Integrative Leadership Research Paper - Gun Violence

8/13/2019 Integrative Leadership Research Paper - Gun Violence

1/22

Integrative Leadership Analysis of the SandyHook Elementary Shooting: Join us to Prevent

the next Tragedy

Team Emerald

Karyn BergTom Erickson

Elizabeth HoepnerPano LiaoNick WallaceAmy Walsh


2/22

Case Description

On December 14, 2012 a young man armed with three semi-automatic weaponsentered Sandy Hook Elementary School (Sandy Hook shooting: Whathappened?, 2013). He shot and killed twenty children and six adults (The

Associated Press, 2013). In the aftermath, profound grief, sadness, and angergripped many nation-wide, who could not believe such violence could be directedtoward children as young as six and seven years old (Barron, 2012). Manythought action must be taken to prevent a similar event from happening again(Parsons, Hennessey, & Memoli, 2013), (Washington Post, 2012).

In Connecticut, a Sandy Hook Commission was formed to provide legislativerecommendations (Malewitz, 2013). As a result, in April, they were able to cometo a bipartisan agreement. The laws expanded the assault weapons ban, createdthe nations first Dangerous Weapons Offender registry, and created eligibilitycriteria for purchasing ammunition (The Associated Press, 2013). However, at

the national level, the expanded background checks and assault weapons banfailed to pass the Senate. Some other states took action, but as a rule, the statesthat were able to pass bills had a strong Democratic or Republican majority anddid not have to seek bipartisan consensus (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013),(Childress, 2013). (Please see Appendix A for description of state-levellegislative efforts.)

Integrative Leadership Working Definition

We define integrative leadership as a process in which adaptive challenges(complex, multi-dimensional problems with no clear right answer) areaddressed by developing strong relationships between leaders (people that havevision and can identify the interconnections between individuals and groups) andexperts (individuals with specific subject matter expertise) within a multitude ofdisciplines, facilitating sustained focus needed to achieve meaningful results,with respect for different ways of knowing, and achieving solutions for the publicgood that maximize benefits for all stakeholders.

Integrative Leadership Challenges

Though this complex situation illustrates challenges at all levels of leadership;challenges in group, organizational, and sectoral leadership seemed particularlycritical to the derailment of efforts. Clearly there are multiple wicked problems atplay in this case. We chose to focus on lack of progress toward collective actionat the national and state levels, despite high levels of motivation and interest. Webelieve the process stalled because there was no existing container in whichdiscussion and negotiation could take place, polarity of views led to lack ofnegotiation, and intergroup bias and group territoriality also obstructed


3/22

meaningful relationships and discussion between stakeholder groups. (Caruso2009)

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, much of the engagement betweenopposing viewpoints took place in arenas that made true discussion difficult such

as the media or protest/counterprotests) (Cesca, 2013). As noted above,Connecticuts tragic experience led them to be an important exception to this.Conversations were based on talking points rather than truly gainingunderstanding of the others hopes and fears. This lack of a container forauthentic conversation inhibited true engagement, and this lack of engagementled to lack of sustained attention. In such an intense discussion, we believe thatthe container must be, as Heifetz put it, a pressure-cooker to keep work anddiscussion in a productive zone to maintain the sustained interest and investmentneeded to address an adaptive challenge (Heifetz, 2011).

When a crisis such as this occurs, we feel a high level of urgency in finding a

solution. However, there was disagreement about problem solving methods andstrategies. As a result of the inability to agree on how to resolve the issue, therewas lack of action. Urgency and discussion waned, and nothing was achieved.Gun violence and the prevention of mass casualty incidents are similar to manyof the challenges we face. They are misdiagnosed as technical challenges whenin fact they are adaptive challenges. (For further exploration of technicalproblems versus adaptive challenges see Appendix B.) As a result, we fall into acycle in which we continue to fail to progress in addressing complex problems.

Clearly, there were very different ideas about what actions should be taken andoften open hostility toward those with different viewpoints. However, the lack ofan organized and safe container for the discussion prevented those with strongviews from gaining an understanding of the rationale behind the views of others.Outside of the state of Connecticut, those who sought change lacked a groupthat represented a diversity of viewpoints and could represent those viewpointswhile searching for common ground.

Though both gun control and gun rights advocates agreed that they neverwanted an incident like Sandy Hook to happen again, their views of theappropriate prevention strategies were nearly diametrically opposed. Gun rightsadvocates, including National Rifle Association, gun companies, and otherbusinesses that promote firearms-related activities, felt that the only way to stopa bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun (CBS DC and AssociatedPress, 2012). They felt that restricting access to firearms was a violation of rightsthat would be unlikely to reduce gun violence or improve community safety(Washington Post 2012). On the other hand, gun control groups, including SandyHook Promise and Americans for Responsible Solutions, believed that legislativeefforts to improve background checks, decrease the capacity of magazines, andban assault rifles, amongst other efforts, could reduce the likelihood of futuretragedies and improve community safety (Americans for Responsible Solutions).


4/22

Due to these polarized views and opposing strategies, the stakeholders did notidentify shared values and felt they could not negotiate because each gain fortheir opposition represented a loss for them (Caruso 2009). Missing from thesolution was a collective understanding of the perspectives of others that would

allow constructive discussion for public value or common good. The distancebetween ideal solutions for each group and the fact that there are fewintermediate opportunities for compromise, made it very difficult to engage, andled to the process stalling.

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, those who were willing to negotiate with otherswho had opposing viewpoints were subject to severe penalties. For example, inColorado, state senators faced recall elections for proposing increased gunregulations, though a majority of the population supported several of them(Bunch, 2013). Fear of similar consequences may have chilled efforts in the USSenate. Such severe consequences for engaging with the opposition represent

high levels of intergroup bias and group territoriality. This creates mistrustbetween stakeholders and opposing organizations and causes outsiders to viewall actions by the group as self-serving rather than for the greater good.

Proposed Recommendations

In order to overcome the substantial challenges facing those who wish toaddress gun violence and mass casualty incidents, we propose to create a groupthat will serve as a container for discussion within the state of Minnesota. Themulti-sector group will be trained to utilize a variety of communication processand relationship building tools that will improve negotiation and break downbarriers between stakeholders with differing viewpoints (Ernst & Yip, 2009). It isour hope that the success of this process could lead to similar processes in otherstates, at the national level, or even for the management of other polarizingissues.

Stakeholder Selection

Selection of a great team is critical to success both in the initiation andmaintenance of a group. Initial selection is critical for buy-in and gainingmomentum. When selecting members for an integrative leadership group, theright conditions need to exist to get the right people, at the right place, at the righttime, for the right reasons. We believe these conditions exist in Minnesota toaddress gun violence.

Getting the right people involves three critical steps. First, one must ensure thatthe individual is aware of his strengths and weaknesses. The combination of self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-confidence leads to high levels ofauthenticity (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007). Self-awareness and


5/22


6/22


7/22

fears of one or both groups. The group discussion may identify outcomes similarto those diagrammed in the polarity map shown in Appendix E. The group wouldfocus on areas in which they agree, begin with that work, proceeding towardconflicting goals as relationships within the group become stronger.

To avoid pitfalls of intergroup bias and group territoriality and to set a commonframe of reference, training in negotiation and bias awareness will be provided atthe outset. (Caruso 2009) The Humphrey School can be looked to for itsexpertise in negotiation and conflict resolution. See Appendix F for a list ofcommon decision and perceptual biases.

Following the initial gathering of the group and facilitated discussions resulting ingroup norms, problem definition and mission development, it may be necessaryto further formalize the structure and its governance. Because of the prolongedengagement required for this process, a formal organizing institution may benecessary. Options to assist in logistics of group meetings, research requests

and communications include utilizing a Humphrey capstone group or networkadministration organization (NAO). (Ospina 2010) (Bryson & Crosby, 2006) If anoutside organization is utilized, it will be of critical importance that all participantstrust the organization and staff. (Innes & Booher, 2003)

Identifying Threats

Complex, multi-sectoral problems such as gun violence and gun control facesignificant threats to success. It is our hope that by considering the challenges agroup such as ours would face, that our process will minimize the risks of thesechallenges destabilizing the group. The four major obstacles to the groupssuccess would be politics, effective recruitment, procedural justice, and anothercatastrophe.

First, because the issue is so highly polarizing, it will be important for members ofthis group to avoid public pronouncements that are not approved by the groupfirst. Media engagement strategies and the consequences for violating groupnorms would be an important of the groups initial discussion. While restrictedmedia engagement limits early engagement of the broader public, it providestime for the group to solidify their shared values and establish core principles.

Second, finding and engaging leaders who are willing to dig deeply into thishighly controversial issue may be considered impractical. However, usinginstitutional connections, initially through the University of Minnesota, andcascading outward to engage leaders throughout Minnesota will help toovercome this challenge. Because of the profound emotional impact of the SandyHook tragedy and the local connection to the Accent Signage shooting, webelieve that we can motivate leaders to tackle this challenge.


8/22

Third, if either the gun-rights or gun-control groups perceive that the processfavors the opposing viewpoint, the process will almost assuredly stall. Theimportance of procedural justice throughout the process cannot be overstated,and it is the reason we have focused such large amounts of time, energy, andresources on the initial establishment of group norms and problem definition. Our

hope is that such a process will reduce the risk that the justice of the process isquestioned.

Finally, another crisis could derail the groups progress. For example, anothermass shooting may cause group members to retreat to interactions with thosewho share their viewpoints or provoke violations of groups norms such asengagement with the media on behalf of ones stakeholder group. We believethat through the process of understanding the hopes and fears of opposingviewpoints that the temptation to withdraw from the process will be limitedbecause the understanding that we all wish for healthier, safer communities willbe shared and understood.

Defining Success

In a process in which we have not defined a specific outcome or policy goals,how do we define success? There are three critical outcomes that woulddetermine whether the group is successful. They have been chosen becausethey represent critical actions in maintaining the group and achieving effectiveaction.

First, the group will be successful if they can continue the conversation in spite ofother priorities that arise. There is a natural tendency to focus on what is urgentrather than what is important, so maintaining the attention of this busy, high-achieving group will be vital to its success. An early indicator of success wouldbe that conversations are sufficiently deep and effective resulting in clear, well-defined goals within the group. Because representation from all stakeholders iscritical to achieve a solution that is legitimate to all, they must ensure that allviewpoints (Morse, 2010) are represented throughout the process, with membersremaining engaged or seeking replacements until the group achieves its goals.

The second indicator of success will be the effective transition to new leaders.Because such a complex, emotionally fraught issue will not be quick to resolve,we would seek a three-year commitment from the initial group. Each initialmember would be expected to recruit their successor in an attempt to maintain abalanced group. Because the schedule availability of busy, high-powered peoplecan be unpredictable, gaining commitments from potential future leaders inadvance will help to maintain continuity and effective operation of the group.

Finally, as noted above, maintaining effective group dynamics and continuedwork in light of further crises (such as another mass shooting) will be critical to


9/22

ongoing work. There is a tendency in high-diversity groups to return to onesrespective comfort zone in times of crisis. With a topic as polarizing as gunresponsibility, numerous threats could counteract the difficult work of the group. Ifthey can manage to accomplish these three things they will have solid footing onthe path to achieving change and, we will consider the process successful.

Conclusion

Despite how polarizing the issue of how to address gun violence has been sinceSandy Hook, we believe that a more thoughtful and structured approach can leadto a lasting reduction in gun deaths at both the state and the national level. Bytaking the proper precautions to prevent derailment by ensuring proper groupselection and maintenance, and by being able to stay committed to the cause,we believe that gun violence and the fear of gun violence can be reduced overtime.


10/22

Appendix AGun Control EffortsAdapted from State Gun Laws Enacted Since Newtown. New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%

2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp.Dec 10 2013

Issue Tighter gunlaws

Looser gunlaws

Vetoes

Gun Permits 1 28 2

Public Carry 0 22 3

Guns in Schools 0 9 2

Mental Health 15 2 1

BackgroundChecks

12 2 2

Assault Weapons 6 1 3

Nullify FederalLaw

0 4 1

Gun Access 9 2 1

Lost/StolenFirearms

6 0 1

Other 1 6 3

Total 50 76 19
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonphttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp


11/22

States that passed tighter gun restrictions

States that passed looser gun

restrictions

California Arizona

Delaware Indiana

Illinois Montana

Maryland Texas

New Jersey Tennessee

New York Missouri

Rhode Island Kansas

Colorado Alaska

Connecticut Alabama

Utah West Virginia

Washington Utah

North Dakota South Dakota

Minnesota Oklahoma

Louisiana North Carolina

Hawaii Arkansas

Texas (MH) Wyoming

Tennessee (MH) Mississippi

South Carolina (MH) Illinois

Mississippi (MH) Idaho

Florida (MH) Virginia

Alabama (MH) New Jersey

Nevada

Louisiana

Kentucky

(MH) signifies that the state only tightened restrictions with regards to mentalhealth.

Highlighted states are those that passed both looser and tighter gun regulations(with the exception of mental health regulations)


12/22

Appendix B Technical Problems vs. Adaptive Challenges

Adapted from Ronald A. Heifetz & Donald L. Laurie, The Work of Leadership, Harvard BusinessReview, January-February 1997; and Ronald A. Heifetz & Marty Linsky, Leadership on the Line,Harvard Business School Press, 2002

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES

1. Easy to identify 1. Difficult to identify (easy to deny)

2. Often lend themselves to quick and easy (cut-and-dried) solutions 2. Require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships, &

approaches to roles, relationships, & approaches to work

3. Often can be solved by an authori ty or expert 3. People wi th the problem do the work of solving it

4. Require change in just one or a few places; often contained within

organizational boundaries

4. Require change in numerous places; usually cross

organizational boundaries

5. People are generally receptive to technical solutions 5. People often resist even acknowledging adaptive

challenges

6. Solutions can often be implemented quicklyeven by edict 6. Solutions require experiments and new discoveries; they

can take a long time to implement and cannot long time toimplement and cannot be implemented by edict

EXAMPLES

Take medication to lower blood pressure Change lifestyle to eat healthy, get more exercise and lower

stress

Implement electronic ordering and dispensing of medications in

hospitals to reduce errors and drug interactions

Encourage nurses and pharmacists to question and even

challenge illegible or dangerous prescriptions by physicians

Increase penalty for drunk driving Raise public awareness of the dangers and effects of drunk

driving, targeting teenagers in particular

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS VS.

ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES

The single biggest failure of leadership is to treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.


13/22

Appendix C Sample Bases of Power: Directions of Interest Diagram (GunBusinesses)

Lobbyists

Gun

Businesses

National

Sporting

Goods

Companies

Regulators

Tax Base

Provider

Job

Provider

Citizen

Rights

Small

gun

business

2nd

Amendment

SafetyMake profit-

Minimize

Costs

Minimize

RiskPublic

Opinion

Contribute

toEconomy

Fulfill

Recreational

Needs


14/22

Appendix D Stakeholder Analysis

Brainstorm Stakeholders

Resources Reasons forInvolving Reasons forPostponingInvolvement

Media Large reach, getsinformation to thecommunityquickly

Relaysinformation topublic too quickly

CommunityGroups

Can mobilize andreach the people

Voices need to beheard, policyimpacts

Timing andmethods need tobe carefullyplanned

Elected Officials Policy makingbody, fundingresources

Business Funding resources Public valuedriven

Self interest

MedicalCommunity

Knowledge ofpublic healthimpact and policyrecommendations

Respected bymultiplestakeholdergroups

LawEnforcement

Knowledge ofstatistics

Provide data toinform solutions


15/22

Participation Planning Matrix

Stakeholders to Approach, by which means

Policy ChangeActivity

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

InitialOrganizing

Lawenforcement

BusinessElectedofficials

Creating ideasfor strategicintervention

Lawenforcement

Medicalcommunity

Communitygroups

Building awinning

coalition forproposaldevelopment,review andadoption

BusinessCommunity

groupsElectedofficialsMedicalcommunity

Implementing,monitoring,and evaluatingstrategicinterventions

Communitygroups

MedicalcommunityLawenforcement

Power verses Interest Grid

HIGH POWER LOW POWER

HIGH INTEREST

LOW INTEREST

Elected Officials Community Groups

Gun industry/Business Medical Community

Media

_______________________________________________


16/22

Appendix E Paradox Management and Polarity Mapping

What we all want: less gun violence, better health, safer neighborhoods

What we all fear: more killings, abusive/irresponsible use of guns

Pos itive ou tcomes/resu lts o f A Pos itive ou tcomes/resu lts o f B

1. Deterrence of strangers 1. For criminals more difficulty in accessing to gun

2. Thwarting crimes2. Restrictions for gun ownership for people with

dangerousness

3. Gun manufacturer3. Safety components or trigger lock(less accidental

death)

4. Gun social media

4. There will be a general decline of firearm related

violent related crimes, particularly homicides

http://gun.laws.com/gun-control/gun-control-effects-on-

crime-and-murder#sthash.08brR4XP.dpuf

5. More peace and sense of secure in mind B. Control ling Gun Ownership

6. Potential positive externalities(Scare burglar)

7. Increase the cost of committing a crime

8. Self defenseA. Protecting Gun Own ership

Negative outcome Negative Outcomes

Guns can be stolen and commit a crime Discrimination/violation of the second amendment

Higher risk of accidental injury or killing Close of the gun manufacture, economic impact

Higher risk of suicides self harm Cancelling shooting sports competition (affecting

the hobby?)

Higher risk of assaults and homicides harm

others Increase the chance for black market trading

Intimidation of your friends or guests. Imposing new burden on government (BG check,

evaluation assessment)

Fears in the community Affect demand and supply (scarcity)

The increased regulation reduces the incentive for

firearms manufactures, sports store owners, and othersupply chain managers to invest in their business

Discourage employers to hire new employees, or

develop better/safer firearms.


17/22

Appendix F Common Decision and Perceptual BiasesCompiled by Prof. Sophie Leroy for Management and Organizational Behavior

List of Decision BiasesBiases affecting decisions

Confirmation bias(=confirming evidence)the tendency to search foror interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Framinginfluencing how people interpret information based on how theinformation is presented to them. Such a presentation may highlight onlypart of the information/issues.

Hindsight biassometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, theinclination to see past events as being predictable.

Illusion of controlthe tendency for human beings to believe they cancontrol or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.

Sunk cost, leading to escalation of commitment: When a decision is overlyinfluenced by retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurredand cannot be recovered

Escalation of commitmentthe tendency to continue a course of actions,even when not rational anymore (for example despite new evidencesuggesting that the decision was probably wrong), to justify decisionsmade in the past or actions already taken.

Optimism biasthe systematic tendency to be over-optimistic about theoutcome of planned actions.

Planning fallacythe tendency to underestimate task-completion times.

Status quo biasthe tendency for people to like things to stay relativelythe samethis explains peoples resistance to change.

Anchoring: Artificial weight given to unique/specific information

The above biases occur both at the individual and group levels. At thegroup level, people are also subject to common information bias, by whichthey give more weight to and spend more time talking about informationthat is shared among the members of the team as opposed to informationthat is uniquely presented by one of the members.

At the group level, people are also subject to groupthink. While we dont

often think about it as a bias per se, it affects how a group makesdecisions by focusing people on consensus and harmony as opposed tofinding the best solution/decision possible. See more details in the slides.

List of perceptual biases (affecting social perception, that is, how Iperceive/judge/evaluate others) some of these biases also affect decisionmaking as noted below

Note that the confirmation bias (mentioned above) also affects social perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


18/22


19/22

Appendix G Group Member ContributionsInitial Project IdentificationTom initially suggested the gun violence problemEntire team brought ideas and discussed options

All gathered and synthesized information from press reports, white papers and

company literature based on assigned stakeholders Medical/Public Health - Amy

Elected Officials/Politicians- Karyn

Nick-Community Groups

Tom-Business

Elizabeth- Law enforcement

Pano-Media

PresentationAmy and Nick prepared and lead the presentation

Pano videotaped presentationTom, Karyn, Nick, Amy answered questions in Q&A

PaperEntire team drafted the outlineTom, Karyn, Elizabeth and Pano first draft of final reportEntire team contributed to drafting, reviewing and editing of final report.

Amy created gun control efforts spreadsheet, edited citations, cut excess textPano created polarity mapTom identified bias documentKaryn created the stakeholder analysis tools and directions of power diagramNick identified threats to group successElizabeth copy-edited report


20/22

Works Cited

Americans for Responsible Solutions. Solutions. 10 Dec 2013

.Barron, James. Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School inConnecticut. 14 Dec 2012. 10 Dec 2013.

Bryson, John M, Barbara C Crosby and Melissa Middleton Stone. "The designand implementation of cross sector collaborations: Propositions from theliterature." Public Administration Review (2006): 44-55.

Bunch, Joey. Statewide, Colorado voters oppose recalls, but mixed on gun laws.

22 Aug 2013. 10 Dec 2013.

Caruso, Heather M, Todd Rogers and Max H Bazerman. "Boundaries need notbebarriers: Leading collaboration among groups in decentralized organizations."Crossing the Divide: Intergroup Leadership in a World of Difference. Ed. Todd L.Pittinsky. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2009. 113-125.

CBS DC and Associated Press. NRA: Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun

Is With A Good Guy With A Gun . 21 Dec 2012. 10 Dec 2013.

Childress, Sarah. How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown. 10 Dec 2013.10 Dec 2013 .

Crosby, Barbara and John Bryson. Leadership for the Common Good. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Ernst, Chris and Jeff Yip. "Boundary-spanning leadership: Tactics to bridge socialidentity groups in organizations." Crossing the Divide: Intergroup Leadership in aWorld of Difference. Ed. Todd L. Pittinsky. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPublishing, 2009. 87-101.

George, Bill, et al. "Discovering your Authentic Leadership." Harvard BusinessReview (2007): 129-138.


21/22

Heifetz, Ronald. Adaptive versus Technical. 14 Aug 2011. University ofMinnesota Center for Integrative Leadership. 10 Dec 2013.

Innes, Judith E and David E Booher. "Collaborative policy making: governancethrough dialogue." Hajer, Maarten A and Hendrik Wagenaar. Deliberative Policy

Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003. 33-59.

Johnson, Barry. Polarity Management: A Summary Introduction. Sept 1998. 15Dec2013.

Kouzes, James M and Barry Z Posner. "Leading in cynical times." Journal ofManagement Inquiry 14 (2005): 357-364.

Malewitz, Jim. As Sandy Hook Students Return to School, Connecticut Governorto Launch Gun Violence Task Force. 4 Jan 2013. 10 Dec 2013.

Morse, R S. "Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to createpublic value." The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010): 231-245.

Noble, Gary and Robert Jones. "The role of boundary-spanning managers in theestablishment of public-private partnerships." Public Administration 84.4 (2006):891-917.

Parsons, Christi, Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli. Sandy Hook andgrief: Gun control advocates plead their case. 13 April 2013. 10 Dec 2013.

Sandy Hook shooting: What happened? 2013. 10 Dec 2013.

Sax-Carranza, Angel and Sonia M Ospina. "The behavioral dimension ofgoverning interorganizational goal-directed networks--Managing the unity-diversity tension." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(2010): 327-365.


22/22

The Associated Press. Connecticut Governor Signs Gun Measures. 4 Apr 2013.10 Dec 2013 .Timeline of Events at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 26 Nov 2013. 10 Dec

2013 .

The Pew Charitable Trusts. Gun Actions Since Sandy Hook Shooting. 13 June2013. 10 Dec 2013 .

Washington Post. Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hookschool shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012 (Transcript). 21 Dec 2012. 10 Dec2013 .

Integrative Leadership Research Paper - Gun Violence

Documents

Transcript of Integrative Leadership Research Paper - Gun Violence