonalties was destructive to the development of inclusive leadership environments(1993). Con� ict and power struggles are seen as a natural part of the decision-makingprocess.

The social change model re� ects principles of pluralistic leadership through itsemphasis on self-awareness of identity and beliefs (called consciousness of self), thecampus and the larger social context (which leads to an understand of power conditionsthat impact perspectives), and controversy with civility. These aspects address issuesignored within participatory models such as perspective, power, and differences (Astin1994). In summary, participatory leadership environments may not alleviate organiza-tional � t problems because there are no speci� c mechanisms to assure all voices areheard, no active searching out of multiple perspectives, and a potential for unintentionalassimilation through the consensus building process. Campuses may want to re-examinethe assumptions their campuses are operating within, especially within the context of theresults of the case study presented next.

Research Design

An in-depth case study of one campus was conducted in order to meet several goals: (1)to explore the context and power, which are critical to understanding organizational � t;(2) to understand the way the participatory model was operationalized; and (3) toexamine leadership more broadly throughout the institution. Previous studies have beenunable to capture the ways that participatory leadership environments operate since thedata have not been context based. Instead, research designs have mostly been surveys orinterviews of people who are considered participatory leaders or ways to identify whethersomeone is a participatory leaders (Rosener, 1990). Another goal of this study was toexplore leadership more broadly throughout the institution than has been done inprevious studies (Birnbaum, 1992), focusing on the leadership perspectives of individualsoutside traditional leadership roles and whether their voices are included in theleadership process—within a higher education context faculty and staff have typically notbeen examined (Birnbaum, 1992). A description of the case in presented at the beginningof the Results section.

Multi-case Selection

In order to collect context based data from individuals throughout the institution, thisstudy examined multiple levels of an organization: the institutional, group, and individuallevels.1 An examination of organizational � t necessitates an understanding of both themicro environment of the individual as well as careful analysis of the macro environmentof the organization. The community college chosen was given the pseudonym EquivocalCommunity College; it was chosen because it was a ‘typical’ case and structurally diversein terms of women and people of colour as a part of the faculty, staff, and student body.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

90 A. Kezar

A community college was chosen because they tend to have a more diverse faculty andstaff. Using ‘typical’ case sampling avoids rejection of information on the grounds thatit is known to arise from special or deviant cases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The campushad been utilizing participatory leadership for over eight years. Most campuses haveadopted this approach over the last decade; thus, the campus has the approximateexperience of other campuses with this new approach. Utilizing a campus that was justbeginning to use participatory leadership would probably not yield helpful data as theinstitution is still struggling to learn and adopt the principles. Although the results of thisone case can not be generalized to other institutions, the results are suggestive ofcommon patterns of behaviour since a typical case was chosen.

I utilized a positioned informant approach for selecting people to interview within theinstitution (Conrad et al., 1993). A positioned informant approach assumes that people’srole within an organization/society impacts their responses. Based on the leadershipliterature and aspects that have already been found to be related to distinct leadershipbeliefs (Astin & Leland, 1991, Ayman, 1993; Birnbaum, 1992; Morrison, 1991), Isampled speci� cally for gender, race/ethnicity, and role within the organization. Iused sequential sampling strategy in order to explore factors important on the particularcampus. Sequential sampling allows the researcher to spend time at the researchsetting and to learn other important sampling criteria. Based on conversations withinformants, three conditions were speci� cally sampled and were thought to be associatedwith organizational � t: (1) role as administrator or faculty; (2) � eld of study (transfer orgeneral education vs vocational education); and (3) level of administration (central orexecutive vs non-central or divisional). I interviewed 24 faculty members and 12administrators.

Summary of Within Site Selection of Interviews

I interviewed 36 individuals: 24 faculty (12 male, 12 female, 12 person of colour, 12Caucasian, and 12 Liberal Studies and 12 vocational, also referred to as Careers faculty)and 12 administrator (six male and six female, six persons of colour and six Caucasian,six central and six non-central administrators).

Data Collection

Triangulation of data has been identi� ed as helpful in understanding complex phenom-ena like leadership (Yukl, 1989). Thus, I utilized several � eld methods to understandleadership, including interviews, document analysis (records extending back 25 years atthe school-wide, division and department level, e.g. strategic plans, accreditation reports,minutes from meetings, consultant reports), observations, and an analysis of the physicalenvironment. The observation and document analysis assisted in developing interpreta-tions of the power conditions and context described in the Results section. I relied mostlyon interviews since my interest was in understanding how different individuals andgroups within the institution construct leadership and perceive their � t within theenvironment. The interviews focused on campus participants’ personal philosophy ofleadership, comparison of their personal philosophy to the campus leadership model, andtheir perceptions of campus leadership. Because de� ning leadership concretely is adif� cult and abstract process, I asked campus participants several different questions inorder to allow them to articulate their personal de� nitions of leadership.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 91

Analysis of Data

I utilized categorical and componential analysis to understand shared trends amongpeople of different background characteristics. For example, there was a pattern forcertain groups of people to describe not � tting into the campus leadership environment.Also, what trends did they describe in terms of the reasons why participatory leadershipwas not inclusive. Categorical analysis emphasizes the identi� cation of categories andpatterns. Componential analysis focuses on speci� c language that was repeated byinterviewees (Spradley, 1979, p. 174). For example, coercion and assimilation were wordsused quite often. Examining issues surrounding the use of these words is important tointerpret this language such as when this term was used, in reference to what individuals,and other related terms.

Results

Before reviewing the way that organizational � t emerged within the participatoryenvironment, it is important to brie� y describe the campus context. This description isbased on the six months of observation, document analysis, and interviews. Following thepresentation of the context, the results will be organized around these � ve themes: (1)lacking organizational � t; (2) emergence of a singular leadership approach; (3) assimi-lation of a ‘participatory’ leadership style; (4) coercing people to � t; and (5) lack ofawareness about power.

Equivocal Community College

Approximately eight years ago, Equivocal Community College (ECC) adopted a modelcalled ‘servant leadership’. The president suggested initiating a new form of leadership,because the campuses’ tradition of hierarchical, directive leadership did not � t with hisown personal beliefs and philosophical commitment to equality and the power of groupdecision-making.2 The president describes the servant leadership culture as one where‘people feel comfortable, an open environment, everyone has voice and works collabora-tively and collectively using skills such as truthtelling, dialoging, and mapping processes—essentially an inclusive type of leadership involving everyone on campus’. Thischaracterization was quite accurate; every member had the opportunity to be on one ofthe various leadership teams. Secretaries, custodial staff, security guards, deans, faculty,and top administrators were all on teams together. There appears to be severaltheoretical in� uences on the president and administrators who developed the newleadership culture for the campus. For example, one administrator noted that: ‘We havelooked at Total Quality Management (TQM) and believe in many of the principles suchas working in teams, quality and ef� ciency, and decision-making at the lowest levels.Many of the changes we have initiated are also talked about in TQM, but that wasnot speci� cally our model; we have looked at much of the literature on learningorganizations, chaos theory with self-organizing structures, and others. So really it is acombination of ideas’.

The president realized that servant leadership could not be accomplished withoutmajor changes on campus. Furthermore, he knew that some modi� cations would bewelcome, e.g. greater in� uence by people throughout the institution, while others mightbe resisted, e.g. investment of time on teams. Unfortunately, he did not realize certaingroups, e.g. secretaries, had more to gain by embracing the new model than others who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

92 A. Kezar

might actually be losing power, e.g. Careers faculty who had bene� ted from theauthoritative leadership style where they had great power and in� uence. After developingan initial plan and meeting with the vice presidents and deans for feedback, the presidentand his cabinet instituted the changes necessary to move toward a new organizationguided by servant leadership. The plan included a careful review of models to guide thecampus and an assessment of the structure and culture.

Several structural changes were made, including the addition of six cross campusdecision-making teams, decision-making in general was delegated to the lower levels,many layers of middle management were eliminated, and faculty were encouragedthrough rede� ning of their positions to become more involved in campus governance.This restructuring has resulted in administrative work being delegated to faculty sincefew mid level administrators remain. To compliment the more collaborative, participa-tory, team structures, a new values statement was developed by the campus and servesas a model to guide the leadership teams; it includes: (1) diversity; (2) respect; (3)collaboration; (4) openness/honesty; (5) risk-taking and openness to mistakes; and (6)equality. The of� cial campus values statement is as follows:3

Diversity as essential to discovering truth; mutual and multi-directional account-ability; respect for each other as individuals; embrace these and work incollaboration and teaming to produce the best decisions.

These values are meant to reinforce the metaphor of leaders as servants, playing therole of facilitator, encourager, and supporter. Leadership is seen more as collectiveand collaborative, emphasizing process as well as leadership outcomes. And diverseviewpoints are noted as key to truth and problem-solving.

Lacking Organizational Fit

With these changes in place, it might seem surprising that the majority of the people Iinterviewed described not being included within the new servant leadership model.Those who felt unaligned with the servant leadership model fell into four differentcategories: (1) those with a critical perspective—people who are vocal or questioning; (2)people who have an entrepreneurial style, tend to like working more individually, arevery goal driven; (3) people who were more introverted; and (4) faculty who believe thatadministrative work should not be de� ned as leadership. An interesting � nding is thatwomen and minorities are disproportionately represented in the � rst and third groups.Yet, men and Caucasians were just as likely to be among those who felt excluded fromleadership.

There appears to be some preconceived notion about the qualities of a team orparticipatory leadership environment that serve to de� ne certain characteristics as‘better’. A few of their descriptions of not ‘� tting in’ will help to illustrate theirperspectives:

Yes, some of us are having more trouble than others � tting in (with the newculture.) For instance, there is this woman in Careers that is having a dif� culttime. She is the member of that other kind of intellectual elite, the Bill Gatestype, very vocal, she can’t � t in. She has a PhD, is a full professor, but can’t� nd a place in this new culture. I mentioned earlier that I have volunteered forsome committees, but I was not taken seriously. The new administration islooking for yes people. I have opinions, strong at times (similar to this woman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 93

I was just mentioning to you). People like (us) are struggling. (Faculty member,Careers)

People don’t � t if they don’t conform to their narrow de� nition of how thingsshould be done on this campus. There is this woman who gets all the workdone, knows all the answers, is smarter than most people you can imagine, shecan problem-solve, she knows everything and works harder than anyone youcould ever hope to meet. However, she is not personable; she is abrasive, soshe is going nowhere. Act the same, dress alike, and that look has to be sweet.People succeed if they are nice, socially oriented and like to sit around. But ifyou do not work together well in groups, forget it. (Faculty member, LiberalStudies)

Many of the faculty are unaligned with this new culture because we think thefaculty should lead in the classroom and with the curriculum. Teaching andour responsibilities as faculty are so important, but it seems like leadership isonly about administration or administrative work. (Faculty member, LiberalStudies)

In addition, those who feel unaligned tend to feel devalued by the institution. Severalfaculty described the way the servant leadership model resulted in them feeling like theylacked self-worth, were devalued by the institution, and even punished since responsibil-ities had been taken away. This passage illustrates the devaluation of many of the peopleI interviewed:

Yes, unless you support the party way of looking at things, they don’t hear you,and you can’t be a part of the new culture. If you are as low as I am on thetotem pole, they don’t bother punishing you. Although one thing that they dois take away responsibility that you have. I used be a coordinator; I am onlya faculty member now. The day they turned me down for the job at X, Ireceived an international grant and award. (Laughs.) So I am angry that mycollege won’t let me do any of the things that I want to do to help it anymore;at the same time I am getting international recognition for doing the thingsthat my colleagues won’t let me do here on this campus. (Faculty member,Careers)

When people in positions of power who control resources and rewards don’t valueyou, it feels as if the institution in general doesn’t value you. As a result, the new culturefeels coercive rather than empowering. All of these individuals have gone outside theinstitution and become involved in responsibilities elsewhere. As a result, the institutionis missing out on much of its human resources.

How does this case help us understand this disconnect between the participatoryleadership environment and individual–organizational � t? Several issues emerged thatexplained why people continued to feel they did not � t within the institution even thoughit had a seemingly open leadership model: (1) emergence of a singular leadershipapproach; (2) assimilation of a ‘participatory’ leadership style; (3) coercing people to � t;and (4) lack of awareness about power.

Emergence of a Singular Leadership Approach

A concern among those who do not feel they � t within the participatory leadershipenvironment is that leadership has been de� ned in a singular way. Participation means

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

94 A. Kezar

being extroverted and social, working collectively on most projects, developing consensus,and being involved with what they termed ‘administrivia’, � lling out bureaucraticpaperwork and developing bureaucratic processes. Many people I interviewed noted that‘If you perceive participation in leadership in a different way, you were not included inthe institutional leadership process’. Although diversity of thought was part of their valuesstatement, this notion did not become transferred to diversity of leadership beliefs.

In order to understand these issues it is important to explore the perspective of thosewho felt the servant leadership model was inclusive. Their descriptions of leadershipvaried: some people suggested civility in meetings or slight modi� cation in their style to‘� t’ into servant leadership, while other people designated speci� c styles, approaches,attitudes, and skills necessary to � t in. But both perspectives necessitated some form ofalignment from the individual to the institutional viewpoint. These � rst few passagesre� ect a more benign form of alignment. Although there was a distinct trend, it wasslightly more likely for faculty than administrators to discuss this benign form of � t:

Also on the leadership teams, things are conducted with great courtesy. If therewere different personalities on the leadership teams, I might be reluctant to bea part of it. But I think that is one thing that makes it work well. The behaviouris civilized. (Faculty member, Liberal Studies)

And maybe we do have to make some adjustment to our own personal styles.For instance, I am not big on meetings, I prefer to be given a task alone andjust let me do it, complete it. But that is not the way things are going any more,so I had to make an adjustment in myself. (Faculty member, Liberal Studies)

Other individuals suggest that there are speci� c skills or qualities that are necessary for� tting in. Their descriptions of leadership appear to re� ect the singular style or approachdiscussed by individuals who did not � t in. It is these individuals’ interpretation thatappears to be contributing to the organizational � t problems on this campus:

And we do need people with speci� c skills in this culture. I told you about thefaculty member who saw himself as a bad boy—that was how he sawleadership. He wanted me to give him a leadership role. He didn’t have goodpeople skills, but was brilliant. Now what is important is who has goodcommunication skills, who likes to work with people. So he doesn’t � t with thetype of people we are looking for. Leaders are people who see ahead; and thenthey go for it, work to make it happen—there are many types. Some are moredirective, some are values driven, some are political; these types are causing aproblem here. We want facilitators. (Administrator)

Yes, the people who are succeeding are all people that have great people skills,all have a commitment, but they are also strong communicators, managementskills, they know how to get things done, are productive, not all creative. Theyknow how to have an impact, in� uencing skills. These people all tend to workwell in this team environment. So the top thing in this team environment is thecommunication skills. You do need those to be successful. Also, we are gettingto the point where we really need to begin to enforce the new paradigm ofleadership. We have supported it and encouraged at some point in time peoplehave to be held accountable. So, soon people will be penalized for notoperating within the new culture. (Administrator)

These last two passages mentioned certain people as problems and discussed beginning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 95

to penalize people for not operating within the singular leadership approach, whichre� ects the more oppressive character of these perspectives. Even though people claimthe new leadership culture is more inclusive, in practice through certain individuals, it isoperating to de� ne many people out of leadership and not incorporating diverse voices.There was a continuum with some individuals re� ecting an oppressive, singular modeland others suggesting a loosely de� ned more open model. Several administratorsmentioned that if individuals don’t ‘� t’ into the participatory environment, they shouldleave or will not be successful.

Assimilation of a ‘Participatory’ Leadership Style

Another danger in this organizational � t process is that many who do not outright rejectbeing included in the participatory environment may try to align themselves withsomething they do not feel comfortable—assimilation. Or worse, as I will describe next,they are coerced into aligning with the new culture. People who felt unaligned withcampus leadership beliefs noted being forced to grow or align. For example, most facultyexpressed that they are being asked to change who they are fundamentally—in order to� t in—and that they have been given no explanation why they should make thisdramatic change. Since this represents a change in a person’s identity, it seemed to bea major type of growth that the institution was expecting from individuals. A facultymember who was concerned with taking on administrative work and moving away fromteaching and learning, her discipline/� eld, and the community ties wanted to understandwhy she should make that change:

Sure, if there were some compelling reasons for me to change my life, I will.But to move away from my focus on teaching and learning, my discipline, todo administrivia … I am just not sure. We are reasonable, I think. I can’t � ndany compelling reason for rede� ning my life here. Uh, random radical changedoes not seem very healthy, but that is what they expect. Change, conformbecause they said so … Why not give us a compelling reason to? These arereally important issues because if the college does not value who you are, thatchanges the way the college sees you and the way you see the college. (Facultymember, Liberal Studies)

Faculty and staff described this process as ‘assimilation’, because they were beingencouraged to change without being given a reason to do so.

Administrators, however, characterized growth as positive. They noted that personalgrowth must be in line with the institution and its culture. Some administrators notedhow speci� c skills, abilities, and styles are associated with this culture of leadership thatthey are supposed to be growing toward. The following passages related to growthcertainly re� ect an expectation that individuals must change to become part of the newleadership culture rather than engaging in a negotiation among individuals in thecommunity:

Personal transformation needs to be in alignment with where the institutionneeds to go. It just can’t be individuals growing, although that is a critical part.But it has to be lined up with where the institution needs to go. (Administrator)There was some support for the change, for personal growth. A lot of peoplewere brought in to do the Myers–Briggs tests. People discovered more abouttheir personalities and were told how that would � t into the new culture.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

96 A. Kezar

Others were encouraged to work on areas where they may not � t. (Facultymember, Careers)

The personality tests and assessment of whether people will � t seems to provide moreevidence that people are expected to alter their identities to align with the institution.People who did not � t in the participatory environment characterized growth as anassimilation process, but it is seen positively by people aligned with the servant leadershipmodel. However, these groups did not have to change their identities. Perhaps this is whythey differ on the way they perceive growth.

Campus participants, mostly people who saw the servant leadership as inclusive,described a plethora of techniques and processes that were being utilized to ‘help’ peoplealign with the new leadership culture—to facilitate growth. Some elements of alignmentare more internal or individual, like acceptance of new ideas, personal growth andidentity alignment and seem to leave the burden of alignment on the individual. Thosewho ‘do not � t’ see these individual strategies more positively since the decision to changeis left up to them and not imposed by people in positions of power. Other alignmentprocesses are external and provide organizational support for individual growth. Forexample, there are efforts to reiterate values, remind people of appropriate behaviour,modelling of behaviour, bringing in new people to the organization, promoting peoplewithin the organization to leadership roles, training, developing a supportive institutionalstructure, and providing rewards. Having to realign one’s leadership beliefs was not seenas problematic by many of those who did not � t. Some actually perceived it as anopportunity to learn new and different skills. However, others resented that only certainpeople were being asked to change and others (those aligned) were not being asked toreconsider the way they enacted leadership. For example, why were the teams not askedto see the bene� ts of entrepreneuralism or debate? But coercive techniques of makingpeople � t in were seen as problematic by almost everyone interviewed.

Coercing People to Fit

Some of the activities on the campus are perceived as coercive, e.g. � ring, repositioning,and denying involvement in campus activities or promotions. Other activities illustratepower, but not necessarily coercion, such as reminding people or peer control, mandatedtraining, promotion based on adherence, and a rewards system. First, I will highlight afew passages that re� ect some of the coercive techniques utilized to align individuals tothe dominant approach to leadership, such as repositioning people who do not agreewith the participatory leadership environment:

Well, you did see a lot of new, different people in leadership positions atthe time of the reorganization. I think the upper level administration movedpeople around. I mean, if you have an obstructionist in there something hasto happen. So the repositioning helped some people change their minds.(Administrator)

Another example of coercive techniques is an administrator’s description of accountabil-ity to the new style, promotion based on adherence, and rewards for alignment:

For that reason, my leadership style tries to make sure that the conditions atthe institution, the structure, support the new culture. Our transition seems tobe a little more traumatic than other organizations, businesses. We had less

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 97

control to make the change happen and we don’t have the type of rewardsystems that other organizations have had. Also the ability to just layoff people,downsize. These structural elements help to encourage change. We are tryingto move toward a system of rewards for people who align to the new culture.Let’s move with those people who will move, there will be rewards, incentivesfor those who move. Some promotion will be based on having gone throughthe training and modelling the behaviour. (Administrator)

This next passage discusses peer control, which appears to have become a coerciveforce on the campus since people have dropped off committees or felt uncomfortablevoicing their opinions due to these efforts. In the words of one Liberal Studies facultymember: ‘If someone veers from what is appropriate, there are people that will remindthem, a sort of peer control. There is a certain way to act. This helps to keep themeetings controlled’.

Administrators expressed mixed opinions about the best overall strategy to initiatepersonal growth and to bring individuals into alignment with the institution. Thefollowing passages re� ect the sentiments of most administrators that the communityneeds to be challenged, even pushed or forced into alignment:

I think you have to challenge and push people a little in order to get them tolearn. I believe you have to push people out of their zone of comfort to learn.But I know there is another philosophy that you make people safe enough, theywill choose to step out of their zone of comfort. (Administrator)

The ‘yank the rug out from under everyone and let them all fall where theymay, in a great big confused heap’, was probably the right thing to do becausethis campus would not have chosen to change on their own. (Administrator)

Yet individuals struggling to � t in described this imposition of the new leadership modelas problematic. Several individuals mentioned that the members of the new cultureneeded to negotiate with the community. The following passages re� ect campusparticipants’ concerns about the strategy chosen by those in power to implement the newculture:

See, what has ended up happening is the reorganization to a new paradigmtook place using the rules from the old paradigm, so in many ways we havenever left the old paradigm. It is inherently problematic. This leads toresistance and hypocrisy. We were told either get on the ship or swim out therealone, there are no other options. That is not what the new paradigm ofopenness, diversity, etc., is supposed to be about. But the new culture wasimplemented with the rules of the old culture and to some degree nevercompletely left the old. He made us � t his style. I wouldn’t even try to arguethat it isn’t a better culture, but it is just the way it took place. (Facultymember, Careers)

It needed to be more of an evolution. Instead we went into a revolution. Andlike all revolutions there was a lot of bloodshed and pain. (Faculty member,Careers)

These passages emphasized that there are various strategies toward alignment throughmutual growth and negotiation, over time. These suggestions differ markedly from thechallenging, prodding, or forcing mentioned by the administrators.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

98 A. Kezar

Lack of Awareness about Power

Lack of awareness about power also complicated and exacerbated these � t issues. Thischange to a new culture was not just about changes in values, but changes in power.Campus participants lacked an awareness of power conditions. The few that acknowl-edged power did not feel they had a responsibility to address power dynamics openly.Some people who feel they don’t � t are describing a process of losing power as a resultof the reorganization, but they are unaware that the goal was an equalizing of power.To these individuals who lost power it feels as if the institution no longer values them.The institution may still value these individuals, but with no open discussions about thechanges in power that have taken place on campus, these individuals remain confused.The following passage by one of the few individuals aware of power on campus illustratesthis concern:

No one will talk about the fact that some people had to lose power for othersto gain some within the reorganization. They feel they are just not valued anymore—they don’t even see the power thing. People who have lost arepsychologically disoriented. If management had been up front, I think thatpeople might have been better able to cope and to align to the new leadershipculture. Because they are confused, they dig in their heels. (Faculty member,Careers)

Disscussion

Similar to campuses across the country and internationally, this community college hasadopted a participatory leadership model in an effort to develop an inclusive leadershipenvironment. Unfortunately, this approach did not accomplish its goal since the majorityof the people at the institution do not feel included within campus leadership. Whatcan we learn from this case study? In the literature review, I described pluralistic/multicultural approaches that showed promise for encompassing the diversity of leader-ship beliefs and avoid the problems of organizational � t. It is important to examine thecase study through the lens of pluralistic leadership.

This study emphasizes the importance of one of the assumptions of pluralistic ormulticultural leadership models—acknowledgement of multiple understandings of leader-ship. The participatory environment ended up being no different from a hierarchicalmodel (or alternative models such as women’s way of knowing), simply replacing one setof de� ned characteristics for leadership for another. In other words, leadership isassumed to be understood similarly by people regardless of experience. Since campusparticipants describe leadership in such diverse ways, however, many do not feel thatthey ‘� t’ into the prede� ned institutional leadership model. Perhaps some people would� nd the participatory set of leadership characteristics more agreeable; however, thisprocess does not assure that a diversity of voices is included. The result of having asingular de� nition of leadership is continued lack of � t for a great majority of people.Furthermore, different cultural norms have a signi� cant impact on communication,problem-solving, and con� ict, which were not embraced in this singularly de� ned modelof leadership. The acknowledgement of multiple beliefs about leadership also resists thetendency to have a singular de� nition of leadership emerge.

Second, assimilation was occurring at this campus; this was another problem oftraditional leadership that the campus thought they were moving away from. Twoprinciples from pluralistic leadership would have assisted the effort of this campus: (1) an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 99

openness to new experiences and processes; and (2) a desire for individual and collectivegrowth. Assimilation results from not truly acknowledging there are multiple leadershipbeliefs and not being open to learning from others. Those in positions of power, thecentral administration, would have reacted differently to the multiple leadership beliefsif they had considered that they could learn from the other views of leadership, ratherthan seeing them as a threat. The concern of faculty about turning leadership intopaperwork was an important issue that the campus community needed to engage. Theadministration could have changed its policy in this area had they been more open tolearning from others and actively engaging alternative viewpoints. Participatory modelsdo stress the importance of growth, but only pluralistic models such as the social changemodel and teams as culture emphasize growth for all members of the community. Manypeople on this campus felt it was unfair that only they had to learn to be participatoryleaders; they hoped that people might consider and learn other approaches to leadershipsuch as business models, spiritual models, etc. A participatory model does not appear tobe a suf� ciently clear framework for campuses that want to truly embrace diversity andradically transform the leadership environment.

Also, a lack of awareness about power made the transition to a new leadershipenvironment fail; power differences and their connection to multiple perspectives isanother principle underlying pluralistic leadership. Transition to a more inclusiveleadership environment involves the transformation of power dynamics on campus. Thisprocess must be openly discussed and acknowledged for people to grow and understand.ECC missed this opportunity; even worse, it did not realize it needed to have such adiscussion to assure that people understood the goals of the transition to an inclusiveleadership environment.

Power was also signi� cant in another way; people in the central administration did notrealize there were different leadership beliefs on campus. They could not conceptualizewhy people might not be honest with the central administration, fearing retaliation. Thecentral administration lacked knowledge about their own power and was not aware ofthe many subtle ways they were creating fear among people. Also, members of theservant leadership environment were seeking support and felt threatened by challengingvoices. In pursuit of support they, to some degree, silenced difference by not allowingindividuals with different voices to have responsibilities, to serve on committees, andcontribute to institutional life. A pluralistic model might have made the campus moreaware and vigilante about ways they might be exerting power in the change process.Perhaps they could have trained managers and leaders to implement the inclusiveleadership principles without coercing people to change. But coercion was not part oftheir interpretive framework, since power was not explicitly described within any of theparticipatory models they were following.

Lastly, this case study provides lessons in terms of pitfalls to avoid in the transition toan inclusive leadership environment. It illustrates some approaches to consider duringthe implementation and operationalization of a new leadership environment: (1) beingunaware of power relations and multiple perspectives; (2) not being observant of possibleoppressive or coercive outcomes of any leadership model or not being aware how amodel can serve to exclude or de� ne people out of leadership; (3) not emphasizingcollective growth, but instead expecting growth from those who do not � t a singular ordominant model; (4) using shock or force against individuals who need to align becausethey are acting in oppressive ways, rather than negotiation and challenge (this also helpsto avoid backlash often accompanied by power changes); and (5) not clearly articulatingthe reasons why individuals should change their identity to align with the institution (if

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

100 A. Kezar

such changes are necessary, e.g. those who are acting in oppressive ways). Although othercampuses might experience other pitfalls or they may emerge differently, these im-plementation problems are principles that can help shape future efforts to create aninclusive leadership environment, one that avoids organizational � t problems.

Conclusion

The quote at the beginning of this paper describes the potential of truly inclusiveleadership environments. Most campuses feel that they can achieve this potential throughparticipatory leadership, but this case study provides a necessary cautionary tale. Thestory about Equivocal Community College helps campuses who are evaluating leadershipmodels (TQM, servant leadership, transformational leadership, social change model,collaborative leadership) by providing them with evidence for which model might helpthem to accomplish their goal. Equivocal Community College and other campuses canreap the promise of an inclusive leadership environment by applying the principles in thisarticle and those suggested in the pluralistic or multicultural leadership models.

NOTES

1. Case is de� ned at three levels: individuals, groups and the institution/organization.2. Until 1988, President Traditional, who came out of the public school system, and the military governed the

campus; those were the two great metaphors that dominated his thinking about leadership. The pastleadership culture was bureaucratic and hierarchical, which is fairly typical for community colleges. Theadministration and governance was top–down with most of the decision-making power in the hands ofindividuals with formal leadership positions. The organization operated within a strict chain of thecommand. Control, disempowerment, lack of trust for employees, and brutality were hallmarks of thisapproach to leadership. Faculty were not conceived of or de� ned as part of campus leadership.

3. Although these values seem aligned with those described in the pluralistic or multicultural strategy. Thecampus did not practice these values; they were mostly in rhetoric.

Correspondence: Adrianna Kezar, ERIC Clearing House on Higher Education, OneDupont Circle, Suite #630, Washington, DC 20036, USA.

REFERENCES

ACKER, J. (1993) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations, Gender and Society, 4(2),pp. 139–158.

AMEY, M. & TOMBLEY, M. (1992) Re-visioning leadership in community colleges, Review of Higher Education,15(2), pp. 125–150.

ASTIN, H. (1994) A Social Change Model of Leadership. Los Angeles: HERI.ASTIN, H. & LELAND, C. (1991) Women of In�uence, Women of Vision. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.AYMAN, R. (1993) Leadership perception: the role of gender and culture, in: M. CHEMERS & R. AYMAN (Eds)

Leadership Theory and Research: perspectives and directions. San Diego: Academic Press.BENSIMON, E. & NEUMANN, A. (1993) Redesigning Collegiate Leadership. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.BENSIMON, E., NEUMANN, A. & BIRNBAUM, R. (1989) Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: the ‘L’ word in higher

education. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.BIRNBAUM, R.. (1992) How Academic Leadership Works. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.CALAS, M. & SMIRICH, L. (1992) Re-writing gender into organizational theorizing: directions from feminist

perspectives, in: M. REED & M. HUGHES (Eds) Rethinking Organizations: new directions in organizational theory andanalysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

CHUSMIR, L. (1985) Personalized vs socialized power needs among working women and men, Human Relations,39(2), pp. 149–159.

CONRAD, C., HAWORTH, J. & MILLAR, S. (1993) A positioned subject approach to inquiry, in: C. CONRAD, A.NEUMANN & P. SCOTT (Eds) Qualitative Research in Higher Education: experiencing alternative perspectives and approaches.Needham, MA: Ginn.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Investigating Organizational Fit 101

COX, TAYLOR, JR (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett– Koehler.GARDENSWARTZ , L. & ROWE, A. (1994) Diverse Teams at Work: capitalizing on the power of diversity. Chicago: Irwin.HELGESEN, S. (1990) Women’s Way of Leading. New York: Doubleday.HOLLAND, J. (1973) Making Vocational Choices: a theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.LINCOLN, Y. & GUBA, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.MEIR, E. & HASSON, R. (1982) Congruence between personality type and environment type as a predictor of

stay in an environment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, pp. 309–317.MORRISON, A. (Ed.) (1991) The New Leaders: guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.PACE, C & STERN, C. (1958) An approach to the measures of psychological characteristics of college

environments, Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, pp. 269–277.PARKER, J. (1998) Leading as scholars & educators: the case for collaboration, Liberal Education, 84(4), pp. 8–15.PASCALE, R. (1985) The paradox of corporate culture: reconciling ourselves to socialization, California

Management Review, 27(2), pp. 26–40.PERVIN, L. (1978) Theoretical approaches to the analysis of individual–environment interaction, in: L.A.

PERVIN & M. LEWIS (Eds) Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. New York: Plenum.PERVIN, L. & RUBIN, D. (1967) Student dissatisfaction with college and the college dropout: a transactional

approach, Journal of Social Psychology, 72, pp. 285–295.ROSENER, J. (1990) Ways women lead, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 119–125.SPRADELY, J. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Miami, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.WESTERMAN, S. (1994) How total quality management initiatives can inspire leadership, in: S. MCDADE & P.

LEWIS (Eds) In Developing Administrative Excellence: creating a culture of leadership. New Directions for HigherEducation, Number 87. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

YUKL, G. (1989) Managerial leadership: a review of the theory and research, Journal of Management, 15(2),pp. 251–289.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

10 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014