If one of the principal duties of a nonprofit board is to hire the best person for the job, then it follows that it is also responsible to make sure their employee is performing according to their expectations. This responsibility begins with the search process and continues throughout the duration of their leader’s service to the organization. On the surface, this may seem to imply a superordinate/subordinate relationship in which the board (or in most cases, its executive committee) conducts an annual performance review with the CEO and determines whether they will receive an increase in compensation. In such a view, the board is the boss which does the hiring and the CEO is the board’s employee who needs regular performance evaluation, just like any other employee.

In some cases, such evaluation is conducted using roughly the same performance evaluation criteria that are used on all other employees. These may include such things as punctuality, effectiveness in working with others, ability to complete tasks, etc. I’ve seen some boards actually write performance reviews of their CEOs on criteria that have little or nothing to do with the responsibilities and duties that are unique to the chief executive position.

At the very least, it is hoped that the CEO’s performance is measured against the expectations described in the position description. Unfortunately, many such descriptors of expectation are framed in subjective terms such as “is able to effectively communicate with constituents in written and spoken forms.” Or, “is able to think analytically and solve problems.” I recently reviewed a position description used in the search for an interim CEO that required “demonstrated effectiveness in executive leadership.” I couldn’t help but wonder, “And just how is that going to be measured? Who is going to determine what that looks like?”

As you know from the previous articles in this ten-part series, “Who’s the Boss?” I don’t believe the relationship is quite as simple as selecting general criteria on which to base a performance evaluation. Nor should a single annual performance review really serve as the primary basis for holding the CEO accountable. The mutuality of accountability requires a reciprocity between the board and the CEO. Having previously described ways in which the CEO can help the board hold its own members accountable for their performance as board members, the CEO can also do much to help the board hold him or her accountable in ways that benefit the CEO, the board and, ultimately, the organization.

In this article, I will explore what this accountability relationship looks like from the CEO’s perspective and suggest ways in which the CEO can provide executive leadership to the board around the various ways in which he or she is held accountable for their job performance.

Prerequisites

For reciprocal governance to work effectively, mutual accountability demands mutual respect and support between the CEO and his or her board of directors. Such respect is not something that can be written into a job description, bylaws, or an operations and policy manual. It has to be earned. Of course, carefully crafted procedures can establish a framework for working together, and expectations for such a relationship can be articulated, but accountability that is grounded in the mission of the organization and its preferred future requires trust – trust on the part of the CEO that the board truly desires to support him or her and to have them succeed, and trust on the part of the board that their one employee has the best interest of the organization and not just themselves in mind at all times.

Building mutual trust requires a significant level of vulnerability and honesty on everyone’s part. As Patrick Lencioni (2002) has pointed out, the absence of trust is the first and most destructive dysfunction of any team and, conversely, the presence of trust built on honest vulnerability is the first and most prepotent quality of effective teams. Such vulnerability demands honesty, open-mindedness and willingness to learn and change. It implies an acceptance that nobody is perfect and that imperfections are opportunities for growth. Social researchers like Brene¢ Brown (2010) go so far as to say that our shortcomings are actually gifts that help us stay connected to our humanness, allow us to grow in humility toward others, and become better versions of ourselves in every aspect of our lives. In the nonprofit world, such humility borne out of realistic self-awareness and honesty is a highly desirable trait for any chief executive officer. At any rate, such vulnerability does not exist where mutual trust and respect are absent.

Of course, openness and honest vulnerability can’t be used as excuses or offsets to incompetence. Chief executive officers will want to own their limitations and shortcomings, take responsibility for mistakes, but not expect a pass from the board for serious deficiencies that stand in the way of meeting job expectations just because they admitted their failings. I am reminded of the time one of my teenaged sons was caught smoking and expected leniency because, as he said, “At least I told the truth!”

Whether withholding personally damaging information from the board on the one hand, or sharing every foible and failing on the other, such CEOs in my view exhibit their insecurities, ineffectiveness and ineptitude as a leader and should consider another line of work.

The kind of trust I am describing grows from working together in the trenches of the board room and is characterized by mutual deference and consultation. It finds richness in subordinating one’s personal views or interests to the needs of the organization. It grows wings through a sense of partnership in which the CEO and his/her Board collaborate to find solutions to problems and answers to questions. It gains substance through frequent communication both to and from the CEO. Trust of this type is reinforced when word is given and kept, when everyone is honest and responsive to others, and when the organization’s mission and its success is the pervasive theme around all working relationships.

Most boards of directors or their executive committees conduct the evaluation of the CEO’s performance themselves using various measures and tools. While such a practice can be effective, depending on the time the board takes, the resources available to them, and the cooperation and participation of the CEO and his or her staff, an increasing number of boards are using outside evaluation consultants to conduct the annual evaluation. In most cases, such consultants utilize objective measures that obtain data from staff, directors and other stakeholders and are usually accompanied by interviews with selected individuals from different positions in the organization. Generally, CEOs are more likely to accept the results of such evaluations and have a greater voice in selecting the consultant to conduct the evaluation. Whether the board is able to conduct an effective evaluation itself or a consultant is used, it still requires the confidence of all parties that the process is fair and objective and that shared trust undergirds the activity and the results.

Strategic Plan as the Basis for Annual Evaluation

The first principle of mutual accountability is derived from a shared commitment to the mission and vision of the organization, especially as that mission and vision are described in the organization’s strategic plan. Simply stated, if the organization has rigorously evaluated its position and has identified its preferred future, then it makes sense that the CEO’s primary responsibility is to lead the organization toward the attainment of that vision. The CEO does this on a daily basis when he or she leads the staff toward accomplishing the goals and objectives stated in the plan, by ensuring that resources are appropriately allocated and used to fulfill strategic aims, and that the progress toward achieving the organization’s preferred future is regularly measured and reported to the board.

It can be argued that this is the primary duty of the CEO. Issues of how the CEO manages staff, how they interact with the board, and even how they connect with constituents – while important to the overall culture of the organization – are all secondary to the real reason leaders lead, namely, to advance the mission of the organization. All the various ways in which this can be accomplished have been described in previous articles, but at the end of the day, the board needs the CEO to lead the enterprise toward fulfillment of the mission and toward attainment of the vision. It stands to reason, therefore, that how well the CEO has accomplished this task should be the primary subject of any kind of performance evaluation.

How can the CEO help the board keep its focus on the strategic issues facing the organization and, as part of that focus, evaluate the CEO’s performance? The first and most obvious way is to make sure that the organization does, in fact, have a strategic plan. What this looks like and how it is structured depends upon the organization’s context, but at minimum, a workable strategic plan should articulate the organization’s current situation, what and how it delivers its services, what its internal and external environments look like now and what they will probably look like in the future, and where the organization prefers to be situated in that future. That “preferred future” is usually described in terms of position statements, goals, objectives, strategies, initiatives or other terms that state the desired direction and outcomes. Ideally, such statements are in some way measurable so that progress over time can be monitored and reported. If such a plan exists, and if it is annually updated, and if performance data are regularly reported to the board, then it would seem logical that the substance of the CEO’s performance evaluation should be derived from how well the organization has been able to achieve its objectives.

(For a more comprehensive explanation of my thoughts on strategic planning, I would refer you to my book, Your Preferred Future. Achieved.: Ten Critical Questions for Nonprofit Strategic Planning (2019), available from Amazon.com.)

In the last few years of my service as the CEO of a large social service organization, I was able to discuss my performance as CEO almost exclusively in terms of how I was leading the organization toward attainment of the objectives described in our strategic plan. This began with my facilitation of the annual cycle of planning and budgeting, with an updated iteration of the strategic plan presented to the board for review and ratification six months before the beginning of the new fiscal year. That updated plan provided the foundation for budget planning and associated annual initiatives flowing from the strategic goals. At the end of each fiscal year, not only I, but all senior leaders, had a performance review based on the assigned goals and objectives. Although formalized in an annual process, the performance review discussion was really just one of numerous conversations that were held regularly, both with my board’s executive committee, but also with senior leaders as we monitored our performance against measurable goals.

While I am a strong advocate for data-driven decision making, monitoring key performance indicators, and developing and reporting measurable goals, there are various goals and activities that do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement. For example, a strategic goal that addresses interchurch relations and describes important actions intended to strengthen partnerships and collaboration with others can only be measured in terms of whether those actions were taken or not. The relative success or failure in building such partnerships is hard to quantify. In my company, the decision to grow was supported by a strategic goal to actively pursue acquisition opportunities which in turn led to various activities and eventually culminated in the affiliation and acquisition of another small nonprofit agency. No Likert scale I have ever devised could measure performance in that goal. Growth in the number of people supported – yes. Activity which might or might not yield increase – no, other than to note its accomplishment.

At the same time, acknowledging the importance of strategic movement, whether measurable or not, and monitoring activities around such strategies is reportable and should be reviewed by the Board. The CEO is primarily responsible for making sure the organization is thinking and acting strategically in such areas of activity and should be held accountable for their accomplishment. This can be done on a regular basis when strategic goals are reviewed at every board meeting. Such a report from the CEO might go something like this:   “With respect to our stated goal of expanding our presence in the State of Minnesota through acquisition of other nonprofit agencies, we have been in active conversation with the CEOs of three small church-related agencies, and while we haven’t reached the point of proposing a legal affiliation, transfer or outright acquisition, we are optimistic that at least one of them will result in a formal proposal before the end of the year.”

Whether provided in the written CEO’s report to the board (my preference), or stated orally in the board meeting, such reporting keeps the strategic issue in front of the board and invites both support and questions around progress. The CEO thus places himself/herself on the line to explain progress toward achieving a strategic goal.

Continuous Accountability

This practice of conducting performance evaluations based on the organization’s strategic plan leads me to the next principle of mutual accountability, namely, that performance evaluation must be an ongoing process. While an annual formal review may be required in order to provide justification for adjustments in compensation, it should not be the primary reason for conducting such reviews. The primary purpose, as stated above, is to ensure accountability for moving the organization forward according to how the strategic plan defines its preferred future.

Because internal and external environments may undergo change, and because mitigating circumstances may emerge which either enhance or hinder the ability of the organization to achieve its goals, ongoing measurement and evaluation are critically important to the board and the CEO. How the CEO leads the organization through such changes and navigates the various challenges which arise are substantial performance issues which effect the organization’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives. Such issues cannot be deferred to the annual evaluation conference. They must be dealt with in a timely manner and the results of actions reported. This requires an ongoing dialogue between the CEO and his or her board, first in board meetings as opportunities to share critical issues and responses, second in working closely with an executive committee, and third between the CEO and his or her board chairperson.

If such discussions are ongoing, open and honest, then responsibility for the organization’s success is shared. Neither the CEO nor the board is solely responsible for the circumstances and the outcomes of actions. Together, they collaborate to ensure the best possible outcomes. To be sure, the board invests the CEO with the responsibility to execute strategies and to keep them informed of their success or failure, but the board must also provide support for the CEO and if necessary, back up the leadership decisions of the CEO.

The CEO can assist the board in holding them accountable for his or her strategic and leadership actions by building and maintaining effective means for regular communication. For me, that evolved into a process of publishing board briefing books that were sent between board meetings and which contained reports from myself and my leadership team. These briefing books provided a great deal of information around activities, accomplishments, performance, and other management issues dealing with a wide range of subjects. In other words, we provided a quarterly story book of what we were doing and why. The briefing book accomplished a number of things. First, by sharing a great deal of management-related information, it completely removed any management-related issues from the board meeting agenda. Questions regarding anything contained in the briefing book were to be directed to the respective executives. Second, it allowed the board to focus its regular meeting agenda around the strategic priorities of the organization. The strategic plan provided the organizing structure for the agenda and the Board Book focused on our efforts to accomplish strategic objectives. Third, it afforded the board with enough time to engage in generative discussions in board meetings around the really important stuff. And last, in the context of holding the CEO accountable to the board, it created an environment in which discussions were based on shared knowledge about how the organization was performing and for which I was ultimately responsible.

Informal Accountability for Leader Behavior

Notwithstanding the formal processes for conducting ongoing performance monitoring based on strategic priorities and key performance indicators, there are numerous informal checks and balances around CEO leadership behavior that are also very important for the board to utilize. Just because these may not be quantifiable does not mean they should not be considered as serious means for overseeing the CEO’s leadership behavior to make sure that good morale is maintained, employee loyalty is supported, turnover of key employees is within reasonable limits and for acceptable reasons, and interpersonal relationships with the board and constituents are positive and supportive. While I could argue that it is highly unlikely, it is conceivable that draconian and coercive leadership may lead to the accomplishment of strategic objectives. However, the human cost under such leadership styles should never be sufficient justification for unethical or inappropriate behavior just because it results in positive outcomes. The end does not justify the means.

This is a distinction which is especially important for mission-driven nonprofit organizations. The CEO should model the behaviors that are exemplified in the organization’s core values. The “model-in-chief” stands as the representative of everything the organization professes about itself and how it relates to its employees, clients and supporters. When behaviors stand in contradistinction to expected norms and values, the organization is at considerable peril of losing its mission and its support. I don’t care what the key performance indicators may say, the future of the organization will be compromised by bad leadership.

I recall reading a book a number of years ago entitled Bad Leadership by Barbara Kellerman (2004) in which she described a number of national and international leaders, most of them political, who had risen to power, but who exhibited glaring defects of character that eventually led to their demise. The defects she identified included the traits of being incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular or evil. After describing case studies of individual leaders who exhibited one or more of these traits, she concludes with this observation.  “I claim that placing bad leadership along two different axes – ineffective and unethical – clarifies how the word bad is being used. Ideal leaders and followers are, at the same time, effective and ethical. But as we have seen, it’s possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously effective and unethical…. And it’s also possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously ethical and ineffective….In other words, effective behavior and ethical behavior are not joined; nor is the distinction between them always crisp (pp. 219-220).”

So, how can the CEO make sure that his or her board of directors is holding them accountable for both being effective and ethical? I have already described ways in which the organization’s strategic priorities can be used to measure the effectiveness of CEO performance and how the CEO can construct systems and processes to ensure ongoing discussion around measures of effectiveness. But a different set of variables and a different mindset are required to measure ethical conduct.

The first and most important process to have in place is a confidential whistleblower or complaint system. In the organization of which I was the CEO, this consisted of an anonymous online, third party reporting system in which complaints were initially sent to the chair of the Audit Committee. (I have previously described the expanded role such committees should have  if organizations followed the Sarbanes-Oxley recommendations.) The website was set up to guarantee the impossibility of tracking the source of the complaint. Complaints about lower level staff were forwarded to the CEO. Complaints about the CEO were forwarded to the board chair. An alternative telephone interface was also provided which left a message for the committee chair without the possibility of identifying the caller. This sophisticated whistleblower system, although rarely used, provided assurance to employees at every level that complaints would be heard and taken seriously and would not lead to retaliation against them by supervisors.

In smaller organizations less formally structured processes may be sufficient, so long as anonymity is preserved. It might consist of an email address to which complaints can be sent and to which only the board chair or CEO has access. It might consist of a post office box number to which anonymous letters can be sent. Whatever the means, it is important that the CEO and the board be accessible to employees, clients and constituents to voice concerns about leadership. And of course, in instances involving the CEO – which is the primary focus of this article – the board chair must be contacted.

One example will suffice to illustrate why such tools are necessary. Early in my career as a CEO, I had a regional director who appeared to be very effective. She was a leader in implementing quality measures, oversaw a territorial expansion, was successful in adding new programs, and was increasingly entrusted with broader management responsibility. After about a year, however, I was beginning to receive complaints from some of her subordinates who described her angry outbursts, threats of termination, and imposition of rules such as “contacting anybody at corporate for any reason will be viewed as insubordination.”  According to our procedures, such complaints were to be sent to the CEO. After investigation confirmed the veracity of the complaints, I met with her to review their substance and to offer alternatives including a three month leave during which she would have to receive counseling and training, or if she refused, she would have to resign. Sadly, she chose the latter path.

Corporate America has many tales to be told of CEOs who fit Kellerman’s category of “effective, but unethical.” Extra-marital affairs, untreated alcoholism, embezzlement, misuse of company assets, inappropriate investments for personal gain, and more recently, sexual harassment and abuse are a few examples of bad leadership. Fortunately, much less tolerance is being exhibited by the public for such behavior that, in previous decades, might have been overlooked. Today, public exposure in the press and prosecution in court are raising the bar of accountability for CEO behavior.

Another way in which CEOs can help their boards hold them accountable is by using evaluation tools such as an anonymous 360-degree evaluation process. This allows subordinates and super-ordinates alike to communicate important information related to leadership and management style to the board. Whether someone on the board has the skill and expertise to facilitate such a process or whether an external agency conducts the 360-degree assessment should be determined by the board in consultation with the CEO who may have knowledge of available resources. Size of organization, the cost of external consultants, and board commitment to the process should also be considered.

Regardless of which methods of reporting are used, it is important that the CEO support systems and processes which provide the board with accurate information and which ensure the anonymity of those who report CEO misconduct.

The Context for Leadership

Leadership in any nonprofit organization is not the sole responsibility of the CEO, although that individual is usually identified as the single most influential person to affect the overall leadership culture of the organization. CEOs function in a complex system comprised of company values, board dynamics, employee competence, service and product delivery, management processes, and a host of other factors. Using family systems theory, the performance of a nonprofit organization and its executive leadership should be viewed in terms of all the factors, each of which has an influence on the other constituent parts. Interdependence among all responsible parties (e.g., CEO, board, staff, clients, constituents, donors) creates a type of quantum field in which the behavior of one part influences the behavior of others in the field. Rarely is any critical event the result of only one person’s behavior. Of course, there are times when unethical behavior such as the CEO having an extra-marital affair can be assigned solely to the individual. But in most cases when people are not intentionally acting inappropriately, that is, when they are conscientiously trying to do their jobs but act either out of misguided assumptions or mistaken beliefs about what constitutes the right action, then the dynamics of the entire environment should be considered.

An example of how this plays out can be found in professional sports. How often have we seen a losing team fire the coach as the solution to its problems? Of course, the coach might have been a poor leader, but the team owners, the players and even the fans could have contributed to the losing record, poor team morale, or a drop in ticket sales. If appropriate accountability exists which is based on measurable indicators, such action may be warranted, but should never be done without considering the dynamics of the entire organization.

An example from the nonprofit world might be found when a dysfunctional board which is unable to respond appropriately to situations or fulfill its basic legal and ethical duties chooses to scapegoat the CEO when things go off the rails. Subversive donors or other constituents with their own agendas may wield influence over the CEO or the board and create pressure to act in certain ways that are not in the best interest of the organization as a whole. Power dynamics among management staff may also create conflicts and lead to poor leadership decisions.

It is important that the CEO and the board leadership understand these complex dynamics, not to assign blame for mistakes, but to address the diverse factors that contribute to negative situations and to identify ways to remediate them. The CEO can help the board identify the factors contributing to such complex and dynamic relationships and actually reinforce his or her effectiveness by laying out a course of action that accounts for those disparate factors – not as an excuse for why negative conditions exist, but as a way to inform and educate the board about the challenges the leader faces and to seek good advice on how to navigate its complexities.

The Culture of Leadership

I have spoken to this point mostly with regard to formal and informal ways to evaluate the leadership effectiveness of the CEO. I would be remiss if I didn’t address this issue from a positive and proactive perspective and offer advice to CEOs on how to assure their boards that effective and ethical leadership is the norm. Much of this can be accomplished by implementing and supporting professional development activities and team building measures that strive to build a positive working environment and which cultivate and maintain a corporate culture which emphasizes ethical and effective leadership at every level of the organization.

When I first became the CEO of a large social service organization, I became acutely aware of a significant disparity between the company’s philosophy of client services and the policies around employee relations and management. While clients (in my case, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities) were viewed as valued children of God capable of individual growth and development and that our services were to be guided by person-centered planning, we treated employees and their work as expendable commodities. Aberrant behaviors by clients were treated as opportunities for redirection and education while mistakes or underperformance by employees were causes for corrective action, last chance agreements and termination. Changing the culture to bring our beliefs about people of all abilities and status into alignment took a lot of work. Using “people first” language was a start, but words alone don’t bring about change. We needed to be more intentional about changing the culture which previously supported unhealthy values. Using Cameron and Quinn’s work described in Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (2006), we assessed our organization’s culture, correctly confirming through quantitative measures our suspicions of draconian management practices, and over six years of effort, successfully instilled more appropriate and consistent cultural values that extended to our employee policies and HR practices.

The point of my sharing this experience is to point out how keeping the board apprised of our work by regularly reporting our efforts and the progress we made gave them the assurance that my leadership was not only effective, but was aimed at embedding affirmative ethical values throughout the organization, along with behavioral standards and expectations that were consistent with our organization’s values.

Another process I employed to further advance ethical leadership was through team building exercises using Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002). Understanding the critical need of each prepotent level of skill (i.e., building trust, using constructive conflict, obtaining commitment, being accountable, and attending to the results) our executive team assessed its attitudes and behaviors and actively worked to overcome areas of perceived weakness. Sharing this process with the board provided assurance to them that we were serious about how we obtained results and not just with what was accomplished. The end goal was a cohesive leadership team that grew significantly in its ability to work together honestly and collaboratively. Sharing this process with the board invited it into our corporate leadership world and provided opportunities to explore the implications of our work for how the board worked as a team.

A Word on Executive Sessions and Other Board Conversations About CEO Performance

Some boards of directors are in the habit of holding regular executive sessions for the specific purpose of discussing the CEO’s performance without the CEO being present. In my opinion, regular sessions WITH the CEO about the CEO’s performance can be very healthy, provided there is a climate of mutual trust and support. In fact, the CEO can exercise executive leadership in such sessions if he or she takes the initiative to raise questions or solicit advice and counsel around some aspect of leadership. Going into executive session merely removes the reporting of the discussion from the corporate minutes. The only time I can think of in which the CEO would not participate in such executive sessions would be those annual discussions about the CEO’s compensation and benefit package. I would argue that even discussions about the CEO’s annual performance review should include the CEO. What could possibly be shared in such a closed session that shouldn’t also be shared with the CEO?

However, I have encountered too many instances of boards excusing the CEO to discuss his or her performance as a regular aspect of every board meeting. In my experience, this produces a number of negative results. First, I believe it contributes to an erosion of trust between the CEO and the board. The last thing a nonprofit board needs is a paranoid CEO who is left wondering what they are talking about and feeling helpless about not being able to explain or defend his or her actions.

Second, if there is information to be shared with the CEO, it is left to the board chair to communicate the content or results of such discussions. This creates the opportunity for interpretation by one individual that may either understate or overstate any issues that were discussed. Imagine a half hour executive session after which the board chair merely reports that “everything is fine.” I know I would wonder what they had been talking about for a half hour. Even worse is when the board chair overstates or misrepresents the discussion by infusing his or her own opinions, reporting discussion outcomes such as “The board agrees with me that you spend too much time visiting programs,” or “We all think you shouldn’t talk so much in board meetings.” When boards engage in such activity, they are actively cultivating Lencioni’s first dysfunction of a team, namely, “absence of trust.”

Conclusion

Every CEO I have ever met sincerely wants honest feedback from their board of directors. Men and women who aspire to leadership positions in mission-driven nonprofit organizations don’t, in my experience, do so for personal aggrandizement or reward, notwithstanding the many perquisites that usually do come with the job. They are led to serve the people who receive benefit from the organization. At the same time, they are imperfect human beings with their own strengths and limitations, their own assets and deficits. Nonprofit boards of directors have the challenging responsibility of seeking and hiring the best possible person to fill the chief executive position, recognizing in doing so that they also have a responsibility to make sure their only employee is supported and has the best possible opportunity for success.

Part of such support is providing honest and accurate performance evaluation feedback. While such evaluations are required as part of an annual review process to determine compensation and benefits, effective nonprofit boards are more concerned that their chief executive grows and flourishes, performs effectively, models the organization’s values and achieves strategic objectives. These all directly impact the ability of the organization to fulfill its strategic mission of service.

I have tried to argue that it is in the CEO’s self-interest, as well as in the interest of the organization and its mission fulfillment, that executive leadership by the CEO for how he or she is held accountable is a necessary demonstration of the kind of reciprocal governance I have been advocating. Ultimately, the CEO and his or her board must share the process by which the CEO is held accountable, but for that sharing to be managed appropriately requires initiative and leadership on the part of the CEO.

References and Resources

Bauer, John E. Your Preferred Future. Achieved.: Ten Critical Questions for Nonprofit Strategic Planning. (2019). John E. Bauer Consulting, LLC. Greenfield, WI.

Brown, Brene, The Gifts of Imperfection. (2010) Hazelden Publishing, Center City, MN.

Cameron, Kim S. and Quinn, Robert E.  Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. (2006). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. San Francisco, CA.

Kellerman, Barbara. Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why it Matters. (2004). Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Lencioni, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. (2002). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. San Francisco, CA.