Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

The Psychodynamic Approach to Leadership in the Army

by

With a vision statement including the phrase fight and win our nation’s wars, it is no mistake the United States Army utilizes a psychodynamic approach to developing recruits during initial entry training.  The fog of war necessitates decentralized leadership in chaotic environments.  Therefore, understanding and developing the behaviors of soldiers is vital.  According to de Vries, Florent-Treacy, & Korotov, (2013), “A psychodynamic approach to exploring human nature, when broadly defined, draws attention to the sources of energy and motivational forces that give impetus to, or create inertia against, human actions” (p, 67).  During initial entry training, physical conditioning and basic combat skills are taught.  Behavioral development of soldiers, however, through the understanding and adaption of the motivational forces that give impetus to their actions is the most crucial challenge to the drill instructors.  In the winter of 1993, I attended initial entry training and experienced the psychodynamic approach first-hand as my drill instructor taught me the both the value of integrity and the limits of loyalty in one unforgettable lesson.

On the second day of basic training I was selected to be the platoon guidon bearer.  A guidon is a flag or banner carried on a staff in front of every formation that represents the organization.  Like the coat of arms in medieval times, a since of pride for the guidon is instilled.  Like every basic training platoon, the guidon is simply a single color with the platoon number in the middle of it, in our case the number “3” for third platoon.  Every third platoon in every company had the same guidon.  None the less, I carried ours with pride, for about a week.  Unfortunately, the pride turned to utter embarrassment when I lost the unit guidon.

The platoon marched in formation to dinner at the chow hall where I posted the guidon by driving the shaft in the ground near the door as was customary.  But, for the first time, we were allowed to return to the barracks individually without marching.  It was not until morning I realized I had forgotten the guidon.  I snuck away and ran to the chow hall, but it was no longer where I left it.  Needless to say, my drill instructor was not pleased when I reported it was lost.  For the next week I was ridiculed by the entire platoon and made to perform pushups by the drill instructors every time we assembled in formation without the honored guidon.  After a week, the drill instructor must have felt I had learned the lesson of responsibility.  This lesson was straight forward and easily understood.  The final two lessons, however, were taught with a psychodynamic approach.

The framework for applying the psychodynamic approach, according to Northouse (2016) includes: determining the rationale behind human behavior, a great deal of that rationale lies behind conscious awareness, the essence of human behavior is their ability to regulate their emotions effecting that rationale, and experiences develop behavior through the adaptation of rationale.  My drill instructor addressed me in front of the entire platoon during the morning training events.  He told me that I needed to get the platoon a guidon by any means necessary by the end of the day.  He told me specifically not to steal one multiple times, and suggested finding ours, sewing together a new one by hand, or praying that God would delivery me one.  He then emphasized not to steal another guidon.  In my naivety, I realized that multiple third platoon guidons were posted outside the chow hall whenever we where there and perhaps his multiple declarations not to steal one were actually a suggestion to.  This represents step one of the psychodynamic process.  My drill instructor had laid a test to determine the rationale behind my behaviors.

Later that day the platoon marched to the chow hall for lunch.  As the platoon began to assemble after eating, some of my fellow soldiers pointed out the presence of a red guidon with the number three embroidered on it.  It was not our guidon and clearly belonged to another platoon still inside eating.  As the platoon encouraged me to go take the guidon, I hesitated.  My since of moral integrity was preventing me from stealing.  As the entire platoon continued to pester me to go take the guidon, one of my good friends said that I should go ahead and take it and he was tired of the embarrassment of not having a guidon to represent the platoon.   The second and third aspect of the psychodynamic process then occurred.  Beyond my consciousness, my sense of loyalty to the organization and specifically my friend outweighed my sense of integrity, so I violated that moral obligation, ran forward, and grabbed the guidon.  When my drill instructor emerged from the chow hall, he saw me standing with the guidon and praised me for restoring the platoon’s honor.  What I did not know was the entire situation was a setup.

My drill instructor gave the commands and the platoon turned and began to march away from the chow hall.  Not ten seconds later, another drill instructor yelled from the front of the chow hall for us to stop and return the stolen guidon that belonged to his platoon.  My drill instructor ordered me to stop and the rest of the platoon to continue to the class building where we were headed for training.  I do not remember the exact words used by both my drill instructor and the other drill instructor from whom I stole the guidon from.  It is unlikely they would not be appropriate in this forum and they are not relevant to this discussion anyway.  What are important, however, are the words my drill instructor said to me later that evening in his office.  That is when he revealed to me that he knew I would steal a guidon that day because there was no other possible means for me to obtain one.  He also stated he intentionally waited and watched from inside the chow hall to see if I would steal the guidon.  He also told the other drill instructor that I had taken it and asked him to wait until the platoon started to march away before yelling for it.  My drill instructor then told me that he was proud that I hesitated and had to be coerced by the group to steal the guidon.  Then he explained the danger of loyalty to me.  He warned me that the military places a strong emphasis on loyalty and rightfully so.  He cautioned though, that if I became a leader, my sense of loyalty should never outweigh me sense of morality.  This lesson, learned through the fourth point of the psychodynamic approach involving experiential development, has remained with me throughout my career and has influenced my decisions on multiple occasions.

According to Northouse (2016), “One of the objectives of a psychodynamic leadership development program is to create an opportunity for participants that provokes an exploration of hidden or unconscious rationale” (p. 308).  The experience I had in my initial entry training in the Army with the lost guidon is a perfect example of one of those opportunities.  My drill instructor searched to discover my innermost feelings that drove my behavior.  He then provided an experience to alter and develop my character.  This use of the psychodynamic approach to leadership was highly effective and represents just one example of how leadership within the military can be life-altering for those that experience it.

 

References

de Vries, M. F. K., Florent-Treacy, E., & Korotov, K. (2013). Psychodynamic issues in organizational leadership. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development, 65. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/49913578/The_Wiley-Blackwell_handbook_of_the_psychology%E7%9A%84%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC.pdf#page=80

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

 

Psychodynamic Friendship

by

In this blog I am going to describe my friend Kyle and I’s leadership style using the psychodynamic theory and use transactional analysis to talk about how we have interacted and stayed friends for years. Kyle and I are very different kinds of leaders and we work well together by helping each other work on our leadership type.

First we’ll examine Kyle’s leadership style with the psychodynamic approach. The psychodynamic approach focuses on unconscious, learned emotional responses. This psychological development produces one’s personality type and therefore their leadership (PSU WC, L3, 2019).  First I’ll start by examining Kyle’s family situation. The psychodynamic approach says that our experiences with our family often guide how we act, or as stated by Northouse (2016), “Much of what we do whether we want to admit it or not, is guided by deep-seated experiences and patterns that are first mapped out in early infancy, through our experiences with early caregivers” (Northouse, 2016, p.324). Kyle is an intelligent person who acts with a lot of authority. He is always trying to be in charge and thinks his ideas are better than others. This probably stems from his parents. His dad is a police officer and his mom is a college professor in physics. While Kyle is this way, he also has a softer side which I believe extends from the love his family shows each other which I have seen since we were quite young.

I would say Kyle is a warrior archetype. I believe this because he is very competitive and often tries to impose his will on others. Also, because he often represses his shadow self because he wants to be seen as confident and in charge (PSU WC, L3, 2019). Kyle’s shadow self I believe is his inability to let others make decisions or have anything important to say. At first Kyle never noticed this about himself but I was there to help him see his shadow self which is important because from that he was able to react to it (PSU WC, L3, 2019). I on the other hand, see myself as the magician archetype. I am often willing to change to achieve team goals (PSU WC, L3, 2019). so I am always trying to get Kyle to understand that we can’t always agree with his ideas and sometimes he has to let other people make decisions.

In our relationship, I would say we are both leader and follower to each other. Through transactional analysis me and Kyle have been able to change each other’s feelings attitudes, behaviors and develop each other in different ways (PSU WC, L3, 2019). I would often get annoyed with Kyle and have talks with him about how he can’t always be trying to impose his will onto others. Kyle would also have talks with me about being too compliant with things and not needing to get my way. In a way, we were having interventions like the one discussed in Northouse (2016) which stated that “the best intervention is a holistic one, which adopts both a structural and a psychodynamic lens” (p. 308). Through these interventions and knowing each other so long, we were able to point out each other’s ego states, or way of acting and out behavior patterns, and help each other to make our ego states more fluid (Northouse, 2016).

 

References:

 

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice(7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Introduction to Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa19/21981–15196/content/03_lesson/printlesson.html

The Warrior and the Magician – Contrasting Leadership and Competing Priorities

by

The Warrior and the Magician – Contrasting Leadership and Competing Priorities

Leading people is not easy and a single approach will not work every time.  As situations change, so do the leaders, followers and organizations involved.  It is therefore critical to recognize the different impacts these variables can have on leadership effectiveness.  I have recently been involved in senior leadership discussions in my organization that made me realize you can have great leaders clashing over competing organizational priorities, even if they are ultimately trying to achieve the same goal.  On one hand, you may have those thought to be strong “warriors” while counterbalancing with caring “magicians” on the other.

The psychodynamic approach to leadership considers archetypes amongst other factors.  Archetypes, according to the Penn State World Campus (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3, p. 7) are “strong patterns in the human psyche that persist over time.”  There are many relevant archetypes in leadership, but the Warrior and the Magician are two of the most popular considered in business thus far.  On one side, the warrior is the stereotype that most people have of a leader – one who is strong and effective.  Warriors are competitive and confident, and they swiftly attack when faced with danger; they impose their will on others and work hard to achieve goals (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3).  Although stereotypical and certainly effective, a warrior leader is not always ideal in every situation.

In contrast, a magician is someone who is adaptable and encourages flexibility amongst the team.  Some consider this archetype as the ideal leader; under their guidance and leadership, teams engage emotionally, forego personal gains and strive to achieve collective goals.  As opposed to the warrior, a magician does not work for monetary gains and instead sees the goal as its own reward (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3).  Leadership approaches and organizational priorities between a warrior and a magician cannot be more different from each other.

Recent discussions with decision makers in my organization cement the fundamental concepts of these leadership archetypes.  On one side of the negotiating table, I have a senior leader who is concerned about the relationship between the military base and the local community surrounding our installation.  He is a warrior who exhibits task behaviors and directive leadership when leading the team to achieve goals.  Additionally, he is commanding and strictly drives people in the same direction.  Directive leadership is commonly characterized by instructions, clear standards, rules, expectations, schedules and norms (PSU WC, 2019, L.5; PSU WC, 2019, L. 6; Northouse, 2016).

On the other side of the table, I have a magician who exemplifies supportive leadership and is concerned about the needs and well-being of his subordinates.  He encourages involvement at every level and empowers members of the team; undoubtedly, he exercises participative leadership which is a leader’s way of involving others in the decision-making process (PSU WC, 2019, L. 6; Northouse, 2016).  A supportive leader respects their followers and a participative leader values their opinions.  Fortunately, we have this type of leader sitting on the side of negotiations opposite to that of the “warrior” senior leader.

The most recent competing priority was a military event at risk of cancellation due to forecasted inclement weather.  One of the leaders wanted to postpone the day prior so that he could provide the soonest notification to the local community, while the other wanted to wait for cancellation until the day of the event in case the weather got better (which was a possibility based on forecasts).

With contrasting leadership came competing priorities.  The directive, commanding warrior is risk-averse and wants to be seen as confident and respected.  Although he is very effective and his concerns are considerably valid, his priority is saving face in front of the local community.  The supportive magician was concerned about how much work his team had already accomplished towards the event, how much more work it would take to break everything down and how much it would cost to postpone now and execute later.

Our organization is certainly fortunate because regardless of their contrasting styles and having concerns on opposite sides of the spectrum, both of these outstanding leaders have something in common – the goals of doing what’s right, finding common ground and making the best decision for the team and for the community.  After considering inputs by the many experts involved in the planning process (to include local weather forecasters), the event was kept on schedule and executed as planned.  Albeit rainy, it was exciting and memorable for everyone who came out that day.  Undoubtedly, leadership and goal accomplishment are both difficult but recognizing impacts on different levels certainly helps.  It is extremely valuable when building teams, especially if you have both warriors and magicians involved in the fight!

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved September 12, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style a& Situational Approaches. Retrieved September 25, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Utilizing the Individual Self: A Path to Successful Leadership

by

Individuation is to divest the self of false wrappings. - Carl Jung

The psychodynamic approach has many strengths, such as a understanding between the relationship between a leader and their followers, the ability to cross cultural lines, the encouragement of personal growth, and encouragement of morality in leadership (L3, p.6, 2018). On the contrary, it is said that the approaches include that the theories were formulated on the severely mentally ill, based on two-parent families, not based on organizations, not well translated to training and it focuses too much on the individual. While the psychodynamic approach receives criticism of being too focused on the individual, possibly the individual focus is the approach’s greatest strength. This blog will focus on the weakness of the group dynamic, the strength of being an authentic leader, and the use of executive coaching, specifically diving into the shadow and the utilization of dream interpretation for leaders.

Once the leader is able to identify their authentic self and mature into their individuation, they are able to become stronger leaders in their organizations. When a group is gathered, there is a dynamic that is quickly created subconsciously that is a silent group of rules that govern how things are done within that set of people and that can limit their behavior and even their innovation (Vince, 2011). These unspoken rules directly relate to how the followers learn from each other and the leader, which is a play between fantasy and reality, which is the psychodynamic approach (Vince, 2011), a person’s subconscious speaking from past experience that is affecting their lives and group interactions today. Our collective unconscious morphs into mental images of how we think our group or organization is supposed to work (Vince 2011) so it makes sense to look at leading these groups from an elevated platform, which is taking the group dynamic out of the equation. By focusing on the individual leader, we don’t have the expectations of how we’re supposed to act, how we’re supposed to relate to office politics, how we’re supposed to limit our innovation to stay within a role as the “architecture of the invisible” (Vince, 2011). This “architecture of the invisible” limits a group and a leader because of the group dynamic, because it sets an invisible rule book that everyone in the group is supposed to follow. By the leader getting individual training on psychodynamics, they are able to work with emotions of their group, engage with difficulties in their organization, and enhance their ability to learn (Vince, 2011). While training a group of leaders may be more time effective, it seems that having a competent leader who can steer the group’s collective unconscious is a huge asset to prevent misunderstanding of roles, of expectations, and encourage innovation in their organization because they can utilize each follower’s strength. If we break the individual leader out of a group dynamic for training, the leader can receive more effective training of their “self.”

Now that we can see the limitations of training in a group, let’s look at authenticity in leadership, a very individual approach to leadership training (Ladkin, 2016). Being an authentic leader means having self awareness and self regulation, and Jung says that an authentic leader isn’t necessarily perfect (Ladkin, 2016). Empirical research shows that leaders don’t feel that they can lead authentically because they translate that to staying positive and upbeat all of the time. In fact, that actually can cause inauthentic behavior (Ladkin, 2016). These leaders do not realize that by only projecting a happy face, they are probably projecting a lot of their shadow self onto their followers and creating a hazard within their organization but the leaders fear that by showing the shadows and difficulties, it makes them feel like a weak or ineffective leader (Ladkin, 2016). Basically, if leaders don’t own up to their own shortcomings, they are going to come out anyway. The leader can openly admit to their followers that a deal didn’t work out as they planned or they can sugar-coat the ruined deal with their followers commenting behind their back that upper management didn’t do very well. The thing is that these leaders are not trained individually to turn to their true selves during times of difficulty in work and they disconnect their values from the roles that they play in their job (Ladkin, 2016). When a leader is able to be trained in the complementary approach, where the leader is trained to work on their strengths next to our shadows, they are able to balance everything that makes them human, and this is not something that is able to be done alone (Ladkin, 2016). The leader needs some sort of one-on-one work to identify their shadows. Jung says that more than half of our lives are in a subconscious state and our individuation is a combination of our conscious and unconscious, but the most important thing is for us to be aware of our shadow because if we do not become aware, the repression could make the shadow stronger (Ladkin, 2016). By working individually with a coach, a leader can accept their failures as learning experiences, rather than signs of weakness or failures (Ladkin, 2016). Ladkin says that “Ignoring one’s shadow and avoiding the hard work of becoming an individuated person creates leaders who are deluded about who they really are” (2016). So by focusing on the individual leader, specifically one who focuses on their shadows, research shows that you are creating a leader who has greater responsibility within the organization, treats their followers better, and approaches their work with greater morality (Ladkin, 2016). A group setting would be inappropriate and ineffective for this deep sort of shadow work, where the leader must really dig deep into who they are to identify their shortcomings and then create a game plan with a knowledgeable coach to work on these shadows.

So, what else can a coach do to help the individual leader become more effective? Having a business coach used to be a sign of failure or weakness of the leader but as business changes so quickly, and leaders are under more pressure than ever, having a executive coach is a status symbol to encourage high-performers and high-achievers to keep going, and basically essential for these leaders (Kets, 2014). My boyfriend pays $1500 a month for his executive sales coach because he knows that his coach keeps him at peak-performance, just like a Serena Williams still has a coach, even though she is one of the best tennis players in the world. While executive coaches use many methods, they all focus specifically on one executive not a group, which is why they are so expensive. They are not affiliated with the companies and provide an impartial sounding board for the leader. Kets says, “Metaphorically speaking, many leaders are like swans, floating stately and serene on the water but paddling like crazy under the surface” (2014). There are many stresses in a leaders life, including that when a leader climbs the corporate ladder, there are less opportunities for feedback on their performance. This can be detrimental if they do not have someone to guide them like an executive coach whose main role is to help the leader have self-awareness (Kets, 2014) and that can mean addressing their shadow self as well.

One of the techniques that executive coaches use has deep roots in the psychodynamic approach: oneirology, the study of dreams. Freud said that dreams are the road to the unconscious, where all of our fears and deepest desires reside, along with our repressed childhood memories. Jung had a more forward approach to dreams, saying that it is a connection to the collective unconscious which connects all of humanity through archetypes (Kets, 2014). When the coaches understand Freud’s theories and Jung’s archetypes, its a path to understand their client’s psyche a bit deeper. By having this ticket to the leader’s inner-theater, the coaches are able to see more into their client’s lives, what their struggles are, their challenges, and what is in the forefront of their mind, including solutions for their problems (Kets, 2014). Evolutionary psychologists say that dreams are a way for us to practice our fight-or-flight response where we can practice threat avoidance, and practice problem solving in a safe place that isn’t apparent when we’re awake (Kets, 2014). Kets gives many examples of how these dream interpretations are applicable to coaching. One example was of a CEO who dreamt of being caught naked outside of his home with only a washcloth to cover himself and found his wallet on the ground without any money in it as his neighbors pointed and laughed at him. From the dream, he and his coach was able to identify that he was very anxious about a presentation to the board that he knew was not going to go well. He felt exposed and was concerned about the board’s repercussions from the content of the meeting (2014). Kets also told of a woman who dreamt of being caught under a rock avalanche and as soon as she was able to dig herself out a little bit, more rock would tumble upon her. She was able to identify through her coach that she was feeling that her progress in her position was being thwarted by her coworkers (2014). Once the leader is courageous and brave enough to share their dreams with their coach they are revealing things about themselves that may never come up in a regular coaching session (Kets, 2014). Utilizing this psychodynamic approach, the coach is able to ask the leader how a dream made them feel, ask about any intensification of emotions during or after the dream, if there is a recurrent theme in their dreams or thoughts after the dream occurred (Kets, 2014). This allows the coach to have a fuller story to work on shadows with their client, and reinforce positive changes.

As mentioned, the individualistic nature of the psychodynamic approach is not going to be the cheapest or most efficient way to train an entire corporation’s leadership team. However, the concern that this approach concentrates on the singular leader is probably it’s greatest strength. When groups gather, they create a subconscious group of rules of how they are supposed to act, based on their own past experiences. By breaking the leader out from a group setting, they can focus solely on their own growth without traversing unspoken rules within a group. One that leader is broken from the group, they can work on their shadow self, the things that aren’t the best parts of themselves, and work on that along with their shining moments with a coach. Having an coach to help the leader in an unbiased manner allows the leader to grow and receive feedback to become a better leader and version of themselves. Utilizing other psychodynamic techniques such as the study of the leader’s dreams can untap subconscious concerns, solutions to problems, and even allow their coaches to understand them a bit better in their everyday relations. So while the criticism lies that this approach is too focused on the individual leader, there is a mountain of support for this single person approach to leadership training.   

 

References:

Kets, d. V. (2014). Dream journeys: A new territory for executive coaching.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(2), 77-92. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/cpb0000004

Ladkin, D., Spiller, C., Craze, G. (2016). The journey of individuation: A Jungian alternative to the theory and practice of leading authentically. Leadership, Vol 14, Issue 4, pp. 415 – 434.
doi: https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1177/1742715016681942

Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Leadership in work — PSYCH 485. Online course lesson, Penn State World Campus Retrieved September 6, 2018 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1942231/modules/items/25010767

Vince, R. (2011). The spatial psychodynamics of management learning. Management Learning. Vol 42, Issue 3, pp. 333 – 347.
doi: https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1177/1350507610389954

Applying Past Experiences to the Future

by

I am currently going to therapy because I found myself experiencing ever increasing levels of stress about not having enough time to get things done. I was trying to work, go to school, help my parents look after my niece, take care of a very sick dog, look after my own household and burning myself out in the process. In therapy, I discovered that I do this to myself because I have a need to please everyone and a need to do it perfectly. Why? What will happen if I fail?Today? Nothing. But clearly something in my past, trained me to think that there would be serious consequences if I failed.

According to Northouse (2016) psychodynamics is the study of the subconscious motives behind human behavior. These behaviors are our unconscious responses to situations that have similar emotional stigma to experiences from our past (Neely 2016). These unconscious responses are blind spots in that people don’t even know what motivates them (Northouse 2016).

These responses carry over into our leadership styles, and if we can discern our motivations, we can be better leaders (Northouse 2016). Our personalities are developed from our Core Conflictual Relationship Themes (CCRT’s) which are our hidden desires and intentions (Northouse 2016). Leaders who understand their SSRT’s and those of their followers are the most successful (Neely 2016).

I took the abridged Leadership Archetype Questionnaire, located on page 318 of our textbook, to identify the personality qualities, that I developed in my past, that would make me a good leader moving forward. My results indicated that I was a mix of The Processor and The Coach archetypes. According to Northouse (2016) The Processor is someone who is structured, sensible, meticulous, dependable, organized, good at time management, and highly functioning under stress. These are all qualities that I pride myself on having as an employee. However, Northouse (2016) states that these qualities can make a leader inflexible toward change and new situations. I agree that these qualities in a leader could make me inflexible, but I think more from the sense that I would hold people to my own very high standards for punctuality and perfection, and those standards may not be realistic.

The Coach is someone who is empathetic, an extremely good listener, is good at reading other people and their emotions, and gives others the benefit of the doubt (Northouse 2016). The drawback to these qualities, as a leader, is that we may be too diplomatic to effectively provide feedback (Northouse 2016). I find that because of these qualities, I am well-liked in my current job. However, I agree that in a leadership capacity, these qualities would make it difficult for me to discipline or even fire someone.

References

Neely, B. Psych 485: Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1834747/modules/items/21827811

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp 295 – 327.

Skip to toolbar