Shared Spiritual Leadership in a Reform Synagogue Setting: a Single Instrumental Case Study

Home , LGBT clergy in Judaism, Semikhah, Sholom Rivkin

SHARED SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP IN A REFORM SYNAGOGUE SETTING: A SINGLE INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY

A thesis presented by

Lisa S. Eiduson

The College of Professional Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Dr. Elisabeth E. Bennett, PhD

Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts

March 21, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people who have helped to shape me and, by extension, this research:

Thank you to Community Synagogue, the site at which this study was conducted. I am so appreciative to the rabbi, professional staff, and leadership of Community Synagogue for opening the doors of your wonderful congregation so graciously so that I could conduct the research for this dissertation. I could never adequately thank everyone enough for making sure I felt at home during every minute of my visits and for encouraging me along the way.

Thank you also to the two Boston-based congregations that I served while pursuing the doctoral program at Northeastern University. I am so fortunate that both Temple Beth Avodah and Congregation B’nai Torah appreciated the significance of this course of study to me and that they continually found occasions to express and demonstrate their support of and excitement for this academic endeavor from its beginning through its conclusion and beyond.

I am grateful for the many extraordinary mentors, professors, rabbis, teachers and guides

I have had who taught me the difference between knowledge and wisdom, who demonstrated the connections between practice, perseverance and perfection, and who modeled how to live one’s lessons as well as learn and teach them.

I am thankful for each one of the students I have had the opportunity to work with over the years, from preschoolers to graduate students and beyond. Truly, “the world is sustained by the breath of schoolchildren” (The Talmud, Shabbat 119b), and for me, the classroom is my sanctuary.

I realize that I stand on the shoulders of those who came before me, and that my own upbringing offered me full and complete access to any educational opportunity that I could imagine. My grandparents on both sides of the family loved books and put them into my hands and the hands of my sister early and often. They taught our parents, my sister, and me to be 4 proud American Jews, and they lived out the stories and values of Reform Judaism, told in these pages, in their homes, synagogue and families.

My parents and sister have long supported me in my endless desire to ask questions, learn, and experiment with big ideas. A half-century later, they are still cheering me on with sincerity and vigor.

In Judaism, teachers and parents are of equal significance. I am fortunate to have had an outstanding group of professors who accompanied me on my journey through Northeastern

University and this doctoral dissertation. Dr. Gary Zola, of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish

Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, who served as my “outside reader,” is anything but an outsider in my life. What a gift that Dr. Zola was able and willing to serve on my doctoral defense committee, and how meaningful it is to know that one of the great American Jewish historians of our time and all time had a hand in my research and writing. Dr. Elizabeth Mahler was my first professor in the doctoral program at Northeastern University. Through her course,

Introduction to Doctoral Studies, Dr. Mahler taught me about the rigors as well as the joys of doctoral work. Her positivity, wise and insightful critique, and kind words added sweetness and meaning along the way. Finally, I was supremely blessed to work with Dr. Elisabeth Bennett as my doctoral advisor and dissertation committee chair. Having been a student in a few of her classes, I had hoped to have the opportunity to work under Dr. Bennett’s guidance for my dissertation. I could not have asked for a more brilliant, kind, creative, and patient mentor. She always seemed to know when to push me and when to stand by, when I needed the clarity of an explanation and when I just had to figure things out for myself. Dr. Bennett always offered me the perfect balance of words and silences and believed in me during those moments when I ran short of belief in myself. 5

This dissertation has been like a member of our family. It has traveled extensively, been the topic of many dinner table conversations, has permitted me to participate in some opportunities and has caused me to miss out on others. Despite the many twists and turns of this experience, I could always rely on my husband, Joe, and our two daughters, Rosie and Carly, to remind me that the journey was worthwhile and that they would be there for me throughout the process. They have more than lived up to their promises. I began the doctoral program when

Rosie and Carly were still in high school and I am completing it as they are receiving their own college and graduate degrees. They were instrumental in keeping me focused, in telling me when it was time to stop working and go to sleep, in reading and editing and, and in always being interested enough to inquire as to my progress without imposing any judgments.

Finally, I am indebted to my husband, partner, colleague and best friend, Joe. Joe thinks about our almost thirty-year marriage and tells people that he has spent a good part of our lives

“looking at Lisa’s back” as I worked on any one of several academic or professional projects.

The truth is that Joe has been at least as enthusiastic about this dissertation and my emerging identity as a scholar-practitioner as I have been. I am so fortunate to have a life-partner who not only understands shared spiritual leadership, but who practices it at home, at the synagogue, and wherever he is.

Abstract

This instrumental, qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the sharing of spiritual leadership by a rabbi and his professional staff team. The research took place in a mid-size

Reform synagogue. The study was guided by two conceptual frameworks: (a) the spiritual leadership theory of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000), and (b) the shared leadership model of

Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007). These frameworks enabled the researcher to examine spiritual and shared leadership both as individual phenomena and as they intersected. Three research questions guided this study: 1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue? 2.

What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi? 3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this synagogue? Selected through purposeful sampling, the eight subjects were members of the synagogue’s clergy and professional team. Data collection included interviews, focus groups, observations, and document reviews. Data analysis took place throughout the data collection process and continued through the conclusion of the study. Field notes, member-checking, and audit trails added to the rigor of the study, ensured authenticity and increased the credibility of findings. Data were analyzed through open, in vivo, and axial coding. Constant comparison, inductive analysis, analytic memo-writing, and triangulation of results were used to reduce and refine themes. Nine themes emerged that led to four conclusions (abbreviated here): (a) Horizontal and vertical leadership styles were evident in shared spiritual leadership; (b) The leadership style and personality of the rabbi was significant in determining how he shared spiritual leadership; (c)

Shared leadership was dependent on the composition and interactions of the team members; and

(d) Shared spiritual leadership was a process that included a dimension of the sacred.

Keywords: rabbis, shared leadership, distributed leadership, clergy teams, spiritual leadership

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 3 ABSTRACT ...... 6 LIST OF TABLES ...... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 10 CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 The Reform Movement in Judaism...... 19 The Selection of the Synagogue Site ...... 24 Conceptual Framework ...... 27 Spiritual Leadership Theory ...... 28 Shared Leadership Theory ...... 30 Problem Statement ...... 36 Research Purpose and Research Questions ...... 38 Significance of the Study ...... 38 Positionality Statement ...... 42 Author Positionality and Briscoe’s (2005) Framework ...... 42 Positionality Summation ...... 47 Definition of Terms...... 48 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 56 Introduction ...... 56 The Rabbi in History ...... 59 Spiritual Leadership ...... 76 Shared Leadership ...... 98 Summary, Syntheses, and Recommendations ...... 122 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ...... 127 Introduction ...... 127 8

Constructivist Paradigm ...... 128 Qualitative Research ...... 130 Methodological Approach ...... 132 The Case...... 135 Participants and Access...... 137 Purposeful Sampling ...... 138 Recruitment and Informed Consent ...... 140 Data Collection ...... 141 Data Storage ...... 155 Data Analysis ...... 159 Credibility, Authenticity, Quality and Ethics ...... 166 Research Ethics ...... 172 Limitations ...... 173 Summary ...... 175 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...... 177 Study Participants ...... 178 Description of Community Synagogue ...... 187 Findings...... 190 The Sharing of Spiritual Leadership at Community Synagogue ...... 193 The Unique Role of the Rabbi as Spiritual Leader ...... 225 Shared Spiritual Leadership and the Growth and Development of Community Synagogue ...241 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 265 Conclusions ...... 266 Implications for Practice ...... 284 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 290 Personal Reflections...... 297 REFERENCES ...... 299 9

APPENDICES ...... 356 Appendix A: Letter of Introduction to Study Site Point-Person ...... 356 Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Letters ...... 358 Appendix C: Informed Consent Documents ...... 362 Appendix D: Introduction for Interview Protocols ...... 369 Appendix E: Interview Guide for Interview #1 ...... 371 Appendix F: Interview Guide for Interview #2 ...... 373 Appendix G: Field Notes Report Template ...... 375 Appendix H: Introduction to Focus Groups ...... 376 Appendix I: Focus Group Guide for Focus Group #1 ...... 378 Appendix J: Focus Group Guide for Focus Group #2 ...... 381 Appendix K: Observation Template ...... 383 Appendix L: Document Review Template ...... 384

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Comparing the Background of the Three Movements in Judaism ...... 21 Table 2 Comparing the Philosophy of the Three Movements of Judaism ...... 64 Table 3 The Roles and Sub-Roles of the Rabbi as Scholar and Practitioner ...... 71 Table 4 Subject Selection Criteria for Purposeful Sampling ...... 139 Table 5 Data Collection Schedule for Interviews and Focus Groups ...... 143 Table 6 Data Collection Schedule for Observations ...... 152 Table 7 Documents Utilized ...... 155 Table 8 Profiles of Study Participants...... 180 Table 9 Summary of Findings by Research Question...... 192 Table 10 The Nature of this Rabbi ...... 240

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Jewish Denominational Identity in America...... 15 Figure 2 Conceptual Framework for “Shared Spiritual Leadership” ...... 36

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

As a legacy institution that is more than two thousand years old, the synagogue has been governed for most of its history by a top-down, hierarchical leadership model, where authority flows in a downward direction from the rabbi as the leader (Lambert, 2002; Yukl, 2013). As such, the leadership structure of the synagogue, like most businesses, schools, health-care institutions, nonprofits, and faith-based organizations, has been “conventional” in nature. That is, a single individual at the top of the organization uses a vertical approach to lead and organize members within the institution. (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003, p. 22). This top-down leadership structure has been the established model used by most organizations through history -- at least until the closing decades of the twentieth century (Kelman, 2002; Zweifel & Raskin, 2008).

The far-reaching changes brought by globalization and twenty-first technology have prompted scholars and practitioners to adapt or replace the prevailing leadership models to keep pace with the dramatic transformations in contemporary organizational life (Avolio,

Walmunbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bush, 2013; Conger & Pearce, 2002; Harris, 2013; Hernandez,

Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011). Therefore, over the past two decades, organizations and leaders in a variety of settings – including synagogues – have begun to modify these conventional, vertical leadership structures. Fletcher and Kaufer (2003, p. 21) call this new era of organizational leadership “post-heroic,” reflective of the shift that many organizations are in the process of making from the leader as “hero or single man” to leadership as a conceptual idea that is relational, team-based, horizontal, creative, networked and collaborative (Alvesson, 1992;

Bryman, 1996; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Pearce & Sims, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond,

2001). 12

These newer, flattened organizational structures are referred to in the literature as

“emergent” leadership models. Emergent leadership theorists maintain that the “leader” is not the exclusive organizational member designated to lead; rather, in this new conceptualization, every person in the organization serves as a bona fide leader by sharing expertise and talent that benefit the organization. As such, an “emergent” leader gains leadership responsibility organically, through the social processes and group dynamics that develop as work-teams come together to cooperatively resolve problems and to increase overall productivity (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989;

Misiolek & Heckman, 2005; Sudweeks & Simoff, 2005).

Over the past few decades, scholars and practitioners have identified several emergent leadership models and have begun to experiment with them in twenty-first century organizations, either in place of or alongside traditional leadership structures (Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006;

Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Ensley, Pearson, & Pearce, 2003; Hoch, Pearce, & Welzel,

2010). Among the more prevalent models that have been introduced as “post-heroic” are two that have relevance to this study: (a) shared leadership – the primary interest of this research, and (b) spiritual leadership -- the genre of leadership that has been historically associated with rabbis and leaders of faith-based organizations (Bolden, 2011).

Over the past two to three decades, there have been hundreds of scholarly studies conducted in a wide variety of settings on the separate phenomena of shared leadership and spiritual leadership (Avolio, Walmubwa, & Weber, 2009). However, among the many sites in which they have conducted their studies, scholars have not focused their research on leadership in synagogues settings. Moreover, synagogue leaders have not been part of the scholarly conversations about leadership models for the new millennium. In fact, at the time of this writing, there was only one practice-based study in the literature that examined the sharing of 13 leadership in a synagogue setting, and that study was conducted during a time in which major changes were being implemented in its educational programs (Samuel & Arons, 1999).

Nevertheless, even for that single study, the findings demonstrated that the sharing of leadership was successful because it inspired a more robust, team-based approach to managing challenges.

Thus, the study by Samuel and Arons (1999) did signify a beginning; however, this research is now twenty years old, and, by itself, does not fill the gap in the literature regarding new modes of leadership for synagogues today. As such, there is insufficient evidence to speculate as to whether vertical leadership models will continue to persist in synagogues, or whether more horizontal approaches will eventually be adopted to resemble the newer, post-heroic organizational frameworks in other fields.

Some scholars attribute the dearth of contemporary synagogue leadership literature to the reality that synagogues have been historically patriarchal, hierarchical institutions with deep roots in the ancient world (Runesson, Binder, & Birger, 2008). Because of this connection to the past, it stands to reason that synagogues and rabbis have deliberately chosen to hold onto longstanding Jewish traditions and have resisted the temptation to be influenced by changes occurring outside the synagogue walls (Saperstein, 2013). A second explanation regarding the absence of literature in this area may be directly associated with the preferences and wishes of established rabbis and Jewish leaders who were trained in the so-called glory days of vertical, top-down leadership models. This generation of leaders has expressed a range of opposition – from passive reluctance to active resistance -- to any changes in synagogue leadership, particularly those that might curtail their authority or power (Walton, 1941; Watson, Bennis,

Benne, & Chin, 2013). 14

The abovementioned range of opinions is a hallmark of Judaism, and it is typical to find this multiplicity of viewpoints on any given phenomenon. In studying Jewish practice and tradition, it is especially important to note that a variety of opinions and explanations is not just tolerated; rather, it is expected and even encouraged. Jews and Judaism must not be viewed as monolithic. Rather, any examination of Jewish institutions, ideas, or practices must be approached with the awareness that there have been multiple streams of Judaism over the centuries, and that there has never been a single, authentic way to interpret or practice Judaism

(Hartman, 2001; Philipson, 1907). Such variances in thought and practice have developed out of the principle that each person has the freedom to live according to his or her own interpretation of Jewish law and within the context of time, place and circumstance (Blau, 1972; Silverstein,

2005).

Therefore, just as no two synagogues are identical, there is a broad trajectory of Jewish law and practice along a spectrum of interpretive positions, ranging from the very lenient to the very strict. While the lines differentiating Jews of varying opinions and practices are not absolute, there are several predominant Jewish streams (or movements) that facilitate a comparison of data on topics such as Jewish self-identification and affiliation in America. Figure

1 depicts the percentages of American Jews who associate with those movements in contemporary Judaism that are considered dominant in contemporary Jewish life.

Figure 1 Jewish Denominational Identity in America

Figure 1. Pew Research Center 2013 Survey of United States Jews, Feb. 20-June 13, 2013. Figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Based on net Jewish population (both Jews by religion and Jews of no religion). From “A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews,” by Lugo et al., 2013, Pew Research Institute, p. 10. Copyright 2013 by The Pew Research Center.

Historically, the determination as to where on the spectrum of observance a synagogue or

Jewish community was positioned was made by the rabbi who was the authoritative teacher and interpreter of Jewish law (Borowitz, 1983; Meyer, 1988). Generally, Orthodox rabbis and synagogues have interpreted Jewish law more literally and with an eye to the past. They have been less inclined to introduce change into age-old Jewish traditions and practices (Fishman,

1996; Glazer, 1989). In contrast, Reform rabbis have taken more liberal and lenient positions, and have been more change-ready in outlook and practice. As such, due to their openness to the outside world and their willingness to embrace change for the benefit of the Jewish community,

Reform rabbis have been more likely to seek out newer models of governance and leadership than their Orthodox counterparts (Sachar, 2013; Zola & Dollinger, 2014).

In fact, notwithstanding the scarcity of scholarship in the area of synagogue leadership, there have been momentous, real-time changes in Reform synagogue practice in many areas over 16 the past two to three decades (Meyer, 1988; Plaut, 2015). Reform rabbis and synagogue leaders have made extensive changes in programming, worship, and education, very similar in quality to the variations in organizational practice that have been introduced in other contemporary institutions (Aron, Cohen, Hoffman & Kelman, 2005; Eleff, 2014; Hoffman, 2006). The eminent

Jewish historian, writer, and teacher, Dr. Jack Wertheimer (2005) asserted: “Synagogues have rebuilt their buildings to be more user-friendly and welcoming, worship services to be more participatory and warmer, remodeled education so that more emphasis is placed upon group study and discussion and less on frontal educational lessons” (p. 33). Though Wertheimer does not include “leadership” in his enumeration of change areas, there are indications that in areas of leadership, too, Reform rabbis and leaders have begun experimenting with different approaches to organizational leadership in synagogue settings.

This means that, in practice, Reform rabbis have started to retreat from their time- honored positions as top-down vertical leaders and have elected to move toward more collaborative and shared leadership approaches (Ammerman, 2014). Aware of the sweeping changes taking place in the larger organizational world, some Reform rabbis, synagogue professionals, and lay leaders have elected to flatten their leadership structures in ways that more effectively reflect Reform synagogues as complex, modern organizations (Ammerman, 2014;

Lookstein, 2010). There is anecdotal evidence that over the past twenty years there has been more frequent sharing of leadership – even spiritual leadership – in synagogues, for the primary purpose of meeting the needs of today’s multifaceted congregations and their members (Gertel,

1997; Herring, 2012; Schuster, 2016).

The numerous studies on the sharing of leadership that are found in the general organizational literature supports this author’s hypothesis that leadership sharing in synagogues 17 might, in fact, be a viable addition and/or alternative to the vertical, male-dominated leadership of rabbis in congregations (Bradford, 1998; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006; Hoch et al., 2010).

Moreover, the growing literature on shared leadership theory offers examples of theoretical models that could be adapted by and applied to contemporary synagogues. Examining and experimenting with the conceptual models that already exist in the secular literature would certainly advance the case for integrating shared leadership with greater intention and frequency into contemporary Reform synagogue settings.

Katz and Kahn (1978) were among the first scholars to propose a theoretical definition for the phenomenon of shared leadership. They wrote: “Shared leadership can provide organizations with competitive advantages through increases in commitment, in the personal and organizational resources brought to bear on complex tasks, in openness to reciprocal influence from others, and in the sharing of information” (p. 332). These key characteristics of shared leadership -- articulated before shared leadership theory grew in popularity – remain central to shared leadership scholarship and practice as it developed from Katz and Kahn’s seminal scholarship. New conceptual models for shared leadership and spiritual leadership theories will be comprehensively reviewed in Chapter Two.

As value-based constructs, Reform Judaism and shared leadership theory share important ideological principles. Both emphasize the practice of democratic principles and the participatory nature of leadership and governance. The following characteristics associated with shared leadership echo the philosophical outlook and tenets of Reform Judaism: (a) Shared leadership theory offers a model that is more flat and democratic than conventional top-down structures, and one that would enable work-groups to more effectively manage themselves in consort with the overwhelming demands of today’s organizational environments (Grille & Kauffeld, 2015; 18

Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006; Meindl, Mayo, & Pastor, 2002); (b) Shared leadership fosters an atmosphere in which there is more coordination between and among team members who are part of a flattened, democratic structure (Barker, 1993); (c) Shared leadership involves a deepened sense of individual autonomy, and at the same time, instills greater confidence so that team members interact in a coordinated way (Blase, Jo & Blase, 1999); (d) Shared leadership encourages more shared decision-making opportunities and increased accountability of members

(Laschinger & Wong, 1999; O’May & Buchan, 1999); (e) Shared leadership increases the probability for transformational change (Bradford, 1998; Wilhelmson, 2006) and greater organizational creativity (Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).

The abovementioned principles of shared leadership share commonalities with the following prevalent ideologies associated with Reform Judaism: (a) Reform Judaism was also born as a response to the quickly-changing landscape in which Jews lived in eighteenth century

Western Europe; (b) Reform Judaism was originally founded on modernity’s new conceptions of democracy and equality; (c) Reform Judaism celebrates the autonomy of each person, and distributes responsibility across the members of the community; (d) Reform Judaism was and remains a transformational Jewish movement (Cohen & Hill, 2007; Kaplan, 2003; Meyer, 1988).

Despite the compatibility of shared leadership theory and Reform Jewish ideology, there is scant research about shared leadership in synagogues, and an absence of literature on the sharing of spiritual leadership by rabbis in American Reform congregations. It is ironic that in nearly every facet of congregational life, the twenty-first century Reform synagogue has been a bastion of progressive ideas, compelling programs, and forward-thinking leaders. Yet, in the area of organizational leadership in synagogues, there have been only intimations of innovation, and 19 no more than anecdotal evidence about congregations that have elected to transform their leadership approaches for the twenty-first century.

As the time-honored, spiritual leader of the synagogue, the rabbi and his professional staff team were the focal point of this study. The researcher drew upon shared and spiritual leadership as separate streams in the organizational literature to create a novel leadership approach – shared spiritual leadership – that frames this synagogue case study, and that contributes to the repository of knowledge on emergent leadership models.

The following paragraphs elucidate the history and practice of Reform Judaism and justifies the selection of the specific site in which the research was conducted.

The Reform Movement in Judaism

The Reform Movement in Judaism [ca. 1840, Germany] was a product of the Western

European Enlightenment that was built on the explicit principle that Judaism could be adapted to modern life while remaining true to its two thousand-year history and practices (Blau, 1972;

Meyer, 1988; Sarna, 2004). Beginning in Germany, for the first time in their history, Jews gained citizenship, intermingled with their non-Jewish European neighbors and co-workers, and participated in the larger secular society (Ellenson, 2004). No longer forced to live and work only within the Jewish community, Jewish life broadened and took on many of the characteristics of the modern nation-states in which Jews lived. New, progressive synagogues and rabbis came onto the scene with the growing sensibility that being a Jew and being a citizen of a European nation were no longer mutually exclusive; rather, these previously separate identities could be harmonized within the philosophy and practice of Reform Judaism (Meyer,

1998; Pava, 2003; Sachar, 2016; Sarna, 1998). 20

As Jews entered all facets of Western European society -- the professions, universities, social groups, even government – they had to decide to what extent they would maintain their

Jewish identities in modernity (Furman, 2012). Many Orthodox Jews of Western Europe continued to observe the traditions that had been handed down to them through the generations.

Other Jews abandoned their Judaism altogether. Yet, many Jews searched for a middle way: they responded to the call of secularization by adapting their Jewish practices to fit their new lives as authentic Western European citizens (Kaplan, 2003; Meyer, 1988). It is this final group of Jews that became the first “Reform” or progressive Jews in nineteenth century Western Europe. This group of Reform Jews grew into a “movement” beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Reform Movement modernized synagogues, re-interpreted Jewish law more flexibly, and reimagined Jewish life so that it would be in consonance with the newly emancipated and enlightened Jewish community (Karp, 2015; Meyer, 1988).

Reform Judaism has always maintained a connection to its traditional, Jewish roots; however, for the founders of Reform Judaism and its modern-day followers, “Reform” has been the term used to describe this modern variation of Judaism as “a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason” (Jacob, 1985; Southard, 2002; Temkin,

1985). Reform Judaism became popular in nineteenth century Germany because it resonated with modernity. Reform Judaism continues to appeal to Jews today because it is in harmony with the progressive ideals of American society. For those who believed that Reform Judaism went too far, Conservative Judaism came along shortly after the establishment of Reform as a movement that sought to “conserve” more Jewish practices and traditions than Reform (Glazer,

1989; Schorsch, 1981; Sklare, 1972). Table 1 is a comparison chart of the three main Movements in Judaism: Reform, Conservative and Orthodox. 21

Table 1

Comparing the Background of the Three Movements in Judaism

CATEGORY Reform Conservative Orthodox

Established 1810 CE Germany/U.S. 1886 CE Germany/U.S. 2nd-5th centuries CE Land of Israel and Babylonia

Other Names Liberal or Progressive Historical Judaism Traditional or Torah Judaism Judaism Emancipation of Jews Reaction to extreme Only form of Judaism Early Influences in Western Europe and assimilation of Reform prior to the 18th century Enlightenment Jews. CE. Harmonize Jewish Balance Jewish traditions Preserve traditional Purpose religious practice and and adapt to modernity. Judaism and practice. belief with modern culture. Proliferation from Immigration to the Germany (1840s) and late Opposed assimilation of Origins U.S. from Germany 19th century Eastern Jews into larger society 1840s. European Jews fleeing and widespread persecution. conversion to Christianity in Europe/U.S. Rabbi Reform rabbis. Conservative rabbis. Orthodox rabbis. Main Emphasis on theology, Balance traditional Torah credential – Torah education, pastoral learning with training in scholarship. Primarily skills. Textual fluency ethics, pastoral skills, and teachers of Torah and but not for purpose of application of Jewish law. religious judges. application of law. Note. Adapted from material from Blau (1972), Rosenthal (1978), Wylen (2000).

Although the Reform Movement began in Germany, it was not long before the new

Reformers made their way to the United States where they established synagogues, developed

seminaries for the training of rabbis, cantors and Jewish professionals, and created Jewish

communities that were built on a fusion of American ideals and Jewish values (Karp, 2015;

Liebman, 1968; Meyer, 1988). The opportunity that these new Reform Jewish immigrants found

in the United States in the latter part of the nineteenth century was unparalleled. Far different

than their European experiences, new Reform Jews in the United States availed themselves of

the openness of American society and even borrowed practices and traditions from their

Christian neighbors. Examples of these borrowed practices included: mixed seating of men and 22 women in synagogue, more formal and decorous atmospheres for worship, more English and less

Hebrew and German during services, sermons on contemporary topics rather than narrowly conceived messages on Jewish themes (Elazar, 1984; Sarna, 2004).

A new kind of rabbi appeared in the nineteenth century as well – the Reform rabbi. The early Reform rabbis viewed themselves as authentic products of historical Judaism; however, they also envisioned themselves as more “modern” than the rabbis before them (Karp, 2015).

While still trained as a scholar and teacher, the rabbi’s portfolio expanded into that of a highly professionalized Jewish communal worker and a new type of modern Jewish spiritual guide.

While traditional rabbis remained faithful to the three central purposes of the synagogue in

Judaism -- as a place of worship, study, and gathering (Meyer, 1996) -- the new Reform rabbis elevated the synagogue as a gathering place and placed less emphasis on the synagogue’s historic role as the center of Jewish prayer and study. In addition to Jewish scholarly pursuits and teaching, rabbis took on communal and administrative leadership roles, preached in the style practiced by Christian colleagues, advocated for social justice in America, represented the Jewish community at events in the larger society, and served as pastors, advisors, managers, CEOs, and organizers (Cohen, Kress, & Davidson, 2003; Karp, 2015).

Moreover, with the advent of the Reform Movement, the rabbi ceased to be the sole

Jewish authority in the synagogue. Additional professional staff members were engaged to facilitate the educational, programmatic and prayer-based activities of the synagogue, and to serve its growing membership. Moreover, the Reform Movement began to build a governance structure that empowered lay leaders in addition to rabbis and synagogue professionals. This dual governance configuration, where lay and professional leaders serve alongside one another, 23 signaled a significant step in the direction of democratic leadership; however, this arrangement was and continues to be fraught with difficulties (Koteen, 2009).

The Reform synagogue in America, therefore, evolved into a complex organization in which multi-generational stakeholders competed for programmatic attention, and where leadership roles were precariously divided between professionals and lay leaders. This unusual governance framework required clarity in the areas of authority and responsibility and necessitated constant communication among and between those in leadership positions – both professionals and lay leaders. Thurs, from its inception, the Reform synagogue was an organizational system that required a high degree of coordination and strategic savvy for those who served as its leaders.

By the middle of the twentieth century, there are reports of Reform rabbis who felt underprepared for and overwhelmed by the numerous responsibilities connected with their roles as chief spiritual, educational, ritual and managerial leaders of synagogues (Tauber, 2007).

Moreover, the new Reform rabbi’s formidable responsibilities were compounded by the challenge of sharing leadership with a group of lay leaders, who, though well-intended, possessed only limited knowledge of Judaism and synagogues as organizations (Hotchkiss,

2016). These daunting realities required Reform rabbis to develop varied and nimble leadership skills as they negotiated their own roles in relation to the synagogue’s distinct but interdependent groups and stakeholders. When not carefully envisioned, managed and communicated, this enigmatic leadership reality had the potential to cause dissention, sometimes even leading to the dismissal of the rabbi from his post. At other times, this unfortunate situation resulted in the demise of the congregation altogether (Eleff, 2016). 24

Fortunately, neither Reform synagogues nor rabbis have ever been alone in grappling with the challenges of serving the contemporary American Reform community. Simultaneous to the founding of Reform Judaism in America, was the establishment of the Union for Reform

Judaism (“URJ”) in 1873, the umbrella organization that connects American Reform rabbis, professional staff members, and lay leaders to one another. Today, the URJ is comprised of more than 900 Reform member synagogues in the United States and Canada, and 300 synagogues outside of North America. In total, it is estimated that there are more than one million Reform

Jews in North America to date, which makes Reform the largest Jewish movement in North

America (The Reform Movement, 2017). Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the current President of the URJ, describes the Reform Movement in Judaism as: “Egalitarian, intellectually rigorous, joyful, spiritual, pluralistic, and constantly evolving. It is soul-elevating spiritual practice, life-altering

Torah study, courageous practice of tikkun olam [social justice], loving care for our community, especially the most vulnerable” (Jacobs, “ReformJudaism.org,” 2017). Jacobs’ description of the

American Reform Movement also alludes to the significant demands placed on Reform rabbis as organizational leaders of synagogues.

The Selection of the Synagogue Site

The American Reform Movement, and specifically, one synagogue rabbi and his professional staff was the focus on this research. The synagogue site that was selected for this case study will be referred to as “Community Synagogue.” Community Synagogue was chosen as the study setting because it offered the researcher an opportunity to study its professional leaders who self-describe as collaborative staff partners. Community Synagogue was known as a place in which the sharing of leadership was distributed among the rabbi, cantor, educators, and administrative staff members. Conducting this study in a synagogue setting enabled the 25 researcher to capture the lived experiences of the organization and its leaders. The next section elaborates on this author’s research interest and places the study in its site-specific organizational context.

Community Synagogue is a mid-size Reform synagogue of approximately 450-member family units located in the northeastern part of the United States. A member of the Union for

Reform Judaism, Community Synagogue was founded in 1953 by a group of young Reform

Jews who sought to create a Jewish life for themselves and their families in a quiet, suburban setting, about one hour outside of a major urban center. The community grew quickly, and the founders purchased their first building and dedicated it in 1960. Shortly thereafter, in 1961,

Community Synagogue engaged its first full-time rabbi. The researcher found the synagogue to be a modern structure, with a Sanctuary for worship services and life-cycle events, a Religious

School with classrooms, conference rooms and educational technology, a social hall and kitchen for hosting events, and several flexible meeting spaces that could be adapted to meet the needs of teens, adult learners, board and committee members, and congregational gatherings.

The current rabbi has served as Community Synagogue’s rabbi for twenty-six years. In addition to the rabbi, the professional staff is comprised of a cantor, two education directors, a director of youth engagement, a director of administration, three administrative and financial personnel, and two members of the custodial staff. There are part-time employees who teach in the K-12 Religious School (that has classes on weekday afternoons and Sunday mornings), and other support staff associated with the religious school programs. The rabbi, cantor, educators, administrator and support staff were the subjects of this site-based synagogue case study.

While some of Community Synagogue’s offerings are open to the public, families who wish to participate in the governance, religious school, and/or leadership of the congregation are 26 required to become “members.” As is customary in Reform synagogues, a family applies for membership in the synagogue according to the following guidelines: at least one of the adults in the household is Jewish, parents whose school-aged children attend Community Synagogue’s religious school commit to raising them as Jews and in Jewish homes. Members are expected to pay a yearly membership contribution. Once a family’s membership is accepted, all family/household members are considered full participants in the educational, ritual and social life of the congregation, are given access to the pastoral services of the rabbi and/or cantor, and -

- with some restrictions for non-Jewish family members – are encouraged to become involved in the leadership and governance of the synagogue.

It was clear from the information that was readily available to the public – such as the organizational mission and vision statements, the synagogue website, photographs and general publicity describing congregational life – that one of the values of Community Synagogue is its commitment to collaboration in the fullest sense. Community Synagogue takes pride in its operational transparency, its open lines of communication, and its adherence to best practices in organizational leadership.

At the time of this writing, in fact, the synagogue officers and board were in the process of revamping its lay governance structure to more effectively respond to the challenges of time and place. This re-visioning of the lay leadership had an impact on the rabbi and the professional staff of Community Synagogue, and as such, they worked together in their thoughtful planning and implementation of these structural changes. This site offered the researcher the prospect of conducting an original study on the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership as enacted by

Community Synagogue’s rabbi and professional staff at a time in which significant changes in the leadership structure of the congregation were being carried out. 27

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this research study was built on two discrete leadership approaches: spiritual leadership and shared leadership. It is important to note that over the past few years, it has become increasingly common for scholars to use two or more leadership approaches in constructing conceptual frameworks for their studies. Their use of multiple theories is particularly useful in research settings in which a single approach does not sufficiently capture the nuances and complexities of leadership and its enactment (Anfara & Mertz, 2006;

Merriam, 2009; Roberts, 2010). In a recent study, Meuser et al. (2016) reviewed the leadership literature from 2000 through 2013 and discovered that there had been a notable increase in scholarly interest in what is known as “leadership theory integration” – that is, “research into leadership theory that relies on, benefits from, or is supported by simultaneous research into other leadership theories” (p. 5). Meuser et al. also discovered that over the period of fourteen years, of the 864 articles found in the ten top scholarly journals, many studies utilized three or more leadership approaches within a single research endeavor, and that shared leadership theory was most frequently used in combination with other leadership approaches (p. 2). In the opinion of Meuser et al., building a conceptual framework that is derived from two or more theories strengthens the likelihood that the study would yield “a more holistic understanding of the process of leadership…[including] how the interconnections among theories inform our understanding of specific focal leadership phenomena” (Meuser et al., 2016, p. 7).

The egalitarian nature of Reform Judaism and evidence that shared leadership and spiritual leadership were operative at Community Synagogue provided the justification for a conceptual framework that was rooted in both shared leadership and spiritual leadership theories.

These distinct theories were integrated and “interwoven to create a unique theory, rather than just 28 the summation of several parts of two or more theories” (Meuser et al., 2016, p. 34). The new hybrid leadership model for synagogues that has been envisioned for this study is called: “shared spiritual leadership.” Once defined, the phenomenon of shared spiritual leadership theory served as the lens through which the words and behaviors of the participants of the synagogue site were observed and analyzed for meaning. The subsequent sections will present background information and identify seminal scholars and research studies on spiritual leadership and shared leadership.

Spiritual Leadership Theory

Because of the sacred nature of Jewish leadership and the historic position of the rabbi as the leader of the synagogue community, spiritual leadership provided the backdrop for this synagogue-based case study. The literature that was found on spiritual leadership was newer and less extensive in size and scope than the literature on shared leadership (Fernando, 2011, p. 483).

Studies in spiritual leadership first emerged in practice, as organizational members affirmed a direct relationship between worker satisfaction and organizational performance (Judge,

Thorensen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). This important correlation between the well-being of workers and their job performance outcomes led to the new field of workplace spirituality, which emphasized the connection between one’s work, one’s life, and one’s spiritual orientation

(Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2004). The seminal scholar in the field of spiritual leadership theory was Louis W. Fry (2003) who offered a structure that conceptualized the workplace as an extension of the human being’s morals and values. As such, Fry believed that the workplace could be a place of meaning where one was able to discover his or her spiritual mission and even find his or her personal calling in life. Fry’s original spiritual leadership theory included three cornerstone values: Vision, altruistic love, and hope (or faith). Fry suggested that in a workplace 29 in which vision, altruistic love and hope exist, there is the potential for the individual to be spiritually, socially, and intellectually inspired, and morally moved. Historically, the Reform synagogue has been the vessel in which vision, altruistic love, and hope and faith have coalesced, have been modeled by the rabbi and synagogue professionals, and have been transmitted to the younger generations through education (Brandt, 1996; Conger, 1994).

In the literature, spiritual leadership was divided into several categories that overlapped and intersected in form and function. Among the specific iterations of spiritual leadership were those that conceptualized it as: (a) a leader-centered phenomenon (Chen, Yang, & Li, 2012;

Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011; Fry, 2003; Peregoy, 2016), (b) a follower-centered model

(Chen, Belkin, & Kurtzberg, 2006; Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005; Hernandez et al., 2011;

Meindl, 1995), (c) charismatic leadership - which is a subset of follower-centered leadership, and

(d) a communal-centered framework (Bryman, 1992; Chaston & Lips-Wiersma, 2015; Chen et al., 2006; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Faierstein, 2016; Howell & Shamir, 2005; House &

Howell, 1992; Krishnakumar, Houghton, Neck, & Ellison, 2015; Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy,

2003; Shallit, Popper, & Zakay, 2010; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993; Weber, 1947).

Of the varieties of spiritual leadership, it was communal-centered spiritual leadership as it evolved through the collaborative efforts of the team that proved most relevant to the enactment of shared spiritual leadership among rabbis, clergy members and synagogue professionals

(Crossman, 2010; Nicholas, 2013). In an article written for leaders in Jesuit higher educational settings, Nicholas (2013) wrote: “Whether it is the church, a religious congregation or an apostolic work; whether it is a board of directors, a faculty or a group of students, the community is a crucial ingredient” (p. 3). Moreover, communal-centered spiritual leadership has gained 30 attention over the past few years because of its special multi-leveled, integrative, transformational approach to spiritual leadership (Benefiel, 2005; Fernando, 2011).

One study by Ashmos and Dushon (2000) was especially relevant to the transformational possibilities of communal-centered spiritual leadership. The study by Ashmos and Dushon was utilized in the conceptual framework to represent spiritual leadership as it was represented in this research endeavor. Ashmos and Dushon conceptualized an instrument to measure and observe spirituality in the workplace; however, it was their working definition of spiritual leadership that this author found particularly incisive and relevant to the enactment of spiritual leadership in the

Reform synagogue. They wrote: “Spiritual leadership [is] the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (Ashmos & Dushon, 2000, p. 137). Ashmos and Dushon parsed spiritual leadership into three main components: “The inner life, meaningful work, and community” (p. 137). These three attributes of spiritual leadership were juxtaposed with three additional attributes offered by

Carson et al. (2007) (in the forthcoming section) to complete the conceptual framework that guided this study and to provide the building blocks with which shared spiritual leadership was conceived. The following section will introduce shared leadership theory as it was applied to the conceptual framework for this research.

Shared Leadership Theory

Shared leadership theory was examined both as a distributed organizational phenomenon that occurred within the team and its members (horizontal), and as a top-down process wherein the leader influenced his or her team of followers (vertical). Among the number of shared leadership models in the literature, of interest were studies that conceptualized shared leadership as a multi-leveled, relational phenomenon that allowed for a combination of horizontal and 31 vertical leadership structures – not simply one or the other (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). The conceptual framework that was used to guide this study helped elucidate when shared aspects of their responsibilities as spiritual leaders in synagogues, and when rabbis did not share spiritual leadership with other clergy and colleagues on the professional staff (Carson et al., 2007, p.

1229).

Katz and Kahn (1978), Manz and Sims (1987), and Yukl (1989) were among the first scholars to suggest that the way in which team members engage with one another is as important to the sharing of leadership as the way the organizational leader interfaces with the team. This concept represented an innovation in research on leadership that had always been concentrated on the personal traits and behaviors of the leader as “heroic man.” The heroic man sat at the top of a vertical organizational framework and was the source of power, authority and organizational activity (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-

Bowers, 1996; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce & Sims, 2002). More recently, others have attempted to move away from this early tendency to “draw on hierarchical, individualized, and unidirectional theories” to explain leadership (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014, p. 2), and instead have conceived of shared leadership as a social phenomenon (Carson, 2007; Mathieu & Chen,

2011; Mehra, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006; Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and as a collaborative agency (Gronn, 2002; Raelin, 2014).

These recent iterations of shared leadership stress the notion that leadership is no longer conceived to be a person or group of people identified as leaders, but rather as a social system or a process. Raelin (2014) wrote: “Leadership [is] practice … not the traits and heroics of individual actors.” Raelin continued: “The practice view of leadership does not focus on the 32 dyadic relationship between leaders and followers; rather, it looks to all those who are engaged, their social interactions, and their reflections and adjustments to their ongoing work” (p. 4).

In an important study, Carson et al. (2007) began with the premise of leadership as a shared, social, networked process. Carson et al. discovered that shared leadership exists and thrives when organizational members consider themselves part of a working unit or team, and not simply the sum of the individual leaders and members. In their study, Carson et al. not only concentrated on the benefits of shared leadership in today’s organizations, but they also “directly explore[d] the conditions that give rise to shared leadership” (p. 1218). The primary aim of their research was to identify the internal and external conditions that are “likely to influence the development of a climate of shared leadership” (Carson et al., 2007, p. 1218).

Thus, Carson et al. (2007) extended the scope of existing scholarship in the literature by identifying what they understood to be the pre-conditions for a climate of shared leadership.

They built on the earlier work of Katz and Kahn (1978) who argued that shared leadership gives rise to organizational productivity: “Shared leadership can provide organizations with competitive advantages through increases in commitment, in the personal and organizational resources brought to bear on complex tasks, in openness to reciprocal influence from others, and in the sharing of information” (p. 332). For Carson et al., shared leadership is advantageous to all organizational members, and has the potential to inspire the creation of an environment in which people feel empowered to collaborate with rather than compete against one another. In this model, all members of the team lead others in ways that promote a dynamic and relational connection to one another and to the organizational objectives (Carson et al., 2007). Carson et al. highlighted three specific dimensions of shared leadership that they believed were necessary for 33 shared leadership to exist and function effectively in an organizational team: shared purpose, social support, and voice (p. 1222).

These mechanisms – shared purpose, social support, and voice – resonated with the researcher in relation to contemporary Reform synagogues, other faith-based settings, and social service organizations. Though not intended for religious settings, the conception of shared leadership articulated by Carson et al. (2007) reflects the principles of the Reform synagogue as a democratic institution. In this view, the Reform synagogue has the potential to inspire those within it to share the responsibilities and privileges of leadership on behalf of the community.

Furthermore, individuals who are motivated to work together also discover a sense of the sacred in their living, working and leading.

For this study on shared leadership, Carson et al. (2007) offered a model in which there is a continual interplay between the internal dynamics of the team itself and the external stimuli that influence the organization’s form and function. Carson et al. provided a framework that could be applicable to the Reform synagogue as well, since it is also an organization that values shared purpose, social support, and voice. The approach taken by Carson et al. facilitated the exploration of the Synagogue’s “internal team environment [as it] was characterized by mutual understandings about the purpose and goals of the organization, a sense of recognition and importance for organizational members, and high levels of involvement, challenge, and cooperation” (p. 1223).

Proposing Shared Spiritual Leadership as a New Model

This researcher envisioned superimposing the shared leadership theory of Carson et al.

(2007) onto the spiritual leadership model of Ashmos and Dushon (2000). As such, the possibility arose for the development of shared spiritual leadership as a new leadership 34 framework for contemporary American Reform synagogues and other faith-based organizations.

In this way, the leadership approaches of Ashmos and Dushon (2000) and Carson et al. (2007) were the cornerstones for a conceptual framework that brought the streams of literature on shared leadership, spiritual leadership and contemporary rabbinic and professional synagogue leadership into relationship.

The conceptual framework for this study is depicted in Figure 2. This illustration shows the overlapping and intersecting components of spiritual leadership and shared leadership as these two discrete constructs were examined for commonalities and differences. The conceptual framework guided this research, sharpened the problem of practice, and was a means by which the research questions were addressed. Figure 2 is composed of two overlapping and interconnected Venn diagrams representing the main theoretical frameworks for this study: spiritual leadership and shared leadership. The Venn diagram on the outer part of the figure represents the spiritual leadership framework of Ashmos and Duchon (2000), together with its three predominant characteristics of spiritual leadership: community, meaning at work, and inner life.

Overlaid against the backdrop of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) spiritual leadership model is a second Venn diagram, located on the inside of the figure. This second Venn diagram represents the shared leadership model of Carson et al. (2007), with its three main components: social support, shared purpose, and voice. The overlapping areas shaded in darker blue represent three areas of the rabbi as a spiritual leader and the means by which his or her leadership may be shared with others. The center of the two interconnected Venn diagrams, shown in yellow, is the point at which this researcher has proposed a newly derived theoretical model: “shared spiritual leadership.” 35

The six variables in Figure 2 continually fluctuate in the synagogue, as one would expect in a value-based organization. That is, there is a constant ebb and flow of these six organizational features as the organization responds to the natural dynamics of the its inner environment, and as it reacts to stimuli coming from the outside. Each of the six characteristics is unique and function in various combinations that enable spiritual and shared leadership to co-exist. While there are boundaries between and around these characteristics, this researcher imagines there to be a fluid interchange and interconnection between and among these attributes as the organization develops and changes. While the Venn diagram approximates a balanced figure, the six characteristics are rarely, if ever, in balance; rather, they oscillate and rise and fall to fill in gaps and to account for the imperfect nature of organizational leadership. The Venn diagram offers a dynamic illustration for conceptualizing the complementary attributes of spiritual leadership and shared leadership in the synagogue setting. As these two leadership approaches were brought together and blended, a robust lens was created through which the novel phenomenon of shared spiritual leadership was theoretically understood and practically demonstrated.

Figure 2

Conceptual Framework for “Shared Spiritual Leadership”

Figure 2. Leadership model for hypothetical concept of “shared spiritual leadership,” based on selected frameworks for spiritual leadership theory and shared leadership theory. Adapted from Ashmos and Duchon (2000) and Carson et al. (2007). Problem Statement

The contemporary landscape challenges traditional institutions like synagogues, whose deep roots in the past may serve as impediments to change and progress. Reform synagogues are examples of faith-based, legacy institutions that have continually evolved. Reform leaders attribute the survival of the synagogue to the extent to which its leadership embraces change

(Meyer, 1988). Though few studies have been conducted on shared leadership in synagogues, it is evident from the literature that modern leadership practice requires some degree of team involvement and leadership sharing, especially in progressive, faith-based settings such as

Reform synagogues. Community Synagogue was chosen for this study because there were persuasive indications that shared leadership was being enacted by the rabbi as the spiritual leader, and by the other professional staff members at the synagogue. It was interesting to this researcher how and why the sharing of leadership – especially spiritual leadership – came about in this synagogue site. The following assumptions about the dynamics of the site provided the 37 initial rationale for a study of shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue: (a) the organizational savvy of the rabbi, his staff and members of the congregation, (b) the highly competitive environment in which this synagogue is geographically situated, and (c) the entrepreneurial spirit that this Synagogue embraces and encourages (Levinson, 1974; Rischin &

Livingston, 1991).

Much like other twenty-first century American Reform synagogues, this congregation’s informational materials convey transformational approaches to Jewish education, innovations in programming and prayer, and modernizations to social action projects and social justice initiatives. However, in addition to these characteristics, the synagogue staff configuration suggested from the outset that it followed a somewhat atypical organizational arrangement.

Furthermore, the language and photographs that appear in the congregation’s electronic and print materials quickly revealed to this researcher that the synagogue permitted and encouraged leadership sharing between and among the various synagogue stakeholders.

Given the relative silence of recent literature on leadership for contemporary American

Reform rabbis in synagogue settings, and the mandate for American liberal synagogues to persist and remain relevant in modernity, there is a need for research to be conducted specifically on synagogue rabbis, clergy, professionals, and lay leaders. Using the abovementioned conceptual framework to explore where spiritual leadership was shared and where it was not shared in this synagogue setting may lay the groundwork for a new, hybrid model - “shared spiritual leadership.” The conceptual framework for this new, blended leadership model might enable scholars to study shared spiritual leadership through the lens of the American Reform synagogue.

Moreover, on a practical level, this new framework has the potential to help rabbis and 38 congregational leaders identify patterns and prototypes for enacting shared spiritual leadership in their own synagogue practice.

This synagogue-based case study may also prove helpful in closing the gap in the literature regarding new leadership models and best practices for the twenty-first century synagogue. The study of shared spiritual leadership may also add knowledge to the very limited scholarly conversations on the Reform rabbi as the contemporary spiritual leader of a re- envisioned synagogue for the new millennium. Finally, this research may offer the possibility of shared spiritual leadership as an emergent leadership framework, specifically for consideration and implementation in faith-based institutions.

Research Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to understand the enactment of shared spiritual leadership in a medium-sized synagogue in the northeastern part of the United States, in an outlying area that was approximately one hour away from a major urban center. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?

2. What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?

3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this

synagogue?

Significance of the Study

This qualitative, synagogue-based case study offers insights into the dynamics of clergy and professional staff interactions that may lead to knowledge about the efficacy of shared leadership in professional synagogue teams. The study may also provide scholars and practitioners with information as to whether a leadership model that is more shared might result 39 in increased creativity, efficiency, spirituality, and collaboration among rabbis, synagogue professionals and lay leaders. Since only a few studies were found in the literature on shared leadership in churches and only one study was identified that had been conducted in a synagogue, more empirical research is needed to determine how shared leadership is enacted by clergy and professional staff members of faith-based organizations – specifically in its intersection with spiritual leadership. Further research needs to take place to determine the relative success of shared leadership in synagogues as compared to more traditional models.

Furthermore, research should also be able to predict the compatible and incompatible characteristics of shared leadership and spiritual leadership in a single organizational framework.

It is only once practice-based studies are conducted and credible theoretical models are created that it will be known whether it is possible – or even advisable – for synagogue leaders to confidently and enthusiastically move from their conventional leadership structures to more shared, group-driven frameworks (Ebener, 2007; Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Kim, 2005).

From a research perspective, this study adds to the literature on shared leadership and may also lead to additional inductive studies based on qualitative data from close observations, reviews of documents, and semi-structured interviews. This study, which utilizes two different leadership styles and models as part of its conceptual framework, also contributes to new organizational leadership research that is integrative in nature, and that creates unique and imaginative combinations of two or more discrete leadership theories to be combined and used in the same site (Meuser et al., 2016).

This study may be helpful to scholars who focus on leadership at the various levels of the synagogue as an organization. On the individual level, it is already well-documented in the literature that “ostensibly, it is becoming more difficult for any single individual to possess all 40 the skills and abilities required to competently lead organizations today” (Kocolowski, 2010, p.

22). As the world becomes more complex and as congregants’ pastoral needs grow more numerous, it has become impossible for the rabbi – or any single leader – to maintain the areas of expertise and the breadth of responsibilities necessary to fully and effectively serve all the members of the contemporary congregation.

It follows, therefore, that this research may result in a better understanding of leadership at the group level of the synagogue as well. The group level would include other rabbis in the synagogue, clergy colleagues, as well as professional staff members who work closely together.

This research may offer a paradigm for a type of spiritual leadership that remains at the center of the rabbi’s attention and responsibilities, but at the same time may be shared across a team of synagogue professionals.

On the level of the synagogue community, it is possible that this research may offer a template of a new leadership model that might ultimately replace the traditional top-down structure that, in many ways, has run its course. The synagogue members may feel better served with a more fluid distribution of responsibilities across a greater number and wider variety of staff members, resulting in improved organizational efficiency and service. For the at-large members of the synagogue, this new and innovative approach to staff structure could offer greater empowerment and trust at all levels of the organization and might permit for a more targeted approach to creating innovative pastoral and programmatic services that fit the diverse needs of today’s congregants. Moreover, there is one additional feature that must be factored into a study of the contemporary American Reform synagogue. That is, the twenty-first century

Reform synagogues and leaders must continue to wrestle to align their historical functions with a new population of Reform Jews who are much less likely to affiliate with synagogues than their 41 parents or grandparents before them. One of the most provocative statistics revealed in the pie chart on the current patterns of affiliation (Figure 1) is the staggering statistic that 30% of contemporary American Jews today choose not to affiliate at all. As this percentage has been increasing each year, and as the financial resources of synagogues have been decreasing proportionally, congregations have been forced to make difficult budget decisions that almost always result in the reduction and elimination of professional staff members. For this reason, leadership sharing among and between professionals would prove cost-effective for congregations seeking to conserve resources.

This research may also be useful in determining the limitations of shared leadership in synagogues. Kocolowski (2010) identifies three obstacles to shared leadership from the business and management literature that likewise hold true for the synagogue, and will be explored more fully in the review of the literature: (a) resistance to the idea of a shared leadership model, (b) the additional time and energy that must be devoted to the decision-making process in a shared leadership setting, (c) the perceived conflict between shared leadership models and traditional hierarchical leadership frameworks, and (d) the question as to whether the synagogue as a Jewish legacy institution is viewed as a good “fit” for shared leadership. On this final point, Kocolowski wrote: “The literature seems to indicate that some organizations and industries present a more conducive environment for shared leadership than others” (p. 29). Given the barriers to success mentioned above and the unique idiosyncrasies of the synagogue as an organization, the feasibility of shared spiritual leadership is still not known.

Thus, this research may be used to ascertain whether the synagogue is, in fact, an organization that might be conducive to shared spiritual leadership and may assist scholars in discerning where shared and spiritual leadership support one another and where they work in 42 opposition. It will be important to continually assess whether the benefits and steep learning curve associated with implementing shared spiritual leadership in synagogue teams will outweigh its challenges and risks. Although each synagogue is unique with respect to its staff, clergy, and operations, it is likely that the findings from this qualitative case study may be replicable in other synagogue settings across the country, and perhaps in other faith-based organizations that are facing paradigm shifts in leadership and management.

Positionality Statement

Author Positionality and Briscoe’s (2005) Framework

For this positionality statement, I have applied Briscoe’s (2005) three “Dimensions of

Positionality” to address positionality in my own prospective research. They are: “(a) one’s demographic positioning within society, (b) one’s ideological positioning, and (c) how one discursively positions the other and oneself” (p. 31-32).

Demographical positioning. I am a white, American, Jewish woman from Shaker

Heights, Ohio. I am the daughter of Jewish parents who have been married for more than 50 years, and I have one younger sister. My father is a first-generation American Jew whose parents emigrated from Germany in 1933, the same year that Hitler came to power. They came to the

United States alone, leaving behind family members who later died in the concentration camps of Eastern Europe. My mother’s grandparents came to the United States from small, isolated villages in Poland and Russia in the 1880s. My American-born mother lived with her Eastern

European grandparents who spoke little English and were not formally educated, but who nevertheless viewed education for the children as imperative. There was a strong loyalty to

Judaism in my family despite first-hand experiences of anti-Semitism, and there was an equally 43 powerful patriotism that pervaded the environment on both sides of my family that motivated them to work together to become strong, capable, and proud American Jews.

I was surrounded by several generations of family members, the sounds of German and

Yiddish, and frequent intellectual arguments that ranged from American politics and the situation in Israel to passionate debates about literature and philosophy. There was never any hesitancy to engage in conversation, and even the children had a voice when it came to expressing opinions and debating topics of interest. From a young age, I understood that heated dialogues among family members helped prepare me for life in the larger community – both Jewish and secular -- where respect from others was earned through one’s ability to think, speak, and lead. All four of my grandparents were fortunate to have received college educations, and I grew up hearing the stories of my paternal grandparents, who described the way they left Germany for America, just days after completing their medical school studies. My family was a positive and powerful force in my upbringing, and the theme of leadership was a familiar refrain throughout my formative years.

Interestingly, both sets of my grandparents spent their professional lives working with one another in “teams:” my maternal grandparents owned pharmacies where my grandfather, his brothers, and my mother were pharmacists and my grandmother functioned as the bookkeeper.

My paternal grandparents, both obstetrician-gynecologists, were in private practice together, where my grandfather was the lead clinician and my grandmother supervised their lab. My own worldview was a co-mingling of the promise of America, the collective memory of the

Holocaust, and some lingering fears of anti-Semitism. My passion for the Jewish experience and my gratitude for American freedoms grew out of the voices and hearts of my European-

American family members whose lives demonstrated that education and career choices were 44 open to women and as well as men, and that opportunities for leadership in their new land were accessible to them as Jews.

Positionality played a role in the way in which I saw the concepts of shared leadership, teamwork, and communal commitment. My natural biases needed to be checked from time to time, especially as I tried to understand more rigid, hierarchical leadership models that were not part of my past experiences. I instinctively reference the synagogue of my childhood that, in many ways, stood in contrast to my family: it was and remains a large and vibrant organization, with over 1500 family member units, and a large professional staff that included four rabbis and a cantor. However, the senior rabbi (always a man) was at the top of the synagogue professional leadership ladder and was the final authority on all matters. Taken together, these demographic elements not only located my position in relation to my research; moreover, as Carlton Parsons suggested (2008), they fell into the important “cultural-historical domain” (p. 1130) that set the context for our experience and shapes our present and future inquiries.

Ideological positioning. From an ideological standpoint, as a woman rabbi, I am both a traditionalist and a feminist. I have a great reverence for the many aspects of Judaism that are reminiscent of what was good about the “old country,” but, at the same time, I believe that innovation has eternally been the key to Jewish survival. Because the telling of our people’s sacred story is central to our practice – and since the storyteller owns the story -- my development into a scholar-practitioner has assisted me in balancing a love for my Jewish community and my critical study of it. During my research, I was cautious about being neither too idealistic nor too critical, and I tried to ensure that my results were driven by sound theory and methods. I came to this qualitative case study with a clear positive bias toward the sharing of leadership in synagogues, and, had the opportunity early on in my career to observe and 45 participate in a clergy team that was shared and distributed – and highly successful. However, I realized that I needed to devise survey tools and questions carefully so I could keep my biases in check and would not sway my interviewees. Moreover, as a “guest” in another synagogue, I felt that I had to observe as much as possible but save my own “voice” for the data analyses, and for the conclusions that would be reached at the close of the study.

An additional ideological bias that I was cognizant of was my own sense of frustration with the synagogue staff structure of which I was a member for the first twenty-three years of my career. Until the past four years, I served in the capacity of assistant rabbi and/or associate rabbi in four different synagogues. I realized that at the inception of this study, I had grown tired of the traditional, top-down framework that has been the prevailing model for professional synagogue leadership. As professional leaders, we rabbis offer very progressive synagogue programming, bring innovative new models for learning and worship to adults and children, and talk a great deal about deep change; however, the professional leadership structure has remained largely hierarchical and, frequently ineffective in dealing with the unprecedented challenges of the twenty-first century. Of course, my predisposition toward a more shared leadership structure required my approach to be dispassionate and balanced so that I did not unfairly bias my own research aims.

I also examined some of my own feelings around authority in the synagogue that may have emerged as a result of gender stereotyping. It is well-known that women rabbis face multiple challenges in attaining the highest positions of leadership in synagogues as these have been historically held by men. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been married for 29 years to a male rabbi who was a classmate and with whom I worked for the first eight years of my career in two different synagogue settings. He does not represent the “traditional” top-down, male 46 leader at all; in fact, in his own practice, he has advocated for and has implemented the sharing of leadership among his own staff professionals.

Despite my experiences, I approached this research study with no predetermined expectations, and with an open mind and heart. As an observer of a synagogue clergy team that offered a different model than those I had recently experienced, I knew that it was important to avoid the tendency to romanticize what is “other,” and I tried to avoid falling into the trap of going outside the context of my formal interview protocols, observations, and data collection processes.

Discursive positioning of the other. Briscoe (2005) articulated a principle that is taught in everyday life but must be carefully followed for ethical research: “At issue is how to make

[the] other into a you. It is about incorporating the aspect of the other into we-discourses or, in short, about opening a dialogue with the other” (p. 34). Moreover, Briscoe subscribed to an

“inclusive representation of the other” (p. 35) that carries with it the responsibility of not simply acknowledging the other, but also in “embrac[ing] a more inclusive representation of the other”

(p. 35).

I grasped the nuance of occupying a “privileged position” (Briscoe, 2005, p. 33) as a scholar-practitioner in relation to the group that I studied. This connotation of “privilege” was new to me, and I spent time exploring what place this privileged positionality would have in my own research endeavors. I was keenly aware that my privilege brought with it the significant responsibility that the scholar-practitioner must assume as a person with unique “access to social power” (Briscoe, 2005, p. 33). As such, I learned that “access” necessitated continual self- awareness in accounting for my ideological biases, and restraint to resist the tendency to impose my judgments on the community. 47

I resonated with Briscoe’s (2005) imperative to account for the “other,” and understand its application when one engages in research on a group or community outside of one’s own; however, there are still many possibilities as to who and what the “other” was in my own research. For me, the “other” included the new 21st century definitions of leaders and leadership that were very different than those of my childhood. The “others” were the various faith communities and their clerical leadership frameworks that I studied and compared to those that exist in the Jewish community today. I continually asked myself to relegate my own experience as a woman on a clergy staff team that often operated more like a family system than a professional group so that I could maintain objectivity and balance while exploring a different type of clergy structure. In this case, I came to view myself as “the other.” Regardless, I heeded

Briscoe’s cautionary warning against the exclusive representation of the other, as it “discourages empathy and communication between groups and reifies differences in positionality, which causes further divisiveness between the various social groups” (p. 38-39).

Positionality Summation

As a practitioner for twenty-seven years, I have attempted to practice openness in listening to and learning from the “other(s)” through my work in the Jewish community and outside of it. I appreciated the unusual privilege that I had to observe and interact with one of the most respected and experienced synagogue clergy teams in the country, and one of the very few that uses the principles and processes of shared leadership in its daily operations and in its long- term strategic planning. I considered it an honor to glean wisdom directly from the members of this staff team, to observe their interactions, and to listen to their experiences and attitudes on the topic of shared spiritual leadership. In the final analysis, I have tried to my positionality for good 48 purposes in this research project, and, with a full heart, believe that I have gained the tools necessary to ensure that my research was fair, equitable, and just.

Definition of Terms

Bet Din: Hebrew: “House of Judgement.” The original Jewish court of Ancient Israel that ruled

on Jewish legal matters for the Jewish community. The Bet Din was and continues to be

composed of three rabbis or Jewish authorities who have authority on decisions regarding

marriage and divorce, conversion, or any question of Jewish law or practice. The Bet Din

was convened when a rabbinic student was prepared to receive his authority as a rabbi in

the community.

The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR): The CCAR is the professional

organization of Reform rabbis in North America that was founded in 1889. The CCAR is

the largest and oldest rabbinical organization in the world.

The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Conservative Judaism is a branch of Judaism that

moderates between the traditional Orthodox and the progressive Reform branches.

Formed in the mid-19th century C.E. under the leadership of Zecharias Frankel,

Conservative Judaism was like Reform in that it sought to adapt Judaism to modern ways

of thinking and behaving. However, unlike the Reform Movement, the Conservative

Movement based its changes firmly in traditional halakhic (Jewish legal) and classical

rabbinic decision-making. He conceived of Judaism as a historically developing religion

that promoted the conservation of Jewish law within the context of contemporary realities

and ongoing encounters with God in every generation” (“Conservative Judaism,” n.d.).

Diaspora: The historic dispersion of Jews out of their ancestral homeland (the Land of Israel)

and their subsequent settlement in other parts of the globe. The Diaspora refers to any 49

place in which Jews are living outside of the Land of Israel. In traditional Jewish

philosophy, the “love of Zion” is intimately related to the Jewish obligation to “return to

Zion.” However, Reform Jewish thought has modified the imperative that every Jew must

make his or her home in the Land of Israel and has espoused the important presence of

Diaspora Jews and their critical role in fostering the survival and health of Jews and

Judaism. Therefore, Reform Jews view Israel as a beloved Jewish homeland, choose to

visit and/or even make their home there, but do not believe that Jewish life in America or

in other Diaspora communities is of any less value than living in Israel.

The Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was a cultural and historical movement that began in

the mid-decades of the seventeenth century and concluded at the end of the eighteenth

century. “It was characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and

politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our

modern western world” (Bristow, 2011).

The Enlightenment in Judaism: The Haskalah, was a Jewish intellectual Enlightenment

Movement in Western Europe that paralleled the wider Enlightenment Movement that

took place beginning in the 17th century. “Literally, Haskalah comes from the Hebrew

word sekhel, meaning ‘reason’ or ‘intellect’ because the movement was based on

rationality. It encouraged Jews to study secular subjects, to learn both the European and

Hebrew languages, and to enter fields such as agriculture, crafts, the arts and science.

The maskilim (followers of the Haskalah) tried to assimilate into European society in

dress, language, manners and loyalty to the ruling power” (Schoenberg, n.d.).

The Hebrew Scriptures: Known also as the Bible, the Old Testament, the Holy Scriptures. The

Hebrew Scriptures is the preferred scholarly idiom for Judaism’s oldest and most sacred 50

literature. The Hebrew Scriptures is divided into three major sections: The Torah (The

Five Books of Moses), the Prophets, and the Writings. The Hebrew Scriptures is the

foundation for Judaism’s sacred history, law, literature and lore.

The Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion: The Reform rabbinical seminary,

founded in 1875 in Cincinnati, Ohio, by religiously liberal, progressive German Jews.

Today, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR) is comprised of

four full campus sites in the United States and Israel: Cincinnati, OH (ca. 1875) New

York, NY (ca. 1922), Los Angeles, CA (ca. 1954), and Jerusalem, Israel (ca. 1963). Note:

This author is an alumna of HUC-JIR. The first year for all students takes place at the

Jerusalem campus; the remaining 4 years of my own rabbinical studies were spent in

Cincinnati, Ohio, where I earned master’s degree in Hebrew Letters and was ordained a

rabbi.

Jewish Emancipation: The eighteenth-century Western European movement that took place

following the events of the French Revolution (1791), “inspired by the spirit of the

Enlightenment,” that recognized Jews as equal to other citizens of western Europe’s

nation-states. The objective of the Enlightenment was to eventually “work toward the

legal abolition of disabilities and inequities against the Jews of modern Western

European countries” (Barnavi, 2002).

Modern Orthodox Judaism: A contemporary iteration of traditional Orthodox Judaism that

emerged about the same time as Reform and Conservative Judaism in nineteenth century

Germany. Modern Orthodoxy holds that Jewish law is normative and binding, while

simultaneously attaching a positive value to interaction with the modern world. In this

view: Orthodox Judaism can "be enriched" by its intersection with modernity; further, 51

"modern society creates opportunities to be productive citizens engaged in the Divine

work of transforming the world to benefit humanity” (Berman, 2001).

Rabbi: Hebrew: “my teacher.” In Babylonia, the rabbi was also called to as “my teacher,” but

the title was “rabban.” The leader of the synagogue community beginning in the First

Century CE. The rabbi was not the facilitator Jewish religious rites, but rather, teachers

of religious texts. The rabbi’s role has expanded over the centuries, so that the modern

rabbi is viewed as a member of the clergy: “Not only a teacher, but a pastor, a preacher, a

minister and an administrator supervising the myriad activities of the synagogue and

meeting the immediate and long-term needs of congregants. In some communities, the

rabbi is also expected to represent Jews and Judaism to the non-Jewish community”

(“The Synagogue,” 2003).

Rabbinic Ordination: The modern idiom for the culmination of a rabbi’s seminary study and

training. Reform rabbis are ordained in a religious ceremony as part of a class or cohort

of students who become rabbinic colleagues. The ancient process of “s’micha” (Hebrew:

the conferring rabbinic authority) is symbolically reenacted as the President of the

Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion lays his/her hands on each candidate

individually and offers a blessing for service to the Jewish community.

The Reform Movement in Judaism: Reform Judaism is the most liberal and progressive

expression of modern Judaism and is one of the major streams or movements of Judaism.

Reform Judaism began in Germany in the early 1800s as a reaction against the perceived

rigidity of Orthodox Judaism and as a response to Germany's increasingly liberal political

climate. Leaders of Reform Judaism also brought significant changes to 19th century

Reform synagogues in Germany and the United States. Among the adaptations in Jewish 52

practice were: “A de-emphasis on Jews as a united people, discontinuation of prayers for

a return to Palestine, prayers and sermons recited in German [and English] instead of

Hebrew, the addition of organ music to the synagogue service, and a lack of observance

of the dietary laws.” Today, Reform Jews are more inclusive than other Jewish

movements: women may be rabbis, cantors, and synagogue presidents; interfaith families

are accepted; and Reform Jews are ‘committed to the full participation of gays and

lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large’” (“Reform Judaism,” 2016).

Ruach: Hebrew: “spirit.” This word first appears in the Creation Story in the Torah in the Book

of Genesis/ The word “ruach” comes from a Hebrew root that associates the spirit with

God’s “air,” “breath,” “energy.” This conception of spirit provides the basis for the

emergent organizational model known as spiritual leadership.

Shared Leadership Theory: Shared leadership is “a dynamic, interactive influence process

among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the

achievement of group or organizational goals or both. This influence process often

involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other times involves upward or downward

hierarchical influence” (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1; Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2007, p.

282).

Shared Spiritual Leadership (1) – Working Definition: Shared spiritual leadership is being

proposed as an emergent leadership model especially created for understanding the

enactment of leadership by the rabbi and professional staff members of contemporary

Reform synagogues. Shared spiritual leadership is a hybrid leadership framework that is

based on the blending of two existing leadership approaches: Spiritual leadership as 53

understood by Ashmos and Duchon (2000), and the shared leadership conceptualization

of Carson et al. (2007).

Shared Spiritual Leadership (2)– Final Definition (see Chapter 5): Shared Spiritual

Leadership is an emergent, hybrid, process-based model for rabbis (and other faith-based

clergy) and their professional staff team members that blends top-down and horizontal

shared and spiritual leadership frameworks. Shared spiritual leadership is characterized

by its team-based and networked approach, its highly relational nature, and its flexibility

in meeting the challenges of twenty-first century organizational life. Shared spiritual

leadership in Judaism maintains a strong connection to the sacred Jewish traditions of the

past, is enacted through the pursuit of meaning in the present and is dedicated to

discovering new modes of Jewish practice and community in the future. Shared spiritual

leadership is proposed in this research study to better understand how congregational

leadership is carried out by rabbis and professional staff members of contemporary

American Reform synagogues. For this research endeavor, shared spiritual leadership is

based on the blending of two existing leadership approaches: (a) spiritual leadership as

understood by Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000), and (b) shared leadership as conceptualized

by Carson et al. (2007).

S’micha: Hebrew: “the laying on of hands” or “rabbinical ordination.” The term s’micha has its

origins in the Hebrew Scriptures where the transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua

was represented by Moses laying hands upon Joshua’s head (Num 27:15–23, Deut 34:9).

Spiritual Leadership Theory: “Spiritual leadership involves intrinsically motivating and

inspiring workers through a transcendent vision and a corporate culture based on

altruistic love” (Fry 2003, 2008, 2016; Fry & Nisiewicz 2013). 54

Synagogue: From the Greek, meaning “assembly.” Though likely in existence for several

centuries, certainly by the end of the first century C.E., the synagogue emerged as the

central Jewish institution for communities in Palestine, Babylonia, Egypt and wherever

Jews made their homes. As the primary organization of Jewish life, the synagogue is a

place in which study, worship, meetings, celebrations, and civic activities take place. It is

noteworthy that early on, the most important function of the synagogue was not prayer,

but rather Jewish study and communal gathering (Fine, 1996; “The Synagogue,” 2003).

Talmud: The large compendium of oral literature known also as the “Oral Torah” that

complements the Hebrew Scriptures which is known as the “Written Torah.” The Talmud

(meaning “teaching” or “instruction”) is a multi-volume, multi-generational commentary

and interpretation that sets the basis for Jewish legal practice in Israel and in the

Diaspora. The Talmud was composed over many centuries – beginning with the Rabbis

of the first century C.E. -- in the Lands of Israel and Babylonia and culminating in the

fifth century C.E. Mastery over the Talmud was the primary source of rabbinic authority

and the predominant scholarly occupation of rabbinic students throughout Jewish history

until the advent of the Reform Movement in nineteenth century Germany and America.

Torah: The Torah may be defined in its most narrow and literal connotation as the first section

of the Hebrew Scriptures which is comprised of the Five Books of Moses. However,

Torah may also be defined more broadly as a reference to all Jewish study endeavors

throughout the ages.

The Union for Reform Judaism: The umbrella organization of Reform Judaism in North

America, founded in 1873 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)

consists of Reform congregations throughout the United States, Canada, Israel and 55

beyond. These congregations share the values and tenets of Reform Judaism as a modern-

day, progressive, Movement dedicated to Jewish study, prayer, gathering, and the

perfection of the world.

Wissencshaft des Judentums: German: “Jewish Study.” Nineteenth century, modern German

scholarly movement that introduced an ideology and a method for the analytical and

scientific study of Judaism. Like almost all other fields of study, Judaism – including

Jewish literature, history, law, culture and practice -- was investigated from a critical

perspective and subjected to the new and contemporary tools for scholarly inquiry

(Meyer, 1971).

Yiddish: The historic language of Jews living in the “Old World” of Eastern and Western

European Jewry until World War II and the Holocaust. Yiddish is a conversational and

literary language that emerged from a mixture of German, Hebrew, and other European

languages. It had multiple dialects depending on where it was being spoken or read.

Yiddish still exists today, but not widely; it is used primarily by Orthodox Jews as a way

of holding onto Jewish tradition and actively resisting the change and progress of

modernity.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Purpose Statement and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to understand how shared leadership was enacted by the rabbi and synagogue staff members of a medium-sized Reform synagogue in the northeastern part of United States. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?

2. What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?

3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this

synagogue?

Introduction

This study focused on two dimensions of rabbinic leadership as they were actualized in the work of one American Reform rabbi and staff members in a modern synagogue setting: spiritual leadership and shared leadership. While rabbis have been viewed as the religious and spiritual leaders of synagogues for centuries, there has been little in the contemporary organizational literature on the topic of shared rabbinic leadership in American Reform congregational settings. Yet, in practice, there are compelling signs that rabbis in today’s

American Reform synagogues have begun to share leadership to a greater degree, particularly since the year 2000. In this study, spiritual leadership and shared leadership were investigated individually and at their points of intersection among the rabbi, clergy and professional staff of a

Reform synagogue – known as “Community Synagogue.” The goal of this original study was not only to fill the gap in the leadership literature, but also to substantiate a new theoretical model for shared spiritual leadership by rabbis and professional staff members in synagogues.

Scope and Organization of Literature Review

This study, focused on a rabbi and his professional staff team, explored the scholarly underpinnings and the practical outcomes associated with the sharing of spiritual leadership in a synagogue setting. The dearth of research in this area led to the selection of three separate separate streams of literature that informed the theoretical construct of shared spiritual leadership: (a) the role of the rabbi in Jewish history, with particular focus on the American

Reform rabbi, whose education and professional practice have led to his/her dual roles as spiritual and professional leader of the Reform synagogue; (b) recent research on spiritual leadership theory as a lens through which the particular and unique components of rabbinic leadership in a synagogue setting may be studied; and (c) theoretical and practical models of shared leadership and their applicability to contemporary American Reform synagogues.

The first section of the literature review provides a background to the major trends in rabbinic leadership from ancient times, with attention to Reform rabbis in America beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century. The second section explores the literature on spiritual leadership as it informs our understanding of rabbis over time. The final section elucidates the area of shared leadership in organizational settings with the purpose of ascertaining whether the rabbi’s role as spiritual leader might be shared in the contemporary American Reform synagogue. This author sought to find areas of connection as well as places of tension between these three separate streams of literature in order to investigate the hypothetical phenomenon and the practical possibility of shared spiritual leadership as it may be enacted in a synagogue-based clergy and professional team.

Multiple search terms were used individually and in combination to identify articles in the organizational literature that were relevant to any one stream of literature, and to bring to 58 light any significant overlaps. The following search terms were used in connection with each of the three literature streams: (a) rabbi as leader, Reform rabbi as synagogue leader, evolution of the rabbi in Judaism, roles of the Reform rabbi, rabbis as leaders, changing identity of the rabbi, education and training of the rabbi; Reform rabbinic training in America; (b) spiritual leadership, the rabbi as spiritual leader, the spiritual leadership of the American Reform rabbi,

Christian spiritual leadership; Jewish spiritual leadership; and (c) shared leadership, shared leadership in clergy teams, Jewish shared leadership, synagogue shared leadership, shared rabbinic leadership in synagogue settings, sharing leadership in faith-based settings, distributed leadership, collaborative leadership, collective leadership, shared spiritual leadership; shared leadership in church settings; cross-cultural shared leadership.

Searches were conducted through EBSCO Integrated Search, EBSCO Host Search,

Scholar OneSearch, and Google Scholar. The abovementioned search tools were used to access the following databases containing the literature that was explored: Education Research

Complete, Sage Research Methods, ERIC, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, APA PsycNet,

Web of Science, ALTA Religion Database. Reference lists from the articles that were studied were used to identify and review additional studies. An effort was made to select studies in the spiritual and shared leadership literature beginning around the year 1995, in order to establish the most current definitions of these new leadership phenomena. Once a working knowledge of spiritual and shared leadership was reached, the literature searches were narrowed to the 2010-

2018 time-frame to ensure that the most recent findings were included.

The literature review explores the definitions, background information, and seminal research associated with each of the three literature streams to discover the principal strands of knowledge that exists in these discrete areas. The following statements represent the present state 59 of the literature in connection with this research study: (a) There is a lack of literature in the area of the rabbi as spiritual leader; (b) There is a virtual absence of research on shared leadership as it is enacted by rabbis in Reform synagogues; and (c) There are no extant studies on the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership as they are lived out in the life and work of the

Reform rabbi. Following the elucidation of these separate areas of scholarship, the existing literature was critically studied and synthesized to address the research questions on the nexus of spiritual and shared leadership as practiced by one rabbi and a synagogue staff team. The literature was interpreted and then applied to advance the argument of advocacy for this study’s problem of practice (Machi & McEvoy, 2012, p. 116). The literature review begins in the next section with an introduction to the rabbi in Judaism, and the evolution of the rabbi’s leadership from his original role as teacher and scholar to the contemporary rabbi’s position as organizational leader of the American Reform synagogue.

The Rabbi in History

The first stream of literature focused on the development of the rabbi over the course of

Jewish history, and provided a glimpse into the role and training of the rabbi from the first century of the common era to the present time. This section of the literature review is in no way exhaustive; however, it does reflect the trajectory of roles and responsibilities that rabbis have assumed over time and in different Jewish communities throughout the world. The literature on the authority of rabbis, their scholarly and practical training, and their responsibilities to the communities that they serve offers insight into the similarities and differences between the traditional rabbi and the Reform rabbi of nineteenth century German and America. The subsequent section of the literature review explores the ever-expanding competencies required of contemporary Reform rabbis, and the education and training necessary to effectively prepare 60 rabbis for leadership within Jewish communities. These competencies include both skill-based proficiencies as well as particular intangible qualities that are critical to the success of the rabbi as a synagogue leader.

Origin and Authority of the Rabbi

The first time that the word “rabbi” appears in Jewish literature is in connection with

Rabbi Gamaliel I (also called “Gamaliel the Elder”) who lived in the Land of Israel in the early part of the first century C.E. and died in 50 C.E. – just prior to the Roman destruction of

Jerusalem and the Second Temple [ca. 70 C.E.] (Harvey, 2005, p. 1; Rudolph, 2009, p. 1). While there had been recognized leaders of the Jewish community many years before the first century

C.E., Rabbi Gamaliel I was the first to be identified as one who fulfilled the two traditional roles of the rabbi: (a) he was a teacher, and (b) he was an interpreter of Jewish law (Elazar & Monson,

1982; Rudolph, 2009, p. 2). The title “rabbi” (used in the Land of Israel) and “rabban” (used in

Babylonia), meaning “my teacher,” reflects the primary role of the rabbi as educator and instructor. The rabbi gained his authority through knowledge of Jewish texts, fluency in Jewish scholarship, and participation in the transmission of Jewish tradition to subsequent generations

(Hauptman, 2013; Wilke, 2016). Whether the rabbi mentored students or made decisions about

Jewish Law, the title, “rabbi,” underscored the primacy of learning as it was required for teaching, interpreting Jewish law on behalf of the community, or adjudicating legal matters

(Cedarbaum, 1999; Hauptman in Homolka, Schöttler & Heinz-Günther, 2013; Hezser, 1997).

Learning in Jewish Life

In Jewish tradition, learning has always been more than an accumulation of knowledge.

Even two millennia ago, Jewish study was viewed as a spiritual activity because of the dynamic and unique relationship that was forged between the rabbi, his student, and their God (Faierstein, 61

2016). As early as the first century of the common era, there were stories that described the love and respect that existed between students and their teachers. The following Talmudic statements emphasize this relational aspect of Jewish study, and the power of its transmission from one generation to the next: “He who teaches a child is as if he had created that child” (The Talmud,

Sanhedrin 19b). “Whoever teaches his son teaches not only his son but also his son’s son—and so on to the end of generations” (The Talmud, Kiddushin 30a). Jewish study was lived out in the partnerships of teachers and students; Jewish learning was multi-directional. In Jewish life, the ideal student was one who evolved into an instructor who would go on to mentor his own teachers. In this way, Jewish learning and teaching have long been shared endeavors. Rabbi

Chanina remarked: “I have learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues, and the most from my students” (Talmud, Ta’anit, 7a).

From Rabban Gamaliel I of the first century to modernity, the main medium for the transmission of the vast breadth of Jewish knowledge has been from a veteran rabbi to a young and eager disciple. (Greenstein, 2006; Hezser, 1997). Jewish learning and values were personally communicated through shared anecdotes and stories, and later through the genres of Jewish written and oral literature (Lebeau, 1997; Wertheimer, 2004). Beginning in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., even the vast compendium of oral literature was committed to writing to preserve the integrity of the teachings and to safeguard Jewish traditions as Jews spread beyond the

Ancient Near East into the Diaspora (Fishman, 2013, p. 10).

Traditional Rabbinic Training

Beginning with Rabbi Gamaliel I in the first century, every Jewish boy was prepared in

Jewish learning, first by his father, and then by a primary rabbi with whom the student often lived for a period of years (Greenstein, 2006). While Jewish education was a central value for all 62

Jewish children, traditionally, only those students who demonstrated the highest aptitudes for mastery over Jewish law and literature were considered for the rabbinate (Greenstein, 2006;

Hezser, 1997). If the teacher deemed the student worthy of advanced study, he recommended the student as a candidate for the rabbinate. When the student was sufficiently prepared, the community convened a Bet Din (religious court) of three scholars – at least one of whom was a rabbi himself – to determine the student’s readiness for rabbinic service. The Bet Din’s role was to test the rabbi in all areas of scholarship, with emphasis on the interpretation and application of

Jewish law. The Beit Din alone had the power to confer rabbinic authority on the student. This transmission of authority culminated with s’micha --a laying on of hands – a tradition going back to the transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua in the Hebrew Scriptures (Hoffman, 2013, p.

146; Newman, 1950). Preparation for the rabbinate was based on a high degree of academic achievement and demanded a rigorous course of Jewish study that resulted in mastery over a sizeable and difficult body of Jewish knowledge. To this very cerebral and analytic training process, the s’micha (ordination) ceremony added a highly spiritual and relational quality

(Elazar, 1984; Faierstein, 2016; Hoffman, 2013, p. 149; Hoge, 2006; Lebeau, 1997).

There is no consensus as to when the ancient tradition of receiving one’s authority privately through the “hands” of the Bet Din concluded. The literature offers a variety of possible endpoints -- ranging from the fifth through the twelfth centuries C.E. (Ehrhardt, 1954).

Regardless of the precise date, what is known is that the Bet Din’s process of conferring s’micha

(authority) upon a new rabbi was replaced by institutions and academies that came about in order to provide a more comprehensive training for rabbis and to enable them to celebrate their achievements in more contemporary ways. As a result, rabbinic academies sprung up, first in

Israel and later in Babylonia, Rome and across the world, as Jews and Jewish communities 63 established themselves throughout the Diaspora (Newman, 1950). Certainly by 1100 C.E., rabbis received their authority in a public ceremonies known as “ordination” (Baron, 1958).

Rabbis were ordained in small groups rather than individually, and as part of an academic ceremony during which each received a blessing, an official ordination certificate, and a diploma. Scholars believe that the rabbinic ordination process, in large measure, was borrowed from similar ceremonies that took place among their Christian neighbors, and incorporated into

Jewish ordination services (Meyer, 1988; Newman, 1950).

The Beginning of the Modern Rabbinate

The shift in the source of the rabbi’s authority from the Bet Din to the process of ordination in seminaries also signified the beginning of the modern rabbinate (Bonfils, 2013;

Dauermann, 2009, p. 195; Eisenberg, 2004, p. 339; Schwarzfuchs, 1993, p. 12). The rabbi evolved from his place as a volunteer within the Jewish community to a paid professional, whose salary was provided by the local Jewish community. Moreover, the traditional role of the rabbi as scholar and legal decision-maker expanded in Western Europe to include the new responsibilities of the rabbi as professional practitioner (Dauermann, 2009, p. 259; Hoffman, 2013; Newman,

1950). The progression of the rabbi from his modest origin as a master-teacher to the newly imagined rabbi as a Jewish communal professional was apparent in the early Reform Jewish communities of eighteenth and nineteenth century Germany (Wilke, 2013).

Germany’s Edict of Emancipation in 1822 not only catalyzed the birth of the Reform

Movement in 1873, but also provided the change-ready atmosphere on which Modern Orthodox

Judaism [ca. 1898] and Conservative Judaism [ca. 1886] were established (Gruenewald, 1957;

Sachar, 2013). While the dating of these movements is somewhat fluid, the Reform Movement was the first of these modern movements, and brought unparalleled changes in the interpretation, 64

practice and philosophy of Judaism. (Meyer, 1988, p. 235; Sachar, 2013). Table 2 provides a

philosophical overview of the main differences between Reform, Conservative and Orthodox

Judaism. These differences appear in works of Jewish theology and thought, and are reflected in

the liturgy and philosophy of the respective Movements.

Table 2

Comparing the Philosophy of the Three Movements of Judaism

CATEGORY Reform Conservative Orthodox Torah’s Origin Inspired, but not divinely Divinely inspired but Divinely inspired. Torah as and Revelation authored foundational interpreted by rabbis over truth. Written and Oral texts text. Torah is human time. Torah is product of revealed directly to Moses by document that is God and humanity. God and transmitted to continually revealed in Accepts modern, critical subsequent generations. each generation. biblical scholarship. Authority of Jewish law is evolving Jewish law demands Jewish law as essence of Jewish Law and dynamic process. attention in modernity. authentic Judaism. Jewish Only ethical aspects are Nevertheless, upholds a law is as authoritative in binding. Everyone has the flexible, historically- modernity as it has been in right to balance Jewish based approach to Jewish every other period of history. observance with the law as that which makes demands of the larger the Jews and Jewish secular world. practice unique. Gender and First woman rabbi - Role of women much Gender roles are divided in Sexuality 1972. Prayer has been more similar in practice Orthodoxy, per Jewish law. gender-egalitarian since to Reform than Priority given to women’s the mid-20th century. Orthodox. Except for a place in home with children. Reform fully accepts few rituals, Conservative But modern Orthodox Jews openly gay and lesbian synagogues practice full (Israel/America) pushing for rabbis, clergy and gender egalitarianism inclusion of women in synagogue members. and inclusion. religious life, full participation of gays and lesbians. Vision for the Reform Judaism does Conservative stresses Orthodox views Jewish law Future not believe in personal universalism like Reform as mechanism for hastening Messiah. Instead, hope but includes maintaining the Messiah/salvation. for Messianic Age for a Jewish identity and Jewish law includes acts of all. In Reform, following Jewish law as prayer, repentance, deeds of “salvation” is conceived interpreted by Rabbis as lovingkindness. as liberal, humanistic part of “salvation.” social justice acts rather than supernatural terms. Note. Based on material from Blau (1972), Ellenson (2003), Herzberg (1979). 65

Reform Rabbis in America

Between 1820 and 1860, the center of Reform Jewish life moved from Germany to

America. Most of the Jewish immigrants to America during these years were the newly emancipated and enlightened German “Reform” Jews (Glanz, 1970). America offered unprecedented opportunities for freedom and for exposure to the benefits as well as the challenges of pluralism. There were many differences of opinions regarding the primary role of the rabbi that, in some cases, polarized the rabbis and threatened the well-being of the fledgling

Reform Movement (Elazar & Monson, 1982). It was along the continuum of the rabbi as scholar on one side and as practitioner on the other that the American Reform rabbinate, seminary, and synagogues were created and continue until today (Hoffman, 2013).

Training Reform rabbis at the Hebrew Union College. The new American Reform seminary was the first institutional product created by the initial group of Reform Jews who came from Germany. Built in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Hebrew Union College [ca.1875] was a new type of seminary intended exclusively for the training of Reform rabbis. However, particularly in its early years, it embodied the ongoing tension as to whether the seminary should prepare rabbis to be traditional scholars or modern religious practitioners (Liebman, 1968; Meyer, 1988, p.

370). Of the meager research that exists on the curricula of the Reform rabbinic seminary, a few recent articles offer evidence that there was never consensus among the leaders as to the specific identity and optimal educational direction of the Hebrew Union College. As a result, the training of Reform rabbis at the Hebrew Union College varied widely over its history, and some disagreements in these areas still remain today (Greenstein, 2006; Elazar & Monson, 1982; Eleff,

2014). 66

Philosophically divided, the Hebrew Union College in the early twentieth century was caught between those who advocated for a rabbinic seminary that would advance traditional,

European Torah learning, and those who believed that the rabbinic seminary should more closely resemble the broader American liberal university (Hoffman, 2013; Meyer, 2004). As such, there were sharp debates between those who favored the classical, rabbinic approach to Jewish study, and those who believed that the study of Judaism should be raised to a higher level of scholarship through the German Wissenshaft des Judentums (the modern critical study of Jews and Judaism) – the scientific method of investigation through which every other post-

Emancipation discipline was studied (Hoffman, 2013, p. 87; Liebman, 1968; Meyer, 1988, p.

75).

In addition to the dispute as to the place of traditional Jewish text study at the Hebrew

Union College, there were disagreements in other areas of rabbinic training and preparation as well. Meyer (2004) argued that these philosophical clashes were important not only because of the way in which they shaped early American Reform rabbis, but also because they helped determine the qualitative nature of Reform Judaism and American Judaism in general. Eleff

(2014) wrote: “The rabbi is no longer just a master of Jewish law...[but is also one who] attracts many members, who is a great orator, who builds great edifices of brick and stone and glass…and is often the first point of entry for a person in need” (pp. 312-313). Thus, there was consensus in the literature that by the beginning of the twentieth century, for the first time in

Jewish history, the primary and historic identity of the rabbi as a scholar was relegated to just one of many roles that the Reform rabbi was expected to assume as leader of the new American synagogue. 67

Kaufmann Kohler as exemplar. One of the key scholars of the early American Reform

Movement who stood at the crossroads of the tension that existed during the formative years of

American Reform Judaism and the Hebrew Union College was Dr. Kaufmann Kohler. Kohler

(1843-1926), born in Germany, was instrumental in crafting components of the curriculum used by the first rabbinic students at the Hebrew Union College (Meyer, 1988). Kohler was both a traditional Jewish scholar and an enthusiast of the new Wissenschaft des Judentums Movement to which he had been exposed in Germany. Kohler appreciated the Wissenschaft approach to the study of Judaism, as he believed it enabled the modern scholar to explore Jewish law and practice through a modern, critical lens. He felt compelled to learn about the ancient religion through the innovative and scientific methods that became available to the scholar in modernity, and, as such, Kohler contended that it was also the most legitimate way to understand Jewish history, tradition, and practice in modernity.

As President of the Hebrew Union College from 1903 to 1923, Kohler advocated modifying the Hebrew Union College from a seminary with a narrow educational focus into a world-class scholarly institute for rabbis and other academics (Ariel, 2012, p. 60). Despite the traditional Jewish education that Kohler received in Europe, he nevertheless opposed those who thought that rabbinic students should focus only on traditional text study and Torah learning.

Rather, Kohler promoted elevating the quality of Jewish scholarship and intellectual life beyond the Old World models of the past. Moreover, he believed that Jewish knowledge was not to be reserved for rabbis alone, but was to be accessible to the entire American Jewish community

(Ariel, 2012). Kohler envisioned a broad academic movement that would empower all American

Jews to make informed decisions about their Jewish identities and practices. 68

And yet, Kohler made it clear that enriching the scholarly life of Jews in America was not simply a Jewish intellectual exercise (Ariel, 2012). Rather, he believed that a modernized form of Jewish learning would also enable rabbis and synagogue members to integrate more easily into American intellectual life and help them communicate more effectively with their Christian neighbors and colleagues (Ariel, 2012). Kohler maintained that the promise of Jewish life in

America was not exclusively for the new “Reform” Jews who had arrived from Germany.

Rather, he felt that America was well-suited for innovation across the spectrum of Jewish identifications, and that these innovations would yield more informed and enlightened American

Jews.

Although some agreed with his opinions, others vehemently opposed Kohler’s radical stance. In the absence of consensus, Kohler’s recommendations were almost all rejected and therefore, his curriculum was never fully implemented into the rabbinic program of the Hebrew

Union College. What Kohler is remembered for was his vision of Reform Judaism and rabbinic leadership that included aspects of the past, but that also resonated with the spirit of modernity and change. According to Ariel (2012): “[Kohler’s] academic inclinations and his visions as a

Jewish leader were interwoven and were oriented towards creating a more favourable environment for the Jews in a Christian world” (p. 73). Kohler’s position at the juncture between the tradition of rabbinic learning, on the one hand, and professional rabbinic service, on the other, made him the first authentic American Reform rabbi.

The new American rabbi as scholar and professional. The debate over the role of the rabbi and the nature of his education and training continued following Kohler’s tenure, and has remained a point of contention in philosophy and in practice for rabbis until today (Bycel, 1995;

Tauber, 2007). As the American rabbi’s role became more “professionalized” (and, some would 69 argue, less academic) in its focus, the course of study for Reform rabbis became increasingly career-focused in content and approach (Gertel, 1997; Ruderman, 2004; Saperstein, 2006;

Seltzer, 2006).

There still remain different schools of thought when it comes to identifying the most salient responsibilities of Reform rabbis in America, and on decisions as to how the Reform seminary should educate rabbis in relation to their expanded responsiblities as synagogue professionals. Some scholars, like Ruderman (2004), maintain that as the American Reform rabbi moved toward his new role as the professional leader of the Jewish community, the seminary curriculum should mirror a parallel distancing from its original mission as a Jewish school to a center for serious scholarship and study of all types. Others, like Gordis (2005) analyze the same curriculum and practical developments and arrived at the opposite conclusion.

He believed that the Hebrew Union College needed to be true to its origins, and that its leaders have an obligation to maintain a seminary for rabbis in which Torah learning and traditional

Jewish scholarship are of the highest priority.

Still others, like Saperstein (2006) suggest a middle road. He argued that rabbis should be expected to be scholars, but only in limited aspects of Jewish learning -- such as the study of the

Hebrew language – and even then, only for those skill-sets that were deemed necessary for rabbis to serve as leaders of the contemporary American Reform Jewish community. Saperstein (2006) wrote: “We need rabbis who are learned in the tradition they represent…but [they] do not need to have the level of expertise of a university professor with a PhD….We need rabbis who will have the professional skills necessary to work effectively in their congregations and their communities” (p. 146, 148). Regardless of the different opinions as to the specific identity and position of the Hebrew Union College as a training ground for American Reform rabbis, there 70 was no question that the new American Reform rabbi was qualitatively different from the rabbis of generations past (Liebman, 1968; Tauber, 2007).

New competencies for a new world. Much like their neighboring Protestant ministers, the new American Reform rabbis had many demands imposed upon them, and were expected to gain mastery over a variety of new proficiencies. American Reform rabbis needed expertise in counselling, human relations, education, managerial techniques, administration, homiletics and organizational leadership, among others (Cohen, Kress & Davidson, 2003; Eleff, 2014; Gertel,

1997; Kanarek, 2013; Saperstein, 2006).

Table 3 illustrates the many and varied roles and sub-roles of the rabbi and makes explicit the two foundational identities of the American rabbi: (a) as scholar, and (b) as professional practitioner. The table elucidates the premise that while learning and scholarship continued to be at the foundation of the rabbi’s education and service, it was no longer the sole criterion for receiving authority or for exercising leadership within the Reform Jewish community

(Hauptman, 2013; Hoffman, 2013; Kanarek, 2013). While the headings within Table 3 are not exhaustive, they do represent the major responsibilities of the rabbi as they emerged in the literature (Elazar & Monson, 1982, p. 76; Hoffman, 2013; Saperstein, 2013; Wilke, 2013).

Table 3

The Roles and Sub-Roles of the Rabbi as Scholar and Practitioner

The Rabbi as: Scholar Roles Practitioner Practitioner Description Roles Pastor Rabbi’s own learning at the Counselor Family, individual, spiritual basis of pastoral work and Healer Visiting the sick messages of comfort and Comforter Consoling the bereaved healing based in text Teacher Rabbi is “mara d’atra” – the Preacher Rabbi’s own learning at the basis for teaching one who is responsibility for through preaching: Delivering sermons, researching and deciding on speaking publicly, serving as the lead-teacher matters of Jewish law based on of the organization his/her interpretation of Jewish Instructor Facilitating and implementing classes history and tradition

Administrator Based on learned and Manager Managing a productive and effective interpreted Jewish values and organization (synagogue, school, other Jewish ethics institution) Organizer Programming leader of organization Supervisor Overseeing other staff members Mediator Resolving disputes Fundraiser Willing to ask for money directly to support causes and provide for the infrastructure of the organization Social Activist Solid understanding of historic Improver of Living and working outside of the synagogue in role of Jews and Judaism in the world the larger community helping to effect societal Inspirer, Moving others to join important contemporary changes motivator causes in the name of bettering society and/or the world Social Learning provides foundation Role model Using authority as symbolic exemplar Exemplar for living according to Jewish Critic “Walking the Talk” of authentic Jewish life values and living

Leader of Extensive knowledge of liturgy, Spiritual Conducting services that inspire and educate – Worship historical evolution of Jewish leadership children, teens, adults, senior adults prayer and music – balance between using tradition rituals and bringing contemporary models to congregation Innovative Encouraging lay leaders to be engaged in facilitation of prayer experiences and involved in leadership prayer as well

Table 3 Continued

The Rabbi as: Scholar Roles Practitioner Practitioner Description Roles Community Fluency in classical Jewish Community Focusing on establishing and maintaining Builder literary sources – written and within the unified community within one’s synagogue or oral -- to understand the organization other organization and creating micro- evolution of the rabbi as leader communities where special interest groups can of Jewish community and to be gather, share and experience Jewish life able to apply these values to the contemporary community Larger Representing the synagogue or organization in community the community; serving as the “voice” of the outside the American Jewish community – to the outside organization world Change agent Moving others to consider different modes of community involvement and leadership Spiritual Expertise in more Guide to belief Demonstrating and sharing love of God and/or Guide contemporary philosophy and in the Divine some higher power operating in the world theology – including Christian sources -- to extend the rabbi’s role to that of personal counselor and/or communal pastor Connector to Connecting people with one another as well as others God and/or some higher power and guiding people on their individual and collective Jewish journeys Note. Data compiled from: Eleff (2014); Elazar (1984); Elazar & Monson (1982); Hoenig & Gilbreath, (1969). Liebman (1968) Newman (1085); Rosenberg (1961); Rudolph (2009); Tauber (2013); Trub & Elias (2007).

Articles in the literature dating back to 1875 revealed a changing vocabulary that reflected the shift from the rabbi’s historic role as scholar and teacher to today’s rabbi as a professional leader. Depending on the context, therefore, the contemporary Reform rabbi was referred to as: actualizer, convener, organizer, pastor, administrator, CEO, fundraiser, conflict- manager, organizational leader, programmer, counselor, visionary, partner (to lay leaders), just to name a few (Bonfils, 2013; Saperstein, 2013; Wilke, 2013). Kress et al. (2007) wrote: “Rabbis need to become not only facile in functioning in a variety of roles, but also adept at shifting among these roles” (p. 204). The literature not only highlights the number of roles that must be assumed by the rabbi; moreover, it underscores the rabbi’s subtle integration of these discrete 73 skills that ultimately predict overall success in this leadership role (Kanarek, 2013; Kress, Cohen,

& Davidson, 2007; Teutsch, 2015).

The intangible attributes of the modern rabbi. A Reform rabbi has always been more than the total of the functions that he or she carries out in practice. In fact, there were a number of articles that alluded to some intangible ingredient of a rabbi that defies definition, but nevertheless is a key to the Reform rabbi’s success. This quality is embedded not so much in the rabbi’s breadth of knolwedge or fluency in study, but rather in his or her personality and behavior. While this charateristic of the rabbi is somewhat elusive, this unique attribute transcends any one area of preparation or expertise. Scholars in the literature suggested that the rabbi would only be successful -- as pastor, scholar, activist, CEO, spiritual leader -- to the degree to which he or she was able to cultivate this intangible but essential human quality, and, at the same time, fulfill his or her service to the Jewish community (Hauptman, 2013; Lookstein,

2010; Wiener, 1997, p.6).

In the final analysis, American Reform rabbis who have received their education and professional training at the Hebrew Union College have focused on the development of their

Jewish learning, have had opportunities for rabbinic practice, and have cultivated their personalities and inner lives. Taken together, this multi-faceted approach has served to prepare the Reform rabbi for service in the broadest sense: as a scholar, professional, and spiritual guide.

The literature led this researcher to formulate a picture of the American Reform rabbi as very different than the traditional rabbi of Jewish history. The Reform rabbi in the literature was portrayed as a person with strength of character, capacity for continued moral development, and the ability to be a spiritual and ethical leader within a synagogue community (Rudolph, 2009, p.

3; Teutsch, 2015, p. 2; Wiener,1997, p. 6). As a model for others and as an exemplar of Jewish 74 values and virtues (Levin, 1991; Rudolph, 2009), the contemporary Reform rabbi not only learns, interprets and helps those in the community integrate Torah into their lives; moreover, the rabbi embodies the Torah and is animated through living by and leading with Torah (Greenstein,

2006, p. 98). Ultimately, these characteristics offer a portrait of the rabbi as a spiritual leader; as one who “owns the answer…and is the path … the charismatic leader who is a channel of the

One” (Cohen, 2006, p. 91).

Summary of the Literature on the History and Evolution of the Rabbi

In the two thousand years since the term “rabbi” was first used in the Land of Israel and

Babylonia, the rabbi has evolved from his modest beginning as a highly learned volunteer in the

Jewish community to a full-time, professionally trained spiritual leader in the contemporary

American synagogue (Baron, 1952; Biale, 2010; Bonfils, 2013; Meyer, 1988; Newman, 1950,

Wilke, 2013). The early scholars of the Reform Movement who predicted that the Enlightenment and Emancipation Movements of Western Europe would change the face of Judaism and rabbinic leadership for the future were correct in their projections. In fact, modernity enabled

Jews to enter the modern world and voluntarily assimilate with their non-Jewish neighbors to a greater extent than ever before. The nature of rabbinic leadership changed with the addition of new responsibilities, but it also was transformed in deeper, qualitative ways that continue to characterize the American Reform rabbi today.

Two inferences were drawn from the literature on the education and role of the rabbi in light of the changes brought by Western Europe’s Emancipation and Enlightenment Movements.

First, the Reform rabbi was not only a product of these modern Movements; moreover, the rabbi himself became a symbol of modernity. As the new Reform rabbi embodied the modern values of individualism, humanism and secularization, these characteristics also became the prized 75 hallmarks of the new American Reform Jewish community. As the functions of the rabbi as scholar and interpreter of Jewish law became too narrow for the contemporary ideas and ideals of twentieth century America, a redefinition of the rabbi in relation to the Jewish community began and continues to evolve in the Reform Movement today (Friedman, 1982, p. 87).

This shift away from the traditional role of the rabbi as scholar-teacher necessitated an expanded skill-set on the part of the rabbi, and caused a major change in the way in which those in the Jewish community related to the rabbi. No longer assessed on what had been objective measurements of fluency in Jewish learning, practice and law, rabbis became increasingly subject to – and vulnerable to -- the personal judgments, perceptions, and feelings of individual members of the community. As such, the personality of the rabbi became the primary basis on which he was selected, evaluated, and promoted by the American Reform synagogue community

(Friedman, 1982).

The second and more nuanced inference follows from the first. This researcher suggests that it was only when the rabbi in the Reform Movement relinquished his authority as scholar and teacher that he was able to emerge as the “leader-mediator” of the Reform synagogue

(Friedman, 1982, p. 88). No longer the medium through which Jewish law was expounded and interpreted, the Reform rabbi discovered a new position as the contemporary, organizational leader of the Reform synagogue. This researcher contends that the Reform Movement’s de- emphasis on the absolute authority of Jewish Law, and the corresponding decrease in the role of the rabbi as Jewish legal expert, in fact, led to a brand new conception of the rabbi as a modern- day Jewish communal leader. There is some empirical evidence in the organizational literature that for the rabbi “to be a better leader, [he had to] give up authority” (Amar, Hentrich, & Hlupic,

2009, p. 22). Furthermore, for the purpose of this study, the shift in perspective from the rabbi as 76 the authority of Jewish law to the rabbi as spiritual leader of the Jewish people opens the theoretical prospect for the rabbi’s sharing of leadership in a synagogue setting.

The next section of the review will elucidate spiritual leadership in theory and practice, and as it is enacted in the role of the rabbi in the American Reform synagogue.

Spiritual Leadership

While seldom referred to as a “spiritual leader” in Jewish texts or in the organizational literature, the rabbi has been closely associated with matters of the spirit, and has had responsibility for providing spiritual leadership for Jewish communities and synagogues over the past two millennia. In their earliest iterations, spiritual leaders in Judaism originated in the

Hebrew Scriptures (Bible, Old Testament) (Ben-Hur & Jonsen, 2012; Crossman, 2011; Dent,

Higgins, & Wharff, 2005; Kriger & Seng, 2005). In the Hebrew Scriptures, spiritual leadership was discovered in the ways and words of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in the Torah (Friedman,

2000; Safferstone, 2005), through the reforms of the “pre-rabbis,” Ezra and Nehemiah

(Birnbaum & Friedman, 2014), in the warnings of the Hebrew prophets (Weber, 1952), and, finally, in the lives and work of those who were called “rabbis” from the first century C.E. to the present day (Hauptman, 2013; Schwartz, 1999).

While rabbis were rarely called “spiritual leaders,” spiritual leadership nevertheless became a primary attribute of the synagogue rabbi. But what is a spiritual leader? The literature indicates that there have been many obstacles associated with defining spiritual leadership, both in the secular realm and in faith-based settings (Gehrke, 2008). It has been only in the past ten years that secular scholars have been able to overcome these definitional impediments, and have agreed on the principle that “spiritual leadership” can exist outside of religious settings, and can exist as a legitimate “secular” organizational leadership approach (Gehrke, 2008). Thus, spiritual 77 leadership has emerged in scholarship and practice in the areas of education, health care, psychology and management (Fernando, 2011, p. 483). In fact, spiritual leadership has been more widely studied by organizational scholars in secular fields than as a leadership model for clergy members in faith-based institutions (Dent et al., 2005).

This section will review the development of spiritual leadership through an integrated approach to its theory, practice and research. It begins by addressing the challenge of defining spiritual leadership, and then proceeds to differentiate between the related but distinct realms of religion and spirituality. For this research, it is important to identify the boundaries between religion and spirituality in relation to the rabbi’s self-conception of a spiritual leader, so that the

“sharing” of the spiritual component of his or her leadership becomes possible.

Wrestling with Definitions of Spiritual Leadership

Leadership and spirituality. Many of the articles that were reviewed on spiritual leadership opened with the disclaimer that the challenge of defining spiritual leadership may be attributed to the fact that scholars have not agreed on the conceptual meanings of either

“spiritual” or “leadership” (Dent et al., 2005; Fernando, 2011; Kriger & Seng, 2005;

Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). Thus, multiple definitions of spiritual leadership have been offered by scholars as well as practitioners. The difficulty of defining spiritual leadership led early organizational scholars to determine how spirituality and leadership were connected, and then to delineate those aspects of leadership that were spiritual in nature (Gehrke, 2008, p. 358).

Separating religion and spirituality. In addition to the inconsistent definitions of the words “spiritual” and “leadership,” organizational scholars also indicate that confusion has existed as to the meanings of “religion” and “spirituality” as well (Allison, Kocher & Goethals, 78

2016; Dhiman, 2017; Houghton, Neck & Krishnakumar, 2016; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002;

Peregoy, 2016). Oman and Thoresen, (2013) pointed out that many early organizational scholars differentiated between religion on the one hand and spirituality on the other (Oman &

Thorensen, 2013). Oman and Thorensen viewed religion as a communal, organization-based phenomenon; whereas they saw spirituality as a more intimate, personal experience that was lived out by the individual (p. 438). Mohr (2006) explains: “Religion is an organized system of practices and beliefs in which people engage…a platform for the expression of spirituality…[whereas] spirituality is the sense of relationship or connection with a power or force -- but that force, or power need not be a deity” (p. 175).

Harmonizing religion and spirituality. Newer articles on spiritual leadership described religion and spirituality in less binary terms and emphasized their similarities as multidimensional concepts (Banks & Powell, 2000; Blackaby & Blackaby, 2001; Fairholm, 1997; Fry,

2003; Sendjaya, 2007, p. 106). For example, Zinnbauer and Pargament (1999) cautioned against splitting apart religion and spirituality, because such polarization detracts from the multidimensional, complex and ever-changing aspects of these constructs. They maintained that elements of the sacred are at the core of both religion and spirituality (p. 29) and that the two are at least conceptually related (p. 29). The idea of a sacred quality at the center of both religion and spirituality resembles Judaism’s concept of kedusha (trans. “sacred,” “holy”), which, since ancient times, has been the special human quality that animates one’s inner world (the spiritual aspect) and inspires the external practice of Judaism (the religious aspect) by the members of the

Jewish community (Heschel, 1951; Kaplan, 1996; Peregoy, 2016, p. 8).

Defining spiritual leadership in the organizational literature. As a contemporary organizational leadership approach, spiritual leadership was categorized in the literature as an 79 emergent, complex, and nonlinear phenomenon (Fry, 2003, 2005; Ben-Hur & Jonsen, 2012;

Crossman, 2010; Jamaludin, 2011). The first articles on spiritual leadership literature appeared around the year 2000 and since then, the field has quickly grown (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber,

2009, p. 437). A good starting point for defining spiritual leadership was offered by members of

The Women’s Theological Center’s (WTC), who suggested that a key to understanding this leadership approach could be found in the simple, English word “spirit.” The WTC proposed:

“At the root of the English word spirit are the words breath and life… To be fully alive is to be

‘inspired’ – that is, full of spirit” (“What is Spiritual Leadership?” n.d., para. 5). This view of the

“spirit” is consistent with Judaism’s conception of “ruach,” the Hebrew word used for “energy,”

“wind,” or “breath,” and, by extension, its metaphorical meaning - “spirit.” (Baker, 2003).

Defining spirituality and spiritual leadership in Judaism. Judaism has long espoused the possibility of a “spirit” and a spiritual way of life (Ammerman, 2013; Ariel, 1995; Baker,

2003; Cohon, 1948; Kaplan, 2010; Strassfeld, 2006). From early on, spirituality in Judaism has most often been associated with the search for meaning and the quest for connectedness (Frankl,

1985; Heschel, 1976; Wolfson, 2013). Jewish life, though undeniably “religious,” shares the attribute of connectedness that also characterizes spirituality (Gehrke, 2008, p. 351). Both in

Jewish practice and in the organizational literature, connectedness is the ideal spiritual state that may be accessed through relationships with other people, that may be experienced in relation to the world, and that may even be discovered in the inner recesses of the soul (Lee, Lovelace, &

Manz, 2014; Meng, 2016; Sendjaya, 2007). For Judaism, connectedness also includes the possibility – but not the mandate -- of a relationship with God (Birnbaum, 2014; Peregoy, 2016).

At the highest level of connectedness, God may be revealed through one’s relationship with other human beings (Buber, 1937). 80

With respect to this study, spirituality in Judaism is found in the sacred relationship between teacher and student, as together they have sought meaning in Jewish texts that have informed the way they live. The Rabbinic precept that “the will of God and the voice of God is found in the interaction of two people studying Torah” (Mishnah, Pirke Avot, 3:2) provides a glimpse into the relational nature of both spirituality and leadership as they have been manifest in the ideal relationship between the teacher and the student (Cohen, 2006, p. 91). Throughout

Jewish history, Jewish study has served as the primary medium by which human beings grow in spirituality together, and ultimately, connect to God. Thus, traditionally, any person who possessed deep knowledge and demonstrated the ability to transmit it to others had the potential to be a spiritual leader within the Jewish community.

Recent Developments in Spiritual Leadership

Within the past decade, the concept of spiritual leadership has been sharpened and refined by scholars who have sought to contextualize this new leadership approach in the organizational literature. A recent article offers a working definition of spiritual leadership as “the process by which a person or persons within a group give it life-affirming aims and the power to bring those aims to fruition” (Allison et al., 2016). Spiritual leadership in the organizational world centers on values held in common and on the lived spiritual behaviors of organizational members (Kriger &

Hanson, 1999, 2005; Meng, 2016). Examples of these spiritual values include: honesty/truthfulness, trust humility, forgiveness, compassion, thankfulness, service and peace

(Meng, 2016, p. 410). In a slight variation, Krishnakumar, Houghton, Neck, & Ellison (2015) associates three specific characteristics with the spiritual leader: interconnectedness, religious or existential faith, and the use of charisma (p. 24). 81

Parallel to the emergence of these initial studies on spiritual leadership, there has been scholarship in the related field of workplace spirituality. In the literature, “workplace spirituality” has existed in all types of organizations – from the most secular to the most religious. There were significant overlaps in the literature between workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership.

Similar to the values at the foundation of spiritual leadership, workplace spirituality is understood as embedded in the behavior of organizational leaders and followers, and as shared by human beings who contribute to the overall “spiritual” climate of the institution

(Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). In the workplace spirituality literature, these characteristics include: demonstrating respect, treating others fairly, expressing care, listening, appreciating others and their unique contributions, acting with integrity, humility and ethics, communicating with honesty and clarity (Fry, 2003; Meng, 2016, p. 410).

Moreover, the special qualities that emanate from workplace spirituality have the potential to lead to significant organizational gains. For example, in a seminal research study conducted with subjects representing six teams in a large hospital system, Duchon and Plowman

(2000) found a positive correlation between work unit spirituality and work unit performance (p.

179). Other scholars discovered similar connections between spiritual leadership characteristics and positive organizational outcomes (Chen & Li, 2013; Duchon & Plowman, 2005). These studies were just a few of those in the literature that led scholars to affirm that spiritual leadership is beneficial to organizations and organizational members.

Many spiritual leadership scholars contend that spiritual leadership was introduced into the workplace when the leader advocated for spiritual values among organizational members, and then modeled the spiritual behaviors that flowed from the values (Fry, 2003; Krishnakumar et al., 2015). In addition to the leader’s desire to cultivate spirituality within the organization, 82 there were a significant number of studies on “how leaders develop their [own] character and engage in more ethical and value-laden leadership behaviors” (Sweeney & Fry, 2012). Especially relevant for understanding the rabbi as spiritual leader is Doohan’s (2007) statement: “The heart of leadership lies in the heart of leaders” (p. 12).

The theoretical research on spiritual leadership far outnumbered the empirical studies that were found (Dent et al., 2005; Rego & Cunha, 2008, p. 58). Moreover, much of the spiritual leadership literature derived from a limited number of seminal sources on the topic. In a review of empirical studies in spiritual leadership by Benefiel, Fry, and Geigle (2014), the authors identified fifteen empirical studies on spiritual leadership since 2005. Of the fifteen studies, seven of them were directly based on the definitions and/or instruments introduced by Ashmos and Duchon (2000); five of the articles used the definitions and/or instruments offered by the research of Fry (2005); the remaining three studies were follow-up articles to the research and models of other, lesser-known scholars (Benefiel et al., 2014, p. 179).

The following section will explore the three principal theoretical approaches to spiritual leadership: (a) spiritual leadership as a leader-centered, personal phenomenon; (b) spiritual leadership as a follower-centered framework – including charismatic spiritual leadership; (c) spiritual leadership as a community-centered model.

Leader-centered spiritual leadership. Spiritual leadership as a contemporary leadership model began as a leader-centered framework that emphasized the traits and behaviors of the individual leader (Chen, Yang, & Li, 2012; Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011, p. 484; Fry, 2003;

Peregoy, 2016, p. 8). The first and most comprehensive approach to leader-centered spiritual leadership theory was offered by Louis Fry (2003), whose causal model of spiritual leadership focused on the personal characteristics of the leader and his or her capacity for spirituality. Fry 83 identified vision, altruistic love and hope/faith as the most important leader traits for spiritual leadership in an organization (Fry, 2003, p. 695). Fry situated his new model of spiritual leadership alongside other contemporary value-oriented theories such as authentic leadership, ethical leadership and ecological leadership (Fry, 2003, 2005; Fry & Matherly, 2006). In his view, these values-based leadership theories shared an important component that was especially important for spiritual leadership. That is, all the theories possessed strong affective components

(Krishnakumar et al., 2015, p. 20).

Reave (2005) built upon the research of Fry (2003) and extended spiritual leadership theory beyond the individual traits of the leader to include the totality of one’s values, behaviors, and interactions with others (p. 663). In a slight variation on Fry, Reave (2005) believed that integrity and humility must be cultivated as dynamic processes between leaders and organizational members for spiritual leadership to exist (p. 664). Krishnakumar & Neck (2002) explored the affective and relational realms, and introduced their own theoretical model based on intuition, creativity, honesty, trust, personal fulfillment, commitment, and organizational performance. The Faith at Work Framework (Miller & Ewest, 2015) was recently added to the conceptual models of spiritual leadership. Compared to earlier rubrics, The Faith at Work

Framework offered a “thicker read” of spirituality in the workplace and outlined four different ways in which an organization might “respond” to spirituality: faith-avoiding, faith-based, faith- safe, and faith-friendly (Miller & Ewest, 2015, p. 305).

The abovementioned models for spiritual leadership often appeared in the literature in combination with descriptive stories and case studies about leaders who used spiritual leadership in their workplaces to improve people and productivity in a wide variety of secular settings

(Burkhart, 2008; Cave, 2014; McLaughlin, 2009). Among the leaders referenced were: Tom 84

Chappell, owner of Tom’s of Maine, who enrolled at Harvard Divinity School so that he could apply spiritual values to business, and Kris Karla of BioGenex who turned to Buddhism to improve her leadership skills. Timberland Shoes CEO Jeffrey B. Swartz utilized Jewish prayer techniques to guide his business practices and retail policies. Similarly, Bill George of

Medtronics built a meditation center at his corporation for employees to use to punctuate their workdays (Reave, 2005, p. 665; McLaughlin, 2009).

Moreover, there were several articles that emerged subsequent to the early work of Fry

(2003) that introduced tools and instruments specifically for measuring leader-centered spiritual leadership (Irving, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). While Fry’s (2003, 2005) seminal studies on leader- center spiritual leadership were the most frequently cited models, the following have also been used to measure spirituality and spiritual leadership within organizations (Krishnakumar et al.,

2015, p. 31): The Values-Based Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality on Organizational Performance (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004), The Transcendental Spirituality

Tool (Sendjaya, 2007), The Spirit at Work Scale (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006), and the Faith and Work Organizational Framework (Miller & Ewest, 2015). Irving (2014) developed and conducted initial testing on The Purpose-in-Leadership Inventory that was designed to measure leadership variables for goal-oriented leader-centered approaches. Giacalone and Jerkiewicz’s

(2003) research on the science of Workplace Spirituality provided the conceptual framework for

The Workplace Spirituality Model for service organizations that has emerged more recently (Lee et al., 2014).

Of the few empirical studies on spiritual leadership found in the literature, Fry and

Matherly (2006) conducted an experiment to test the relationship between spiritual leadership and organizational performance. They studied 347 workers employed by a large Southwest- 85 based distributor of electrical power-source products in forty-three company-owned wholesale distributorships. They found that when spiritual leadership was introduced and practiced, there was an increase in worker commitment to the company, and measurable growth in productivity and sales (Fry & Matherly, 2006, p. 2).

Another example of empirical research, this one in higher education, was a study that compared 840 participants from two universities – one secular and one religious. The researchers sought to discover a connection between organizational commitment and “spirit at work” (Bell-

Ellis et al., 2015). In their findings, the researchers concluded that subjects at the faith-based university scored higher than those in secular settings in spirit at work and institutional commitment (Bell-Ellis, et al, 2015, p. 156). In another quantitative study that was conducted in a secular setting, four hundred primary school teachers were asked to evaluate their building principals along specific leader-centered spiritual leadership traits. Kaya (2015) found a positive correlation between spiritual leadership and the four dimensions of Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (p. 597).

While most of the research in leader-centered spiritual leadership has been quantitative, there was a recent qualitative study by Chaston and Lip-Wiersma (2015) that used a qualitative case study design to explore spiritual leadership in a bounded setting. Utilizing a small sample size of twenty-nine participants, the researchers developed a series of interviews in which leaders and followers in the organization responded to the same questions about the influence of the leader’s spirituality on the organization (Chaston & Lips-Wiersma, 2015). An incidental finding that emerged from this study was particularly pertinent to the present research endeavor. Chaston and Lips-Wiersa (2015) concluded that in organizations, “hierarchy is never absent,” and that an organization’s vertical structure was positively associated with a higher degree of leader- 86 centered spiritual leadership (Chaston & Lips-Wiersma, 2015, p. 126). Throughout the literature, scholars called for additional empirical studies to be conducted in leader-centered spiritual leadership (Houghton et al., (2016, p. 7). Their intent was to grow the spiritual leadership literature into a more robust and substantive collection of studies (Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002).

Common to most of the research in leader-centered spiritual leadership was the conception of spiritual leadership as a special and unique process that “comes out of our life force, our spirit” (WTC, n.d., “What is Spiritual Leadership?”, para. 7). While some spiritual leaders have been influenced by a religion, others have modeled spiritual leadership through ethical behavior, sound inner values, and meaningful relationships between organizational members (McLaughlin, 2009, A Growing Movement section, para. 5). There have been many examples of rabbis throughout history – from ancient times until today – whose spiritual leadership might be classified as “leader-centered.” In fact, Jewish history, literature, and anecdotal evidence reveal that most rabbis have led with leader-centered approaches to spiritual leadership (Birnbaum & Friedman, 2014; Crossman, 2011, p. 484; Irving, 2014; Salovaara,

2011).

Follower-centered spiritual leadership including charismatic leadership. Spiritual leadership theory expanded from its origin as a leader-centered model to include follower- centered theories. Follower-centered leadership theory was built around the notion of “workplace spirituality as a collective phenomenon” and not just as a concern of the leader (Dent et al., 2005, p. 640). Follower-centered spiritual leadership theorists sought to fill a gap in the literature by studying the interactions between leaders and “followers” (employees, subordinates) and not simply focusing on the personality or behaviors of leaders alone (Chen et al., 2011, p. 891).

Beginning with the seminal research of Meindl (1990, 1995), follower-centered leadership 87 theory proposed that the mantle of leadership rested on the members (or “followers”) of the organization as much as on the leader himself or herself (Chen, Belkin & Kurtzberg, 2006). In practice, this meant that followers and leaders were viewed as equal protagonists on the stage of organizational leadership. Thus, spiritual leadership shifted its focus from the spiritual state of the leader, to the leader’s responsibility to “fulfill the followers’ spiritual needs” (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1174).

Burns (1978) was one of the early scholars who provided a foundation for follower- centered spiritual leadership. Burns believed that when organizational members felt inspired by meaning, purpose, and high-level values, their motivation, morality and productivity increased in spiritually transformative ways (Burns, 1978). At the same time as Burns, Greenleaf (1977) focused on follower-centered leadership theory in his work on servant leadership – a close

“cousin” of spiritual leadership (p. 27). Greenleaf laid the groundwork for continued scholarship investigating the relationship between spiritual and servant leadership

Kriger and Seng (2005) introduced a religious component to follower-centered leadership. They called for a departure from the traditional binary view of leaders and followers, and instead highlighted the specific interactions that were exchanged between leaders and followers that contributed to an organization’s overall spiritual environment (p. 785). They maintained that the breakdown of boundaries between leaders and followers may have been inspired by non-western cultures and religious beliefs, such as Buddhism, whose concept of the

“no self – anatta [implies that] everyone and everything is intimately interconnected” (Kriger &

Seng, 2005, p. 783).

Three reviews of the literature offered a comprehensive history of followership in the organizational literature, with specific details pertaining to follower-centered spiritual leadership 88

(Baker, 2007, p. 56; Bjugstad et al., 2006, p. 306; Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011, p. 486).

Among the conclusions offered by these reviews of the literature, was a typology of descriptive followership behaviors (Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011, p. 488) that has proven significant in setting the direction of follower-centered spiritual leadership (Hollander & Kelly, 1992;

Kellerman, 2008; Potter & Rosenbach, 2006; Steger, Manners, & Zimmerer, 1982). While these scholars proposed several different approaches, their contributions to the literature on follower- centered leadership hinted at a connection between spiritual leadership and shared leadership:

“Followers are … fully recognized in a literary and organizational shift away from hierarchical systems to more fluid roles in team-based environments” (Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011, p.

485).

The idea of team-based environments as they emerged from follower-centered leadership were important not only for this author’s understanding of spiritual leadership, but also for the primary research aim of assessing the feasibility of shared spiritual leadership in a synagogue setting. In a qualitative study by Carsten et al., (2010) followers were asked to think about how they would construct their own followership frameworks. They believed that they could divide themselves into one of three groups: “(a) passive followers who are loyal and supportive of the leaders; (b) active followers who offer opinions, but always remain loyal to the leaders; and (c) proactive followers who are able to challenge and question their leaders in productive and constructive ways” (Carsten et al, 2010, p. 556).

Empirical studies on follower-centered spiritual literature were sparse (Chen & Li, 2013;

Crossman, B. & Crossman, 2011). One research study, conducted with subjects who were senior directors in a company, queried those directors about what they thoughts were the most important traits common to leaders and followers (Agho, 2009). Agho (2009) concluded that 89 senior directors did not feel that leaders and followers needed to have the same traits at all. They concluded that whereas the most important characteristics for leaders were honesty and competence, the most important traits for followers were dependability, loyalty, and cooperation

(Agho, 2009, p. 165).

Another quantitative study that was conducted among 354 middle-aged, graduate students assessed follower impressions of leaders. These subjects completed an inventory of 24 items that asked them about whether they believed that their leaders were follower-focused, goal- oriented, and/or demonstrated purpose-in-leadership (Irving, 2014, p. 59). This study was important in assessing the emotions and perceptions that followers expressed about their leaders’ follower-centered concerns and behaviors (Irving, 2014, p. 62). Another study by Chin and Li

(2012) explored how the self-concept of a follower influenced the way he or she assessed the organizational leader. This quantitative research study, conducted in China among 591 employees from various organizations, used the variables of organizational culture and managerial position to demonstrate that the follower’s own self-concept or “inner-self spirituality” was more important than external motivations toward their work (Chen & Li, 2012, p. 250). Thus, several articles on follower-centered leadership focused on the expectations and perceptions that followers had of their leaders, and the degree to which the followers viewed their own behaviors in relation to the way the behaviors were modeled by their leaders.

One aspect of follower-centered spiritual leadership that has been more fully researched through theoretical and empirical studies than some of the other models was charismatic leadership (Bryman, 1992; Chaston & Lips-Wiersma, 2015; Chen et al., 2006; Conger &

Kanungo, 1988; Faierstein, 2016; Howell & Shamir, 2005; House & Howell, 1992;

Krishnakumar et al., 2015; Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy, 2003; Shallit, Popper, & Zakay, 2010; 90

Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Much of the original research on charismatic spiritual leadership was based on the work of Weber (1947), who studied charismatic leadership in relation to organizational social structure and psychology (Smith, 2000, p. 101). Seminal authors

Shamir et al., (1993) characterized charismatic leaders as those who “transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers…[so] followers become highly committed to the leader's mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty” (p. 577).

Much of the early literature focused on the negative influence of the charismatic leader on his or her followers. These views were likely based on the claims of Weber who associated charismatic leadership with organizational “instability rather than stability” (Smith, 2000, p. 101;

Weber, 1947). Interestingly, charismatic leaders almost always located themselves in positions at the top of vertical, hierarchical structures (Chen et al., 2006, p. 3). Moreover, many scholars have linked charismatic leaders with organizations in crisis, particularly prior to the year 2000 (Bass,

1985; Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Pillai & Rajnandini, 1996). Krishnakumar et al. (2015) identified charismatic leadership as the “dark side” of spiritual leadership. They wrote: “Instead of building their followers’ self-worth and self-efficacy, the leader disintegrates the self- confidence of followers and creates highly dependent individuals” (Krishnakumar et al., 2015, p.

30).

However, several recent empirical studies in the literature portrayed charismatic leadership as more positive and benign than has been the custom. For example, Berson, Da’as, and Waldman (2015) found that charismatic leaders have a positive effect on followers in areas of shared vision, trust, and motivation. In their quantitative study of sixty-nine Arab Elementary

Schools in Israel, the researchers discovered that “followers” who demonstrated the 91 abovementioned qualities in an organization in which there was a charismatic leader present experienced dramatic increases in organizational learning (Berson et al., 2015). Despite research that focused on the detriments of charismatic leaders and leadership, scholars today contend that leaders can be empowered to use their charisma to “positively influence relationships among a collective of individuals in ways that increase their willingness to engage in learning, which in turn benefits the organization” (Berson et al., 2015, p. 98).

Another quantitative study by Pillai and Meindl (1998), conducted in the United States, focused on the connection between charisma and crisis, and resolved that there was an indirect relationship between these two phenomena in an organizational environment. This study debunked the myth that positively associated charisma and crises with one another. Thus, the prevailing view that charismatic leaders were especially appealing and effective during times of crisis was replaced by the more credible explanation that charismatic leaders actually “feed” on crises to exploit their own leadership ambitions. Pillai and Meindl concluded, in fact, that organizations become disillusioned with their charismatic leaders during times of crisis and view these leaders as particularly dangerous to vulnerable institutions (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Pillai and Meindl found that during times of normal organizational processes, “collectivist work groups are more likely to be positively associated with charismatic leadership,” and have a unique way of “responding to the charismatic leader’s call for teamwork” (NP).

The literature reviewed for this study generated a number of studies in the area of

Christian charismatic spiritual leadership, especially as it was embodied in the figure of Jesus.

However, there was little research in the literature to date on the positive or negative influence of charismatic leadership as enacted by rabbis and Jewish leaders (Harris, ND). Mainstream Jewish thought has traditionally avoided any endorsement of charismatic leadership whatsoever, 92 because of its close association with sectarianism. In Jewish history, charismatic leadership and sectarianism were often accompanied by leaders’ abuses of power, that, in turn, led to devastating consequences for individuals and entire communities (Crevani, Lindgren, &

Packendorff, 2010; Wodzinski, 2014).

In many articles in the literature, scholars differentiated between the leadership of the

Biblical Moses and the stories that emerged about him later in Rabbinic times. In the Bible,

Moses exemplified a follower-centered leader. Few details about Moses’ early life, character, or personal qualities appear in the Book of Exodus. A shy man with a speech defect, Moses responded to God’s call affirmatively but hesitantly and with trepidation (Exodus 3:11, 3:13, 4:1,

4:10, 4:13). While Moses did not feel worthy of the task to which God had called him, he assumed leadership because he knew that the survival of the fledgling Jewish people was at stake. He understood that it was critical to transform this band of loosely organized people into a spiritual community – into a sacred and unified “followership” (Pava, 2015; Feiler, 2010). Most of the scant details about Moses in the Bible included his flaws, which scholars believed offered a safeguard against any tendency for later generations of Jews to turn Moses into a heroic or charismatic leader (Almog-Bareket, 2012; Ben-Hur, 2012; Gottlieb, 2012; Habisch, 2012;

Herskovitz & Klein, 1999; Kay, 2012; Kletz et al., 2012). Rather, with only occasional references to Moses, the man, the Hebrew Scriptures ensured that Moses would always be viewed as the follower-centered leader, whose personal qualities were secondary to his work on behalf of his people.

It was only later that Moses’ leadership began to take shape in the minds of the Classical

Rabbis as a more leader-centered spiritual leader. It is likely that the Rabbis changed their view of Moses to justify their own leadership in the Jewish communities they served. The Rabbis 93 accomplished this shift in viewpoint by extrapolating selections of the Hebrew Scriptures that dealt with Moses and his life, and then infusing leader-centered qualities and characteristics into a new understanding of Moses. It is possible that this literary technique helped the Rabbis solidify their own leader-centered power bases (Friedman, Friedman, & Fireworker, 2006;

Herskovitz & Klein, 1999; Wildavsky, 1984). As they “read into” the Biblical text, the Rabbis emphasized Moses’ integrity, humanity, wisdom, energy, even his flaws. As such, the Rabbis recast the Biblical text and reimagined the characters in their own images to validate their own authority.

Community-centered spiritual leadership. More recent studies on the nature of spiritual leadership have deemphasized leaders and followers entirely and instead have located the source of spiritual leadership within the organization. Community-centered spiritual leadership has been introduced as a dynamic and relational process that occurs at the organizational level in response to the perceived needs and demands of the organization

(Crossman, 2010, p. 602).

Communal-centered spiritual leadership, characterized by its spirit of collective cooperation rather than a personification of leadership, has occupied a prominent place in the practice-based literature over the past decade (Nicholas, 2013). Community-centered spiritual leadership has also offered a variation on the concept of “vision.” That is, “vision” has shifted from something that was in the sole possession of the leader to a “visionary process,” arrived at through organizational collaboration (Reave, 2005, p. 662). In the literature, there were studies conducted under the rubric of community-centered spiritual leadership that equated it with the performance of good deeds in the community and the world. For example, Southwest Airlines referred to itself a “University for People…[because] it has been company policy to treat 94 employees like family” (McLaughlin, 2009, People are the Most Important section, para. 2).

Similarly, McLaughlin (2009) found that of the 560 companies in San Francisco that were certified “green,” most were led by processes of community-centered spiritual leadership that identified taking care of the planet as their primary priority (Protecting Environment section, para. 2).

Empirical studies on community-centered spiritual leadership have lagged somewhat behind practice, except in some far eastern countries (Chen et al., 2011; Jeon et al., 2013). One study, conducted in China, demonstrated that spiritual leadership helped fulfill employees’ social needs, fostered feelings of belonging, and increased productivity as well as personal and group satisfaction (Chen et al., 2011, p. 918). Chen et al. (2011) explained that community-centered spiritual leadership was naturally suited to the Chinese “collectivist” culture in which the group takes precedence over any single individual (p. 918). Similarly, in a study of South Korea’s private corporation leaders, researchers found that community-centered spiritual leadership generated feelings of connectedness for those inside and outside the organization (Jeon et al.,

2013, p. 353). The most comprehensive empirical study on community-centered spiritual leadership was conducted among top organizational managers in Turkey (Ayranci & Semercioz,

2011). This study used multiple research instruments to examine the correlations between spiritual leadership, spirituality, and religiosity. While Ayranci and Semercioz (2011)) found a positive connection between these variables, they also recommended that new instruments be designed for empirical research that would enable a measurement of spiritual leadership at the communal level, as it is enacted in the culture of the organization. (p. 143).

Communal-centered spiritual leadership had deep roots in Judaism and continues to be central to the life of Jews and Jewish communities today. Wildavsky (2003) studied Rabbinic 95 commentaries on the Biblical story of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) to analyze the leadership differences between Moses and Aaron. Wildavsky maintained that, according to the Rabbis,

Moses was leader-centered, and Aaron was community-centered.

For example, in Exodus 32, the Children of Israel were instructed to remain with Aaron in the treacherous wilderness while Moses followed God’s command and ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. Left to their own devices without Moses’ attention, the Children of Israel grew impatient waiting for Moses’ return, and, against everything they had been taught, fashioned an idol – a golden calf. The group members took leadership upon themselves, and

Aaron, a community-centered leader, did not intervene or assume power. Wildavsky (2003) wrote: “Sometimes group members were led; sometimes they led…The group-centered leadership of Aaron made his people happy at the time, but without the task-centered [leader- centered] leadership of Moses none would have reached the Promised Land” (p. 209, 210).

Wildavsky (2003) concluded: “Leaders are nothing if they cannot attract followers…. Exit the

‘hero in history’ [Moses] and enter group dynamics [Aaron]” (p. 210). In this story, the community-centered spiritual leadership required acceptance by a group of followers who also took on leadership roles themselves.

In another research study using Biblical exemplars, Friedman and Langbert (2000) identified Abraham as the most authentic example of a community-centered spiritual leader in the Bible. According to Friedman and Langbert, what made Abraham a truly unique spiritual leader was his ability to incorporate elements of vision, courage, caring and justice into his leadership approach (Friedman & Langbert, 2000). The authors referred to this combination of

Abraham’s leadership traits and values as “charisma.” As such, they contended, Abraham, the truly spiritual leader, may have been charismatic, but in a positive, beneficial way. In their view, 96

Abraham was a leader with authentic charisma, who never drew attention to himself; rather, his charisma was an internal quality that strengthened his willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the community and to serve as a change agent to improve the world. Abraham practiced spiritual leadership and articulated a vision to “motivate followers to ignore self-interests and work for the larger good of the organization…to convince subordinates to make major changes” (Black &

Porter, 2000, p. 432). Using Abraham as a model, the researcher demonstrates that spiritual leaders, indeed lead by example, but always within a communal context. This approach to spiritual leadership seems to be in harmony with the role of the rabbi in the contemporary synagogue.

Summary of Literature on Spiritual Leadership

After a review of the literature, this author views spiritual leadership as an important emergent leadership approach that has become increasingly visible and applicable to organizations, including synagogues. The three dimensions of spiritual leadership described share several common features and overlapping aspects. Some scholars believe that as the field of spiritual leadership theory grows, these separate facets will eventually become part of a larger, multi-leveled and multi-faceted approach that will break down the boundaries between the existing sub-categories (Berson et al., 2015; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). This phenomenon was already evident in research on charismatic spiritual leadership, where recent studies were less binary in nature, where underlying factors such as culture and social structure were factored into the scholarly conversation, and where the sub-strands of spiritual leadership have been integrated

(Benefiel et al., 2014; Chen & Li, 2012; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993; Smith,

2000). 97

While there has been an increasing interest in empirical research on spiritual leadership, many articles found in the literature were conceptual and not empirical in nature. In fact, in a

2012 review of twenty articles on the intersection of religion/spirituality and business/management, seventeen of the studies were conceptual and only three were empirical

(Gundolf & Filser, 2013, p. 183). The need for additional empirical studies in spiritual leadership was articulated on numerous occasions in the literature (Fairholm & Gronau, 2015, p. 16;

Sendjaya, 2015, p. 121). Scholars have voiced the importance of increasing the amount of qualitative research as well, since this area of spiritual leadership is nuanced and best elucidated through personal narratives, interviews, and other exploratory qualitative methods (Benefiel, Fry,

& Geigle, 2014, p. 184; Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014, p. 70).

Specifically relevant to this author’s research on shared leadership in synagogue teams, were the following underlying principles: (a) the expression of spiritual leadership is specifically manifest in the ethics and well-being of the community; (b) spiritual leadership is, in part, based on the extent to which the spiritual leader is able to use his or her “charisma” toward service in the community and not as a means of self-aggrandizement; and (c) the compatibility of spiritual leadership and shared leadership must be considered in order to imagine shared spiritual leadership in the context of the synagogue clergy team.

By way of conclusion, the ancient Hebrew concept of the spirit (“ruach”) – meaning wind or breath or energy – resonated with this author as a point of entry for understanding the nature of spirituality and the role of the rabbi as spiritual leader (Diamond, 2011). Baker (2003) writes: “Spirituality is the connecting force, integrating power, that unifies all of life. It synthesizes the total personality and provides energizing direction and order. [It] gives meaning to everything, and that which makes sense out of things” (p. 51). Thus, by extension, the rabbi as 98 spiritual leader is charged with the responsibility of using his or her own energy to foster and

“manage the spiritual energy of an organization” (Geh, 2012, p. 138).

While the inner-life of a leader is certainly central to spiritual leadership, spiritual leadership is most powerful when it is enacted within a collective group of workers or faith- based community members. Moreover, it is within this communal context that the prospect for sharing leadership most powerfully emerges within a team or group. In his article on organizational spiritual leadership, Geh (2012) alludes to the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership: “Organizational spiritual leadership…invites organizational members to look beyond

‘what is there,’ to ‘what could be co-created organizationally” (p. 139). Geh’s (2012) ideal conception of organizational spiritual leadership as a collaborative endeavor strengthens the case for the benefits that might arise from the sharing of spiritual leadership by rabbis and professionals in a Reform synagogue setting. The next section explores the third and final stream of literature explored for this study: shared leadership.

Shared Leadership

Like spiritual leadership, shared leadership appears in the literature as an “emergent leadership approach” that has drawn scholarly interest particularly over the past thirty years. For the purpose of this study, an extensive search of the literature was conducted using the following keywords – synagogue rabbis, shared leadership, distributed leadership, synagogue teams, clergy teams. Yet, there appeared to be very little contemporary research on shared leadership among synagogue rabbis, clergy and/or professional staff members (Cedarbaum, 1999; Friedman et al., 2006). In fact, only four articles emerged from the literature review on shared leadership in synagogue teams, or even as a potential model for the contemporary synagogue: (a) Brown

(2007) contrasted individual and institutional leadership in Jewish organizations, and 99 recommended “consider[ing] more overarching communal goals that are both local and global”

(p. 242); (b) Samuels and Aron (1999) studied fourteen synagogue leadership teams that deliberately used shared leadership in their planning and implementing a congregation-wide change in the organization’s educational program; (c) Thompson (2006) wrote about the benefits of leadership in Reform synagogues specifically as it was shared between the rabbi(s) and executive director; and (d) Zeldin and Kurshan (2002) offered a survey of the Jewish

“educational landscape” and mentioned a number of possible leadership approaches for further research – shared leadership among them (p. 7).

It is noteworthy that fewer than ten studies on shared leadership have been conducted with clergy teams in church settings (Cawthorne, 2010; Wong & Page, 2003; Wood, 2005).

Nevertheless, hundreds of studies emerged from the literature on shared leadership in secular settings. These studies spanned the trajectory from the theoretical to the practical, and provided knowledge that may be applicable to religious and faith-based teams as well.

However, much like the historical presence of spiritual leadership in Judaism, the organizational literature likewise revealed that the sharing of leadership dates back to the Bible.

In fact, the practice of sharing leadership in Judaism – even the spiritual components of the religion – was a common theme throughout Jewish history despite the dearth of contemporary formal scholarly research.

This section of the literature review will explore the definitions and history of shared leadership as it developed in the organizational literature as a distinct leadership model. Then, there will be a discussion about the sequential development of shared leadership: (a) as an alternative to traditional hierarchical leadership, (b) as a phenomenon that combined top-down and bottom-up leadership approaches, and (c) as a multi-leveled, social network phenomenon. 100

Throughout this section, the prospect of shared leadership in the synagogue will be explored -- especially in connection with other nascent leadership frameworks -- to ascertain whether shared spiritual leadership as a hybrid model might be a viable approach for rabbis and synagogue teams.

Definitions and Background of Shared Leadership

Like many other terms and phrases that appear in organizational leadership literature, the concept of shared leadership was defined in a variety of ways, depending on the focus, context, and purpose of the research endeavor (Hairon & Goh, 2014; Kocolowski, 2010, p. 24). Many scholars suggested that even though “shared leadership” and “team leadership” actually represent two different streams of research, the word team was almost always used in combination with shared leadership (Kocolowski, 2010, p. 24). Both shared and team leadership were referred to in the literature as deliberate practices that were performed by a group of people in the organization. As contemporary leadership models, shared leadership and team leadership share similarities as dynamic processes that are the product of individuals and groups that collaborate and interact with one another to reach common, agreed-upon objectives (Yukl, 2013, p. 4). The following functional definition of shared leadership, offered by seminal shared leadership scholars Peace and Conger (2003), was central to this research: “A dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals, or both” (p. 1).

Biblical roots of shared leadership. Of all of the characters in the Hebrew Scriptures,

Moses was most closely associated with the sharing of leadership (Exodus 4:27-30; Exodus

18:13-22). He received his first lesson in shared leadership from his father-in-law, Jethro, who observed that the responsibilities that Moses had assumed as the leader of the Children of Israel 101 were too much for him as one person (Exodus 18). Jethro admonished Moses to bring others into the leadership circle, to delegate authority, and to share responsibility with those willing and able to work alongside him (Burke, 2011, p. 29).

In Exodus 18, Jethro said to Moses:

Why do you act alone, while all the people stand about you from morning

until evening? …. The thing you are doing is not right; you will surely wear

yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you

cannot do it alone….You shall also seek out from among all the people

capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set

these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and let

them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to

you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for

yourself by letting them share the burden with you. If you do this — and God

so commands you — you will be able to bear up; and all these people too will

go home unwearied. (Exodus 18:14, 17-23)

Moses internalized Jethro’s message and took it to heart as he brought the Children of

Israel out of Egypt, led them for forty years in the wilderness, received the Torah at Mount Sinai, and gazed at the Promised Land from a short distance prior to his death at the conclusion of the

Book of Deuteronomy. In all of these settings, Moses shared leadership first and foremost with his brother, Aaron, and their sister, Miriam. Together, these three siblings managed one of the longest and difficult leadership tenures known to humanity (Ben-Hur, Jonsen, 2012, p. 966).

Moreover, they worked to bring together a group of untamed followers who were unaccustomed and even resistant to their leadership (Ben-Hur, Jonsen, 2012). Moses leveraged the individual 102 talents of Aaron and Miriam so that the three of them, together, could fulfill God’s commandments on the sacred stage of history.

At the same time that Moses, Aaron and Miriam led the Children of Israel, the Biblical artist, Betzalel modeled shared leadership, as he guided the people in a collaborative, community-wide effort to build the Tabernacle in the wilderness (Exodus 35:4-11, 21). Later in history, there were also other examples of shared leadership, such as: the way in which the

Hebrew prophets interacted with the Israelite Kings; the manner by which the Priests performed their duties and facilitated the rituals of the Temple and the sacrificial cult; and the way in which the Judges helped the Jewish people survive as loosely confederated regional tribes prior to the centralization of a government in the Land of Israel (White, 2014).

Rabbinic leadership in the Academies. While the abovementioned Biblical references to shared leadership were important, it was during the Talmudic period in Judaism that shared leadership became institutionalized. The Talmudic period in Judaism began in the first century of the common era, following the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. by the

Romans. While some Jews remained in the Ancient Near East, others were taken as exiles to

Rome and other parts of the Diaspora where they relied on both the Written Tradition (Hebrew

Scriptures) and the Oral Tradition (The Talmud) to preserve the Jewish religion outside of the

Land of Israel (Steinsaltz, 2006).

The period between 100 and 600 C.E. in Judaism was known as the Rabbinic or the

Talmudic Era. During these centuries, the Rabbis served as the official leaders of the Jewish community, and offered unique models of leadership that met with success both in the Land of

Israel and in the Diaspora. Rabbinic leadership became radically different from the earlier leadership practices as enacted by the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Kings, Judges and Priests. It is 103 notable that this major shift came about as a result of upheaveals in the Land of Israel in the first century C.E., when Jerusalem lay in ruins and the rituals of the Temple and the Sacrificial Cult came to an end. Rabbis replaced Priests as the leaders of the community, and learning and studying superseded the ancient sacrificial cult that had been the centerpiece of Jewish religious life in the Land of Israel. The Rabbis received their authority and power based solely on their level of Jewish scholarship and their fluency in interpreting Jewish law for their communities

(Schacter, 1993; Turkel, 1993). To be a rabbi, one no longer needed to be born into a priestly family or consecrated for service to God; one’s lineage did not determine who would govern the

Land of Israel once the people were able to dwell there. With this shift of power to the Rabbis, the leadership of the Jewish people became more horizontal and the selection of individuals to serve the community evolved into a more democratic process (Hoffman, 2006).

With respect to this research endeavor, one pertinent feature of the early Rabbinic period was that no Rabbi’s power or authority went unchecked. Rather, Rabbis in the Talmud worked in zugot (“pairs” or “dyads”), often passionately disagreeing with one another on their interpretations of Jewish Law (Rubenstein, 2005). Each rabbi of these “rival” pairs served as the lead instructor of his own Academy. The Academy was essentially a school that embodied that particular rabbi’s interpretive perspective (Rivkin, 1969; Rubenstein, 2005; Seltzer & Bemporad,

1997). The rabbi taught according to his scholarly opinions on Jewish Law, and raised disciples in line with his particular philosophical viewpoint.

The Talmud records bitter intellectual disputes between these rabbis and their respective students in the Academies; however, the pairs of rabbis always remained close colleagues outside the classroom, and shared leadership when it came to prescribing ritual practices for the community (Bruce, 2006, p. 22-25). Thus, during the time of the Talmud, there were many 104 stories and texts that came down through the generations – demonstrating that rabbinic scholarship itself was a shared enterprise between the Jewish elders, teachers and disciples – within and across the many Jewish communities in which Jews lived (Pava, 2015; Talmud,

Shabbat 63a).

Parallel developments in the ancient world. The ancient Greek and Roman Classical philosophers also practiced the sharing of leadership in their societies. Aristotle believed that

“wisdom is never the sole province of one person” (O’Toole, Galbraith & Lawler, 2002, p. 66).

O’Toole et al. (2002) also wrote about the sharing of leadership in Ancient Greece and Rome:

“Even the most fabled ‘solitary’ leaders [were] found to have been supported by a team of other effective leaders” (p. 66). O’Toole et al. concluded that since the beginning of human history, people have sought to work in groups rather than on their own, not only for the purpose of productivity, but also because of the personal and social satisfaction that comes from collaboration.

Jewish leadership in the Middle Ages. While the Biblical and Talmudic periods substantiated leadership sharing, the Middle Ages [ca. 632-1650 C.E.], was a time of far less sharing on the part of Jewish leaders. Scholars have offered two main explanations for this paradigm shift: (a) Jewish life expanded geographically into the Diaspora, resulting in decreased connections between and among Jewish communities and their leaders around the world; and (b) the role of the rabbi became increasingly professionalized such that an individual rabbi began to function more like a Catholic Priest -- as the singular, expert leader of the faith community

(Rosensweig, 1970). For the first time in history, rabbis in the Middle Ages were considered not only “men of knowledge” as they had been for centuries, but also “men of power” (Bonfil,

2013). Rabbis were authorized by their synagogue communities to lead, and their responsibilities 105 increased in scope and variety as time progressed. Thus, beyond his earliest role as scholar and teacher, the medieval European rabbi possessed influence that was unprecendented in Jewish history. According to Bonfil (2013): “The [rabbis] were empowered to impose their authority – particularly the power to excommunicate – [and were given] exclusive prerogatives [that were] indispensable for communal organization” (p. 64). As paid professionals, medieval rabbis -- much like physicians or lawyers – became increasingly independent in their work, and many of the shared leadership behaviors that developed among Rabbis in the Talmudic era disappeared until modernity (Brown & Malkus, 2007).

Contemporary Shared Leadership in Theory and Practice

Despite its antecedents, shared leadership went relatively unnoticed in business, education, manufacturing and non-profit sectors until the past few decades (Van Ameijde,

Nelson, Billsberry, & Van Meurs, 2009; Buchanan, Addicott, Fitzgerald, Ferlie, & Baeza, 2007).

Beginning in the 1990s, studies on the practice of shared leadership in organizations began almost exclusively in the fields of healthcare and education, and then were adoped to a variety of other fields during the first decade of the twenty-first century (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004;

Kocolowski, 2010). Scholars suggested that the slow pace of the initial research on shared leadership not because of disinterest or resistance, but rather, as a result of uncertainty about what shared leadership was, and what it was not (Hairon & Goh, 2015).

The push away from top-down leadership. The early shared leadership literature focused on defining what shared leadership was not. This means that, at first, the literature portrayed the phenomenon of shared leadership in contrast to traditional leadership approaches.

In fact, the most frequently cited reason for the adoption of a shared leadership model in an organization was the perception that the traditional, top-down leadership model was no longer 106 relevant or effective (Cowan, 2011; Crevani, Lindgren, & Packendorff, 2007; Hartley, 2007;

Tubin & Pinyan-Weiss, 2015). The literature provided evidence that it was not the pull toward shared leadership that initially impelled organizational leaders to shift to this new model; rather, it was the push away from conventional leadership hierarchies (Gronn, 2009, p. 383). In most cases, then, the decision by an organization to change its leadership approach to a more horizontal, flattened model was a result of the opinion that traditional, top-down hierarchies were outmoded (Hoch, Pearce, & Welzel, 2010; Miles & Watkins, 2007; Pearce, Conger, & Locke,

2008).

Even once organizations became aware of this alternative approach, a number of studies revealed that often the traditional “leader” of the organization expressed reluctance and opposition to the shift toward a more distributed approach (Jackson, 2000; O’Toole et al., 2002).

Traditional top-down leaders viewed any flattening of their vertical authority as a threat to their power and control (Pearce 2004, p. 51). Such fears on the part of hierarchical organizational leaders were and continue to be well-founded, as shared leadership in organizations has led to the rapid decline of “heroic leaders,” “unitary commanders,” and “Great Men” over the past two decades (Crevani et al., 2007, p. 40; Pearce & Manz, 2005; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005, p. 550).

Organizational scholars initially endorsed shared leadership through a major critique of

“single-man” leadership models. However, increasingly, articles in the literature began to reflect the positive benefits of shared leadership rather than the negative associations with traditional, hierarchical approaches (O’Toole et al., 2002). The seminal shared leadership theory of Pearce et al. (2008) described a new paradigm that was distinctly different than anything that had been offered previously: “[Top-down] leadership scenarios are increasingly rare…More organizations 107 today are a set of coalitions, networks, and strategic alliances” (Pearce et al., 2008, p. 282). In the research that Crevani et al. (2010) conducted, the scholars characterized shared leadership as diametrically opposed to traditional models that they believed had become “unreflective of mainstream perspectives, [and instead] sustained heroic, individualist and authoritarian leadership norms” (Crevani et al., 2010, p. 78).

Other scholars suggested that shared leadership improved productivity, but also motivated members to higher levels of participation and deepened personal investment in organizations (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Hoch &

Kozlowski, 2014; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Hoch et al. (2010) wrote: “Shared leadership has been shown to enhance team and organizational performance, above and beyond the so-called

‘classical’ and ‘hierarchical’ vertical leadership” (p. 105).

Scholars expressed consensus regarding the need for additional and improved empirical research studies “to escape the problematic individualism in which [leadership research] is [still] stuck” (Crevani et al., 2010, p. 84). Thus, new research has emerged that focuses on identifying the components of shared leadership so that “heroic masculinities [might] be replaced by less individualistic and more human constructs, and so the potential of leadership in every social situation is emphasized” (Crevani, et al., 2010, p. 84). The next section of this review moves from the push away from hierarchical leadership to the pull toward shared leadership.

The pull toward shared leadership as a collective process. The most significant innovation that shared leadership introduced was the concept that leadership no longer needed to originate with a single individual. The question of what this new leadership paradigm looked like became the interest of seminal scholars who wrote on shared leadership theory at the beginning of the twenty-first century. For example, Gronn (2002) as well as Spillane, Halverson, and 108

Diamond (2001) were instrumental in outlining some of the earliest conceptions of shared leadership theory.

Among the myriad of early explanations of shared leadership, the following definition by

Bennett, Wise, Woods, and Harvey (2003) incorporated most of its key features: “Shared leadership [occurs when] people work together in such a way that they pool their initiative and expertise, the outcome is a product or energy which is greater than the sum of their individual actions (p. 7). For the present research, the scholars’ reference to the “energy” generated by shared leadership echoes a parallel use of the word “energy” or ruach in Hebrew, as the essence of spiritual leadership as well (Baker, 2002, p. 51; Geh, 2012, p. 138). Presumably, spiritual leadership and shared leadership have some kind of special energy, and they share a unique synergy as well.

C.L. Pearce’s dissertation on change management team effectiveness (1997) provided the foundation for his extensive research in shared leadership over the past twenty years. Later,

Pearce and Sims (2000) collaborated and identified the historical antecedents of shared leadership in the organizational literature. They also underscored the importance of Manz and

Sims’ (1987; 1993) closely related research in the area of self-managed work teams (SMWTs).

Moreover, Pearce and Sims (2000) pointed out that despite the growing body of followership literature, the articles nevertheless “did not illuminate the role of ‘followers’ in sharing the leadership process” (p. 121). Pearce et al. (2008) proposed something that we know if true today: that it is not only leadership tasks that are shared, but also, that there are clear advantages to sharing the strategic visions of organizations more horizontally as well (p. 282).

Recent models found in the literature conceptualize leadership “as much as an institutional trait as it is an individual trait” (O’Toole et al., 2002, p. 65). This shift in focus from 109 the individual to the institution is reminscent of a similar phenomenon that was discussed in the spiritual leadership section of this review, where there was a progressive expansion from leader- centered spiritual leadership to community-centered spiritual leadership as well (Chen et al.,

2011, p. 918; Jeon et al., 2013, p. 353).

As in the field of spiritual leadership, scholars who study shared leadership continue to express the need for more empirical research, with particular emphasis on the creation and validation of instruments with which to measure shared leadership from varying organizational levels and perspectives (Grille & Kauffeld, 2015; Hairon & Goh, 2015; Leithwood, Mascall, &

Strauss, 2009, p. 270). Of the empirical studies that were found in the area of shared leadership, most were qualitative; however, some key quantitative studies have been recently added to the literature as well. Among the quantitative studies conducted on shared leadership are those that have proposed the creation of instruments to assess and measure shared leadership by adapting questionnaires that had been validated in vertical leadership research and then applying them to shared leadership (Ensley et al., 2006; Hmielsky et al., 2012). Unfortunately, most early attempts at modifying existing instruments to fit the shared leadership model were unsuccessful (Ensley et al., 2006; Hmielesky, 2012). However, Grille and Kauffeld (2015) referenced several “new” questionnaires that have been developed for shared leadership research and that have met with some success in measuring shared leadership in organizations: The Team Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (TMLQ) (Avolio et al., 2002); The Shared Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) that was designed to measure both vertical and horizontal leadership processes in organizations

(Hoch, Dulebohn, & Pearce, 2010); The Hypothesized Collective Leadership Model that measured leadership role enactment across an entire team (Hiller, Day, & Vance 2006). 110

In their recent literature review, Grille and Kauffeld (2015) introduced and validated their own important measurement tool: The Shared Professional Leadership Inventory for Teams

(SPLIT). Grille and Kauffeld explained that their tool for measuring shared leadership represented an innovation in the literature because it was created to assess the degree to which shared leadership was practiced in teams, and was an easier questionnaire to administer to subjects than those that preceded it. In their 2015 research, Grille and Kauffeld identified the four most important dimensions of shared leadership behavior that could be measured at the level of the team: task, relation, change, and micropolitical leadership orientation (p. 86).

Even though some progress was evident in the empirical realm, articles about the practical implementation of shared leadership in organization have continued to outnumber the empirical research (Leithwood et al., 2009). In addition, some scholars noted that even today, students pursuing business-related majors in higher education still receive ambivalent or even negative messages from their instructors as to the value of shared leadership. Thus, even at the highest levels of education and scholarship, scholars use terms such as “counterintuitive”… and

“elusive” in their comments about shared leadership. Thus, there remain scholars and organizational leaders who fail to understand shared leadership and/or who have remained opposed to its premise. Moreover, in many academic settings where courses in business and organizational management are offered, leadership studies nevertheless continue to be taught from the traditional perspective of a single leader rather than from a group process (Hairon &

Goh, 2015, p. 693; O’Toole et al., 2002, p. 66).

The convergence of top-down and bottom-up leadership. The newest research in shared leadership is being conducted using a blended or hybrid experimental approach, such that top-down and bottom-up models are utilized simultaneously within a single organizational 111 setting. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches theoretically enables organizations to take a more nimble approach to leadership, and thus more effectively meet the unprecedented challenges of the twenty-first century. These challenges have included but are not limited to: the complex and changing nature of organizations, diminishing financial resources, the expanded use of technology, the influence of globalization, the tendency toward organizational decentralization in the profit and non-profit sectors (Kron, Linecker, Graf, &

Clavien 2016; Schrum, Niederhauser, & Strudler, 2016). In a follow-up to their seminal 2004 study, Day, Gronn, and Salas (2006) personified distributed leadership as “the new kid on the

[twenty-first century] block” (p. 1). Hartley (2007) elucidated what he believed to be the compatibility of shared leadership and today’s world: “Shared leadership, … dispersed across and within agencies, strikes a chord with the flexible ‘liquid modern’ view of time and space” (p,

209). In recent literature reviewed for this study, scholars have demonstrated that shared leadership can simultaneously and successfully coexist with other leadership models (Benoliel &

Somech, 2015; Bolden, 2011; Grille, Schulte, & Kauffeld, 2015; Hoch et al., 2010).

Pearce (2004) was one of the first scholars to propose an actual theoretical model that included vertical leadership within a horizontal shared leadership framework. Pearce defined the coexistence of top-down and shared leadership as “a simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process within a team that is characterized by serial emergence of official as well as unofficial leaders” (p. 48). That is, vertical leadership and shared leadership are by no means mutually exclusive; however, critical to shared leadership structures is that each organizational member feels empowered and inspired by the group to work creatively, collaboratively and to capacity

(Grille et al., 2015, p. 327). Kezar (2012) wrote about a case in which shared leadership was initiated by organizational members who were known as “tempered radicals.” Tempered radicals 112 pressure their leaders for increased responsibility and distributed roles, and “use[d] moderate, incremental actions to challenge the status quo of organizational norms….rather than using positional or formal authority” to affect change (Kezar, 2012, p. 729).

The convergence of top-down and bottom-up leadership practices was substantiated in an extensive review of shared leadership that was conducted by Bennett et al. (2003) with school leaders as primary subjects. Of the more than eighty articles found, those that promoted some combination of top-down and bottom-up leadership models were well-represented within the broader shared leadership literature. The review by Bennett et al. included several qualitative school-based case studies that explored the successful synchronicity of vertical and horizontal leadership among educational teams in classroom settings (Gratz, 2000; Harris & Chapman,

2002; Spillane et al., 2001). These studies suggested that even strong, charasmatic leaders have the capacity to move from exclusively top-down leadership models to new approaches that include horizontal features as well. (Bennett et al., 2003, p. 9; Berson et al., 2015, p. 86).

The contemporary focus on social network and cultural context. Much of the recent research on shared leadership emphasizes that leadership must be viewed as a social process within a social context, rather than as the personal qualities of the leader at the top of an organizational ladder (Carroll, Levy, & Richmond, 2007; Gronn, 2002). Buchanan, Addicott,

Fitzgerald, Ferlie and Baeza (2009) indicated that the most significant feature of shared leadership is the social strength that is gained when all organizational members are engaged with one another and relied upon for expertise. Buchanan et al., (2009) and Gronn (2009) referred to this phenomenon as an organizational “leadership constellation.” This idea of an organizational leadership constellation is built into the definition of shared leadership and has the power to continually strengthen itself through a process called “dispersed responsibility” (p. 1085). 113

Thus, shared leadership has evolved into a phenomenon that is no longer just about leading; rather, it has become a dynamic “situational process” that occurs within a social network and a particular cultural context (Crevani et al., 2010; Gronn, 2009; Hosking, 2007; Pearce &

Conger, 2003). This change in perspective was captured by Crevani et al. (2010) who referred to

“leadership, not leaders” and who viewed leadership as “practices and interactions” rather than people (p. 77). Depending on the organizational context, these social networks have the capacity to create organizational knowledge, inspire collaboration, and motivate increased individual and collective responsibility among the members. (Kezar, 2012; Crevani et al., 2007).

While many of the early articles in the literature on shared leadership justified its benefits on the basis of increased organizational productivity, what followed in the literature were many studies that focused on how teams shared leadership to make decisions and set goals (Drath et al., 2008). In addition, scholars became interested in learning how and why the variables of organizational context and culture influenced the team processes (Collard, 2007; Collinson, D. &

Collinson, 2009; Goh, 2009; Hairon & Goh, 2015). The need for continued empirical research in the areas of culture and context has been repeatedly called for by shared leadership scholars since “most of the leadership theories to date have been developed in Western countries…and may be laden with persepctives, practices and modes of operation that reflect Western cultural assumptions” (Hairon & Goh, 2015, p. 697).

Shared Leadership and Other New Leadership Frameworks

It was clear from the literature reviewed for this study that shared leadership does not exist in a vacuum. The theoretical and practical discussions on the topic of shared leadership often included references to a variety of other leadership styles in organizational frameworks.

Such studies help shed light on the complexity of the topic. Many scholars have also pointed out 114 that due to its nimble quality, shared leadership may be readily adapted to a variety of organizational settings and can, in fact, exist alongside other leadership models and frameworks

(Cunliffe & Erikson, 2011). Among the leadership approaches closely related to shared leadership and/or appearing in the literature together with shared leadership were the following:

Relational leadership. Like shared leadership, relational leadership is a contemporary theoretical framework that conceptualizes leadership as a “systematic complex of mutual relatedness….a ‘process’ of difference, alive with movement and change, constantly being formed and reformed” (Wood, 2005, p. 1107). As such, relational leadership originated on the principle that leadership is dependent more on process than on people. The name “relational leadership” was selected to underscore the social side of shared leadership and to emphasize the fact that both of these leadership models are best viewed as organizational products rather than individuals performing specific roles as leaders (Day et al., 2004; Ensley, Pearson & Pearce,

2003; O’Connor & Quinn (2004); Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Complexity theory. Complexity theory, like relational leadership, is frequently referenced in connection with shared leadership frameworks. Haffeld (2013) described the premise of complexity theory: “Value is created as a result of individual interactions, and often the emergent result is more than, or qualitatively different from, the sum of individual actions”

(p. 453). A complexity approach to leadership rejects the traditional “reductionist” and

“determinist” approaches that, for many years, utilized a linear equation as the basis for understanding leadership: Leader behaviors + Follower responses + Goals shared by leaders and followers=Leadership. Rather, complexity theory is based on an appreciation of leadership as a whole and total phenomenon that cannot be be broken into component parts. It is “complex” due 115 to its unpredictable and uncertain nature (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2014; Drath et al., 2008; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Snyder, 2013).

Transformational leadership. Wang, Waldman, and Zhang (2014) differentiated between “shared traditional leadership” and “shared new-genre leadership” in their research on shared leadership and team effectiveness. They suggested that traditional shared leadership is most often associated with transactional relationships and some limited participative processes among organizational members. They posited: “Traditional leadership depends largely on…dyadic interactions….As such, it may not have strong cumulative (i.e., shared) effects on the team’s effectiveness (Wang et al., 2014, p. 184). In contrast with the traditional model, the new-genre conception of shared leadership proposed by Wang et al., is more transformational and “oriented toward common aspects of team functioning (e.g., shared vision) or members’ autonomy and identification with the group (e.g., empowerment)” (p. 184).

In the view of Wang et al. (2014) the new-genre shared leader is a qualitatively different type of leader than the “traditional” leader. The “new-genre leader” instills hope and energy in organizational members so that they themselves become stakeholders in the collective transformation of the organization that may also include transformative experiences for individual organizational members as well (Wilhelmson, 2006, p. 496). The intersection of shared and transformational leadership approaches is perhaps best captured by Avolio (2010):

“Transformational leadership involves the process whereby leaders develop followers into leaders” (p. 51). For the purpose of the present research, the pairing of new-genre shared leadership with transformational leadership could result in a shared vision between leaders and followers, but moreover, would empower and inspire organizational members.

116

Contemporary Catalysts for Rabbinic Shared Leadership

While the review of the literature revealed a paucity of articles on the specific topic of shared leadership among rabbis, cantors and other professionals in synagogue settings, there were many articles that addressed the changing landscape of Reform synagogue life in twenty- first century America. Most of the studies that have emerged since 2000 call for a complete and comprehensive re-visioning of the entire synagogue organization – largely in the area of programming and lay governance. Many scholars have expressed concern that without such extensive changes, the synagogue may lose its place as a viable and relevant institution for contemporary American Jews (Sales, 2012). Yet, the call to re-imagine and re-create rabbinic leadership approaches in synagogue settings is more often alluded to than explicitly stated

(Mandel, 2010; Weissman & Margolius, 2002). For example, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Harris (2001) wrote::

I do not think that there is a ‘right’ answer – one organizational model which is

the ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ core of the modern synagogue. If it is to survive, the

synagogue as a modern institution has to respond to a variety of needs and

aspirations…using a multiplicity of organizational models (p. 130).

In the following paragraphs, the prospects of shared leadership in synagogue will be explored through the direct influence of women rabbis, and through the potential application of new leadership approaches in the medical field to the synagogue setting.

The impact of women rabbis on shared leadership. By far, the largest number of articles that emerged from the current literature on the topic of synagogue leadership and transformation were those that focused on the relatively new phenomenon of women rabbis in synagogues, and their unique contributions to congregational life (Hyman, 2016; Marder, 1991; 117

Moskowitz, 2015; Nadell, 2003; Prell, 2007; Ruether & McLaughlin, 1998). In 1972, Sally

Preisand was ordained the first female rabbi at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of

Religion in Cincinnati, Ohio. According to the Reform Movement’s “Women’s Rabbinic

Network” (n.d.) there have been more than 700 Reform women rabbis ordained since 1972.

Many scholars in the literature – men and women – maintain that the reality of women serving as rabbis in American synagogues stands as one of the most important innovations in the Reform

Movement (Blohm, 2006; Bleiberg & Skufca, 2005; Marder, 1991; Nadel, 2003; Shulman,

2001). Among the many offerings that women rabbis have brought to synagogues, the literature revealed the following phenomena that were new to Reform Judaism and that continue to be specifically attributed to women in the rabbinate: Greater balance between home life and work life; increased intimacy with and empowerment of others within the synagogue; gender-sensitive language in prayer, improved education and synagogue administration; new rituals and life-cycle practices for men and women that are in consonance with contemporary liberal American sensibilities; the presence of women rabbis as new types of role models. (Bronznick, 2002;

Brown, 2007; Shulman, 2001).

The proclivity toward flatter, more democratic models of synagogue leadership and structure is not unique to women rabbis (Ridberg, 2002). Studies conducted in church settings – more numerous than those that have taken place in synagogues – have demonstrated that

Christian women clergy members also incline toward more horizontal, representative leadership practices (Albee, 2000; Johns & Watkins, 2006; Lummis & Nesbitt, 2000; McDuff & Mueller,

2002). In a study by Johns and Watkins (2006), women clergy members were asked to share their thoughts about the distinct features of women clergy leaders. Johns and Watkins found that their responses could be grouped into three major categories: “Leadership [is] the ability to 118 enable people to pursue a vision, leadership [is] empowering others, and the leader [is] an individual who ‘orchestrates something and makes sure things fall in place’ – one who gets things done” (p. 125). Additional studies that define clergy leadership using the words of women clergy members need to be added to the literature in order to gain a more robust view of women clergy members’ self-perceptions.

Among other research in the literature on shared leadership in clergy church settings were findings from two qualitative studies indicating that women’s styles and leadership preferences do not reverse their conviction that ideal clergy teams ought to be composed of both men and women (Dalrymple, 1981; Lummis & Nesbitt, 2000). Nevertheless, these two studies offered important opinions about the unique contributions of women clergy to church-life that may be applied to synagogue life as well. These studies also contain important indications as to how women clergy define their concept of success as religious leaders: (a) Women clergy members have actively sought out collegial relationships between themselves and other male or female clergy members to a greater degree than their male counterparts; and (b) The most effective clergy teams within churches have been those that are diverse in nature – composed of men and women of different ages and interests (Dalrymple, 1981; Lummis & Nesbitt, 2000). Dalrymple

(1981) alluded to what he viewed as the benefit of team ministry: “I am convinced that the modern city parish…needs a team ministry, and that a priest on his own cannot do justice to it”

(p. 215).

The most significant contribution women rabbis have made since 1972 is the activation of the specific “wish to make synagogue life less hierarchical” (Marder, 1991, p. 8). Though in a few congregations, this concept continues to be just a “wish,” in a growing number of synagogues, there have been significant steps made in the sharing of leadership among rabbis 119 and professional staff members. While much of the practice-based evidence regarding women and shared leadership remains anecdotal, this author maintains that over the next decade, as more women approach positions of seniority within synagogues, this hypothesis will be demonstrable.

Applying a “group practice” medical model to shared synagogue leadership. One recent article by Richman and Libenson (2014) came closest to an explicit call for a shift in rabbinic leadership that would result in a more horizontal, shared approach in synagogues.

Richman and Libenson’s work was inspired by the findings from the Lancet Commission’s

(2010) research studies on physicians and health care professionals. The authors found similar inadequacies in the training and practice of physicians and rabbis in the twenty-first century.

Richman and Libenson have claimed that the dramatic changes brought about by the twenty-first century have challenged “the traditional structure and professional roles” in both medicine and rabbinic leadership (p. 31). As such, they contended that some of the principle findings from

Lancet Commission regarding group medical practices were also applicable to synagogue rabbinic teams.

Richman and Libenson (2014) not only addressed issues of shared leadership and group practices related to the Lancet Commission’s Report (2010); rather, they began with the idea that many fields – medicine and synagogue leadership included – have failed to consider the valuable practice of “right-skilling.” They posited that in medicine, “right-skilling,” is accomplished through the careful identification of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals who are selected to be members of a work team based on specific criteria. These criteria include the creation of a team of people who would be effective partners and who would use their complementary skill-sets and strengths toward working together to meet the demands of the organization. 120

Thus, in the case of the Lancet Commission, professionals were only invited to join a team if the competencies and limitations of the group were balanced, and if the members of the team agreed that a prospective worker was compatible and complementary. Rather than selecting

“generalists” who would all be able to perform many of the same functions within the organizations, Richman and Libenson (2014) also believed that medical groups could be more efficient if they were composed of a variety of different “specialists” who had their own focus and areas of expertise on the team. The following excerpt from the Lancet Commission about the state of the medical field are similar to some of the challenges found in the world of synagogues and rabbis: “A slow-burning crisis is emerging in the mismatch of professional competencies to patient and population priorities because of fragmentary, outdated and static curricula…professional silos, static pedagogy, insufficient adaptation to local contexts and commercialism in the professions” (Frenk, et al. (2010) in Richman & Libenson, 2014, p. 32).

Summary of Literature on Shared Leadership

There continues to be a growing repository of literature in the area of shared leadership in organizations (Avolio et al., 2009; Bennett, 2003; Kocolowski, 2010; Yukl, 2013). The articles that emerged from the secular organizational literature review reflected the swift expansion of this leadership approach, and the attempt by scholars to add empirical research studies to what has been a predominantly theoretical interest until the past twenty years (Crevani et al., 2010).

This review explored definitions and background for shared leadership, and identified cases of shared leadership in contemporary organizations -- either as substitutes for or as additions to traditional top-down leadership (Cowan, 2011; Day et al., 2006; Hoch et al., 2010; Pearce et al.,

2007; Pearce & Sims, 2000). 121

The literature that was reviewed on shared leadership yielded multiple definitions from a wide variety of organizational settings (Crevani et al., 2010; Gronn, 2009; Hosking, 2007; Pearce

& Conger, 2003). This researcher found that the following descriptions of shared leadership are most germane to the sharing of spiritual leadership in synagogues, and best capture the dynamic social interactions that are at the the heart of shared leadership theory:

• [Shared] leadership is “an emergent property of a group or network of interacting

individuals.”

• [Shared] leadership suggests an “openness of the boundaries of leadership…to widen

the conventional net of leaders.”

• [Shared] leadership includes the recognition on the part of organizational members at

all levels that “varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few”

(Bennett et al., 2003, p. 7).

Although only alluded to in Jewish literary sources, the sharing of leadership has been practiced since Biblical times. Yet, despite the early evidence of a tradition of shared leadership among Jews, there were only four studies that emerged on the theory and practice of shared leadership in contemporary synagogues (Brown, 2007; Samuels & Aron, 1999; Thompson, 2006;

Zeldin & Kurshan, 2002). While shared spiritual leadership has not yet been proposed as a theoretical model for synagogue leadership, there are many indications that such a model would be an appropriate frameowrk for contemporary Reform congregational rabbis. As value-based, relational approaches to leadership, both shared leadership and spiritual leadership are compatible with traditional Judaism and modern Reform Jewish practice (Wilhelmson, 2006).

Moreover, the fact that shared leadership exists in many different forms and alongside a variety of other leadership frameworks is further evidence that shared spiritual leadership might also be 122 considered in faith-based settings, including synagogues (Day et al., 2004; Drath et al., 2008;

Ensley et al., 2004; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Pearson & Pearce, 2003; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Wood,

2005).

The degree to which rabbis and synagogue leaders are prepared to attempt a purposeful shift from traditional to shared spiritual leadership will depend on the following conditions: (a) the extent to which rabbis and lay leaders are able to undertake the challenges of implementing shared leadership – including the requirement for institutional-wide buy-in -- and the added time and energy that will be necessary if more leadership sharing becomes an organizational norm for synagogues (Kocolowski, 2010, p. 24); (b) the willingness of veteran senior rabbis to learn the dynamics of shared leadership theory and to be persuaded by its value – both to the rabbi, personally, and to the synagogue community as a whole; and (c) the success of women in the

Reform rabbinate and their ability to assume senior leadership positions in key synagogues throughout the country. If these hypotheses -- culled from the literature that was reviewed for this study -- can be validated, then this author believes that shared spiritual leadership may become a reality over the next decade or two (Bronznick, 2002; Marder, 1991; Shulman, 2001).

Summary, Syntheses, and Recommendations

This chapter reviewed three discrete areas of study in the organizational literature: (a) the education of the rabbi and trends in seminary curricula, (b) spiritual leadership as an emergent model for organizational leadership, and (c) shared leadership in teams. The literature was all but silent about the intersection of shared leadership and spiritual leadership, and there have been no attempts to create a model for “shared spiritual leadership” in faith-based settings or in secular organizationals. Therefore, the abovementioned three strands of literature were separately investigated and indirectly applied to this research endeavor and questions. The objective in 123 reviewing the literature was to ascertain whether the concept of shared spiritual leadership would be a viable and effective framework for rabbis and professional teams in American Reform synagogues.

There was anecdotal evidence that the sharing of leadership has become more common in contemporary American Reform synagogues over the past two decades. However, the rabbi has not been the subject of recent research on shared leadership, and rabbinic leadership has not been a research interest among organizational leadership scholars over the past few decades.

The review and analysis of the three discrete streams of literature led this researcher to consider several explanations for the dearth of scholarly research on the sharing of the rabbi’s spiritual leadership in synagogues. The first explanation is connected to the seminary education, training and preparation that rabbis receive. The rabbinic curriculum at Hebrew Union College-

Jewish Institute of Religion, while comprehensive, does not provide the kind of deep and ongoing exposure to the organizational leadership literature that would enable students to better understand the variety of leadership approaches that exist and to keep abreast of research and developments in secular organizations that would be directly applicable to rabbis as synagogue leaders. In other words, Reform rabbis would benefit from having the topic of leadership, in general, on their professional “radar screens.” If this becomes the norm, it is probable that rabbinic students would gain a comfort level and flency in the field of organizational leadership and would undoubtedly benefit from the vast and ongoing compendium of literature on these themes.

A second explanation is related to a trend that has evolved for Reform rabbis and their career paths as synagogue leaders. Rabbis who have attained the requisite professional experience to earn their titles as senior rabbis historically serve their congregations for many 124 years -- often until retirement. As such, these veteran rabbis sometimes lack the interest and motivation to move from their familiar positions as traditional, top-down leaders to models that would include more sharing. In addition to the leader’s own reluctance or even resistance to change is the reality that there is no known formula or template that might be effective in transitioning hierarchical, top-down leaders and followers into a more distributed team with increased opportunities for shared leadership.

A third explanation as to the gap in the contemporary organizational literature about rabbinic leadership frameworks may be attributed to the paucity of empirical studies measuring whether an organization is prepared or adequately positioned for a paradigm shift in its leadership structure. Particularly for synagogues, where top-down, hierarchical leadership has been the long-standing organizational norm, there is a need to be able to measure the degree to which the leader and/or the organizational members are “change-ready” and/or “change- conducive.” This particularly holds true for cases in which rabbis and other organizational leaders disagree about the merits of sharing leadership, and especially those elements of spiritual leadership that have been traditionally “owned” by rabbis in Judaism. The literature provided many cases in which it was more expedient to remove a veteran, top-down leader and replace him or her with a new leader than “retrain” the traditional leader and synagogue staff in a new leadership paradigm.

It may not simply be a matter of retraining. It is possible that some of the personal qualities of the rabbi that render him or her a successful spiritual leader are the very same characteristics that support his or her accomplishments as a hierarchical, top-down synagogue leader. Furthermore, the personal attributes that characterize rabbis as top-down spiritual leaders may be so embedded in their leadership style that the rabbis themselves become the greatest 125 obstacles to organizational change. Thus, even if a top-down rabbinic leader were to express readiness for a shift in the synagogue’s leadership model, it may not be possible for him or her to transform the synagogue – or be transformed by it -- to the degree that would justify such a monumental organizational change.

Third, while there were tacit references in the literature that correlate shared leadership and spiritual leadership, it would be instructive to break down both leadership theories into their component characteristics to learn whether these two distinct forms of leadership could co-exist in a single organization, within a single team. While there are certainly hints that these two models might be complementary within a synagogue setting, it is possible that some aspects of shared and spiritual leadership may be fundamentally incompatible. For example, although shared leadership focuses on the leadership team and process, spiritual leadership is far more centered on the individual and the personal qualities of the leader as perceived by organizational followers.

The literature was silent as to whether there may be powerful enough “group” characteristics of shared leadership that could challenge the traditional system in which the rabbi is fundamentally viewed as the spiritual leader. In addition, this researcher sought to discover whether there was something about spiritual leadership and its historic association with a single individual that might repel or defy shared leadership in a team context. There were credible indications that rabbis, synagogue staff teams and lay leaders have been experimenting with sharing aspects of leadership that have been historically viewed as spiritual, and that have traditionally belonged to the rabbi. It would certainly fill a gap in the organizational literature to assess which aspects of spiritual leadership – in theory as well as in practice – could be harmonized with shared leadership in rabbinic and professional synagogue teams. The next 126 chapter will elucidate the methodology that was selected for this study and a proposed conceptual framework for shared spiritual leadership.

127

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

The purpose of this study was to understand how shared spiritual leadership was enacted

in a medium-sized suburban synagogue in the northeastern United States. The questions that

guided this research were:

1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?

2. What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?

3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this

synagogue?

Introduction

Over the past two decades, there have been scores of research studies on spiritual leadership and shared leadership as two emergent approaches in contemporary organizational leadership. Nevertheless, neither spiritual leadership nor shared leadership has been formally investigated in Reform Jewish synagogue settings. Moreover, while there have been numerous studies conducted in secular organizations on shared and spiritual leadership as separate phenomena, there has been no scholarship to date on whether and how these two leadership models might be combined into a new framework – the sharing of spiritual leadership. The aim of this study was to explore how a rabbi’s traditional responsibility as the spiritual leader might be shared with or distributed among other synagogue clergy, professionals, and lay leaders. This chapter details the methodology that drove this study, including: the research paradigm, general characteristics of qualitative research, a description of case study methodology, and the case study framework. The chapter continues by defining the boundaries of the case and describing the case study participants and how they were selected and accessed. The chapter concludes with an 128 explanation of data collection methods, data storage, and data analysis as they were utilized to ensure the validity, reliability and ethical nature of this research.

Constructivist Paradigm

A research paradigm provides the context for a study and is the lens or perspective

through which the researcher makes inquiries about and understands his or her research topic

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005). This study was conducted from a constructivist

paradigm. In constructivism, the researcher assumes that there are as many realities as there are

personal perspectives and opinions. As such, the constructivist understands reality as subjective,

fluid, and “constructed” in the minds of human beings who inquire about the nature of social

phenomena (Lincoln, 1990; Chambliss & Schutt, 2012). The constructivist paradigm is largely

interpretive in nature, is set in a specific social construct, and is continually changing. Research

studies conducted from a constructivist perspective do not measure, quantify or arrive at “the

truth;” rather, the constructivist researcher attempts to gain insight into dynamic phenomena to

discover the way that people experience the world and create meaning within their own socially

constructed realities (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Mertens, 2005; Ponterotto,

2005).

Schwandt (1994) wrote about the relative nature of truth in the constructivist outlook:

“Truth is a matter of the best-informed and most sophisticated construction on which there is

consensus at a given time” (p.128). As such, constructivist researchers have been interested in

how study subjects interact with their environment, respond to others, and interpret the ever-

changing nature of one’s reality. The goal of the researcher in the present study was to discover

meaning that was “hidden,” and bring it to the surface (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 129). In

constructivism, knowledge is based on signs and symbols that are shared by members of an 129 organization and expressed in its culture. The researcher focuses on how people interpret and make sense of their experiences in the world, and the ways in which the context of events and situations within social environments influence their constructed understandings (Ponterotto,

2005; Schwandt, 1994).

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), the researcher selects a research paradigm based on his or her responses to three related questions that define the nature of his or her inquiry: (a)

The ontological question: What is the nature of reality and how does it become known to human beings? (b) The epistemological question: How does one understand the relationship between the researcher and the research project? (c) The methodological question: Based on the ontological and epistemological responses, by what methodology does the researcher carry out an inquiry that will effectively serve to collect the knowledge that the researcher believes can be known or experienced?

For this case study on the sharing of spiritual leadership in the synagogue, the researcher expected to discover patterns of meaning as they were filtered through people’s multiple interpretations of reality. This researcher presumed that the constructed realities of the rabbi, clergy, and professional staff members at Community Synagogue would vary according to their lived experiences and the way that they ascribed meaning to their experiences (Butin, 2010).

Rather than seeking absolute truth, this researcher conducted this study with a relativistic approach that “assume[d] multiple, apprehendable, and sometimes conflicting social realities…that change[d] as their constructors became more informed and sophisticated” (Guba

& Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). The researcher took a dynamic approach to the large volume of data that was collected from clergy and leadership staff members and expected rich language and 130 thick descriptions to emerge through the data analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 42; Chambliss

& Schutt, 2003).

The epistemological position in constructivism assumes that the researcher is a passionate participant in the research process. That is, the researcher interacts with subjects, and together, they participate as thought partners in the process of meaning-making and the gathering of knowledge. They work together to construct reality based on the dynamic and ongoing communications and exchanges “between the researcher and the researched” (Creswell, 2013, p.

36). This means that the product of this extensive engagement of the researcher in the phenomenon of interest is generally a rich and prolific data set. In this study, the researcher observed and interpreted the lived experiences of a clergy staff team within the historic and social reality of the Reform synagogue setting (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 129). The methodological approach that was used for this research – a descriptive, multi-method, instrumental case study -- will be explained and justified in the subsequent sections.

Qualitative Research

For this single-site case study, a qualitative research design was selected to meet the study objectives and to answer the research questions. In general, qualitative research is the optimal methodology for answering “why” or “how” study questions and is effective in developing the researcher’s understanding of the total phenomenon under investigation Creswell,

2013; Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015; Yin, 2003). Seminal qualitative researcher

Robert E. Stake (1995) identified three features of qualitative research: (a) The goal of the study is to seek understanding of and not necessarily explanation about the phenomenon of interest;

(b)The role of the researcher is personal in that s/he is involved in the research and not objective and removed from it; and (c) The resulting knowledge that emerges is not “true” or certain, but 131 rather, is “constructed knowledge” that is researcher-dependent and a product of the researcher’s own experiences (p. 37).

This researcher applied Stake’s (1995) three characteristics of qualitative research to the present study to illuminate the multi-faceted relationships that existed in the synagogue site between the rabbi, cantor, education directors, and professional staff members. These relationships, together with the words and impressions of the participants, guided this researcher to investigate how the sharing of spiritual leadership was enacted in a Reform synagogue. The researcher used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis with the intent of moving from simply observing behaviors of members of the professional staff, to seeking patterns of behaviors in the dynamic interactions between and among the individuals. Some of the resulting behaviors were anticipated by the researcher, and others were unexpected. The present study satisfied the frequently cited criteria that qualitative research is most appropriate for studies with small sample sizes, where the primary aim is not a measurement or quantifiable outcome, but rather, a complete, detailed, thick and rich description of the case itself (Bell, 2008; Langkos,

2014; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

This case study was undergirded by Stake’s (1995) premise that the constructivist qualitative researcher plays an important and subjective role in the study itself. In the present case study, the researcher was the main instrument of data collection, and she interpreted the data on an ongoing basis through the several stages of data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 40).

Like most qualitative researchers, the researcher was passionate about the topic and chose to conduct this study because it was and remains of interest to her. Bassey (2004) explained that he takes on a specific research project because he feels “a fire in his belly” about it and is personally invested in and connected to the research endeavor (p. 112). The present research endeavor 132 coincided with the researcher’s professional experience, academic interests, and personal passions. This researcher attempted to set aside the biases that come with being a rabbi in synagogue settings for twenty-eight years. As such, she resisted the tendency to rely on her own experiences, and instead, carefully listened to subjects and observed the participants in numerous situations. This researcher was committed to thoughtfully gathering evidence that informed the enactment of shared spiritual leadership.

Finally, Stake’s (1995) characterization of qualitative research as a form of humanly

“constructed” knowledge influenced this researcher to filter the data that were collected through the constructed realities of the participants – all of whom were treated as experts on the research topic (Rudestam & Newton, 2007, p. 107). The study yielded a complete and thick description of the functions and leadership styles of the rabbi and professional staff members of Community

Synagogue, with special attention concentrated on the sharing of spiritual leadership in a Reform synagogue. This researcher followed Stake’s premise that all perspectives – even those of an unconventional nature -- needed to be voiced so that no single view would be considered more authentic or authoritative than any other (Stake, 1995, p. 108).

Methodological Approach

This research was conducted as a single instrumental case study and was guided by the methodology introduced by seminal case study scholar Robert E. Stake (1995). In instrumental case study methodology, the researcher uses the case as a vehicle to understand a phenomenon or theory. The case, in and of itself, is less important to the researcher than the phenomenon and/or theory under investigation (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015). Stake, together with Yin

(2003) and Merriam (2009) have represented the three most prominent case study scholars to date (Yazan, 2015). Stake’s approach served as the dominant roadmap for the present case study; 133 however, it was also informed by Merriam’s methods and approaches, which complement those of Stake (Yazan, 2015). This section will explore the definition(s) and development of case study research and its theorists, will set the case study approach within the context of other qualitative research approaches, and will identify the reasons why case study methodology was fitting for this synagogue-based study on the sharing of spiritual leadership.

Creswell (2013) maintained that case study research is one of the five most frequently used qualitative research and design approaches. Yin (2003) conjectured that even though case study research is frequently chosen as a qualitative research method, it is one of the more difficult methodologies for the novice researcher to master (p. 1). There have been differences of opinion among scholars as to whether case study research is a specific research methodology, or whether it is more of a general research strategy (Hartley, 2004, p. 323; Titscher et al., 2000, p.

43).

Regardless of one’s opinion as to whether case study is a methodology or a research strategy – or an amalgam of the two – Creswell (2013) identified three features of case study research that held true for this study as well: (a) the ability of the researcher to define and isolate a specific real-life case progresses in real-time; (b) the objective of the researcher to arrive at an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon through the collection of many forms of qualitative data from those at the site who are considered “within the case;” and (c) the researcher’s goal to identify themes or issues that are particular to the case and are fully descriptive. Creswell adds a fourth feature, reflective of Lincoln and Guba’s earlier research (1985): (d) The product of case study research should be a lesson learned that elucidates the meaning or meanings of the phenomena being studied that may be derived from the case by way of its informants (p. 100). 134

To achieve the four abovementioned objectives, case study data collection included document reviews, focus group discussions, individual and small-group interviews, and extensive observations. Consequently, data collected through these means were intended to lead toward a final research report that was detailed, textured, and holistic, and that presented thick descriptions of the real-life phenomena as they were filtered through the perspective of the researcher (Creswell, 2013; Geertz, 1973). Single-site case studies are typically comprised of a small number of subjects with data taken from a variety of sources. In this way, the researcher gains insight into the case and its complex social phenomena, learns where the boundaries are between the phenomenon and context of the case, especially when these boundaries are not evident. (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545).

All three seminal case study methodologists concur that one of the most important features of case study research is the establishment of a boundary for a case. This means that the researcher must decide what is included as part “the case” and what is identified as outside the case (Yazan, 2015). Stake (1995) maintained that the “case” is a system that is bounded, has working parts, and is integrated. Merriam (1998) broadened Stake’s conception of a case to include not only physical sites, but other bounded phenomena such as programs, institutions, people, processes, or social units (p. xiii).

This synagogue-based case study was designed according to Stake’s (1995) four aspects of case study research: (a) It was holistic in that the researcher considered the interrelationships between the phenomenon being investigated and its context; (b) It was empirical, meaning that it was field-based and the researcher’s primary role was observational and not interventional; (c) It was interpretive to the extent that the researcher paid attention to the interactions between and among those being investigated – including the researcher herself; and (d) It was emphatic, 135 meaning that the researcher observed and reported in a way that accurately reflected the actual experiences of those who were inside of the case (Yazan, 2015, p. 139).

The Case

Yin (2003) explained that a researcher selects a case because it is connected to the research questions and problem of practice, and because it aligns with the researcher’s initial theoretical assumptions. In accordance with Yin’s recommendations, the following statements held true for the synagogue as a research site for this study: (a) The case study took place in a single site, medium-sized, Reform congregation in the Northeast. (b) This study examined a bounded case – that is, a Reform synagogue professional staff team of eight members. (c) As an instrumental case study, the focus of inquiry was not the case itself; rather, the researcher’s interest was on shared and spiritual leadership as they were enacted within this synagogue case and as they shed light on the synagogue as a contemporary organization. (p. 437). Therefore, this synagogue study enabled the researcher to utilize the case to investigate the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership in a way that represented a novel approach to conceiving leadership in today’s American Reform synagogue (Tellis, 1997). Finally, (d) The case study methodology aligned with the theoretical frameworks of Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007) and of Ashmos and Duchon (2000) since both groups of scholars suggested definitions of shared leadership and spiritual leadership that were very nuanced, and that might only be observed in a small and detailed case study setting (Creswell, 2012).

Consistent with instrumental case study research, this researcher did not have an intrinsic interest in the synagogue case in and of itself; rather, the case was used to reach a deeper and more robust understanding of the social dynamics of shared leadership and spiritual leadership as they were enacted by the synagogue’s rabbi, cantor, educators and administrators. This 136 researcher has served as a Reform rabbi in several other synagogue settings and admittedly entered the site with an “insider’s view” of rabbinic leadership. This researcher’s prior knowledge and first-hand experience in synagogue settings needed to be continually checked to avoid the negative ramifications of researcher bias (Stake, 1995). However, the researcher’s familiarity with Reform synagogues was also beneficial in creating rigor and clarity for this study. In addition, the researcher’s level of comfort in the setting helped bridge the distance between the researcher and the study participants and allowed for a fluid exchange of ideas

(Boblin, Ireland, Kirkpatrick, & Robertson, 2013, p. 1269).

The researcher had prepared for the unique challenges of case study research. First, the researcher was cognizant that in case studies, the context or “case” – the synagogue professional staff members – could not be separated from the phenomenon itself. This means that both the context (setting) and the researcher’s inquiry into the sharing of spiritual leadership were studied and investigated simultaneously (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Second, the researcher acknowledged that she did not have control over the situation or setting. This lack of researcher control approximates the reality of life – that is, we do not always have control over our environment

(Potter, von Hellens, & Nielsen (2010). The researcher was aware of the possibility that unpredictable circumstances might arise during the research process that would interrupt the flow or plan of the study, and that could potentially force the researcher to change research approaches mid-course. In fact, there were a few unanticipated events that occurred over the course of the data collection process, but they were minor and well within the realm of what the researched expected in case study research. Potter et al. (2010) maintained that expecting the unexpected is an important feature of case study research, and they pointed out that unforeseen 137 incidents may offer the researcher opportunities to learn new things that may not have been otherwise discovered.

Participants and Access

The participants in this case were the eight members of the clergy/professional staff at the synagogue who worked collaboratively and whose leadership was distributed across the synagogue team. This case was selected because at the time of this writing, there were only a few synagogues across the country that had deliberately moved away from the traditional hierarchical, top-down, single-person leadership approach to a more distributed framework.

Consistent with the recommendations for conducting successful case study research, this case included relatively few members. As such, the researcher had ample opportunity to interview and observe the participants in different combinations and in multiple contexts. The researcher aimed to illuminate the lived experience of the participants as members of this bounded site (Harrison,

Birks, Franklin, & Mills, 2017).

Early on, the rabbi verbally assured the researcher that the study was of interest to him and to his professional staff team. He drafted a formal letter to the researcher and to Northeastern

University that confirmed the synagogue’s willingness to participate as the primary research site.

This letter was submitted together with the researcher’s application to the Institutional Review

Board (IRB). Among the preliminary issues discussed and agreed upon by the researcher and the rabbi, who served as the point person for the study site were: (a) The researcher had access to the study participants for the purpose of scheduling interviews and focus groups during the data collection phase of the study; (b) The rabbi made suggestions as to when and under what circumstances the researcher would conduct a variety of targeted observations of the rabbi and professional team in the “living” context of synagogue activities; (c) The rabbi provided the 138 researcher with relevant synagogue documents for review; and (d) The researcher sought the rabbi’s suggestions in identifying people whose experiences and insights supported the researcher in her role as a “biographer.” All the data collection methods served to develop a rich and layered understanding about the participants and their interactions within the case (Stake,

1995).

Purposeful Sampling

Purposeful sampling is the most commonly used method in case study research

(Creswell, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Morse (1991) defined purposeful sampling as the selection of participants according to the specific needs of the study (p. 129).

Since the aim of this case study research was to understand “information rich” phenomena, participants were selected “purposefully” or deliberately so that the data would be as useful and meaningful as possible (Patton, 2001). Purposeful sampling for this study involved pre-selecting prospective subjects not only because of their interest and expertise, but also because they were available, accessible and willing to communicate in interviews and focus groups as part of the data collection process (Cresswell, 2012; Bernard, 2002).

The participants were well-suited as primary subjects for this bounded, instrumental case study. They participated as individuals, as members of the larger team, and as subsets of the team. They brought extensive experience to their work in the synagogue, were willing to share their stories, and were committed to expanding the traditional boundaries of synagogue leadership to include new, twenty-first century innovations (Pacho, 2015). Table 4 presents a listing of the Synagogue’s leadership group and identifies each member by title and by way of a short description of his or her leadership role in the synagogue.

139

Table 4

Subject Selection Criteria for Purposeful Sampling

Title Leadership Role in Team/Reason for Inclusion in Purposeful Sample Rabbi • Primary spiritual leader of synagogue • Creates organizational vision • Implements synagogue mission in partnership with lay leadership and professional staff Cantor • Primary musical leader of the synagogue in sanctuary and in classrooms of adults and children • Facilitates worship and prayer (with rabbi) • Coordinates B’nai Mitzvah program and provides instruction and support as pre- B’nai Mitzvah students prepare for ceremonies Co-Director of • Educational leader for synagogue religious school programs K-12 and adults Education A • Supervises all faculty members and staff who are involved with formal and informal learning at the synagogue • Aligns synagogue educational programs with vision and mission of synagogue Co-Director of • Educational leader for synagogue religious school programs K-12 and adults Education B • Supervises all faculty members and staff who are involved with formal and informal learning at the synagogue • Aligns synagogue educational programs with vision and mission of synagogue Director of Youth • Primary responsibility for informal educational program for post-B’nai Mitzvah Engagement youth and teens • Works in collaboration with Education Co-Directors to balance formal and informal youth offerings • Advises high school youth group board and accompanies them on any in-town or out-of-town local and/or regional events Executive Director • Primary administrative director of the synagogue • Supervises all financial and clerical staff members • Works with lay leaders and professional staff to ensure smooth operation of all programs, fundraising, publicity, communication, safety and security of building and grounds, and fiscal stability of congregation Financial Manager • Works with Executive Director and lay leaders involved with financial oversight • Creates and maintains membership data base, billing process, and collection procedures • Prepares synagogue-wide and departmental budgets • Processes payroll, reports on income and expenses • Tracks donations Executive Secretary • Supports rabbi, Cantor and Executive Director in all administrative and programmatic areas • Serves as primary point of contact for communication to synagogue members and lay leadership Religious School • Supports Co-Directors of Education, Director of Youth Engagement and Religious Secretary – CHOSE School faculty and staff NOT TO • Serves as point of contact for all administration and communication for parents of PARTICPATE religious school-aged students K-12. Total Number of Subjects: 8 140

Following Merriam’s (1998) design for purposeful sampling, the selection of Community

Synagogue’s professional staff members as the study participants occurred prior to data collection. The next section on recruitment and informed consent will detail the protocol that was followed to conduct this study according to the ethical guidelines for human subject research at

Northeastern University.

Recruitment and Informed Consent

Approval from Northeastern University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was granted to the researcher prior to the commencement of recruitment and data collection. The researcher had planned to recruit nine participants for this study; however, one pre-selected staff member declined to be involved. Therefore, there were eight participants who were recruited and consented. Following IRB approval, a letter of introduction was sent to the rabbi, who served as the “gatekeeper” for this study. The letter detailed the scope of the research, explained how the researcher’s site visits and data collection would proceed, specified the time commitment that was expected of individual participants, and offered the rationale for conducting the study (see

Appendix A).

Following the letter of introduction and a phone conversation with the rabbi, the researcher sent a recruitment letter to the rabbi and to the other seven members of Community

Synagogue’s staff team. The letter invited them to participate in the study, underscored the voluntary nature of the research, and outlined the researcher’s expectations of the participants

(see Appendix B). The researcher provided a personalized informed consent document for each member of the professional staff to indicate his or her intent and permission to participate in the study. Any questions that participants had regarding the study or their participation were 141 addressed by the researcher prior to informed consent. Those who wished to participate signed the informed consent document and returned it to the researcher (see Appendix C).

The informed consent detailed the primary aims of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the right of the participant to remove himself or herself from the study at any time, and the plans of the researcher to ensure participant anonymity and confidentiality (Bell, 2008;

Creswell, 2013; Smith-Tyler, 2007; Thomas, 2011). This researcher was prepared to use theoretical sampling during and following data collection if other staff members and/or lay leaders needed to be recruited in addition to the pre-selected professional team members; however, this did not take place (Merriam, 2009). The next section continues with descriptions of the data collection methods that were used to gather information for this case study.

Data Collection

This section will describe the methods of data collection and timeline for this synagogue- based case study and will elucidate the ways in which data gathering for this study led to data analysis. For Stake (1995), data collection does not necessarily proceed according to a fixed schedule or exact plan; rather, he suggests that much of the data that is collected is

“impressionistic: [that is, it is] picked up informally as the researcher becomes acquainted with the case” (p. 49). Because of the impressionistic aspect of case study research, Stake emphasized that it is important for the researcher to have the appropriate skills for data collection so that s/he can differentiate between his or her opinions about the data, and the data itself (Yazan, 2015, p.

143). Because Stake invested so much weight in the researcher’s thoughts and impressions, he suggested that researchers who follow his methodology should not feel compelled to include the degree of detail in their data collection plans as either Yin or Merriam recommended (Yazan,

2015). As such, Stake did not specify when data collection begins or how it ought to proceed. In 142 fact, he has left the timing and process of data collection largely to the researcher’s intuition as s/he proceeds through the steps of qualitative case study investigation. Stake did recommend that the following techniques for data collection be used in case study designs: observations, interviews, and document reviews (1995, 2000). Since this study served as an introduction to case study methodology, this researcher followed Merriam’s (2009) more explicit plan.

Case studies are characterized by a variety of data collection methods and techniques. For this synagogue-based case study, these methods were utilized during the data collection phase:

(a) interviews, (b) focus groups, (c) direct observations, and (d) document reviews (Creswell,

2013; Hays, 2004; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). As the researcher conducted data collection according to the above methods, she discovered that the data itself began to “speak” and led the way toward a deepened understanding of the enactment of shared leadership in the synagogue setting. Data collection and data analysis took place simultaneously, and resulted in a written report on findings, which are presented in Chapter Four. Even at the earliest phases of data collection the researcher found evidence of the rich human dynamics and nuanced interactions that animated the research site and subjects.

Table 5 presents the timeline of all participant interviews and focus groups that took place during data collection. The data that appear in Table 5 were recorded in the order that the interviews and focus groups occurred over the duration of the study. As in most qualitative research studies, multiple sources of data and a variety of methods for the collection and analysis of data were utilized, all of which made this case study research “not only more comprehensive, but also more complicated” (Hays, 2004, p. 228). The synagogue selected for this study required the researcher to travel by air to the site; therefore, site visits were maximized by overnight stays that enabled the researcher to spend two to three full days of uninterrupted time at the site per 143 visit. During the time between site visits, the researcher conducted follow-up conversations, transcribed data, and carefully reviewed the documents that the researcher was permitted to carry off-site. Site visits were always scheduled with the rabbi and were arranged to incorporate as many congregational activities, meetings, services, life-cycle events and classes as possible.

Following Table 5, this section proceeds with an explanation of each individual data collection method and the way it was used in this research study.

Table 5

Data Collection Schedule for Interviews and Focus Groups

Participant Role Interview 1 Interview 2 Focus Group

Jeff Rabbi 5/13/18 10/29/18

Lily Co-Director of Education A 5/14/18 10/30/18

Shira Cantor 5/14/18 10/29/18

Alison Executive Secretary 5/14/18

Francine Business Manager 5/14/18

Becca Co-Director of Education B 5/15/18 10/30/18

May Executive Director 5/15/18 10/29/18

Roxy Director of Youth Engagement 10/29/18

Interviews

Qualitative scholars concur that interviews provide the researcher with excellent sources of data that reveal the multi-faceted perspectives held and expressed by organizational members who are encouraged to tell their stories (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015; Yin, 2003).

Rubin and Rubin (2012) advised the qualitative researcher to conduct interviews by focusing on 144

“the art of hearing data” (p. 1). Merriam (2009) offered more detail than Stake (1995) as to how the researcher should conduct interviews in order to get the best and most comprehensive data possible. Merriam wrote that case study research relies on “effective interviews” which entails:

“asking good questions, [knowing which] questions to avoid, [using] probes, [utilizing] an interview guide, [paying attention to the] beginning of the interview…[and being aware of] the interactions between the interviewee and respondent, recording, and [continuously] evaluating interview data” (Yazan, 2015, pp. 143-144). Carefully structured interviews using good questions, effective prompts, and acute listening helps the researcher encourage the interviewee to share in words and impressions that which may not be observable (Cantrell, 1993).

According to Cantrell (1993), researchers construct their interview protocols along a spectrum from structured to unstructured. Guba and Lincoln (1981) suggested that semi- structured or loosely structured interviews are appropriate for investigating complex phenomena, for understanding a process, and for learning about how multiple subjects feel about an idea or concept. In contrast, unstructured interviews enable the interviewee to freely and organically express thoughts and feelings in the absence of questions from the interviewer. In this research study, the researcher used semi-structured interviews, as this method enabled the interviewer to ask questions and utilize follow-up probes to guide the interviewee to reflect on the theme of shared spiritual leadership as s/he experienced it as a social phenomenon in the synagogue (Bell,

2008, p. 161).

In this study, the personal interviews were conducted at Community Synagogue and were each sixty to seventy minutes in length. As part of the informed consent process, each interviewee was told that the researcher would be using two recording devices. These recording devices captured the entirety of each interview, and the recordings were later used off-site to 145 transcribe, code and analyze each data piece in relation to all the other data collected during the study. As is typical in case studies, the interviews were in-depth inquiries into the experiences and worldviews of the study participants. The interviews were constructed so that the interviewees were prompted to elucidate ideas and concepts and were encouraged to make experiential as well as theoretical connections between and among the ideas raised during the interviews (Potter & Nielsen, 2010; Stake, 1995; Merriam, 2009). As is reflected in Table 5 above, each members of the Leadership Group (rabbi, cantor, co-directors of education, executive director) were interviewed twice: the initial set of interviews took place during the first site visit, and the second set of interviews occurred at the final site visit. The director of youth engagement was out of town during the initial set of interviews and focus groups; therefore, the researcher combined the questions from the two focus group protocols, and a single, extended interview based on the focus group material took place with her alone.

The purpose of the first set of interviews was to establish a relationship between the researcher and the interviewee so that as more substantive issues and topics were raised, a basic trust and comfort-level between the researcher and the participants had been fostered. During the initial interview, the researcher introduced the study objectives and explained the role of the subject. The interviews began with global questions about the specific research topics and became more detailed over the course of the interview. The impressions, stories, thoughts and feelings expressed by the interviewees all became the data points for analyses, and, in part, helped determine the interview guide for the second set of interviews. The second set of interviews, conducted toward the end of the data collection process, enabled the interviewee to be more reflective and detailed about the topics of inquiry. The second interview was an 146 opportunity for follow-up and for probing topics around which greater clarity or elucidation were needed.

In all interviews, the researcher asked questions that elicited responses from the interviewees that were instrumental in introducing the researcher to their experiences. Extending

Rubin and Rubin’s (2012) notion of “the art of hearing data,” Patton (2001) maintained that hearing data is dependent on the interviewer’s preparation for an interview, and the general approach s/he takes in constructing questions. This researcher found Patton’s three interview approaches to be instructive in helping to determine which approach would be most useful: (a) the informal conversational interview, (b) the general interview guide approach, and (c) the standardized open-ended interview (p. 342). The informal conversational interview is a spontaneous conversation with no list of specific questions to be asked, whereas the standard open-ended interview uses a fixed set of questions, asked with the same wording and in the same order at all the interviews. This researcher utilized an interviewer’s guide to conduct the semi- structured interviews for this case study.

The two interviewer guides may be found in Appendix D. They contain all interview questions. In this way, there was consistency in the nature and direction of inquiry across all subjects; however, the researcher also exercised flexibility, and gave the interviewees the freedom to explore related themes, feelings, and impressions as they worked their way through questions and helped bring the interviewer into their organizational world (Patton, 2001, p. 343).

Regardless of the choice the interviewer makes regarding the sequence, wording or extent to which the questions are structured or unstructured, Patton argued that the optimal format for interviews is open-ended (p. 348). Consistent with the recommendations for open-ended interviewing, the interviewer actively listened to the language, emotions, impressions and 147 experiences of the interviewees, and resisted the tendency to over-lead interviewees in the direction of the interviewer’s biases or pre-determined hypotheses. Once each interview was completed, the voice recordings were sent to an electronic voice-to-text transcription service

(www.temi.com) and were returned to the researcher. The researcher carefully cross-checked for any errors or discrepancies that might have occurred during the transcription process. Interview transcripts were then deidentified, labeled, and stored for coding and data analysis.

Focus Groups

The focus group is another mainstay of case study research methodology (Bell, 2008;

Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2001; Stake, 1995). Unlike the individual interview, a focus group is designed so that a small group of participants are brought together by the interviewer with the purpose of focusing on one specific organizational theme or phenomenon that is relevant to each member of the focus group. The focus group also reveals the social dynamics that are created in real-time when a small group of people are brought together to share their personal thoughts, feelings and stories in the presence of others whose perspectives may be similar or different. In this way, focus groups are one of the most important constructivist methods, since they encourage participants to share their multi-perspective opinions in a guided conversation (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). Patton (2001) felt strongly that focus group interviews are, fundamentally, more than merely group interviews (p. 385). Rather, the focus group is an opportunity for a small number of people (usually ten or less) to gather and express their views relative to the views of others in the group (Patton, 2001, p. 386).

An additional feature of focus groups that influenced the researcher to include this data collection method in this site-based synagogue study, is that focus group have been particularly effective when there are differences in position between the focus group participants and others 148 in the organization who may be higher in the organizational hierarchy (Gibbs, 1997). In these situations, the focus group provides a “safer” and more comfortable setting for a participant and his or her peers to reveal experiences that might cause them to feel vulnerable in a one-on-one interview setting. Researchers have also commented that focus groups are very time-effective in gathering data for case studies, due to the unique way that focus groups are organized and structured (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2001). In addition, focus groups are usually enjoyable for participants since they offer opportunities for colleagues to converse with one another on mutually meaningful topics (Macnaghten & Myers, 2004, p. 65).

The timeline in Table 5 specifies that one focus group was conducted with the synagogue’s administrative assistant and financial manager. The focus group with these individuals took place toward the middle of the data collection process. Because the focus group was very comprehensive and included some additional opportunities for follow-up after the site- visit, the researcher determined that it was unnecessary to convene the Synagogue Support Team for a second focus group.

As with the individual interviews, focus group participants signed the informed consent document and were told that the sessions would be recorded using two voice recording devices.

The focus group guide may be found in Appendix F. Following data collection, the voice recordings were retrieved, uploaded to the researcher’s computer, and sent to www.temi.com for transcription. Once the transcription was complete, all data were cross-checked against researcher field notes. The voice recordings were then deidentified, rechecked, coded, and stored. The interviewer kept field notes of reflections and ideas that emerged during the focus group and its aftermath. These notes also became part of the data collection. Participants were made aware in advance that during the focus group, the interviewer would take notes, draw 149 diagrams, and write down important words or themes that would become part of the field notes for the study, and/or could be used later to clarify issues and questions.

It was always the intent of the researcher to protect the confidentiality of study participants; therefore, to the extent possible, all recordings, written transcripts and field notes were deidentified. However, confidentiality in focus groups, by nature, can never be promised with certainty, since the different sounds of participants’ voices and the nature of their responses could be used to identify them (Patton, 2001). Therefore, prior to the focus group, the participants were informed that it was the intention of the researcher to maintain best practices for confidentiality, but that the burden of maintaining privacy also rested on members of the focus group. As such, focus group members were instructed to refrain from all outside conversations once the focus group concluded, and were asked to contain all information and impressions about the focus group experience to the time and space allotted for the focus group.

Direct Observations

Merriam (2009) contended that being a casual observer is not enough for case study research; rather, the researcher must be a careful observer to guarantee that accurate data will emerge from individual interviews and focus groups (p. 117). Merriam also identified the two unique features of qualitative observations: (a) Observations take place in the participants’ natural settings; and (b) Observations represent a “firsthand encounter” with the phenomenon being investigated, and do not serve as interpretive or subjective accounts of events, memories or reflections (p, 117). However, like personal interviews and focus groups, direct observation takes practice and experience on the part of the researcher and is a technique that is refined over time

(Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2001; Stake, 1995). Observations complement interviews and focus groups because through observation the researcher can better understand the context of the 150 research site, the behaviors of the subjects as they interact with one another and with the setting, and the conversations that take place during the subjects’ daily activities. These observations help the researcher appreciate the culture of the organization (Bell, 2008; Merriam, 2009; Stake,

1995). According to Stake (1995), the researcher records exactly what s/he observes to arrive at an “incontestable description” of the moment in time to be analyzed later in the process (p. 62).

Observations also require preparation on the part of the researcher (Bell, 2008; Patton,

2001). The researcher decided in advance what the goals of the observation were, and how the information that emerged from observations might be used in conjunction with the other data collection methods. Patton (2001) identified six important characteristics of observations: (a)

They enable the researcher to arrive at a holistic understanding of the setting and participants within it; (b) They help the researcher to be “open, discovery-oriented and inductive” in his or her inquiry and dismiss any preconceived ideas or perceptions that would create biases in the researcher; (c) They offer the researcher an opportunity to discover subtleties in the case that might otherwise go unknown and unobserved; (d) They provide a window into the setting and participants that might cause new information to be gleaned; (e) They open the setting so that the researcher can move beyond the “selective perceptions” of those who participate in interviews and focus groups, and arrive at his or her own holistic views; (f) They enable the researcher to naturally connect to the people and the setting so that s/he is moved to continually form impressions through these close, first-hand experiences (p. 262).

Observations were an integral component of data collection for this research study. One of the challenges of direct observations in qualitative research is that the researcher needs to consider what type of role s/he will play in the life of the setting – both as an observer and as a participant (Merriam, 2009, p. 124). In this synagogue study, the researcher assumed the role of 151

“observer as participant,” meaning that the researcher was given wide access to people and ample opportunity to observe participants in different configurations and activities. However, the researcher also was aware of the research boundaries and the fact that she was not and could not be considered a member of the organization (Adler & Adler, 1998, p. 85). In this study, the researcher did have the advantage of being an “insider” because of her knowledge of and familiarity with Reform synagogues. This familiarity helped the researcher feel comfortable in the setting and establish trusting relationships with the study participants. This familiarity also had some downsides, specifically in the area of observations, where it was sometimes challenging for the researcher to balance objectivity and a sense of distance with the tendency to empathize with the participants in the study. Merriam (2009) commented that that even for the researcher who is knowledgeable and passionate about the research endeavor, his or her primary responsibility as observer is not to “derive pleasure” from the situation; rather, the objective is to

“derive data” from one’s observations (p. 126).

The observation template that was used may be found in Appendix G. All observations were audio recorded. Information on the observation template was transcribed into typewritten form, deidentified, catalogued, stored, and prepared for subsequent coding and analysis. As with interviews and focus groups, researcher field notes were taken throughout the process either on the observation template itself and/or in a field notebook to document researcher impressions

(Merriam, 2009, Stake, 1995). Table 6 outlines the observations that this researcher conducted at the site during data collection. They appear in the chart chronologically. While much was planned in advance, the researcher was flexible and understood the dynamic realities of the synagogue: that meetings and events did not always occur as scheduled, that different groups to be observed emerged and offered advantage to the observer that could not have been anticipated, 152 that it was important that data collection methods were kept fluid throughout the process (Bell,

2008; Merriam, 2009; Yazan, 2015).

Table 6

Data Collection Schedule for Observations

Observation Date Staff Others Rationale for this Observation Greeting 5/13/18 Lily Religious Informal introduction to the Sunday religious school Religious School school staff program Grades K-6. Observed interactions of broad cross- Students members, section of members, children, staff, clergy as they began parents, the morning. students, teen assistants. Adult B’not 5/13/18 Becca 12 women who Class covered broad range of academic topics, Hebrew, Mitzvah Class 1 will become and decision-making about creative service plans for Bat Mitzvah as December. Teaching, administrative, religious services. a group in Class opened and closed with prayer/study. 12/18. Ages 50-79. Weekday 5/14/18 Becca Students in Classes and community prayer/community time in Hebrew School Grades 3-6, Sanctuary led by Becca. Introduction to older students in faculty Grades 3-6 who attend on weekday as well as Sundays. members, teen assistants. Bat Mitzvah and 5/14/18 Jeff Bat Mitzvah Final meeting of three private family meetings held in the 6 Family 1 student with months prior to student Bar/Bat Mitzvah with the rabbi. mother and Discussion about preparations for service, continued work father. on D’var Torah/student speech, questions and answers, family issues. Teaching, counseling, service leadership. Private Parents’ 5/14/18 Jeff Mother and Private meeting with rabbi about personal issues and Meeting father of a family issues regarding this family whose Jewish parent Grade 5 died and whose now remarried parents are continuing to student in the raise her and educate her at the synagogue and with a school. Jewish identity. Counseling situation. Bat Mitzvah and 5/14/18 Jeff Bat Mitzvah Second of three private family meetings held in the final 6 Family 2 student with months prior to student Bar/Bat Mitzvah with the rabbi. mother and Majority of session involved student and rabbi crafting father. D’var Torah/student speech based on interpretation of the Torah portion. Student had prepared in advance and answered questions that she brought with her in writing. Teaching, counseling, service leadership. Oversight 5/14/18 Jeff, Members of Monthly meeting of the key lay leaders on the Board. Committee May the lay High-level meeting with focus on program, budget, governance personnel, goals, visioning, leadership and governance. body of 10 Meeting opened with a lay leader offering a D’var Torah people plus interpretation of the week’s Torah portion and concluded staff. with a traditional Jewish prayer for night-time.

153

Table 6 Continued Observation Date Staff Others Rationale for this Observation Regular Staff 5/15/18 Lead- 5 people: rabbi, Weekly meeting of the “Leadership Group.” Group Meeting ership Cantor, Co-Ed discussed regularly occurring topics (i.e. Calendar, Group Dir A, Cp-Ed programs, weekend services), future events, publicity, web- Dir B, Exec. site improvements as part of the rabbi’s agenda. rabbi ran Dir. the meeting. rabbi left time for agenda items brought by staff members as well. Website Meeting 6/13/18 May Two lay Small meeting of two lay leaders and May involved in the leaders who are long-term project of completely re-vamping the website to “volunteers” better reflect the relational nature of the synagogue. working on the Emphasis for new website was more on people and less on website. programs. Final Bat 6/13/18 Shira Bat Mitzvah Final run-through of all material, family participation, Mitzvah and student, her choreography during the week prior to the Bat Mitzvah Family parents, 2 service. Included review of entire service including prayer, Rehearsal sisters, blessings, scriptural readings in Hebrew (Torah, Haftarah) grandparents. and D’var Torah/student speech. Entire family involved. Sisterhood 6/13/18 NA 12 members of A completely lay-led meeting with no staff present. Meeting the Sisterhood Fascinating view into leadership and multi-generation including constituent group. Meeting began and concluded with Sisterhood prayer/inspirational material from a collection of women’s officers and prayers/readings. Board. Grade 1 Family 10/28/18 Lily, Grade 1 Observation of child, adult, and family education that was Program Jeff students and team-facilitated by two staff members. Interactions parents, 2 between staff members, children, parents and teachers. faculty members. Adult B’not 10/28/18 Becca 12 women who Opportunity to follow-up and observe progress from Class Mitzvah Class 2 will become 1 (5/13/2018). Class actively planning the service Bat Mitzvah as components and invitations to congregation. Class began a group in and concluded with traditional Jewish prayer for the December privilege of study in community. 2018. Most women ages 50-79. Staff Meeting 10/28/18 Lead- President of Meeting was called to talk about security in light of with President ership Congregation shooting in Pittsburgh PA that happened over the weekend Group plus 5 on Saturday. Also planning for the area-wide, interfaith members of vigil to take place at the Synagogue on Thursday, 11/1/18. Leadership Conference call with other clergy and stakeholders in the Group: rabbi, larger community so that all five members of Leadership Cantor, Co-Ed Group were informed and had the opportunity to offer Dir A, Co-Ed input. Dir B, Exec. Dir. Youth 10/29/18 Roxy 8 members of Regular meeting with agenda facilitated by Roxy. Agenda Committee the Youth divided between tactical items and strategic items for Committee – programming and plans through December 2018. Also most parents of added to agenda was a short discussion about the high school Pittsburgh shooting and its ramifications on teens. Meeting students. began and concluded with traditional Jewish prayers – as is the custom. 154

Document Review

Reviewing Community Synagogue’s documents site was another method by which the researcher collected data for this study. Documents are especially useful in situations in which it may not be feasible for the researcher to conduct direct observations. Documents included a range of materials that helped tell the story of the organization: by-laws, policies, founding documents, newspaper articles, meeting notes and committee minutes, sermons, speeches, official reports on the state of the organization, letters and correspondences (Merriam, 2009;

Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2011). The rabbi of the synagogue, together with the executive director provided the researcher with relevant documents that were used on-site and/or were photocopied for use off-site. Merriam (2009) includes the use of photographs and videos as “artifacts” within the larger umbrella category of documents. Merriam cited LeCompte, Preissle, and Tesch (1993) in defining artifacts as “symbolic materials such as writing and signs and non-symbolic materials such as tools and furnishings” (p. 139). Therefore, the researcher’s examination included photographs, videos and web materials that are part of the synagogue’s media library. According to Thomas (2011), these are useful materials because they allow the researcher to obtain a full picture of the organization at any single point in time (p. 166).

Table 7 presents a listing of paper and electronic documents and written materials that were reviewed for this study, together with the names of the people who shared the documents or materials with the researcher. They appear in chronological order as the researcher received them over the data collection period.

155

Table 7

Documents Utilized

Document Name Submitted By Prayer Book for the Sabbath and Festivals at Community Synagogue (custom- rabbi written)

Poem. Amichai, Yehudah (1979) From the Book of Esther I filtered the rabbi sediment. In Yehudah Amichai and Ted Hughes (Eds.). Time (p. 124). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Article. Hotchkiss, Don. (2009). Governance and ministry: Rethinking board rabbi leadership: An Alban Institute book. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Bar and Bat Mitzvah FAQ’s rabbi

Curriculum for Community Synagogue Religious School K-12 Lily

Board of Trustees/Oversight Committee Binder 2017-2018 May

Constitution of Community Synagogue – 2014; 2017 (revised) May

Community Synagogue Board of Trustees/Oversight Committee Code of May Conduct (Brit Kehillah) 2015

Oversight Committee Governance Documents of 5/14/18: May D’var Torah given by one of the lay leaders on Torah portion Bamidbar (Book of Numbers chapter 1) Opening blessing and closing prayer Meeting agenda Treasurer’s report and budget

“Our Giving Philosophy at Community Synagogue” (new update for website) May

Community Synagogue Calendar of Events – 2017-2018 (Paper and electronic) May

Sisterhood Board Meeting Agenda – 6/13/18 Sisterhood President

Sisterhood Proposed Calendar of Events 2018-2019 Sisterhood President

Community Synagogue Sisterhood Leadership Training (revised) 6/13/18 Sisterhood President Sisterhood of Community Synagogue “Report Card” June 2018 May

“Women Who Make a Difference” – Community Synagogue Sisterhood May Brochure 156

This study utilized public and private documents; that is, both official records of events as well as first-person written narratives and visual materials (Merriam, 2009). In the synagogue, these artifacts included donor plaques, art work, memorabilia, publicity, and even the set-up and use of synagogue rooms, worship spaces and offices. The researcher discovered clues about

Community Synagogue’s culture, organization, and leadership style from all these data sources

(Merriam, 2009, p. 148). It was also important to confirm whether historical documents found in the synagogue records were authentic and accurate (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2001). Bell (2008) suggested an interesting method with respect to the review of documents. Because of the number and variety of documents associated with any organization that has been in existence for many years, Bell recommended a “problem-oriented approach” to the document review process (p.

123). This researcher followed Bell’s problem-oriented approach which was to focus first on the abovementioned three major categories of data collection (interviews, focus groups, observations), and then to use secondary sources such as documents and artifacts to reinforce or negate what the researcher learned through interviews, focus groups and observations (p. 123).

The researcher established a template for the review of documents (see Appendix H) that included: the type of document or artifact being reviewed, whether it was a paper, electronic, or online, what was known about why and when the document was created, the apparent accuracy of the document, how the document corroborated or negated knowledge that had been gathered from other qualitative methods (Patton, 2001, p. 499). Miller (1997) offered a comment on the use of organizational documents that was relevant to this study on the enactment of leadership in the synagogue: “Demystifying institutional texts is one way of demystifying institutional authority” (p. 91). Like the other forms of data gathered for this research endeavor, data were deidentified, given unique titles, labeled, and catalogued in preparation for analysis. The next 157 section will detail the methods by which the data set was stored so that it was readily accessible to the researcher but protected the privacy of the subjects and the confidentiality of their information.

Data Storage

The organization of data in case studies is important in moving the research toward the most effective data analyses, and the storage of data is critical in maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of the participants and any information that they share with and/or is observed by the researcher during the study. Case study researchers concur that this methodology creates an overwhelming amount of data that must be properly organized and catalogued throughout the data collection process so that it may be effectively re-organized for the different analytic processes that will follow (Bell, 2008; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2001; Stake, 1995).

In this study, the researcher followed Thomas’ (2011) outline, and established a “toolkit” for organizing and storing data: As such, the researcher: (a) examined all data – written and voice recorded – to make sure that all data were complete, correct, and in a useable format; (b) created a full electronic copy of all data and placed complete data in at least two different, password-protected locations for storage in case of file damage or loss; (c) created another full copy of all data from the two sets of stored files to serve as working files. These files, also password-protected, were the files that the researcher used and manipulated for coding and categorizing during data analysis (p. 171). The researcher also: (d) devised a participant data table that contained, condensed, and deidentified personal data; (e) devised and maintained an overall “case record” (Table 7) by way of a condensed, deidentified spread sheet that was an organized list of the pieces of information that were used during data analysis. The case record or case “inventory” (Merriam, 2009, p. 174) was password-protected. Finally, the researcher: (f) 158 named files that combined participant information with the archival to arrive at a distinct, unique, and de-identified file name for every piece of data. Once assigned, the unique file name was printed on the footer of all materials associated with that file.

This researcher organized the case record by way of a password-protected Excel spreadsheet. The objective of the case record or inventory was to classify and categorize the data in an ongoing and logical way so that any single item of data was easy to locate and access within the case record (Merriam, 2009, p. 174). The case record did not presume or present any interpretative function; rather, the case record was a chronologically ordered version of the raw data.

The researcher used a personal computer that was password-protected and was utilized only by the researcher for this study alone. Files were stored in a password-protected section of

Northeastern University’s Blackboard section and were shared with the study’s primary investigator. Folders were also stored on an external hard drive that remained with the researcher throughout the course of data collection and analysis. In addition to being electronically scanned, deidentified, and stored, paper files used during the process of data collection were kept in a locked file cabinet in the office of the researcher for safe-keeping. As per the protocol of

Northeastern University, this researcher will delete all electronic files and shred all paper files that were used during the research process according to the following guidelines: Informed consent forms will be stored for three years, at which time, they will be deleted and/or shredded.

The participant data table, which does contain personal information will be destroyed one year following the completion of the research study. Any other paper or electronic files that contain deidentified data only, will be stored indefinitely by the researcher.

159

Data Analysis

In qualitative studies, data analysis begins during the data collection phase, as the researcher gathers data and refines the data collection process with the specific objective of answering the study’s research questions and making sense of the data (Merriam, 2009; Stake,

1995; Thomas, 2011). Merriam (2009) wrote that qualitative data is inductive and comparative

(p. 175). This section elaborates on what, exactly, this inductive and comparative approach was for this study, and enumerates the specific steps that the researcher took to arrive at an integrated distillation of the concepts, themes, events, and examples that emerged from the data that were collected (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 192). As an instrumental case study, the data analysis process followed Stake’s (1995) general inductive approach. This means that the researcher developed meaningful categories through an aggregation of data and not simply through observation or deduction. Stake’s technique of categorical aggregation was used throughout the data collection process so that the researcher was able to think analytically about the data even prior to the formal analysis stage. In this way, the data collection phase represented the continual inductive exercise of plumbing the data for meaning and patterns even as interviews, focus groups, observations and document reviews were in process (Boblin et al., 2013; Stake, 1995).

The Process of Inductive Data Analysis

Thomas (2006) identified the three central reasons for taking an inductive approach to research: “(a) to condense raw textual data into a brief, summary format; (b) to establish clear links between the evaluation or research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw data; and (c) to develop a framework of the underlying structure of experiences or processes that are evident in the raw data” (p. 237). The following sections will elucidate Thomas’ template in light of the present research endeavor. The two primary coding methods used by this 160 researcher were: (a) open or initial coding; and (b) second-round or axial coding. These coding methods were buttressed by a variety of other analytic processes including analytic memo writing, constant comparison, the creation of a comprehensive code book, and computer-assisted data analysis using NVivo to complement the researcher’s manual coding. These processes ultimately generated a very large set of codes and categories that led to the nine major themes that emerged and are elucidated more fully in Chapter Four.

Transcribing, preparing and notating data. This researcher used two voice recording methods to record interviews, focus groups, and observations. The voice recordings were transcribed to text documents using the online, web-based service call “Temi” (www.temi.com) for transcription of all voice-recorded interviews and focus groups into text transcripts. The first step of formal data analysis began by thoroughly preparing and “cleaning” all data that were collected. The researcher made certain that the voice-recorded data and the written transcriptions were accurate and consistent, and that the observations, document review templates, and data from interviews and focus groups were readable and useable (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995;

Thomas, 2006). Following this careful preparation and cleaning of data, the researcher closely read all the raw text to become acquainted with the important themes and culture that emerged from the data (Thomas, 2006, p. 241). Throughout the reading and review of the texts and transcripts, the researcher took copious notes in the margins, and marked compelling pieces of information that seemed to have a connection to the research questions and general aims of the study (Merriam, 2009).

Initial coding. Also referred to by grounded theorists as “open coding,” initial coding is the first step in data fragmentation. Initial coding was used together with in vivo coding in the early cycle of coding (Saldana, 2013). These methodologies for analysis were open-ended and 161 enabled the researcher to take a free and exploratory approach to analysis, but also led the researcher to search for patterns and theoretical meaning in the data in subsequent coding cycles

(Charmaz, 2014; Glaser, 1978, Saldana, 2013). This researcher took copious notes as part of the initial coding process and selected and labeled data that were potentially relevant to the study. In vivo coding is the process by which the researcher concentrates on the words of the study participants with the objective of capturing the actual “voices” of the subjects in real-time

(Saldana, 2013). In both initial and in vivo coding, “[the researcher] is open to anything possible,” and is “having a conversation with the data” (Merriam, 2009, p. 178).

The initial coding notes represented the first attempt of the researcher to break down large amounts of data into smaller components, and to allow categories and themes to emerge naturally from the data sources. This researcher reviewed the interview and focus group transcripts line-by-line and assigned labels to different sections using initial “codes” that were catalogued and re-used as subsequent data sets were scanned and notated (Merriam, 2009, p.

180). Following the cleaning, careful reviewing and comparing of the first two interviews, the researcher used open coding to identify and name forty-one discrete text fragments that represented the initial “meaning categories” for this research endeavor. For example, one of the first codes that emerged was labeled “Division of Responsibilities,” and referred to the way in which interviewees viewed their roles and responsibilities in relation to others’ roles and responsibilities.

The process of thematically studying and coding data was ongoing through the collection and analysis phases of the study. Merriam (2009) emphasized the iterative and inductive properties of coding and creating thematic categories and viewed the approach as highly intuitive. She maintained that these codes and categories must directly connect to the research 162 interests and are of key importance in relating the story that the data tell (p. 185). In the present research study, the category known as “Division of Responsibilities” was only one of numerous categories that emerged early in the data analysis process. These broad categories were continually refined, sorted, combined, clarified and stabilized as new data were introduced. The researcher found that coding required both discipline and creativity.

Axial coding. After completing the first cycle of initial coding, the researcher utilized a second level of coding, known as axial coding to more deeply study the individual data sources.

The researcher began to creatively synthesize the data and reconstruct all the data elements holistically so that refined concepts and themes emerged. Richards (2005) proposed that axial coding could also be called “analytic coding” because it is a process that draws meaning and connections from the data (p. 94). Boeije (2010) explained that the purpose of axial coding is to determine the relative importance of the various codes that emerge during the earlier coding cycles (p. 109). After these decisions are made, the codes and notes are reorganized, combined, separated and sharpened further into precise and logical categories. Merriam (1998) encouraged the researcher to think of these categories as “abstractions derived from the data” that “have a life of their own apart from the data from which they came” (p. 181).

Axial coding required this researcher to review the data set multiple times in an analytic and inductive manner, and to generate an increasingly detailed and complex set of codes. The present study generated six iterations of axial coding that resulted in fewer but more refined and distinct categories. As axial coding proceeded, the researcher reflected and re-reflected on the research questions and the overall aims of the study. By the fourth round of axial coding, the number of codes was reduced to twenty-nine; and these were finally organized into nine overarching categories. The code “Division of Responsibilities” that was assigned during the 163 initial open coding evolved to “Areas of Authority and Responsibility” in the fourth-round codebook with two sub-codes: (a) “Balancing mine and ours;” and (b) “Knowing which responsibilities do NOT belong to me.” By the sixth and final iteration of themes and representative quotations, there were nine themes in total that were formulated to answer the three research questions for this study. The code “Areas of Authority and Responsibility” ultimately became the final code: “Work collaboratively using the ‘Global Eye,’” which was subsumed under the theme “Gain Insight and Grow Together.”

Constant comparison. Constant comparison is the most common method of data analysis for grounded theory research; however, as a research technique, it is frequently used in other qualitative studies, particularly when the researcher seeks to discover conceptual connections between categories and themes that result from the coding process (Merriam, 2009;

Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Constant comparison was the primary technique used by this researcher in the data analysis process and required the researcher to continually assign codes to data, to group codes into categories, and then to create meaningful themes to craft a story from the data.

In addition, the researcher juxtaposed data sources with common themes and/or identified significant inconsistencies among and between the transcripts. Comparing and contrasting themes from a variety of data sources and assigning units of data to various categories or

“buckets” enabled the researcher to not only organize and sort data for retrieval later, but also to begin the process that Merriam (2009) called “theorizing.” As such, in addition to examining and re-examining the data sources, this researcher relied on the constant comparative method throughout the initial and axial coding procedures. Constant comparison proved to be a highly iterative, cognitive endeavor that led this researcher to discover meaning and relationships among and between the data categories (LeCompte, Preissle, & Tesch, 1993). According to 164

Tesch (1990), this repeated comparison of documents did, in fact, help the researcher find patterns in data, create meaningful categories and discover meaning from analyzing and reviewing data (as cited in Boeije, 2002, p. 393).

In the final analysis, axial coding was far more deliberate and specific than initial coding, as the researcher established connections, discovered patterns, and drew similarities between the discrete pieces of data. The data analysis process was guided by Boeije’s (2010) notion that axial coding requires the researcher to pay attention to the interrelationships between data by taking careful notice of four aspects of the data as they represent the lived experiences of the subjects in the case: the contexts, the conditions, the interactions, and the consequences (p. 112).

Analytic memo writing. Saldana (2013) explains that analytic memo writing is a reflective process that proceeds parallel to coding and categorizing qualitative data. This continual web of memo-writing represents the researcher’s own reflections on the study, including “question-raising, puzzle-piecing, connection-making, strategy-building, problem- solving, answer-generating, rising-above-the-data” (p. 41). In this study, analytic memo writing was the researcher’s ongoing “conversation” and served as the “long-hand decision-making” that complemented the short-hand coding and sorting of themes and concepts. Glaser and Strauss

(1967) emphasized the non-linearity of the coding and analytic memo writing processes. For this study, this meant that the researcher challenged earlier assumptions, expressed inclinations as to findings, and noted her reflections as well as uncertainties. Saldana (2013) views analytic memo writing as an intermediary step between coding and the final write-up of the study (p. 50). From the beginning of data collection, this researcher maintained a paper notebook that was kept separately from the texts and transcriptions, and that accurately captured the researcher’s own reflections, thoughts, and interpretations of the data (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). These initial notes, 165 like the codes themselves, were at first broad and expansive and became more refined over time as data analysis proceeded. The notes that emerged from analytic memo writing were scrutinized throughout data analysis.

Manual and computer-based data analysis. One of the hallmarks of case study research is the large volume of data that is collected from the wide variety of different data sources that are collected and investigated. Data were collected and analyzed with the goal of arriving at the most accurate, thick description and dynamics of the case. In order to manage the volume of data that emerged during the data collection process, this researcher used a combination of manual data coding and computer-based software designed for qualitative data analysis. The researcher worked with NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software, which was available to students through Northeastern University. NVivo helped support the researcher sort and file large amounts of data, categorize data according to the finest details, and map the data so that the interconnections between the data sources were identified, categorized and labeled. (Merriam,

2009, p. 195 Strauss & Corbin, 1994).

The codebook is a single place for the evolution of codes and coding from the initial coding phase through the analysis process. This study’s codebook represented an intensive working record of the coding process and tracked the ongoing attempts of this researcher to assign codes, to categorize and group data, and to make meaning of the data through inductive reasoning and analysis (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011). This researcher subscribed to McCulloch’s belief (2011) that the coding process as well as the codebook itself were all part of an iterative, data-driven process, that continued through several revisions of data analysis. 166

While there are variations among researchers as to what, specifically, should be included in the codebook to make for easy access and retrieval of data and/or data categories, this researcher compiled the codebook by: (a) assigning a number for the code; (b) giving each code a name; (c) providing a full definition of the code that specifies its exact boundaries – that is, what is included in that code and/or category and what is excluded from it; (d) offering an example and/or quotation to illustrate the code and the way it was used in this research endeavor; and (e) transferring the file name from the data collection master file to the codebook (DeCuir-

Gunby et al., 2011, p. 138). All manual and computer-generated coding details for this study were recorded in the codebook.

This researcher tested her findings against Merriam’s (2009) criteria for confirming one’s finalized research categories. The researcher confirmed that the categories generated for the study were: (a) responsive to the purpose of the research, (b) exhaustive, (c) mutually exclusive, and (d) conceptually congruent (p. 186). Moreover, the researcher focused the final coding cycles on assessing the quality of the data analyses and affirming the value of the inductive and conceptual work. At this juncture, the researcher was also reminded that original theories and/or modifications or elaborations of existing theories could emerge from the totality of coding and from the many cycles of data analysis (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011; Saldana, 2013, p. 225).

The overall coding process for the present research endeavor was critical in ascertaining whether the hypothesized conception of “shared spiritual leadership” might be applicable to twenty-first century Reform synagogues.

Credibility, Authenticity, Quality and Ethics

Qualitative researchers offer differing opinions as to how to establish credibility, reliability and overall quality in a qualitative research endeavor. Scholars concur that qualitative 167 research cannot be judged by the same measurements of validity and reliability as quantitative research studies (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2001; Thomas, 2011). Merriam (2009) maintained that in qualitative studies, “credibility” may be found in the internal validity of the study. That is, in assessing credibility or internal validity, Merriam suggested that the qualitative researcher consider whether the study and its findings are “authentic” (p. 210). Merriam’s concern was more about whether the researcher’s conclusions “make sense” and “are congruent with reality,” and less about whether the findings of a study may be deemed “true” (p. 210, 213). Since the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, a study’s authenticity is dependent upon the researcher’s rigor. For this study, then, the researcher’s accurate and holistic interpretation of reality was captured through interviews, observations, and document reviews

(Merriam, 2009, p. 214).

Thomas (2011) takes a very different position on the topic of reliability and credibility in qualitative research. He claimed that case studies researchers need not concern themselves with reliability and validity at all, since “it is the singleness of the subject and the singleness …of the interpretation and analysis of the evidence that is significant” (p. 66). As such, Thomas argued that the primary focus of case study research should be the “quality” of the study, which, like

Merriam (2009), derives from the credibility of the research, the clarity of the research questions, the accuracy of the methodology, and the lucidity of the main claims and findings of the study

(p. 67).

Techniques for Increasing Credibility, Authenticity and Quality

Notwithstanding the abovementioned range of opinions associated with case study research, this researcher utilized these additional tools to increase the overall quality of the research endeavor: 168

Field notes. Experienced case study researchers suggest that since there is so much data generated through multiple methods of data collection, it is beneficial for the researcher to create field notes before, during, and after interviews, focus groups and observations. Field notes or a fieldwork journal, therefore, represent the “introspective record” of the researcher as s/he moves through data collection and analyses (Merriam, 2009, p. 136). This researcher typed field notes prior to interviews to record the interviewer’s goals and expectations. Handwritten field notes were also recorded directly on the interview guides during the course of the interactions with the subjects. Finally, following each interview or focus group, the researcher completed field notes to transition into the analysis phase of the research project. Any handwritten notes taken during the interview or focus group were typed, dated, catalogued, and stored according to the field notes report template found in Appendix E.

This researcher reviewed field notes frequently so that there was a continual stream of reflections and impressions recorded about the study’s research questions, the efficacy of the conceptual framework, and the degree to which data collection was successfully proceeding.

Field notes were also utilized by the researcher to ensure alignment between what was learned through data collection, and what findings and conclusions were drawn during data analysis.

Triangulation. According to Yin (2004), triangulation is a “convergence that occurs when two or more independent sources all point to the same set of events or ‘facts’” (p. 9). The triangulation of data required this researcher to have facility with the data so that she was able to examine the data from many different angles and perspectives (Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2014). In case study research, the process of triangulating data occurs as the researcher considers the data and findings across the totality of data collection – interviews, focus groups, observations, etc. – and then investigates where there are similarities and where there are differences. Even during 169 data collection, this researcher paid close attention to the triangulation of evidence. This researcher examined and re-examined the data that were collected from multiple sources and triangulated evidence in as many combinations as possible to achieve optimal research credibility and authenticity.

Member checks. Another method used by this researcher to increase rigor and authenticity was the process of member checking (Guba & Lincoln, 1985, Merriam, 2009;

Thomas, 2006). Most qualitative researchers find a direct correlation between member checks and reliability of evidence (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell & Walter, 2016; Chase, 2017;

Merriam, 2009). As the data analysis for this study progressed, this researcher gathered, analyzed, and coded data, and then occasionally “checked back” with the study participants or

“members” who were interviewed or observed earlier in the data collection process to confirm preliminary findings. A minority of researchers, such as David Thomas (2017), have consistently argued that while member checks may be helpful in some cases, there is insufficient evidence that member checking is beneficial for researchers who attempt to develop new theories, and/or generalize their findings to other settings.

In this research study, member checking took place toward the end of the data analysis process during the axial coding phase just prior to the researcher’s first draft of the Chapter Four

“Findings” Section. These member checks produced helpful items of feedback from interviewees that the researcher then integrated into the final data analysis cycle. This process encouraged ongoing and structured conversations between the researcher and the study participants, helped clarify interim impressions, and honed hypotheses as the researcher’s moved to the final stage of data analysis. In addition to the formal member checking, there were ongoing efforts made by 170 the researcher to check in with members during and after site-visits as findings and conclusions emerged.

Audit trail. Another method of ensuring data dependability is known as an audit trail. An audit trail is a detailed methodological description of the research process from beginning to end as it is seen through the perspective of the researcher. The audit trail for the present study elucidated the trajectory of data collection and analysis and explained the rationale for decision- making around the research process and analysis (Shenton, 2004). Theoretically, any person who may have had access to the audit trail should have been able to trace the nuances and subtleties of the research journey and glean insights about the protocol and procedures that were utilized during the study. Often the audit trail is given to a dispassionate and unbiased person who is external to the study, and it is through this individual’s external perspective that the credibility of the study may be confirmed or challenged (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Adequate engagement of data collection and alternative explanations. Because the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, qualitative research naturally reflects the biases and preconceived notions of the researcher. This is the case even as the researcher takes care to acknowledge and account for these biases that could potentially skew the research analysis or findings. This researcher found that adequate engagement with data reduced the threat of the researcher’s biases suppressing the “voice” of the actual data.

Therefore, the more this researcher engaged with the data and the more variety that was used in presenting and displaying the data, the more confident the researcher became in understanding and accepting the findings that emerged. Yin (2004) believed that tables, charts, figure, exhibits, pictures and vignettes are all instrumental in providing evidence in a case study research endeavor (p. 12). Two different but related methods that were used to protect against their biases 171 and preexisting opinions in this study were: (a) adequate engagement of data collection; and (b) alternative explanations.

This researcher continually utilized data to experiment with charts, tables and vignettes.

In addition, both abovementioned methods were used by the researcher to examine the data thoroughly, repeatedly, and from different angles and points of view. In using these methods, the researcher’s findings gained credibility and authenticity. As such, this researcher’s intense engagement with data collection produced a study that represented and reflected the full range of data points, the multiple perspectives, and the lived experiences of the study participants.

The researcher also pressed for alternate explanations and explored different ways to understand the details that emerged from the data collection and analysis by seeking out data that supported alternative or opposite explanations (Patton, 2001, p. 553). This method followed the research logic that one of the most effective techniques to persuade oneself and others of the validity of an argument is to provide competing evidence and attempting to put a case together to prove the opposite of one’s developing argument. This researcher used this technique to increase the rigor of the study by “testing” the emerging findings against rival theories and negative perspectives that challenged the researcher’s emerging results and findings (Merriam, 2009;

Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Yin, 1999).

Thick description. At every step of a qualitative case study, it is critical that the researcher aims to “provide enough description to the contextualize the study” (Merriam, 2009, p. 229). Rich, thick description helped to move this researcher and her study toward not only accuracy or authenticity, but moreover to the possibility that findings might ultimately transferred to other sites or situations (Bassey, 1999; Geertz, 1975; Merriam, 2009). This researcher aimed to collect rich, thick description throughout the study to ensure that the finest 172 details of an interview were captured and to make certain that she utilized the actual words and descriptions that were used by the study participants.

Research Ethics

The researcher’s credibility and the authenticity of the research findings are directly related to the rigor of the study and the continual reflections of the researcher as described in previous sections. This researcher felt obligated to adhere to the highest standards of ethics throughout the research process, and particularly in her interactions with study participants.

Bassey (2003) expanded upon Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) early work about ethical research. This researcher followed Bassey’s ethical procedures as he enumerated them for human subject studies such as the present research endeavor: (a) The researcher secured permission to conduct the specific research study exactly as it was planned and presented, in the proposed setting; (b)

The researcher received permission to use the words, activities and impressions of research subjects in data collection and analysis, and to write about and present the research endeavor to any audience; (c) The researcher has made arrangements to de-identify subjects and settings to the extent necessary to protect the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects; (d) The researcher received the appropriate permissions to publish the case study report that will be written for the purpose of sharing the study’s findings and conclusions (p. 118).

The research study proposal and a formal application to conduct the study were submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Northeastern University. IRB permission was required to begin the research components of this study, and to interact with study subjects. The IRB application included information concerning the nature of the proposed research study, the aims and research questions, the informed consent process, what was being asked of study participants, the methods of data collection and data analysis, the anticipated risks and benefits to 173 subjects, and the ways in which the researcher hoped to utilize and publish the conclusions drawn from the research study. The IRB application and approval process ensured that the researcher put provisions in place to ensure the confidentiality of subjects, and that confirmed that those selected for this research study were participating of their own free will and voluntarily. Each study subject had the right to withdraw from the study at any time over the course of the research process without penalty or negative consequences.

Ultimately, the most important values for a researcher to have prior to conducting human subject research design and execution are: (a) consent; and (b) confidentiality. The consent process of the present study has required that the researcher fully inform subjects as to the nature of the study and all expectations of the study participants. Every effort was made to answer questions posed by the study subjects, to make certain that participants understood what was being asked of them, and to make sure that they could voluntarily assent without pressure or coercion. (Patton, 2001). Confidentiality in research is important to the well-being of study subjects as well as securing appropriate consent and assent. The researcher tried to preserve the identity and integrity of study subjects and provided assurance that they would be protected from harm and from breaches of confidentiality. This researcher concurs wholeheartedly with

Merriam (2009) premise that, in the final analysis, ethical practice depends on the values and ethics of the researcher himself or herself (p. 230), and the levels of transparency, professionalism, and morality used to carry out the research. The following section outlines the limitations of case study research in general, and of this study.

Limitations

It is incumbent upon the researcher to collect as much data as possible to capture the lived experience of the organization; however, there must also be clear stopping points 174 established so that the data collection process remains relevant and sharp – and that the study eventually concludes (Simon & Goes, 2013; Zainal, 2017). This case study researcher expected that the examination of the case relative to the research questions would be deep, but not necessarily broad (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, while a lot of data were collected at Community

Synagogue for analysis, the researcher was ultimately limited by the scope of the research questions themselves and the necessarily sharp focus that helped prevent her from straying from the case and its relatively narrow focus on the phenomena of interest. The researcher came to the study having had extensive experience as a professional within the American Reform synagogue; therefore, it was natural to be eager to learn and question and challenge. At the same time, the researcher worked hard to limit the tangential issues so that the study would have high credibility and so that the research aims did not become diffuse.

A second limitation of this study involved the researcher herself. This research endeavor was the first to be conducted by this researcher; therefore, she did not have the experience of a seasoned case study researcher who learned the skill and art of making prudent decisions about which data should be used to answer the research questions and which may be considered interesting but not relevant to the research topic. The familiarity this researcher had with the

American Reform synagogue as an organization was both a limitation and a strength. This means that the researcher’s intimate knowledge of synagogues and professionals was certainly advantageous in analyzing nuanced and seemingly disparate pieces of data for meaning; however, the researcher’s biases had to be kept in check so that the findings reflected

Community Synagogue, and not the researcher’s own opinions and filtered impressions

(Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001). Therefore, when analyzing and presenting the data that emerged, this researcher was careful to tell the living and breathing story of the community as 175 purely as possible. If not, the researcher would have run the risk of constructing a portrait of the researcher’s conceptions of synagogues rather than a pristine distillation of what she heard, saw, felt and observed during site visits to the selected synagogue.

A third limitation of case study research was that even at the study’s conclusion, the researcher was often left with questions as to whether the case and its findings effectively represented the phenomenon of interest in other sites as well (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Hodkinson &

Hodkinson, 2001; Stake, 1995). As such, it remains unknown whether Community Synagogue might serve as a prototype for shared spiritual leadership. If so, then the findings from this synagogue case may be applicable to other American Reform synagogues; if not, then the conclusions reached from this case may not be generalized and were only true for this one synagogue site (Stake, 1995). Although this case study was an in-depth look into Community

Synagogue as a singular entity, this researcher resisted the natural tendency to seek evidence from other sites to justify and to validate the findings that emerged from the primary site (Ragin

& Becker, 1992).

Summary

The instrumental case study approach was justified for this study for the following reasons:

(a) The researcher was interested in the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership, and the selected synagogue was a bounded case in which these leadership styles were enacted; (b) The researcher aimed to reach an in-depth and detailed understanding of the case, but the synagogue as a case was of less importance than the question of leadership as it was lived out in the case; (c)

The variety of data collection methods contributed to the richness of the research and to the credibility of the findings; (d) Case study research promoted an organic, real-life approach to a phenomenon within a bounded setting or framework (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 2005). 176

In addition to the variety of data collection methods that were utilized in case study, the data analysis processes were particularly well-suited for this study as multiple points of view were observed and recorded for analysis. As such, the data analysis for this case study was iterative and inductive and included a coding protocol that was continually refined to sharpen the thematic categories that emerged from the data. The use of categorical aggregation, a hallmark of case study research, was used as a technique to construct themes and patterns from the data on an ongoing basis (Creswell, 2013). While it is not known whether the findings from this study may be generalizable to other synagogue sites, the case study approach did leave open the possibility that a new theory – shared spiritual leadership – may be generated.

177

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

The purpose of this study was to understand how shared spiritual leadership was enacted in a medium-sized suburban Reform synagogue in the northeastern part of the United States, one hour outside of a major urban center. The questions guiding this study were:

1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?

2. What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?

3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this

synagogue?

The study was a qualitative, single-site, instrumental case study from a constructivist perspective (Stake, 1995). The researcher examined spiritual and shared leadership as individual phenomena, and then proceeded to explore how and under what circumstances the rabbi shared spiritual leadership in a synagogue setting. Finally, the researcher investigated how the sharing of spiritual leadership was of benefit to the growth and development of the congregation. Throughout this chapter, the synagogue research site will be referred to by its pseudonym, “Community Synagogue.”

The chapter begins with a brief introduction to the eight study participants and is followed by a presentation and discussion of the findings by research question. The findings from each research question concludes with a section summary. The chapter ends with a comprehensive summary of the findings. All the data were collected at the research site, and data analysis took place off-site throughout the data collection process. The data were initially analyzed using open coding to discover broad meanings and to identify ideas and patterns that emerged from the data.

Following open coding, the inductive process of axial coding was used to further reduce and refine the data, correlate the data points, and differentiate them. This deep and iterative analytic 178 process included the conceptual grouping and re-grouping of data, which ultimately led to the distillation of data into distinct themes and sub-themes that helped answer the three research questions.

Study Participants

Data for this study were collected from semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations and reviews of selected organizational documents and web-based media. Together, these data sources enabled the researcher to gain insight into the study site and helped her formulate interpretive analyses as to how spiritual leadership was shared at Community

Synagogue. Moreover, the variety of data that were collected allowed for a triangulation of findings, thus increasing the reliability of the results. All eight study participants were full-time staff employees of Community Synagogue. In this chapter, the eight professionals will be known as the “Synagogue Staff.” For the purpose of data collection, the Synagogue Staff was divided into two groups: (a) the five members of the “Leadership Group:” the Rabbi, the Cantor, the two

Co-directors of Education, the Executive Director, and (b) the three people who are the direct reports of the Leadership Group, known as the “Support Team:” the Director of Youth

Engagement, the Financial Manager, the Executive Secretary. The three individuals on The

Support Team upheld and strengthened the work of The Leadership Group. Stratifying the eight full-time staff members into these two groups resulted in data collection that was multi-leveled, captured a variety of perspectives, and represented the broadest cross-section of opinions and experiences. The Religious School Secretary, the fourth member of The Support Team, declined the invitation to participate.

Data were collected at “Community Synagogue” by the researcher during site visits that took place over seven months: (a) There were two individual semi-structured interviews with 179 each of the five members of Community Synagogue’s Leadership Group; (b) there was one focus group with the Financial Manager and the Executive Secretary; (c) there was one individual interview with the Director of Youth Engagement who was not present on the day of the Support

Team focus group. Subject selection took place according to the Purposeful Sampling process that was prescribed for this study and outlined in Chapter Three. The following paragraphs introduce the study subjects, and their relationships to one another and to the case. Table 8 presents a short demographic overview that summarized and contextualized basic information about each study subject. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identities of participants and to help ensure confidentiality. Following Table 8, there is a narrative description of the subjects in the order in which their first interviews took place. These subject descriptions included demographic information, details about Community Synagogue, and relevant information about the work in which the subjects were involved.

180

Table 8

Profiles of Study Participants

Community Synagogue Leadership Group Pseudonym Position Years Primary Responsibilities at Community Synagogue at CS Jeffrey Rabbi 28 Primary spiritual leader of synagogue. Creates organizational vision. Implements synagogue mission in partnership with lay leadership and professional staff. Lily Co-Director of 17 Educational leader for synagogue religious school K-12. Education A Supervises all faculty members and staff who are involved with formal and informal learning at Community Synagogue. Aligns educational programs with vision and mission of synagogue. Shira Cantor 8 Primary musical leader of Community Synagogue in sanctuary and in classrooms of adults and children. Facilitates worship and prayer (with Rabbi). Coordinates B’nai Mitzvah program and provides instruction and support as pre-B’nai Mitzvah students prepare for ceremonies. Becca Co-Director of 28 Educational leader for weekday Hebrew program K-12 and adults. Education B Supervises all faculty members and staff who are involved with formal and informal Hebrew learning at Community Synagogue. Aligns educational programs with vision and mission of synagogue. May Executive 5 Primary administrative director of Community Synagogue. Director Supervises all financial and clerical staff members. Works with lay leaders and professional staff to ensure smooth operations, fundraising, publicity, communication, safety and security of building and grounds, and fiscal stability of the congregation. Community Synagogue Support Team Pseudonym Position Years Primary Responsibilities at Community Synagogue at CS Francine Financial 24 Works with Executive Director and lay leaders in finance. Manager Creates and maintains membership data base, billing process, and reporting to collection procedures. Executive Prepares synagogue-wide and departmental budgets. Director Reports on income and expenses; tracks donations; processes payroll. Alison Administrative 2 Supports Rabbi, Cantor and Executive Director in all administrative Assistant and programmatic areas. reporting to Serves as primary point of contact for communication to synagogue Executive members and lay leadership. Director Roxy Youth 3 Responsible for informal educational program for post-B’nai Engagement Mitzvah youth and teens. Director Collaborates with Education Co-Directors to balance formal and reporting to informal youth offerings. Co-Director of Advises high school youth group and board and accompanies them Education A on any in-town or out-of-town local and/or regional events.

181

Participant One: Jeffrey

At the time of his interview, Jeffrey had served as rabbi of Community Synagogue for 27 years. Following his undergraduate studies at a state university, Jeffrey attended the Hebrew

Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and received a Master of Arts in Hebrew Literature and rabbinic Ordination in 1983. After 3 years as assistant rabbi at a large-sized congregation also in the northeast, Jeffrey and his wife, Becca, moved to Haifa, Israel. From 1986-1991, the rabbi helped grow the young and fledging Reform Movement in Israel and held positions of leadership in the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism and the Israel Council of Progressive rabbis. He and Becca returned to the United States in 1991 with their two young daughters to live closer to extended family. It was then that Jeffrey began his tenure as rabbi of Community

Synagogue – a position he has held since that time.

Jeffrey is known at Community Synagogue for his serious commitment to learning and teaching, which he considers to be the cornerstones of his rabbinate. He likens his role as rabbi and organizational leader to a conductor of an orchestra or a manager of a “Jewish hot house… a place of warmth and belonging, where congregants grow in their Jewish faith, in Jewish learning, and Jewish living.” As the professional leader of Community Synagogue’s staff, the rabbi views himself as the “caretaker of the team” and believes that the sharing of spiritual leadership requires assembling a group of “highly motivated, highly functioning professionals” who are willing to engage in “visioning together and implementing those visions” into the congregational program and community.

Participant Two: Lily

Lily joined the congregation 18 years ago when she, her husband, and their infant son relocated to the area. With an undergraduate degree in psychology and a Masters’ degree in 182 counselling psychology, Lily was certified in elementary and special education and had been teaching in the public schools when they affiliated at Community Synagogue. Shortly thereafter, recognizing Lily as a person of talent who had an interest in special needs inclusion, the rabbi invited her to assume a professional role in the Religious School. Lily began as a teacher, and then served in a variety of other youth and education positions that, within a few years, evolved into a unique, full-time educational position. Lily emphasizes that her portfolio is built around her interests and strengths. Lily speaks about her professional “partnership with the rabbi” -- a relationship grounded in their common commitment to transmitting Jewish education with depth and joy. As a member of Community Synagogue’s Leadership Group, Lily sees herself and her colleagues as leaders who “think globally,” “model a relational approach to Judaism,” and share knowledge with one another for the sake of the congregational community.

Participant Three: Shira

Shira came to Community Synagogue to assume the position of Cantor in 2011 following her investiture by the Reform Seminary in 2008, and a three-year tenure at another Reform congregation in the same region. Prior to her cantorial studies, Shira was an opera singer and a performer of contemporary Jewish music. As the rabbi’s only clergy partner at Community

Synagogue, the cantor’s main responsibilities include leading the congregation in music and prayer, overseeing the entire B’nai Mitzvah program, teaching music and Torah chanting in the

Religious School, directing choirs and musical ensembles, and participating in life-cycle ceremonies. While the cantor self-describes as a “nerd who loved Sunday school,” it was not until she was an undergraduate at a liberal arts college and active at Hillel House that she considered a career as a cantor in a congregation. 183

Shira tells the story about how she was inspired by the rabbi and Education Directors at

Community Synagogue who continually encouraged her to be as creative as possible in her approach to Jewish learning and the liturgical arts. She says that she views the building of community as central to her role as a cantor at Community Synagogue, where “meeting people where they are” is the first step in nurturing life-long Jewish engagement. Shira is one of the more introverted members in the Leadership Group, but nevertheless, she believes that she has a

“voice” at the highest level of decision-making. She expresses pride in collaborating with the rabbi on spiritual matters and in advocating for a holistic approach to synagogue programming and Jewish communal life.

Participant Four: Becca

Becca opened her interview with this statement: “It’s no secret that when I started here twenty-seven years ago, it was because I came concurrently with the rabbi [who is my husband].” While Becca’s introduction to the congregation was as a spouse, shortly thereafter, she was asked by both her husband and the lay leaders to serve the congregation in a professional capacity. With a liberal arts education and a Masters’ degree in Hebrew, Arabic and Middle East

Studies, Becca was and remains a well-respected scholar and researcher, and initially joined

Community Synagogue’s professional staff as the Hebrew coordinator for the Religious School students and as the facilitator of adult learning. As her responsibilities grew, her part-time roles coalesced into a full-time professional position.

Becca maintains that her responsibilities at Community Synagogue have “always been in the area of education…and in a way that preserved her identity as an educator in her own right and in a role that is distinct from her husband’s.” In 2000, Becca became the second full-time

Co-Director of Education at Community Synagogue with responsibilities that complemented 184

Lily’s. The two have worked together ever since as Co-Directors of Education, fulfilling the rabbi’s vision of Community Synagogue as an education-centered congregation where learning is the primary gateway to Jewish living and identification. In Becca’s words, “Lily and I have completely different skills and preferences in the area of education; we work effectively and seamlessly together, stepping up wherever we are needed.”

Participant Five: May

May has been the Executive Director at Community Synagogue for 5 years; however, like Lily, May and her family affiliated as members years earlier when their three daughters were young. May considers Community Synagogue her “primary spiritual home.” May and her husband raised and educated their children there, they all became B’not Mitzvah at the age of thirteen, and they continued their Jewish education at Community Synagogue through high school. During this time, May was active at Community Synagogue as a parent and a lay leader, was involved in a variety of Committees over the years and served as President of the

Congregation at a young age. Professionally, May spent most of her career in the corporate, for- profit business world. May describes herself as a “can-do” person who is always willing to learn new skills and expand upon her experiences. May’s experience and expertise are quite broad and span from administrative to human resource development, and from operations to marketing.

Having spent more than 20 years in a variety of roles in large corporations, May still remembers the day that the rabbi called her and asked her to apply for the Executive Director position at Community Synagogue. He said: “It’s time to come home.” May did just that, and in her role as Executive Director she has focused on the nurturing of Community Synagogue as a spiritual home and as a place of warmth and integrity. She explains that although Community

Synagogue is a business and that it was her job to determine “how to pay the bills and make sure 185 that there is water, electric, and heat in the building,” she passionately states that “it all has to be within the framework of elevating the sacred first and foremost.”

Participant Six: Francine

Francine (“Fran”) has worked at Community Synagogue for twenty-four years and has been responsible for the proper functioning and tracking of the congregation’s finances. Fran said: “I do a lot of everything, but mostly what I do is all of the accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, and book-keeping.” While she has seen and initiated many changes and improvements as Community Synagogue has grown, she has maintained accounting procedures that are still “all paper” and has resisted the frequent suggestion to change over to an electronic system. Francine is the only member of the full-time staff who is not Jewish, yet she has been interested in Judaism from the time she was a child. She expresses gratitude about how much she has learned over the years at Community Synagogue. From her perspective as one of May’s direct reports, when she was asked the question: “Who is the leader of Community Synagogue?”

Fran quickly responded: “It is May.” She then clarified her comment: “As far as the staff, May is definitely our leader…but when it comes to the leadership of Community Synagogue, it is the rabbi.” Fran continued: “We used to call him ‘the chief’ because he was involved in every aspect of congregational life and had the final word in resolving difficult challenges.” She describes the culture of Community Synagogue as warm and caring. She adds: “It starts with the rabbi…there is never a time that you cannot email him, and that he won’t respond to you.” She contends that no one on the professional staff would ever look at a task and say: “’That’s not my job; that’s her job’…I think that is why we have such a good group because we are just not ‘those kinds of people.’”

186

Participant Seven: Alison

Alison serves as administrative support to the rabbi, the Cantor and the Executive

Director; however, she adds: “I support everyone else here as well.” As the congregation’s

Administrative Assistant, Alison may be found in the front office where she is the “voice and face of the congregation.” In addition to her clerical responsibilities, her biggest responsibility is the scheduling of student and family appointments for the B’nai Mitzvah program with the rabbi, the cantor, and the part-time tutor. She explains that she schedules and reschedules appointments as necessary, and often “jumps through hoops for everyone” to make sure that students and families get what they need from the Clergy and Professional Staff. Alison was raised in a conservative Jewish home and came to Community Synagogue with familiarity about the work flow and “language” of synagogue life. Alison has been Community Synagogue just over a year, having held similar positions in other synagogues for more than twelve years. Alison feels good about her work, and, particularly in the area of communication, believes that she has made a positive difference in affecting change and progress through the expanded use of technology.

Alison and Francine work closely together and speak about the ways in which they partner with one another and share the “massive amount of work” that is generated by Community Synagogue on a daily basis. Like Francine, Alison articulates that she initially thought of May as the “leader of Community Synagogue,” but is also well-aware that “we work for the congregants…and regardless of what I am doing, I will make sure that they get what they need.”

Participant Eight: Roxy

Roxy is the youngest member of the full-time Synagogue Staff. She does not serve on the

Leadership Team yet, but this may change if her tenure continues at Community Synagogue beyond her initial three-year commitment. Since this is Roxy’s first job out of college, she has a 187 distinct realm of responsibility, but explains that at Community Synagogue, she works under the direction and supervision of Lily. Roxy enjoys the benefit of working with someone of Lily’s caliber, who mentors Roxy in connection with her responsibilities as the high school’s informal educator and youth specialist. When asked why she chose Community Synagogue as her first full-time job as a college graduate, she replies that she was attracted to the position of Director of

Youth Engagement, and that many of her mentors from a variety of places spoke highly of the full-time staff members and thought it would be an excellent match for Roxy’s skillset and objectives. At the time of this writing, Roxy is in her third year at Community Synagogue and comments that her experience there has so far exceeded all her expectations. She is amazed by all that she has learned in three years and looks forward to continuing to enjoy her work.

Perhaps because of her age, or her pre-professional organizational experience, Roxy is familiar and comfortable with the model of shared leadership and can converse about it with fluency and intelligence. Roxy feels that the success of shared leadership at Community

Synagogue is dependent upon excellent communication and the practice of “going above and beyond” one’s own job description to serve the needs of the congregation. While Roxy is not certain whether she will seek to renew her contract with Community Synagogue beyond the current year, she indicates that if she does stay on, she would hope to increase her role to include responsibilities beyond the teens, and that she would imagine being included in more of the meetings of the Leadership Group.

Description of Community Synagogue

There has been a continual Jewish presence in the area in which Community Synagogue is located since the mid-nineteenth century; however, the history of Community Synagogue as a

Reform Jewish congregation began about one hundred years later, in the mid-twentieth century. 188

It was during this time that Jews began their move out of the centers of major cities toward the suburban regions of the country. The congregation was formally founded in the 1950s, with the establishment of the Religious School for families with young children created immediately thereafter. As Community Synagogue’s membership grew, the leadership secured larger buildings to accommodate the increasing numbers of families, and with each successive move, the congregation moved further away from the city and into the suburbs. Community

Synagogue’s present spiritual home was built and dedicated in 1970. Approximately ten years later, additional Religious School classrooms and learning centers were built to complete the congregation’s building.

During the twenty-eight-year tenure of the current rabbi, the full range of liberal Jewish observances have flourished, the building has been entirely renovated and modernized, and

Community Synagogue’s clergy and lay leaders are among the leading voices in contemporary

Reform Jewish life. The congregation also commands a vital presence beyond the walls of

Community Synagogue. The following statement, excerpted from the congregation’s mission statement clearly specifies the caliber of leaders to which the organization aspires: “To secure excellence in the lay leadership, the clergy, and the professional staff, encouraging programmatic and administrative quality.”

Like most contemporary American synagogues, Community Synagogue was found to be a place of study, prayer, social justice and gathering. The synagogue’s historic records reflected the values that have long been associated with this congregation: the education of the youth, the practice of social justice, and a “common vision” for Jewish communal life. The synagogue offered programs and opportunities for involvement from the very youngest toddlers to the elderly. Women were equally represented in the lay and professional leadership, non-Jewish 189 spouses and extended family members were embraced, and the congregation gained a national reputation for its full inclusion of children and adults with physical or mental disabilities. The presence of two full-time Co-Directors of Education and a full-time Youth Engagement Director for the congregation’s middle and high school students reflected Community Synagogue’s emphasis on Jewish education throughout the congregation. Consistent with the rabbi’s vision of a congregational community in which Jewish learning is the fulcrum around which every synagogue program and function rotates, everything from the school curriculum to the adult education offerings, and from the lay-led committee meetings to the operating budget showed evidence of the priority of Jewish education.

Yet, as important as Jewish learning was at Community Synagogue, the clergy, professionals and lay leaders often quoted the Jewish precept that the performance of good deeds occupies an even higher place than study in Jewish life: [Rabbi Chanina] used to say: "Anyone whose good deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom will endure. And anyone whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds, his wisdom will not endure" (Ethics of the Fathers, 3:12). Social justice at Community Synagogue, therefore, flowed naturally out of the lessons of Jewish study, and the core value of improving and enhancing the world. The congregation served as a regular host for

The Interfaith Hospitality Network, an organization that assisted with feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and advocating on behalf of people who were disadvantaged through housing inequities that existed in the areas near the synagogue.

Community Synagogue was well-known in the region and throughout the country for its success in engaging middle and high school students beyond Bar/Bat Mitzvah in a program that fused formal and informal learning in a compelling manner. Many students at Community

Synagogue went to Jewish overnight summer camps affiliated with the Reform Movement, and 190 there was an emphasis placed on teen trips to Israel. Community Synagogue’s Sisterhood was active and advanced many women to regional and national leadership positions. Sisterhood members attributed their leadership success to the continually evolving leadership development program that had a history of attracting women of different generations to be involved in the many cultural, educational, social and fundraising activities.

In all its offerings, Community Synagogue’s mission remained at the center of its activity and was frequently articulated and enacted by those who were part of the congregational community: “We believe Judaism is a lifelong journey filled with opportunities for sacred moments, inspiration, and personal growth.” Whether it was worship, religious school, social justice, or adult learning, Community Synagogue took pride in its membership, its openness to all who seek a Jewish spiritual home, its meaningful relationship to the State of Israel, its connection with Jewish communities in other lands, and on its creative blending of “the verities of tradition with the insights of modernity and the joy of spiritual fulfillment.”

Findings

Data analysis of interviews, focus groups, observations, and document reviews took place throughout the data collection process. Data were coded through multiple iterations of open coding and axial coding, and then categorized, sorted, and reduced to allow themes and sub- themes to emerge from the raw and reworked data. Table 9 is a representative summary of the findings according to the themes and sub-themes that were generated to answer the three research questions that guided this study. The three main sections of this research are: (a) The

Nature of Shared Leadership in Community Synagogue; (b) The Unique Role of the rabbi as

Community Synagogue’s Spiritual Leader; (c) The Influence of Shared Spiritual Leadership on 191 the Growth and Development of Community Synagogue. In total, nine primary themes were identified to answer the research questions.

192

Table 9 Summary of Findings by Research Question

RQ 1: How is spiritual leadership shared at Definition Community Synagogue? Communicating in the sacred language of the team The way in which members continually speak with one o Participating in the ongoing Jewish conversation another and about one another that encompasses more o Engaging in conflict and challenging one another than sharing information and that adds a spiritual o Making difficult decisions as a group dimension to their partnership. Self-reflecting and growing together The dual practices of looking into oneself and striving to o Knowing oneself know others that enables members of the team to integrate o Working collaboratively using the “global eye” their individual expertise and their collective wisdom into o Experimenting with “I/We” work-place boundaries the work on behalf of the mission of the organization. Acting in the image of God The act of behaving according to traditional Jewish o Learning, teaching, and living Judaism communal values that moves the team to cultivate o Empowering people to grow in the practice of Judaism transcendent relationships with other people and with o Creating a shared, sacred Jewish community God. RQ2: What elements of spiritual leadership belong Definition exclusively to the rabbi? Serving as the authoritative educational leader of The performance of high-level learning and teaching that Community Synagogue is at the historic center of the rabbi’s spiritual leadership o The rabbi has earned authority as the primary instructor and is the medium through which he earns the respect and and interpreter of Torah influence of people in the congregational community of o The rabbi has ascribed authority as decision-maker on today. questions of Jewish law Assuming responsibility as the architect and guardian of The rabbi’s accountability for and authority over the Community Synagogue’s vision synagogue’s spiritual direction and communal purposes o The rabbi is “chief vision officer” that enables him to lead with creative ideas, to bring o The rabbi leads with the vision, not with himself meaning to Jewish life, and to inspire others to join and become part of the congregational family. The tangible and intangible aspects of the rabbi’s The special human behaviors and personal characteristics personality and demeanor that are unique to him only. that shape the rabbi as spiritual leader and that prompt others to follow his vision. RQ3: How does shared spiritual leadership influence Definition the growth and development of this synagogue? Strengthening Community Synagogue through a value- The act of adhering to and deepening the commitment to based approach to Jewish communal life the enduring principles of Jewish life and to cultivating o Values are transparent and pervasive positive Jewish identification among the members in o Values are transmitted via education, not indoctrination ways that that enhance the quality of the synagogue as an o Adherence to values promotes organizational well-being organization. Fostering a people-centered culture The act of encouraging personal agency that comes from o Creating a relational Jewish environment observing Judaism in community, sharing spiritual life. o Seeking relevance in Judaism and Jewish life Making Community Synagogue increasingly nimble and The continual practice of shoring up the synagogue’s adaptable during times of transition and change infrastructure and supporting its leadership so that it can o Looking to the future with hope endure difficulties and overcome challenges. o Being prepared to change oneself and the organization

193

The Sharing of Spiritual Leadership at Community Synagogue

There were three primary themes that emerged from data analysis that helped answer the first research question regarding the sharing of spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue.

Members of the Staff Leadership team enacted shared spiritual leadership by: (a)

Communicating in the Sacred Language of the Team; (b) Self-reflecting and Growing Together; and (c) Acting in the Image of God. The thematic sections that follow offer a portrait of shared spiritual leadership in Community Synagogue according to the words and lived experiences of the eight members of the Synagogue Staff as they were synthesized through data analysis. Direct quotations from participant interviews and focus groups were utilized to highlight the themes and sub-themes and to support the findings that emerged.

Communicating in the sacred language of the team. The first theme that emerged in connection with how shared spiritual leadership happened in the synagogue setting was

“Communicating in the Sacred Language of the Team.” This theme is defined as: The way in which members continually speak with one another and about one another that encompasses more than sharing information and that adds a spiritual dimension to their partnership. When asked to identify the most significant prerequisite of shared spiritual leadership, Lily responded:

“I would give lots of advice about opening lines of communication and being open to constructive feedback and offering it, and all of those different pieces.” In fact, effective communication was mentioned by the participants as the single most important ingredient of the shared leadership team culture at Community Synagogue.

While participants described different facets of their communication, they concurred that

Community Synagogue staff members had their own unique method of speaking and interfacing with one another, and that their exchanges comprised a special team “language.” Communicating 194 in the sacred language of the team” was a dynamic process that required deliberate effort on the part of the team members. In fact, some of the newer participants on the professional staff spoke about the adjustment period that was required to learn the “team language,” and others elucidated how this shared mode of communication was important to being accepted by and integrated into the group.

When asked to specify the quality and ingredients of this communication, the staff members indicated that communication included non-verbal cues in addition to words and conversations. The participants described the way team members used body language, familiar prompts, visual signs and facial expressions to transmit information and to impart feelings to one another. These modes of sharing were an integral component of the social network that was created and maintained by the staff members. Participants spoke about the tendency to finish each other’s sentences, to interject a word or phrase while someone else was talking, and to predict one another’s responses to situations. It is noteworthy that these communication norms were corroborated by the researcher’s direct observations of the staff and lay leaders. For example, this researcher observed that staff members at Community Synagogue carried themselves with open postures and used gestures that conveyed their openness to conversations and interactions.

Sprinkled throughout their daily discussions and ongoing conversations, the team’s interactions reflected the sacred tenets of Judaism and the inspirational nature of their work at the synagogue. There was a comfortable alternation of words and expressions between the secular and the spiritual realms, particularly as expressed by the five members of the Leadership Group.

That is, their collegial communication at Community Synagogue mirrored their positions as leaders in a religious community and revealed their special responsibilities to serve God and the 195

Jewish people. Both in interviews and during observations, this researcher noted that the words

“empowerment,” “ownership,” “agency,” “holistic,” “organic,” and “my/our Torah,” were used frequently as part of the shared spiritual language at Community Synagogue. Moreover, in researcher field notes and observation templates, the phrases “relational” and “relational

Judaism” were used by all participants as they described the culture and organizational approach of Community Synagogue.

The following sections describe in greater detail the three sub-themes that are associated with the theme of communicating in the sacred language of the team: a) Participating with colleagues in the ongoing Jewish conversation; b) Engaging in conflict and challenging one another; and c) Making difficult decisions as a group.

Participating with colleagues in the ongoing Jewish conversation. The first sub-theme that emerged from “Communicating in the Sacred Language of the Team” was the perception by staff members that they were integral participants in the age-old Jewish dialogues that connected them to one another, to their purpose, and to God. The sharing of spiritual leadership was dependent upon collegial exchanges that had meaning, were expressive, were rooted in Judaism, and occurred with regularity. Rather than treating conversations as stand-alone events, this team conceived of their communication as open-ended, progressive, and in some cases, occurring over a period of years. In this way, communication was not simply a means of discourse or a medium for work-place productivity; rather, it was an end in itself and served as a tangible symbol of belonging.

In characterizing the nature of communication between staff members at Community

Synagogue, Lily commented: “It is not unusual to sit down at a staff meeting and to have all of us bounce ideas: ‘What’s the choreography for this Friday’s service? Who is doing what? What 196 kind of service will this be?’” The rabbi characterized the ongoing collegial conversation as comfortable and familiar, and he used the weekly staff meeting as an illustration of the staff’s

“give and take thing…Maybe nobody even remembers who brought the initial idea to the group because it’s really inconsequential. The output [of the conversation], the result -- that is what is consequential.” The rabbi spoke about the freedom to converse and engage in dialogue as core values that have required continual focus and attention over the years: “I’ve encouraged them all to speak their minds,” he said. The rabbi also described the staff’s mode of conversation and the way dialogue has been at the foundation of the shared spiritual leadership practices that the rabbi created and sustained over his tenure:

It’s reached a point with me where it seems like an undesired burden when I don’t

have my partners to help me think things through. I do my best creative work

when I’m thinking out loud with people who will be a foil to bounce back and

forth with me and who will tell me: ‘You know, maybe this…or maybe that.’ And

I go: ‘Yes, yes, yes!’ And that interchange is where my best creative efforts

happen. Absolutely. And that’s really the model.

The team consistently used language that was set in the context of Judaism and that complemented their modeling of Jewish life and practice. For example, Lily spoke about disability inclusion at Community Synagogue as a religious imperative and as a spiritual endeavor equal in importance to Jewish study or prayer. The rabbi and the Executive Director referred to the “spirituality of administration” at Community Synagogue. They explained that the

“spirituality of administration” is the special “harmony” between the business and the spiritual aspects of the synagogue. 197

In observations, this researcher also recognized that the team’s spiritual vocabulary was rooted in the language of Jewish service. For example, in B’nai Mitzvah appointments with the rabbi, in a religious school family program with Lily, in a class of women studying to become adult B’not Mitzvah with Becca, “Torah” represented Jewish learning in its broadest sense as the collective knowledge and texts of the Jewish people through time. In this context, “Torah” suggested Jewish learning as accessible to all and as comprehensive to people all along the spectrum of Jewish study. The rabbi was credited not just for teaching Torah in the synagogue; moreover, for instilling the shared and sacred “language of Torah” into the fabric of the community.

Members of the Community Synagogue staff team enumerated the limitations as well as the benefits of their ongoing collegial conversation. They related that they sometimes felt challenged in their efforts to create a rich and inclusive dialogue that encouraged each person’s voice to be heard. They commented that this challenge was made more complex by the variety of different communication styles of the participants. Those who were more introverted saw value in pushing themselves to join the conversation and felt satisfied by the sense of validation that came from engaging in the multi-layered interactions of the team. Shira, a self-described introvert, reflected upon her own communication trajectory over the past eight years: “Now I think I am communicating a lot more so that people understand where I’m coming from – which

I didn’t understand that they didn’t understand before…. I can definitely be heard if I want to say something. Yes, I can be heard – big time!” Lily added that it was not simply the quantity that is communicated between team members that mattered; rather, the quality of communication had consequences as well: “[We have] lots of healthy communication…I believe that opening the 198 lines of communication and being open to constructive feedback and offering constructive feedback are all so important.”

Another challenge of the “ongoing conversation” was the tendency for staff members to presuppose colleagues’ responses and to make the blanket assumption that members always knows exactly how others are thinking. For example, in one meeting, Lily told the rabbi that she

“could not read his mind,” and that she needed the dates for his upcoming winter sabbatical in order for her to schedule the Confirmation class trip to Washington D.C. Shira offered another communication weakness: “There is a little bit of people being set in their ways…and the fact is that we are a little bit too fluid and not very pro forma in our meetings.” While the staff recognized the advantages of this fluidity, it sometimes resulted in loosely constructed staff agendas, and occasionally required the team to reconvene to discuss items that had not been fully vetted. Another drawback mentioned in connection with the ongoing collegial conversation was that from time to time team members believed that they had been explicit in communicating to others, when, in reality, they had either failed to communicate or incorrectly presumed understanding on the part of their partners. For example, Lily commented that during her early years at Community Synagogue, especially, she learned:

The bad news is sometimes the rabbi just expects me to do certain things and

doesn’t necessarily spit it out. He doesn’t necessarily come out and say it. Things

are assumed… [and there is a lack of clarity about] who will do this or who will

do that.

Overall, this researcher observed that the ongoing collegial conversation worked well for the team and was effective in bringing them together into “one voice in messaging” information to the congregation. It was noteworthy that Roxy -- who was not a member of the “Leadership 199

Group” and did not attend the weekly professional staff meetings -- nevertheless spoke with ease about the tone and quality of formal and informal meetings and exchanges at Community

Synagogue:

I never feel like we are talking about something just for the sake of talking about

it…and for better or for worse, [they] will always tell you what [they are]

thinking. No emotional games…. I’ve never for one minute left a meeting a

conversation and have said: ‘What did s/he really mean? Is she upset about

something? Did I do a good job at this? Especially with [my direct supervisor],

Lily, she’ll tell me if I did something really great: ‘Hey, that was awesome!’ Or,

she may say: ‘All right, here is what we need to do instead…’or ‘Tell me where

you think the wheels fell off the wagon?’ I really `appreciate that.”

Engaging in conflict and challenging one another. The second sub-theme associated with communicating in the sacred language of the team was the fact that even “difficult conversations” were beneficial to the health and productivity of the team. In fact, facing conflict instead of avoiding it strengthened the relationships of individuals and improved the work atmosphere. Team members said that when they proactively worked through discord, voiced differences of opinion, and debated issues, that the result was personal and organizational growth. Team members learned that sharing these inevitable disputes was more helpful than withholding them and allowing them to fester.

The participants described themselves as “non-confrontational” and “conflict-averse,” and they acknowledged that, at first, confronting one another was uncomfortable and unnatural.

Many of the “difficult conversations” originated from differences in style or practice, or disagreements about how to move an idea forward, or conflicting opinions as to how to best 200 manage a challenging situation. These differences of opinion and/or varieties of practice tested professional boundaries and realms of authority. Following a disagreement, boundaries were realigned, and the team reached new understandings as part of the ever-changing dynamic of shared leadership.

Shira reflected on her preparations with the rabbi for weekly Sabbath services in the sanctuary. She commented that while each has independent tasks, there are some decisions that have been known to require coordination and collaboration. She noted a difference of opinion about a special service for which they were preparing:

I said to the rabbi: ‘You know, I see it differently…rabbi, I think that the service

should be more like this other [model]; you know, like music-prayer-music-

prayer.’ And the rabbi said: ‘This is the model that we have set up and it’s too late

to do anything about that now.’ And I said: ‘Perhaps we could consider [my idea]

for the future.’ And that was good [that I was able to say that].

In a congregation as busy and dynamic as Community Synagogue, the staff members confessed to the fact that misunderstandings and disputes have occurred many times. For example, the rabbi, the Cantor, and the Director of Youth Engagement discussed a service that the High School Youth Group was facilitating and debated the theme that student leaders had proposed. While no one wanted to hinder the teens’ efforts, the rabbi found that it was inappropriate for “the kids to swap out all of the b’rachot [traditional service blessings] with readings about ‘friendship.’” The three professionals shared a lively conversation about the extent to which they were prepared to intervene in the teens’ process, and then decided that they would gently “correct” the students and use the incident as an opportunity to teach them. The rabbi said that he was prepared for what he anticipated would be a difficult but important 201 discussion with the teens: “And I will say to them: ‘Is this what we do here [at Community

Synagogue]? Don’t we have respect for the traditional Jewish worship service? The ‘theme’ that we have on a Friday night is Shabbat!’”

Sometimes, difficult conversations occurred as part of change processes or with the introduction of new solutions to existing or chronic problems. As Executive Director, May spoke about the time and energy she invested at the beginning of her tenure as she reviewed organizational policies and procedures and aligned them with the mission of the synagogue. She pointed out that on a few occasions she found it necessary to “enter the fray” and to stand up for what she believed was in the best interest of the congregation. She reflected: “I think some of our

[new] processes around members’ annual [financial] commitment and people’s ability or inability to reach some preset number [of dollars] …a lot of the language that we use now came from my coming in and pushing!”

Participants expressed varying views about the unique two-tiered governance model that exists in most synagogue, whereby lay and professional leaders collaborate on projects either together or in tandem. They pointed out that such a system naturally gives rise to disagreements between staff members and lay leaders, including board members, synagogue officers, committee chairs or other volunteers. They commented that most often, any conflicts that arose were expediently resolved; however, they also reflected on more serious disagreements that arose over the years that caused considerable tension throughout the organization.

The rabbi described one of the thorniest episodes in his professional experience. He told the story of an incident in which he took a firm stand against a Presidential decision that, had it been confirmed, would have set an unwanted precedent and carried negative consequences into the future: 202

When we had the financial crisis, suddenly it was suggested that we were in

financial trouble. The temple president [suggested] cutting salaries – professional

staff salaries. And I said, ‘You do that, you do it without me’…. And we were

in a lot of conflict, and then with a little help from and intervention by a few Past

Presidents, we were able to sit down and say: ‘Okay. What has been the paradigm

of leadership in this community?’

The rabbi used this episode to illustrate the nature of synagogue disputes. Over the years, he recalled, there were some disputes that could not be resolved and that required the parties to walk away agreeing to disagree. However, at other times, particularly when disagreements touched personal principles or those of the institution, he suggested that it was his role as the leader to work through these matters and settle them. In the case regarding the discrepancy between the rabbi and the President, the rabbi understood that their conversation was a watershed moment in his tenure at Community Synagogue. That is, the rabbi was aware that the President’s position ran counter to the prevailing leadership style at Community Synagogue and was fundamentally inconsistent with the beliefs and attitudes that defined the organization. Thus, the rabbi said, he engaged in this difficult conversation not for himself, but on behalf of the entire staff.

While participants shared their general feelings of discomfort when they found it necessary to disagree with colleagues on organizational matters, they pointed out that such disagreements were even more contentious when the conversations were personal in nature.

Members of the team identified the giving and receiving of constructive criticism as the most challenging aspect of dialogue. For example, Lily recalled her early years at Community

Synagogue when she was unaccustomed to offering or receiving negative feedback: 203

I’m lucky. I’m doing this for eighteen years in the same place. It took a long time

to be comfortable to go to any of my colleagues and say: ‘I would like to share

some [constructive] feedback with you.’ That’s not easy. These are never easy

conversations to have.

Lily continued by describing how her anxiety increased whenever the rabbi requested a de-brief on a program or when he asked for a follow-up on a meeting a situation that she had handled:

There are still times when the rabbi will be like ‘Step into my office…we need to

talk about something.’ And I feel that little flutter of a heartbeat. Like, ‘Oh, crap.

What did I do?’ It’s like getting called to the principal’s office, but I know it’s

really not the case [laughing]. But that is healthy, too.

Becca echoed Lily’s comments and spoke about the unsettled feeling that she, too, experienced early on when she was in the process of learning how to give feedback to colleagues. Becca believed that over the years, these uncomfortable discussions led to growth in herself and helped solidify a team that valued forthright dialogue. Becca asserted that it took her a long time to gain confidence in her own supervision, but that she felt it was worth her efforts since other staff members commented how much they appreciated her honesty and candor. For example, Becca offered an example of her supervisory style with a member of the Hebrew faculty: “I can tell her what I think would be the most efficacious way to do something, and I have no problem saying to her: ‘Please do this by x time.’ If she doesn’t comply, then I will come back and nudge her, and that is perfectly acceptable, and always done respectfully.” This clear and direct style of supervision was observed by the researcher during midweek Hebrew

School, as Becca gathered the entire school together at the very end of the session for a time of prayer and community-building. 204

Some of the veteran staff members mentioned occasions when interchanges between two or more staff members escalated and became filled with passion and anger. One staff member recalled: “I could hear it in his voice. I knew he didn’t like [my] answer…But I couldn’t give him a different answer. That is when shared leadership is tough.” Anecdotes such as these illustrated the highly personal nature of synagogue work, and represented times when emotions ran high and feelings were hurt. In the final analysis, the staff members concurred that there was more benefit than risk involved with confronting difficult conversations, and that the positive and/or negative impact felt by the professionals themselves could be perceived by the larger organization. Lily contextualized the careful relational work that she and the rabbi shared, and related how, through interpersonal dialogue, she improved in both giving and taking feedback from him and others:

Thankfully, we have the relationship that we have, and I can see that and not get

totally bent out of shape. I mean, that’s the difference – that you talk about

it….There have been times when he and I have ‘gone at it’ in professional staff

meetings – by one or the other’s fault – and we will talk about it after the fact and

one will apologize or realize that we reacted, or that we were too heated or

whatever….I’ve gotten better over the years in seeking out or finding the

moments for the difficult conversations.

Working together to make difficult decisions. The third sub-theme related to the team’s communication with one another was in the realm of decision-making. The participants acknowledged that consensus on issues could not always be reached, but that the objective was for each member of the team to feel listened to and valued as part of the decision-making process. The participants focused on what they believed to be the most formidable obstacles for 205 shared decision-making: (a) the decision-making process is extremely time-consuming, and (b) sometimes decision-making is not a straight line, and, in fact, may not seem rational at times.

Some of the long-standing members of the staff cited changes that had been made in decision-making through the years. In the past, when the staff was smaller, it was most often the rabbi who “stepped in and made the final decision.” While unilateral decision-making by the rabbi has happened less frequently in recent years than in the past, the rabbi offered examples of situations in which he, as the leader, made decisions: “They’re not testing me and I’m not testing them…but I would say that it’s an intuitive thing when my gut tells me that I’ve heard everything and I think I’ve got to go with my decision.”

As Community Synagogue’s organizational structure has grown more complex, the process by which decisions are made have likewise changed, too. The participants explained that while sometimes decisions have been made “as a group,” at other times, a smaller sub-group has been tasked with bringing closure to open issues. For May, being one of the decision-makers has offered her the “opportunity to influence the course of things” as Executive Director. She spoke about the differences between her earlier professional roles and her position of authority at

Community Synagogue. May shared the fact that one of the main reasons that she found the

Executive Director position appealing was that more than any of her earlier jobs, she knew that she would be given “access to the executive function, to the decision-making processes, and to the opportunity to put something out there…[so that she could be] a true partner to the lay leaders.” This researcher had the opportunity to observe an Oversight Committee meeting that was co-facilitated by Community Synagogue’s President and by May. It was clear from observing this extensive meeting that the group had practice with moving from discussion to 206 decision-making. When discussion went beyond the time allotted, May would firmly remind the group of the need to carry on and the President followed with a call for a motion from the group.

With respect to decision-making, it was noteworthy that there were often a variety of stakeholders who entered the conversation beyond the clergy and professional staff of the synagogue. Participants in this research study referenced synagogue lay leaders as well as professionals in speaking about their success with decision-making at Community Synagogue.

At Community Synagogue, lay leaders have had a history of leading various individuals and groups of synagogue stakeholders, gathering people together to resolve issues, offering input and feedback, and boldly demonstrating their roles as decision-makers. Having served as a lay leader at Community Synagogue for decades prior to assuming the role of Executive Director, May pointed out that for most of her experience, she was on the “other side” of the decision-making process. She mentioned that the model for lay leadership succession at Community Synagogue was put into place so that leaders could gain experience through the ranks, become familiar with the culture of the organization, and internalize the way in which consensus could be reached.

May specified that at Community Synagogue every President-elect was expected to serve as a

Vice President for at least four years, during which time, s/he “sits in the inner circle and understands how decisions are processed… this introduction [to the Presidency] serves our congregation really very well.”

Research participants told stories about times when some issues that arose that were so complicated that they eluded the decision-making process altogether. During the present research study, the “#MeToo Movement” emerged, and well-known and highly visible men who had been accused of sexual improprieties – some, multiple accusations over a number of years – were identified, held accountable, and brought to justice. Among the many individuals accused of 207 sexual offenses was a well-known Jewish musician and composer, Shlomo Carlebach (1925-

1994). Carlebach’s liturgical music has been a musical “staple” in synagogue worship for nearly fifty years. As the expert in liturgical music and the rabbi’s only clergy partner, Shira believed that she and the rabbi shared responsibility for determining whether and how to use Carlebach’s music at Community Synagogue considering the allegations against him and the range of emotions brought to the surface by the #MeToo Movement. More than simply wanting to make a final decision on the matter, Shira sought to open the discussion to the congregation, and envisioned inviting lay leaders to be involved in the decision-making process regarding the future of Carlebach’s music in Community Synagogue’s sanctuary. She thought it was important to present the topic to the stakeholders, to ascertain how they thought and felt about the matter, and “to have a discussion with all of my musical folk, like the guitarists, the choir members, the lay leaders” about the options for handling Carlebach’s music at Community Synagogue -- at least for the near future.

As time passed, Shira expressed growing frustration over the “inertia that has set in” about this issue, and said that unless or until a discussion takes place, she “doesn’t want to do any of his music… [But] the rabbi didn’t quite agree.” The rabbi believed that Carlebach’s daughter – herself a prolific composer and musician – adequately apologized and assumed responsibility for her father’s misdeeds as soon as she became aware of the accusations. The rabbi reasoned: “No one is perfect and Teshuvah [atonement, expiation] is always a possibility – even after one’s death” – as in the case of Carlebach. Ultimately, Shira hoped to gain input from a larger cross-section of people at Community Synagogue and, that as a matter of practice, she felt strongly that lay people should be included as decision-makers in an ethical case such as this.

At the time of this writing, Shira described the way she viewed this “impasse” at Community 208

Synagogue and was uncertain as to how the “dead-lock” would end. She said: “So, we just have not been doing any of Carlebach’s music, but it hasn’t really resolved either.”

In summary, it appeared that regardless of the issue or the intensity of the disagreement between members of the professional leadership, there was a strong feeling among the synagogue staff that communication was a critical prerequisite for shared spiritual leadership.

Communication encompassed more than speaking with one another or transmitting important information; moreover, it was the vehicle through which the leaders dealt with daily issues, came to agreement about how to confront unprecedented situations, and continually improved themselves and their service to Community Synagogue.

Self-reflecting and growing together. The second theme that emerged from the study’s findings that helped explain how spiritual leadership was shared in the synagogue is: “Self-

Reflecting and Growing Together.” This second theme is defined as: The dual practices of looking into oneself and striving to understand others that enables members of the team to integrate their individual expertise and their collective wisdom into their work in serving the mission of the organization. For the leaders of this synagogue staff team, there was an acute awareness as to how one’s special area of expertise dovetailed with the total work of the organization. On a daily – even hourly – basis, team members indicated that there was a constant vacillation between the demands of one’s own “job” and the shared areas [that required] collective focus and energy. During the first set of interviews, participants were asked to describe their roles at Community Synagogue. The responded by saying that they thought of themselves as “pieces of the same pie” or “one mechanism in a machine.” Regardless of the metaphor,

Community Synagogue professionals concurred that in shared leadership settings, participants needed clarity between one’s own responsibilities and those that belonged to others. 209

During the first site visit, the researcher asked the participants to introduce themselves and say something about their specific roles and responsibilities at Community Synagogue. In each case, staff members made distinctions between the responsibilities that were “ours alone” and those that “we work on as a team.” The staff members explained their realms of authority and responsibility – which, on this staff, were significant. They addressed the ethic of hard work that they shared, and they alluded to the time required of them as members of the team. Becca said that being a member of Community Synagogue’s Leadership Group has meant knowing how to “balance skills in place with where you want the organization to go…and you always have to respect the organization’s needs.” The rabbi said that sharing leadership meant operating on both the “I” plane and the “we” plane at the same time. He indicated that it required a high degree of self-reflection as well as an openness to engage with others: “I don’t have any defined areas [of synagogue life [that are mine alone] because [shared leadership] is not a concession I’m making. I’m doing it for my own benefit. I’m enriched by it. I’m better when I have the benefit of the good counsel of people I trust and who know that they need to be thoughtful.”

Knowing oneself. Participants postured that bringing a team together required members of the team to know themselves well, first and foremost. The more self-reflective and self-aware the individuals are, the stronger and more viable the team will be. Each individual on a team must be tuned into his or her strengths and weaknesses, how his or her behaviors and words are being received, and what conditions are required so that each person could become a successful member of the team. The research subjects emphasized that at Community Synagogue, they learned to pay close attention to moods and body language, to be cognizant of what they felt and perceived, and to make sure that all members aligned their daily routines with the priorities of the synagogue. Participants were keenly aware of their respective work styles and habits, their 210 emotional sensitivities, and their shortcomings and flaws. For the rabbi, knowing himself required knowing his core values, and recognizing where the core values of the institution differed from his own values. The rabbi offered examples of “knowing oneself:”

What are we? What is the meaning of our lives? Are we going to be honest about

our shortcomings and our failures? Pieces of paper and titles? They’re

worthless…It’s interesting…. There are some people around here who call me by

first name and others who only call me rabbi. Some people can only call me by

one name only and no other. And it matters not even the least little bit to me.

Shira said that knowing herself meant paying attention to her feelings that suggested that she was working too much or not home enough with her husband and their middle school-aged son: “We’re all kind of spent, so you have to look for those places where you can recharge….Lately, my family time has been suffering, so I’m going back to being home more once it is less busy here.’” While each participant voiced it differently, they were of one mind when it came to their shared behaviors: over-working, being at Community Synagogue for too many consecutive hours, over-functioning and over-producing. Becca added: “I think each one of us is very hard on ourselves in our own way, which is probably not so healthy.”

The youngest member of the staff, Roxy, maintained that when she began working at

Community Synagogue, she felt somewhat lost and had difficulty getting in touch with her own feelings. She became frustrated at the overwhelming details that she needed to know and did not expect that self-awareness was going to be so critical to her success on the team. Roxy looked back at the learning curve that was part of her growth and self-understanding, together with what she learned about the team, and she concluded that becoming a member of this team was a long- term learning process: “I was new and inputting a lot of information and thought: ‘I’m here now 211 and I should learn all these things.’ Then I realized that I liked having [time] to do other things…so it doesn’t bother me anymore.”

Each participant recognized the degree to which he or she grew as a human being during his or her tenure at Community Synagogue and spoke about the self-discovery that took place as well. Shira acknowledged her need to continually push herself to be more open to those who want to get to know her beyond her formal cantorial role. Francine, the only non-Jewish member of the Synagogue Staff, expressed the desire to broaden her knowledge of Judaism, a topic in which she is deeply interested. She asserted: “Judaism was the beginning; where all religion started.” May said that being on a shared leadership team has enabled her to learn about herself in the process of serving others: “You have to be willing to reflect on what you believe in, what your opinions are.” Like May, Becca mentioned the private moments of contemplation that she discovered help her to be a better partner to her colleagues:

You have to know yourself, because if you are not going to bring your truest self

to what you’re doing, then don’t do it! I am who I am, and I know myself. But the

exigencies of role playing in the organization and the different roles that one

needs to fill in the organization can often move things differently…. You know,

you have to be made of strong stuff to do this.

Working collaboratively using the “global eye.” The inverse or flipside of knowing oneself is what Becca alluded to as critical to shared spiritual leadership at Community

Synagogue. That is, team members were as aware of one another as they were aware of themselves. The participants concurred that chemistry alone does not make for a successful team; moreover, the team members needed to work together to share a common outlook, and they were 212 obligated to put effort forward in order to view themselves as a unified group. At Community

Synagogue, as in most effective teams, this shared perspective evolved over time.

Community Synagogue leaders used the expression “the global eye” as a code for the collective lens through which they viewed the world and their work. The participants understood that gaining a shared team perspective required that individual members sometimes needed to suppress their own needs and preferences to advance the agenda of the team. None of the team members spoke about the “global eye” with resentment; they did not imagine that they were sacrificing their autonomy for the sake of the organization. Rather, the “global eye” enabled them to work together to become leaders at Community Synagogue and provided them with a frame of reference so that they could come together and practice problem-solving as a unified group.

Using the team’s “global eye” meant viewing the world through their common lens as synagogue personnel. Lily said: “It’s about seeing how all of the different components fit together. It is the way we make sure that things are integrated, and it describes how we complement one another.” She added that the global eye was sometimes used as a corrective measure as well: “I’ll sometimes use the phrase ‘my kids’ or ‘my teens,’ and I will be corrected by a team member who reminds me to say ‘our’… I never mean it not to be global, but that’s

OK.” The global eye was also referenced when team members spoke about the way in which they supported one another -- both in public and in private. Without exception, in every individual interview, the interviewee took an opportunity to praise some aspect of a colleague’s work. They continually spoke about the strengths of other team members and articulated the various “gifts” and “talents” of their partners. 213

Alison commented that the way people cared about one another at Community

Synagogue felt genuine: “You know, if the rabbi were to come to me right now and need something – anything – it doesn’t matter what I’m doing, I will get whatever he needs… [We are all] the same way.” Through observation, the researcher was able to confirm that self-care and sensitivity toward others were core values at Community Synagogue. The researcher noted that the first thing that the rabbi did when he came into the synagogue every day was check in with each of the staff-members to see how late they stayed the night before, inquire as to how they were doing with a given project or task, or follow up on any personal or family matter that may have been raised in an earlier conversation. The staff was extremely responsive to these check- ins and generally inquired as to the rabbi’s well-being on that day in return.

Francine reflected on her more than twenty years at Community Synagogue and suggested that in the same way that they made themselves available whenever someone needed assistance, they had also internalized the reality that they were there for each other, above all:

“[May] is a wonderful leader. I feel that we can go to her for anything…. And she gets the answer. And even if she doesn’t have the answer, she will get it for you.” The rabbi spoke about the fact that there is an “element of self-care involved” in sharing spiritual leadership as well. He maintained that members of the team looked out for one another; moreover, their responsibilities to one another included doing whatever might be necessary to maintain optimal physical and emotional health. As the senior spiritual leader at Community Synagogue, the rabbi viewed it as his job to remind his colleagues on the Staff to take the time and energy necessary to move away from work and revitalize themselves. He says:

The level of execution on the professional side is very, very, very high because

these people on this professional staff are all highly functioning and really 214

devoted…. They are competent, they follow through…. If anything, sometimes I

need to slow them down because they are – to a one – serious over-achievers who

will burn themselves out. So rather than needing to push them on, I often have to

help them by … keeping a big picture of the balance between the task and the

relationships, and the energies and abilities and needs of the key players. Making

sure that they are getting vacation time, that they are taking care of their health

and their families, and that they are getting professional enrichment.

The global eye helped the clergy and professional staff realize that although the sharing of leadership was fundamental at Community Synagogue, there existed clear-cut lines of reporting that were drawn and applied without hesitation when necessary. The participants addressed the sensitive nuance and balance required of those in leadership – both professional and lay – and spent time determining where one person’s leadership ended, and another’s began.

When asked about the organizational chart at Community Synagogue and “where the buck stops,” a variety of responses emerged. In the individual interviews, two of the participants answered the question as to “who is ultimately in charge” by drawing diagrams. One person sketched a typical organizational chart with a vertical hierarchy but with many dotted lines joining people together at various organizational levels. The second person drew a conceptual model using Venn diagrams and a visual approach that portrayed leadership and authority in circular patterns rather than in straight lines. In both cases, what was significant was the way that both staff members’ renderings accurately reflected the highly connected nature of the leaders, and the extent to which the horizontal and circular interface took precedence over vertical, top- down interactions. Roxy offered an excellent illustration of this phenomenon: 215

Who is ultimately in charge? I would give you three different answers because I

think the spiritual leader is absolutely the rabbi. But May [is the administrative

leader] who makes ‘the trains run on time.’ I would say Lily for all the youth-

related things, but I know that Becca’s portfolio is so much of the Hebrew and

adult curriculum that I’m not as involved in…so, for me, I would say Lily, but

both Lily and Becca are the faces of everything we do with education. The two

Co-Directors of Education share educational leadership, they share task-oriented

leadership, and they share programmatic leadership.

Becca and Lily cited similar examples of situations in which each of them assumed a leadership role, and when other members of the team -- including the rabbi – assumed subordinate and/or supportive roles. As such, Lily pointed out that the rabbi “works under my supervision” as a teacher in the Religious School. Becca identified the Adult B’nai Mitzvah as a program responsibility that belonged to her: “[That program] is a tremendous partnership between the rabbi, the cantor and me. But I’m the driver here. I’m really proud of it.” The rabbi reflected on his own position through the lens of the global eye:

So, there’s a hierarchical aspect, but it’s very minimal…. I do believe that a body

needs a head; and somewhere there has to be a sense of where the ultimate

responsibility lies…. Insofar I’m the captain of the team, I lead, but I’m on the

field playing as well. So, I’m not like the coach on the sidelines. I’m more than

the quarterback, but even there, I’m not really calling all the plays…. Leadership

here is collaborative…everything is in the context of our partnership.

Experimenting with the “I/You/We” workplace boundaries. Shared leadership not only involved defining how and when team members work together; moreover, the successful sharing 216 of leadership at Community Synagogue also meant showing respect for organizational boundaries and even imposing limits on one’s autonomy. The third sub-theme that emerged in connection with the differentiation of organizational roles between oneself and one’s teammates was: “Experimenting with the I/You/We Workplace Boundaries.” The focus of this sub-theme was on the different ways that team members defined and redefined their individual work domains in order to balance tasks and enhance the work of the team. The Leadership Group at

Community Synagogue spoke about the personal growth and organizational improvement that resulted from the team’s willingness to innovate in their individual and collective realms. Shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue involved experimentation, trial and error, and the recurring negotiations about who “owns” which areas of the work and why. Participants explained that one feature of a flatter, more fluid organizational structure like that at Community

Synagogue was that staff members occasionally entered each other’s spheres, and even bumped into one another in their efforts to accomplish goals. This process challenged staff members to be flexible and to adjust their work habits to Community Synagogue’s dynamic and ever-changing organizational reality.

Becca referenced the collaborative B’nai Mitzvah program as a case in point: “Certainly there is the management of assigned portfolios…but even as I am pretty deeply involved in the

B’nai Mitzvah program, there are clear boundaries about what each one of us does and open lines of intersection and mutual reliance.” Lily used metaphors to describe the habitual movement in and out of one another’s spheres of responsibility and authority: “Much of the time, we sort of play and dance off each other.” It became clear to the researcher during the site visits that the five people in the Leadership Group spent a significant amount of time in each other’s offices – often for the purpose of distinguishing individual roles from those of the group. Becca pointed 217 out: “We often work separately from one another to move certain pieces forward and things like that. But who is around the table at any moment depends on what the conversation is about.”

The participants spoke about the high level of trust necessary for this leadership model to effectively function. The rabbi commented: “So in this model here, the members of the team are the masters of their crafts and domains. And I get my own domain…and we [all] work together.”

Over time, team members learned to understand one another, knew where each team member stood on agenda topics, and recognized when to take the lead and when to cede leadership to a partner. Francine suggested that the five members of the Leadership Group maintained individual areas of specialization – “similar to medicine.” She laughed, “But here they are specialists in the world of religion!”

As such, being a “specialist” occasionally required saying “no” to other team members or to the members of Community Synagogue. The rabbi explained: “So teaching, the pulpit and pastoral care are my areas…but in terms of managing finances or making decisions about the rental property next door – that is not my expertise.” While in some situations, team members stepped in for one another and assumed new responsibilities either temporarily or on a long-term basis, in other circumstances, their roles and assignments drew exclusively upon their particular educational backgrounds and professional skills. When asked about the interchangeability of the responsibilities of the rabbi and Cantor as clergy partners, Alison responded out of her own experience of answering the phones and directing members of the congregation to designated staff members:

You know, they each have their own area of study…you know, to become a rabbi,

you learn certain things. You become a cantor, you learn certain things. Yes,

there’s crossover in some respects…and there are opportunities that they could 218

embrace together…There could be some areas. I’m not saying ‘no,’ but I just

don’t know that either one of them is trained enough in one another’s areas of

responsibility.

The rabbi summarized: “One of the things about being a strong team is that we cannot stay in our own heads…. In order to work together, we need to get out of our heads and learn to read each other.”

Acting in the image of God. The first two themes – team communication and the ongoing balance between oneself and those with whom one shares leadership – may be widely applicable to a variety of organizational types in which shared leadership exists. However, the third theme – “Acting in the Image of God” -- is more particularistic in conveying the spiritual nature of shared leadership at Community Synagogue. Acting in the Image of God is defined as:

The act of behaving according to traditional Jewish communal values by the team leader and members that moves them to cultivate transcendent relationships with other people and with

God. This third theme encompassed some of the more religious and even mystical elements of sharing leadership in the synagogue – a distinctively sacred setting. This means that the actual building and nurturing of a shared spiritual team in the image of God was part of the mission of

Community Synagogue and the people associated with it as a Jewish organization.

On the level of practice, acting in the image of God referred to the sharing of spiritual leadership as it is connected to the mindful and soulful enactment of Jewish values. Acting in the image of God at Community Synagogue meant cultivating sacred relationships between people, and between people and the Divine. Through the individual interviews and focus groups, the following three sub-themes surfaced, and elucidate what it means for Community Synagogue team leaders to behave in the image of God: (a) learning, teaching and living Judaism; (b) 219 inspiring individual participation in Jewish life; (c) establishing the team as a model for a shared spiritual community. These sub-themes carry the weight of historic Judaism and the traditional narrative that makes the Jewish people not just a community; rather, a sacred, religious community.

Learning, teaching, and living Jewishly. This first sub-theme established the connection between God and Community Synagogue leaders, and Community Synagogue leaders and all who are associated with it as the place where the transmission of Judaism is relational and not transactional. The historic directive to for Synagogue Staff to act in the image of God has already been established in this research, and, from ancient times, this concept was and continues to be among the primary responsibilities of the synagogue and those associated with it. One cannot over-estimate the place of Jewish education at Community Synagogue, and how learning and the teaching of Torah in its broadest conception are at the focal point of strategic and practical leadership. Participants in this study claimed that it was that component of Jewish learning and teaching that made Community Synagogue unique and distinct from others.

Jewish education, also referred to as “Torah,” pervaded all levels of the organization and was spoken about by every participant as the single most important priority of the clergy and professional staff at Community Synagogue. Torah is defined as the totality of Jewish learning at

Community Synagogue, and as such, everything follows from it. The rabbi said: “It is all Torah.

Because the central message of Torah is one God, one human family, one world vision in which all things are connected, and all life is sacred.” He maintains that learning Torah is the first step to living by the Torah:

Embedded in the Shema Yisrael [the central Jewish affirmation regarding the

existence of one God and one people] is the call to be a witness and to live in such 220

a way as to witness the unity of God and the oneness of Creation. … and to the

way in human beings elevate God’s Presence in the world by the way in which we

live. We Jews have a covenantal commitment to be God’s ‘PR Reps’ on earth.

The inextricable link between learning Torah and living Torah was not just a theme that was bantered about, but rather was a tangible component of every staff member’s job at

Community Synagogue. However, what is noteworthy is that at Community Synagogue, there was the opportunity and creative space for the individual to shape a “personal Torah” for himself or herself, and then to share it with the larger community. This aspect of autonomy, too, had deep roots in the rabbinic Tradition that, even two thousand years ago, empowered rabbis, commentators, teachers and students to take active roles in defining Judaism for themselves and their generation. The rabbi stated: “Our mission has to be grounded in the rabbinic tradition: its values, its modalities; and fascinatingly and wonderfully, rabbinic tradition is a multivocal tradition.” May, the Executive Director, crafted her entire role in the image of God and in the reflection of Torah throughout the centuries. For May, her work was made sacred because she viewed the Torah and Jewish study in general, as a “Torah of love….” May offered an anecdote:

The rabbi does a program with a text study for prospective and new members.

One text is a Midrash: God says to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, when

God is about to give the Torah to them: ‘I'm going to hold the mountain

[mountain as symbol of Torah] over you. Accept the mountain. And if you don't

accept the mountain then you're going to get crushed under the mountain. [The

mountain will be inverted so that Children of Israel are destroyed by the inverted

mountain. They are killed by the mountain/the Torah.]’ So, this is not the Torah

of love. This is a Torah of fear (The Talmud: Avodah Zara 2b, Shabbat 88a). And 221

then juxtapose that story with the Yehudah Amichai poem, “My Father was God.”

You know, the poem about a loving parent giving Torah a little bit at a time; a

little bit -- with a hug and a caress. This is the Torah of love. And that's what

we're trying to create.

The participants alluded to the Torah as the natural and necessary bridge between learning and social justice in Jewish life. Social justice was a thread that ran through the

Religious School programs, governance, prayers, and sermons in the sanctuary. Roxy explained that social justice programming had long been a mainstay of the informal youth programs at

Community Synagogue, and that historically, there has been great energy and resources devoted to “helping Torah speak to our teenagers” by way of social action. The rabbi added: “Social justice and social action are important elements of this community’s life.”

Empowering individuals to grow in their practice of Judaism. The relational model that originally inspired Jewish education and social justice on the large, communal level also provided the leaders of Community Synagogue with the opportunity to work privately and individually with members of the congregation. While some members came to the synagogue to associate with the collective, the group, there were others who came out of their desire to seek a greater sense of individual, personal Jewish meaning. That is, the sharing of spiritual leadership prompted team members to reach out to as many individuals as possible in the congregations, to more effectively build an atmosphere of emotional safety, to increase members’ confidence in their chosen Jewish practices and rituals, and to grow each person’s commitment to Community

Synagogue.

The interviewees emphasized that whereas some of their work at Community Synagogue was accomplished in groups of people, other endeavors and initiatives were in cultivating a sense 222 of spirituality – one person at a time. Having a group of leaders sharing the responsibility of service at Community Synagogue facilitated a deeper, more relational approach than might have existed in other settings. The participants believed that there was true power in the team members’ willingness and facility to be spiritual leaders and to work in tandem and in partnership with one another. The time-intensive and highly intimate nature of spiritual leadership cannot be over-emphasized and having a team at Community Synagogue to share these responsibilities was effective in serving more people more effectively.

For the rabbi, it was about “empowering people to do things for themselves.” This belief held true from the very young to the very old. He explained that the model of shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue was enacted everywhere in the building – including the sanctuary, where individuals are encouraged to chant Torah, lead the prayers in the service, sing, play instruments and even deliver sermons or Divrei Torah [short interpretations on a topic related to the weekly Torah portion]. But shared spiritual leadership was in no way limited only to the sanctuary. The rabbi maintained:

We have rabbinic colleagues who think that only when he or she shows up is

‘authorized Torah study’ and/or services supposed to happen! It is true that the

rabbi needs to continue to set the standard for continued growth and learning. But

[our colleagues] fail to understand that this kind of behavior does not elevate the

rabbi to be more important; it lowers the rabbi. Because the more that there are

people who value learning and the more the rabbi is attending to his or her own

learning, the more valuable the rabbi becomes to the congregation. 223

Roxy said that it was very powerful for members of the congregation to lead services and to read

Torah, in particular – two activities traditionally reserved for the rabbi or the cantor of the community. She maintained:

Some weeks there are congregation leaders for services…There is room for our

lay leaders and general members who feel compelled to lead to do so and there

are open spaces on the calendar for this. Post B’nai Mitzvah kids and adults who

chant Torah three times during the year get a yad [a ritual item that is a pointer to

guide one’s reading of Torah] from Community Synagogue which is really a big

deal. This is a nice piece of recognition and allows people to momentarily step

into leadership roles in spiritual ways.

In addition to encouraging post-B’nai Mitzvah students and adults to lead services, the rabbi said that people find it helpful to take personal proactive approaches to life-cycle events as well: “If people are preparing for a funeral, I’ll say to them: ‘I encourage you to eulogize your loved one…Sure, I could glean the information from you and say it, but better that you should do the eulogy.’” Becca added that guiding people to be the leaders on their own Jewish journeys reveals the “dynamism in Judaism that allows [each person] to take part…It also has to be creative, imaginative, and offer agency and support…and I’m talking not just about adults, but children, too!”

There were impressive outcomes that emerged for those who took ownership for navigating the direction of their Jewish lives and for cultivating their Jewish identities. May said that there is a feeling of individual worth and meaning that comes from taking a leadership role in the spiritual sphere: “We want to be looking into their eyes and faces so they feel important, valued and validated….[Our role] is helping people, being their partners, giving them a place for 224 their Jewish journeys. We’re ‘the address’ for our congregants’ Jewish journeys.” For Lily, who was trained as a Jewish educator and certified in special education, it was about inclusion to the fullest degree. It was about making certain that even the most vulnerable children and adults in the congregation would have a Jewish journey, too, and that each one of them felt a sense of pride and empowerment.

Creating a shared, sacred Jewish community. The rabbi maintained that if the goal is for people to “own their spiritual lives and their Jewish lives and to grow with both of those, then the staff has a responsibility to model that too.” As such, the rabbi asserted that each member of the staff was obligated to observe and share Jewish customs and that the variety of different Jewish journeys represented by the leadership staff was a microcosm of the more varied and numerous

Jewish journeys that belonged to the members of Community Synagogue. The rabbi also emphasized that members enjoyed the opportunity to shape their personal Jewish journeys with others; to be part of something important. Furthermore, he has seen excitement that has been contagious when people have personally signed onto the mission of the congregation and then shared their discoveries with others. In the rabbi’s words, they were “pulled in by people” – both staff and lay leaders – of the highest caliber. The result, the rabbi suggested, was that organizational clarity began to emerge and that “well-considered sources of authority shared the learning of Torah and the living out of Torah. That’s it.” In the final analysis, the rabbi indicated that acting in the image of God led naturally to a “holistic vison of humanity where spiritualty, too, was about the wholeness of each person and the wholeness of their life systems. It comes down to each person and his or her relationships with others.”

Section summary for research question one. Participants’ responses to the first research question helped explain how spiritual leadership was shared among the eight 225 professional staff members at Community Synagogue. The first theme that emerged, that of effective communication, was a condition of shared leadership that required each participant to push for clarity in all verbal and non-verbal organizational interactions. The importance of dynamic communication in relation to the sharing of leadership cannot be over-emphasized for the professionals at Community Synagogue, and the absence of communication or miscommunication was most often the root cause of failures in organizational planning or implementation. The second theme that became apparent in the data was that the sharing of spiritual leadership required each member to know himself or herself and to develop a sensitivity to his or her colleagues on the team. This theme offered evidence that much of the “work” in sharing spiritual leadership was reflective and self-reflective in nature and necessitated a fluid interchange of roles of responsibilities. There was an awareness among team members that internal organizational boundaries, “turf” issues, and clear divisions of labor were integral to the practice of shared spiritual leadership. This theme addressed the “I” and the “we” of sharing leadership at Community Synagogue as a more flattened organizational framework. Finally, the third theme that developed out of data analysis was that the sharing of spiritual leadership at

Community Synagogue included the sacred practice of acting in the image of God. This was the area in which one’s “work” as a professional at Community Synagogue intersected with one’s calling as a Jewish leader -- ultimately differentiating the synagogue as a religious organization from other secular work-places.

The Unique Role of the Rabbi as Spiritual Leader

The second research question focused on identifying which responsibilities of the rabbi as spiritual leader were not shared with his colleagues. That is, the objective of this question was to discover for which areas of spiritual leadership the rabbi had sole responsibility and/or authority 226 at Community Synagogue. There were three primary areas that belonged to the rabbi alone: (a) serving as the authoritative educational leader of Community Synagogue; (b) Assuming responsibility as the architect and guardian of Community Synagogue’s vision; and (c) The tangible and intangible aspects of the rabbi’s personality and demeanor that are unique to him only. With respect to the first two themes – the rabbi as educator and the rabbi as guardian of the congregational vision – it would be incorrect to say that these were areas that the rabbi never shared with others. In fact, the educational and visionary aspects of synagogue life were ultimately shared widely; however, in both realms, the rabbi was the one who initiated these activities, inspired progress, and held the definitive power of “vote and veto.” The abovementioned themes had sub-themes that shed additional light on the research question and helped offer insight into the nuanced topic of the nature of the rabbi’s leadership. The following sections elucidate the unique authority of the rabbi as spiritual leader at Community Synagogue.

Serving as the authoritative educational leader of Community Synagogue. In probing this research question, interviewees were asked to think about the functions of the rabbi at

Community Synagogue, and specifically, to identify the areas of rabbinic leadership that they felt were unique to him as the spiritual leader. The fourth theme that emerged as part of the total findings for this study is: “The Rabbi as the Authoritative Educational Leader of Community

Synagogue.” This theme is defined as: The performance of high-level learning and teaching that is at the historic center of the rabbi’s spiritual leadership and is the medium through which he earns the respect and influence of people in the congregational community. In their responses, participants universally agreed that the rabbi’s responsibility as a teacher superseded all his other roles, was the realm in which he was most often consulted and was the sphere in which he was the unchallenged expert. The portrait of the rabbi as educator at Community Synagogue did not 227 emerge as a single monolithic category; rather, participant descriptions fell into two sub- categories that reflected the rabbi’s historical development as the person of authority in Jewish tradition: (a) The rabbi had earned authority as the primary instructor and interpreter of Torah; and (b) The rabbi had ascribed or positional authority as the decision-maker on questions of

Jewish law. While this distinction was subtle, it was nevertheless important because it suggested that the rabbi’s authority as educational leader came from his own merits as well as from his historic position and title.

The rabbi has earned authority as the primary instructor and interpreter of Torah. At the first interview for this research study, the rabbi said: “The rabbi without Torah is not a rabbi and has no authority.” Among the numerous roles associated with the contemporary rabbi,

Community Synagogue’s rabbi considered himself a teacher of Torah in the broadest sense as his priority. Throughout his career, he has remained consistently devoted to learning and teaching as his primary responsibility and privilege. He said: “I’ve focused my life and career on my continued growth and learning, and this congregation – one of the reasons why it’s been such a great match – is that they have been tremendously supportive of my educational growth and development.” The rabbi considered his own Jewish education a work in progress that included a lifetime of classes, seminars and conferences at the highest level and throughout the world. He viewed his own authority within the “context of Community Synagogue as a rabbinic Jewish institution,” in which the Hebrew word ‘rabbi’ is translated as “[my] teacher.”

The rabbi earned his place at the top of Community Synagogue’s educational ladder. Yet, he also viewed it as his priority to engage superb educators to be his partners at Community

Synagogue, and to pass along the support that he received over the years for his own educational endeavors to the other educators at Community Synagogue. The rabbi ensured that all the clergy 228 and professional staff members had opportunities for professional development through a variety of local, regional and national offerings sponsored by the Reform Movement or other outside organizations. The rabbi has maintained a high standard for his own scholarship and has aimed for a balance between his scholarship and his practice so that he would be able to: “manage the flow of life authoritatively and represent the traditionally faithfully…I have to be grounded deeply in the tradition, and it has to be dynamic, and it has to keep being refreshed, renewed, and dynamic.”

In fact, the rabbi said: “My own personal favorite synagogue venue is the Beit Midrash – the classroom – because the formality [of the sanctuary and worship] is removed when one is teaching in the classroom. In the classroom, [the formality of the sanctuary] is replaced by an authentic give and take in learning.” Researcher observations of the rabbi in several educational settings corroborated his words and those of his team members that teaching was his passion. On one occasion, when sitting with a Bat Mitzvah student and her family, the rabbi literally “lit up” when she began to read her D’var Torah (speech, interpretation of the Torah reading). He became extremely animated and shared a story from tradition to help illustrate a nuance of the

Torah portion that the student was struggling to understand. The energy around his teaching was palpable.

As such, the rabbi has found worship service leadership to be a bit too “frontal” for his own preferences and has been known to even turn the sanctuary into a classroom at certain times.

While his expertise was broad and he was fluent across the spectrum of Jewish learning, it is the inquiry into and interpretation of ancient texts that he believed was his area of specialty. He explained that he never believed in infusing filler or “fluff;” rather, he approached the learning and teaching of Jewish texts in accordance with the authenticity of earlier generations of rabbis. 229

Therefore, while this rabbi was highly innovative and forward-thinking in many facets of his work, when it came to Jewish text study, he maintained a traditional approach that was deeply rooted in the training and experience of rabbis over time. Following a Children’s Shabbat in which he engaged very young school-aged children in a service in the sanctuary, the rabbi described his teaching methodology:

So, I define a path and take certain core texts and then the discussion flows. And

you know, there were texts on the page; and there were also texts that came out of

my head from the tradition simply because of a question that was asked or a twist

of a comment. And all of a sudden, it’s just like the hammer that hits the rock and

the sparks just fly [and the discussion takes off]! It’s a lot like that.

The other members of the clergy and professional staff have been inspired by the rabbi’s teaching and have continually expanded upon their own learning and teaching; however, they articulated that the rabbi alone has merited the title and role of “Master Teacher” at Community

Synagogue. A serious and successful educator in her own right, Lily nevertheless differentiated and from the rabbi in the area of Jewish education: “There is a mastery of liturgy and text that comes with his education and experience as a rabbi…It is what makes him the spiritual leader.”

Becca pointed out that the rabbi’s very busy teaching schedule at Community Synagogue is somewhat unusual for a rabbi of his tenure and experience. Yet, Becca continued, he has never seen himself as “above” teaching classes that might be at a very basic level or geared toward the youngest students in the congregation:

It is no small thing that he does the kind of teaching he does in the educational

program, and that all of us do. All four of us teach a lot and it has always been

that way. He’s been teaching confirmation from the beginning, every year, tenth 230

grade…and he and our [previous] educator came up with our grade-level family

educational programs on Sundays, and he still does that, too. He doesn’t need to

be still doing that. He really doesn’t. There are other things he could be doing on

Sunday mornings.

The team members pointed out that in areas of programming, administration, and even pastoral duties, there has been a high degree of sharing among the leaders, but when it comes to

Torah learning – to classical Jewish study – the rabbi has always had “final word.” Lily commented: “Sure, I can sit in the room and debate this verse [of text] or that, or this prayer or that prayer. But if the rabbi says ‘X,’ I’m going to say, ‘Okay, you’re the rabbi, it is up to you.”

When asked if she ever felt any resentment, Lily commented: “To the contrary… there is a healthy respect” for the rabbi as the spiritual leader of Community Synagogue, and particularly, for his authority in Torah.

It is not only that the rabbi has been viewed as the undisputed expert in Jewish learning at

Community Synagogue; moreover, he expressed that Torah study and Jewish learning have been his pleasure and passion. Becca explained that teaching has been “his thing;” it is where he is most happy and where he believes his skills and talents as a rabbi are best directed. As his wife as well as his colleague, Becca offered the following comments that obviously came from her personal and professional proximity to the rabbi:

The learning, the learning, the learning! When he says something, he has the

authority of his scholarship behind it, and he is a scholar. That Beit Midrash

[traditional Jewish classroom] – whether it’s the one at Hartman [International

institute of Jewish learning in Jerusalem – a special, intensive, high level study 231

program for rabbis] or the one that he will teach in tonight, the Jewish world is

like his Beit Midrash! There is high value on Torah learning that is authentic.

The rabbi has ascribed or positional authority as the decision-maker on questions of

Jewish law. In addition to the earned authority of the rabbi at Community Synagogue, he also derives a measure of his authority from being part of a historic chain of tradition in which the title “rabbi,” commands respect among those in the Jewish community and even beyond it. In the area of Jewish learning and mastery of Jewish law, a rabbi comes to a congregation with a positional authority that is rooted in tradition and that should not be relied upon, but one that legitimately belongs to him. The team members of Community Synagogue said that the rabbi has been the only person on the staff with positional authority as spiritual leader, and they stated that his positional authority has always been in the area of Jewish scholarship.

Even Shira, herself a member of the clergy, said that she saw the rabbi as “above” her in the organization and believed that, he retained the right to be the “ultimate decision-maker.”

Becca stressed that the rabbi in Judaism has authority that is “bestowed upon him by virtue of his position, his office…. So, by definition, the role of the rabbi of the community makes it permissible for him to know and do things simply because that is the position that he is in.” Lily suggested that, in her experience, the staff members have always been willing to defer to the rabbi’s judgment and decisions as the spiritual leader; nevertheless, “we are always happy to be thought-partners in the process, and we often are.” Therefore, while final decisions may have been in the hands of the rabbi; nevertheless, the Synagogue Staff maintained that their input has been welcomed and that most often, there has been a shared process at work. Lily laughed and commented that there are certain things that are expected of the rabbi “just because he is the rabbi…. you know, the ‘gravitas stuff’ that is about having the title of rabbi.” 232

The staff members contextualized the positional authority of the rabbi by stating that most Reform synagogues around the country have a structure that is similar to Community

Synagogue. Lily said: “I think it is inherent in the structure of synagogue life and I don’t think that’s just ours…You walk into any synagogue and [having the rabbi at the top of the educational hierarchy] is just the way thing are built.” The staff members recognized the rabbi as the authoritative Jewish scholar, and they understood and accepted this structure and believed that

“it’s really he who has allowed for this staff configuration…. Not only did he fight for it and build it, but actually he believes in it and needs it.” While there was consensus that Community

Synagogue’s rabbi has more than earned his place as a teacher and scholar, Lily suggested: “At the end of the day, you know, you go to rabbinical school for a numbers of years and then you serve a congregation for a number of years – he deserves his due.”

When asked if there had ever been occasions when shared spiritual leadership did not work for either the rabbi or the synagogue, or if a situation had ever arisen wherein the rabbi’s authority was challenged or placed in jeopardy, the rabbi answered:

So, I would say that I’m not sure I can point to a time when it didn’t work. I can

tell you there’s a mostly healthy tension because when you are collaborative and

you really do seek to empower others, there are moments when everybody knows

that I am ultimately ‘where the buck stops’ -- …. Sometimes when I’m assertive,

there is pushback. [Laughing] It’s a monster I created!

Assuming responsibility as the architect and guardian of Community Synagogue’s vision. The fifth theme that emerged on the topic of identifying those elements of spiritual leadership that belonged to the rabbi alone is: “The rabbi as Architect and Guardian of

Community Synagogue’s Vision.” This theme is defined as: The rabbi’s accountability for and 233 authority over the synagogue’s spiritual direction and communal purposes that enables him to lead with creative ideas, bring meaning to Jewish life, and inspire others to become part of the congregational family. By his own appraisal and those of the Leadership Group, it was clear that the rabbi shaped the mission and guided the future-focused aspirations of Community Synagogue and its members. While the rabbi has been known to ask the other staff members for input and has gathered the group to “vision” together on many occasions; nevertheless, there was full consensus that ultimately, at Community Synagogue the rabbi has driven the vision of the organization. Two important sub-themes emerged that brought greater clarity to the theme of the rabbi as keeper and maintainer of the congregational vision: (a) The rabbi is the ‘chief vision officer’ at Community Synagogue; (b) The rabbi leads with the vision and not with himself. The following paragraphs will elucidate how the rabbi as visionary is enacted at Community

Synagogue.

The rabbi is the ‘chief vision officer.’ In response to the question about which areas of spiritual leadership have been associated with only with him, the rabbi answered: “I play the role of ‘chief vision officer’ at Community Synagogue.” When asked to elaborate, the rabbi said that he shapes a mental picture of what he believes the congregational community might become, and then engages with others for buy-in and for help in “giving legs to the vision.” The rabbi said that a significant aspect of his role as leader has been to spend time in his own thoughts, continually pondering “the big ideas,” The rabbi explained that it is his responsibility to keep

Community Synagogue on a “mission-driven, vision-driven” continuum. From the beginning of his tenure, the rabbi’s vision has centered around shaping the synagogue into an “organic community…. a hothouse in which people can grow… a Jewish hothouse. You have to make sure that the ground is fertile and that the resources are there. You have to create opportunities 234 for people to learn and practice.” The rabbi suggested that every facet of Community Synagogue needs to be vision-centered, even the budget. He did not claim to have expertise in finance: “I didn’t learn that in rabbinic school,” he quipped, while smiling. Yet, he reasoned: “If the budget is a value statement [of Community Synagogue],” then it is critical for the rabbi “to understand the budget where it intersects with the vision of the congregation.”

Over the years, being the “chief vision officer” has required both cerebral and reflective energy, but it also has involved taking action. In the realm of taking action, the rabbi explained that among his primary duties as “chief vision officer” has been inspiring others in the community. For Lily, it has been a “gift” to work with “someone like the rabbi who understands what the vision can look like, and what it can look like to [work on it] together.” The rabbi’s partners in the Leadership Group expressed that they were “of one mind” in their belief that “the rabbi is the vision guy…the big picture guy,” and that each of them has played supporting roles as vision-implementers and disseminators. In fact, in order to maintain the rabbi’s attention at the highest level of visioning, it has been imperative that the Leadership Group focus on their respective tasks and functions. Lily asserted: “He is not supposed to deal with things like collecting forms for a program or handling money, like checks that come in for an event…that’s not the greatest use of his anything!”

One of the researcher’s site visits occurred in the late spring and coincided with the last day of Religious School and other end-of-the-year synagogue activities. The Festival of Shavuot was the following week, and for the first time at Community Synagogue, the Festival included a holiday food drive that the rabbi had envisioned and proposed as part of Shavuot. While the rabbi expressed excitement about this innovation, the other members of the Leadership Team felt tired and somewhat burned out, given their workload and the time of year. In Becca’s words: 235

“For the life of him, he just will not retain the fact that even though he came up with a great idea for this program, he can’t do it alone [and needs to ask us] to help him carry it out.” In fact,

Becca says with a mix of seriousness and humor: “It is making us crazy!”

Despite their protests about over-programming and their resistance to this new and ambitious initiative, the rabbi insisted on moving his vision forward. On the final weekend prior to the holiday observance, he realized there were loose ends programmatically, including the fact that no one had thought to create a flyer for publicity. The rabbi realized that he had “dropped the ball,” and admitted that designing publicity flyers was simply “not his thing.” Therefore, he called Lily for help -- on Sunday morning -- just as she was opening the building to prepare for the last day of Religious School. He sheepishly asked if she would make photocopies of the flyer that he quickly put together and then send it home with the students at the end of the morning.

Through observation, it was clear to the researcher that by the time the rabbi arrived at

Community Synagogue that morning, Lily was worked up and a bit annoyed. Though every member of the staff would have been more than willing to help him, the last-minute request frustrated Lily and Becca, especially, because of his “insistence about this program all along…and their pushback [on it] from the beginning.” Of course, by the end of a very busy morning, the flyers managed to get photocopied and were sent home with the students. But rather than dealing with their anger on that busy Sunday morning, the staff members agreed to “de- brief” this series of snags during the upcoming staff meeting. Later in the day, when asked if this kind of impasse occurred frequently, the rabbi answered with equanimity:

Sometimes we can have some exchanges where I get kind of frustrated like I want

to…. I know the way I want it, and in a hierarchical model I would just do it and

that would be that! I wouldn’t trade it. I don’t want that level of aggregate 236

concentrated power because then I wouldn’t benefit from the fullness of the

robust contributions that they make because they would pull back. I don’t want

them to pull back. I want them to challenge.

In the final analysis, Community Synagogue’s vision originated with the rabbi who articulated it to his staff partners. Together and in one voice, they transmitted the vision to the congregation. As such, a history of trust between the rabbi and the members of the professional team has been built over time, and a culture of respect for the rabbi as well as his vision has been cultivated on the team. The rabbi was viewed as one who leads with a combination of intention and passion; he only imposed” his agenda when he felt it was in the best interest of the congregation. The rabbi asserted that he has never taken on the visioning of the congregation or the implementation of that vision on his own; rather, he has continually sought validation from staff members and feedback from the congregation:

My role is to assemble a team of professionals who are highly qualified, highly

motivated, with whom to share a vision and continue to work together to vision,

and then empower them to implement [the vision] in their own spheres and for

them to replicate that model with the teams that they lead so that they are

visioning together and implementing together as well.

The rabbi leads with the vision and not with himself. The second sub-theme that emerged in connection with the rabbi as visionary was the awareness that the vision must never be confused with the visionary. It was clear that the rabbi has led the congregation not with himself, but with his vision. The rabbi and the professional staff members pointed out that one of the advantages of sharing leadership rest in the continual checks on people’s egos – particularly, 237 the ego of the rabbi. They believed that because the visioning at Community Synagogue has been an iterative process, it is ultimately owned by all the different stakeholders in the congregation.

At Community Synagogue, the rabbi considered it his responsibility to keep his vision separate from himself as a person. He spoke about himself as the vessel in which the vision lives and grows. However, ultimately, the vision receives its life from the congregational members who make it their own. The rabbi explained that the Jewish principle called tzimtzum validates the primacy of the vision over the visionary:

The role of the shaliach tzibor [leader of prayer – can be the rabbi or others] is

that of tzimtzum where the leader actually condenses his or her presence to allow

for [worshipers to find their own places in the prayer service.] Tzimtzum means to

point the way and then get out of the way to allow people space.

Whereas the example above referred to tzimtzum as it pertains to worship, tzimtzum is an expansive conception that is applied to every aspect of Jewish leadership. At Community

Synagogue, staff members described tzimtzum as more than self-effacement in leadership; moreover, it was understood as a way to empower others.

The rabbi’s staff partners and lay leaders at Community Synagogue have learned to make the important distinction between the vision and the person with the vision; they “get it, they respect it, and they understand it.” The rabbi emphasized that the development and evolution of the vision did not happen automatically; rather, much like everything at Community Synagogue, the vision required a process of teaching and learning for which the rabbi was primarily responsible.

Becca attributed the harmonious relationships between staff and lay leadership to tzimtzum, which, ideally, each leader has an obligation to enact in his or her own way. That is, 238 from visioning ideas to “envisioning” programs, from on-boarding new Board Members to making decisions about the retention of staff, the rabbi’s intentional practice of tzimtzum has served as a means of instruction and inspiration for others. It has also motivated other staff members to practice tzimtzum as a means to “pursue excellence coupled with humility.” Becca viewed the dynamic of tzimtzum in Community Synagogue as a function of the rabbi’s service at the highest level: “When the rabbi is in service to his people, it’s not about him, it’s about them.”

She continues: “We all know too many people in positions of authority for whom the primary focus is not the person or people that they are serving, but rather, the self.”

Toward the end of one of the interviews, the rabbi smiled and asked the rhetorical question: “To whom does a congregation belong?” After a short pause, he answered: “There was this voice from the Alban Institute…I don’t remember exactly who said it. But he wrote that a congregation doesn’t belong to its members – which is the obvious answer. He proposed that a congregation belongs to its mission” (Hotchkiss, 2009, p. 85). The rabbi said that this concept resonated with him and best captures his leadership style and the principle of tzimtzum that undergirds it. That is, at certain points in the congregation’s history, its mission and vision had taken on lives of their own that ultimately transcended the people who gave them life.

Accounting for the particular nature of this rabbi. The sixth theme that highlights the realm of leadership that belongs to the rabbi alone and that underscores the nature of the rabbi as spiritual leader is: “The Tangible and Intangible Aspects of the Rabbi’s Personality and

Demeanor that are Unique to Him.” The sixth theme is defined as: The special human behaviors and personal characteristics that shape the rabbi as spiritual leader and that prompt others to follow his vision. At the conclusion of all the data collection and analyses, there remained a large category of qualities and attributes that participants identified in their responses to questions 239 about the uniqueness of the rabbi. While it was not the purpose of this research study to conjecture as to which personal qualities were deemed necessary for the rabbi to thrive at

Community Synagogue; nevertheless, the fact remains that there were and are certain personal and professional characteristics of this rabbi that certainly help explain his success as a spiritual leader. The following section will elucidate some of the main themes that arose from the data as to the temperament and behaviors of this rabbi and will suggest ways in which these qualities have promoted the rabbi’s sharing of spiritual leadership.

Table 10 provides a summary of the data collected about the rabbi’s personal qualities and representative quotations that support the synthesized findings. They are in the order that they were raised by participants in their interviews and focus groups.

240

Table 10

The Nature of this rabbi

Characteristic Quotation Attribution Takes “You know, it's too much to hope in the context of such a long tenure that there won't rabbi responsibility be mistakes you make along the way. I have a colleague, not a Reform colleague, who is packing his bags to leave town because that type of [arrogant] behavior was a fairly regular thing... And then you're done, right? You're just done. I mean, doing that once in the wrong context can do you in. When you take full responsibility, you can hopefully overcome it…” “Walks the “In my opinion, I think the reason why this works is because the rabbi is who rabbi is Lily walk” (serves -- and he's the kind of leader that he is. And because of that, we lead the way that we as a model) lead.” Lives the “And when you have the good fortune to have what I have -- which is to work with Lily vision someone like [this] rabbi who understands what [the vision] would look like, and what it can look like to do this together.” Partners “For better for worse, he is the only [synagogue] partner I've ever had. In some ways Lily effectively it's phenomenal because I can read him before he says anything. I mean it's a huge crack-up now where I can sit in a room and I can go like this [glance at her watch]. I am signaling to him…’okay, you're close [to the time limit...]’ And he knows that signal means that he's got to 2 minutes left. Like it's a language. There is no question that we have established this communication, you know. There's no question that there's that. But also, that I know his, I understand his style and... it’s a style that works for me and he's an education centered rabbi.” Puts people at “Um, the way that he can like talk to somebody and they will open up in seconds Shira ease you know. And he just talks to them.... that’s rare. Like I haven't seen that. Um, you know, I think in other places it would be different.” Listens well “Listening is a really important aspect of being a spiritual leader that goes hand in Becca hand with the ego. So [the rabbi] is...he's not always a good listener, but when he listens, he listens well.” Learns from “I just think like the rabbi can, he can be powerful, but the rabbi is can also be very Shira experience hesitant possibly because of past experiences; of going somewhere where you don't have the backing of the ritual committee or the Temple President.” Gives people “I mean, I think it's his personality, his nature. You know, from what I see of him, he Alison what they need seems to be a very giving man. I know that's part of his profession is to give himself and his time and his life to the community.” Leads with “Because it all comes from here [pointing to her heart]; it doesn't come from here Francine heart [pointing to her wrist where her watch is...] And that’s really wonderful.” Treats “But the time he gives you is the same time he will give to the next person. So even everyone though you feel like, you know, he's running behind, he will give you the same equally amount, the same amount of respectful time. He doesn't shorten you because Alison somebody else is more important. And that's commendable as rabbi and leader here.” Insightful, “He has a talk with every bride and groom. He's open to conversation. He's very Alison open much a speaker and very much a teacher in that regard. He likes to hear people's perspectives and tries to understand where the girlfriend, boyfriend, fiancés are coming from, and wants to help them understand what his position is [whether he will officiate or not at the wedding and why or why not]. Has an “I see the rabbi as very, very busy and I don't know how he ever gets anything done Francine excellent work on his two legs. He's only one person... Just because he's not here [in the building] ethic doesn't mean he is not working.” 241

Section summary for research question two. The second research question centered on specific aspects of the rabbi’s role as the spiritual leader of Community Synagogue that were not shared with his staff partners. Research participants agreed on two areas in which the rabbi at

Community Synagogue was perceived as the “ultimate” authority: (a) as a scholar and a master teacher of Judaism; and (b) as the organizational visionary. In both of those cases, staff members concurred that the rabbi had the “final word;” nevertheless, the rabbi continually provided opportunities for professional staff members to weigh in and assist in transforming his vision into reality.

Thus, even in areas for which the rabbi was responsible and accountable, it was his choice to share leadership by: (a) raising up serious students of Jewish learning from among the children and adults in the synagogue who then go on to teach others; and (b) bringing others into the process of accepting and disseminating the rabbi’s organizational vision so that staff members could offer their feedback and ultimately sign onto his vision. Throughout the discussion about the rabbi’s unique role as spiritual leader, participants deviated slightly from the actual question and instead enumerated the personal and behavioral characteristics of the rabbi that they believed contributed to his leadership. The data that emerged were organized and presented in Table 10, and while not entirely relevant to the research question, they may be useful for future research endeavors. The following sections will explore the third research question about the influence of shared spiritual leadership on the advancement and evolution of

Community Synagogue.

Shared Spiritual Leadership and the Growth and Development of Community Synagogue

Those who were interviewed and participated in focus groups were prompted with questions about how shared spiritual leadership in Community Synagogue influenced the growth 242 and development of the organization. Three primary themes emerged that characterize the influence of shared spiritual leadership on the overall health and well-being of Community

Synagogue: (a) Strengthening Community Synagogue through a Value-Based Approach to

Jewish Communal Life; (b) Fostering a people-centered culture; and (c) Making Community

Synagogue Increasingly Nimble and Adaptable during Times of Transition and Change. Whereas the first two research questions were addressed and answered predominantly through personal interviews and focus groups, the data collection and analysis for the third research question gave the researcher a chance to learn through direct observations. That is, since the third research question focused on the impact of shared spiritual leadership on Community Synagogue, observations offered first-hand, discernible evidence that substantiated the verbal testimony of the participants.

Strengthening Community Synagogue through a values-based approach to Jewish communal life. The seventh theme that came to light from the data collection and analysis is that shared spiritual leadership has a role in “Strengthening Community Synagogue through a Value-

Based Approach to Jewish Communal Life.” The seventh theme is defined as: The act of adhering to and deepening the commitment to the enduring principles of Jewish life and to cultivating positive Jewish identification among the members in ways that that enhance the quality of the synagogue as an organization. The single word that was most frequently used in connection with this research question about the impact of shared spiritual leadership on the development of Community Synagogue was: “values.” Jewish values were the means as well as the end in helping strengthen the life of the congregational community. As such, Jewish values functioned simultaneously as the medium and the message. 243

Values were described as both “enduring” and “flexible,” and, ultimately, were viewed as central to sharing spiritual leadership. In listening to the eight study participants and observing them and those who interacted with them, it was evident that Jewish values were associated with shared leadership, with spiritual leadership and with shared spiritual leadership. Jewish values may be described as the glue that held shared spiritual leadership together and that connected the people at Community Synagogue to one another and to their religion. Therefore, shared spiritual leadership buttressed the value-based qualities of Community Synagogue as these values grew out of the historic synagogue of ages past. They were also the means by which Community

Synagogue members believed that they would carry their congregational family and its Jewish message into the future.

There were three sub-themes that emerged in connection with Community Synagogue as a value-based congregation. These sub-themes more fully illustrated the impact of shared spiritual leadership on the values of the synagogue and revealed how these values were theoretically conceived and practically enacted: (a) Jewish values at Community Synagogue were transparent and pervasive; (b) Jewish values were transmitted via education and not indoctrination; (c) adherence to Jewish values promoted organizational well-being.

Jewish values are transparent and pervasive. While it may seem self-evident that a synagogue would be infused with Jewish values, it is not always obvious or all-encompassing. At

Community Synagogue, Jewish values were not only enacted; moreover, they were spoken about, discussed and even debated. Values served as a frame of reference for locating the religious center of the organization. In speaking about her role as Executive Director, and her responsibility of engaging and compensating outside vendors, May said that she did not make any distinction between her “religious” and “secular” responsibilities. She believed that in a 244 values-based organization, there was no difference between the two; that they were the same and of equal importance. She used a Jewish legal example to illustrate the value of immediately paying a small company that was hired to make a building repair after the job was complete:

You know, one of the commandments is that you do not hold the wages [of

someone who works for you] until the next day (Leviticus 19:13). Well, the Bible

is part of our policy manual! Yes, our synagogue policy manual says that you wait

like 28 days to pay bills. And I remember being really demoralized by that; that I

felt it was a larger obligation to recognize the [Biblical imperative] and assert that

here is a small vendor who needs payment as soon as possible for their cash flow.

Even discussions with small children about God become lessons in lived Jewish values. In a similar vein, Roxy told the following story that happened as she covered fourth-grade class for a teacher who was absent. It happened that it was the Sunday morning just one day after the fatal shooting of eleven people on Shabbat morning at The Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh:

So, of course, that morning, it’s the ‘God lesson’ of all things. So here we are

talking about where you find God, where you do not find God, what is God like,

what is godly? Is it tangible? Or not? And so, at the end of that I read them a

story. I asked them some questions and told them that now we are going on a

walk outside [to experience God in nature]. And of course, [I didn’t think about it

at the time], but we have a [police] officer at Community Synagogue that morning

[because of the incident in Pittsburgh the day before]. And so, the officer comes

on this “walk” with us, too – out to the middle of the parking lot. [I wondered

what he might say to the kids, and how I would explain why he is there that day].

He was so nice about it. He said: ‘I heard you guys were looking for God, and I 245

wanted to come along!’ Later I said to him: ‘Oh you are the nicest person…and

you saved me a whole wave of explanations!’

It may be said that shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue was viewed and practiced as a Jewish value in and of itself. From the perspective of values, Lily maintained that the success of shared leadership from a value-based perspective could be attributed to its

“transparency” as well as to its continuity over time. She said: “It is clear that we have this rapport and that we work in this kind of partnership.” To work in alignment with one another and with Jewish values strengthened the bonds between people and elevated the organizational objectives -- from merely executing discrete tasks to shaping and sustaining a sacred mission.

Moreover, because each member of the clergy and professional staff was seen by the congregation as an authentic leader in his or her own right, people were eager to engage in

Community Synagogue and its activities because it meant connecting with one or more staff members in meaningful ways. Any member of the staff, then, served as a gateway to Community

Synagogue; as a link to the Jewish values that the organization upheld. Roxy said:

People are interested in these classes. They want to ask questions. People want to

talk to the cantor about chanting Torah…It’s amazing! We have people who come

to the rabbi with questions and grief and ideas. People talk to May and want to

join the congregation or a committee. I don’t know which came first here:

whether we put ourselves out there [as leaders], or we noticed that people were

interested in investing in [Community Synagogue]. But I think it’s a good

thing…There is a strong bond, and everyone’s going to work hard and pull their

weight. You do what you do: you go above and way beyond. Some of that is the

type of people that we are – that we engage our community. Now’s it’s cyclical. 246

The congregation has those expectations, so those are the people we hire. So those

expectations, those values are persistent.

Jewish values are shared through education and not imposed by indoctrination. The second sub-theme that emerged in assessing the product of sharing spiritual leadership on the values of Community Synagogue addressed the process by which values were transmitted and communicated. That is, there was the idea that in order to enact the core values of Community

Synagogue it was first necessary to assess and transmit these values through a process of teaching and learning that was consistent with the organization’s mission. Staff members at

Community Synagogue spoke about the contemporary challenges associated with “synagogue membership” at a time in American life when people seem to be seeking specific “services” and not the value of “community.” They pointed out that for most American Jewish history, synagogues have been structured like small businesses -- with both paid employees and a volunteer Board that is elected by the membership. As such, revenue at most synagogues comes largely through dues-paying members of the organization. This model has benefits and drawbacks, but is particularly dependent on the economy, the degree of competition from neighboring synagogues, and the continually changing priorities, practices and values of liberal

Jews in America. This challenge was further complicated by the number of non-Jewish partners, spouses and extended family members who were members of Community Synagogue and who needed to be integrated into the synagogue and its activities, in accordance with the Jewish value of inclusivity.

May pointed out that nearly every day presented an opportunity for her to educate people

– both prospective and current members -- about the value of synagogue life and the reciprocal relationship between the organization and its members. Particularly in a shared leadership 247 structure, participants pointed out that all members of the professional staff needed to be “on the same page” when it came to finances and membership as value-based expressions that required a degree of teaching and learning. May believed that becoming a member of a synagogue was not a simple matter of dollars and cents in exchange for services; rather, the process of working with congregants must be focused on the unique of the particular person or family and required far more than her financial or administrative skills. She cited the following illustration of a recent conversation that began with money and concluded with an educational message about Jewish values:

I recently received an email from a woman saying: ‘I think I’m at the end of my

synagogue affiliation.’ Though it was painful for her, with her children in college

and beyond, she could no longer justify the membership dues for her and husband

alone. So, I said to her: ‘Let’s have a conversation.’ So, I invited her to come in to

talk. And I started by asking: ‘What have been the things that you have valued

most as a member of Community Synagogue?’ She responded with some of the

happy occasions and celebrations the family has experienced over the years. And

then I tried to get her to think about whether she could find things at Community

Synagogue that are purely of interest to her and her husband as adults. ‘For sure,’

she responded. So, then we spoke about ‘the giving level,’ and I told her that it

sounds like the giving level feels uncomfortable and if that is the case, that level

needs to be adjusted because otherwise she is making a decision based on the

giving level rather than the values of belonging to Community Synagogue. So, I

concluded by making a commitment to her: ‘Let’s get the giving level at the right 248

place, and then let’s talk about how it is your turn now [to involve yourself in

Community Synagogue]. She was so appreciative.

May turned what was certain to be a resignation from the synagogue into a new opportunity for this woman’s engagement. She commented: “In order to be influential, you have to hear and be willing to reflect on what your beliefs and opinions are.” Roxy also alluded to the importance of listening and the process of gently guiding her high school students with Jewish values: “They’re opinionated, which is nice because I get to listen to them! But it’s not my job to put things [ideas] into their heads. It’s my job to help them contextualize ideas. That goes for

Jewish learning. And leadership.” In her work with teens, Roxy expected that Judaism would be operative and present in whatever the teens planned. As she helped them develop their programs, she challenged them and discussed their purpose and identities as Jewish high school students:

“Okay, where is Judaism? Judaism has got to be there! Even if you are going to do a Havdalah service [very brief service immediately following sundown on Saturday, following the Sabbath] and talk about a couple of Jewish values….” Like May, Roxy thought it was important to talk about Jewish values, to teach teens to act upon those values, and to model how these Jewish values are transformative.

Adherence to values promotes organizational well-being. The final sub-theme on the theme of Jewish values was that shared spiritual leadership in a value-based synagogue enhanced the overall health of the synagogue staff and the organization. Lily spoke about the many advantages of working for a healthy organization, but, moreover, of her pride in contributing to an organization that prioritized staff members’ physical and emotional well-being: “I see it with the Director of Youth Engagement…Here’s this young woman who can articulate that she works 249 in a healthy, high-functioning congregation …to me, this is indicative of the fact that all this really works.”

The staff members concurred that the positive Jewish environment at Community

Synagogue encouraged members to cultivate their own healthy identities and fostered their trust in the organization. Shared spiritual leadership kept people honest and at their best. The staff easily offered examples that confirmed the health of Community Synagogue compared to other organizations that they had served in the past. According to Lily: “It is a great benefit to the congregation that we are in some ways interchangeable. We complement each other and we challenge each other, and I think these are all signs of health.” The staff members viewed themselves as “co-signers” on an agreement that they referred to as a brit (covenant) and that they believed was deeply rooted in Jewish history and values.

Moreover, because of the shared leadership structure, the staff members’ work ethics were uniformly high, and their positions on various issues were heard and considered at times when decision were made. When a decision on a matter was needed, and it was not clear to whom a question should be routed, the staff members explained that in a value-based organizational culture like Community Synagogue, there was an interchangeability such that any one of the staff members could respond. Roxy stated:

If it is [a question] about someone or something that doesn’t align with our

values, then anybody could respond [to an inquiry]. I think that any one of our

staff members, including myself at a certain point, would be able to say: ‘This

doesn’t feel like it’s something that our community would benefit from. Or, this

doesn’t appear to be something that aligns with us as a people right now.’ 250

Everything from decisions about engaging new employees to scheduling the rabbi’s meetings with B’nai Mitzvah students and families was handled with an eye toward teaching and modeling Jewish values. The participants were asked whether there were ever people who had been engaged as staff members at Community Synagogue who did not work out and for what reasons. They responded that in these cases, it was clear that the values of those individuals did not align with those of the team, and that these unfortunate “misalignments” become evident after a short time. As such, shared spiritual leadership did not work when values were not held in common. The rabbi maintained: “It is important that in everything we do we are protecting the sanctity of our values.” The entire organization was dependent upon the ability and willingness of the leaders to live out the values of the institution in everything they did, to protect the health of the organization by preventing toxic people or ideas to obstruct the values and vision, and, as a religious organization, to ensure that strict justice and lovingkindness existed alongside one another.

Fostering a people-centered culture. The eighth theme to emerge that indicated that shared spiritual leadership was beneficial to the organization was that the staff members were models for what members believed to be the “right” kind of community – a community of caring, empathy and integrity. The eighth theme, “Fostering a People-Centered Culture,” is defined as: The act of encouraging personal agency that comes from practicing Judaism in community. The sharing of spiritual leadership reflected the enduring principles of Judaism that each person is on a meaningful journey toward the creation of a positive Jewish identity and that one feels that he or she is a vital link in the chain of Jewish peoplehood. The culture of

Community Synagogue motivated people to explore Judaism both personally and within the 251 context of the sacred community. Research study participants commented that in today’s highly connected, technological world, they thought it was ironic that so many people were still searching for spirituality and feelings of belonging. Community Synagogue provided a safe place to ask questions, to pursue a personal course of spiritual development, and to join with others in being part of a people with a mission and a message. May contended:

And so, the benefit of shared spiritual leadership is that the congregation is sort of

this amorphous collective, but it is also a set of individuals. Shared spiritual

leadership enables the staff to focus not just on elevating itself which is a myopic

approach but by focusing on the people in the congregation. And when you focus

on the fact that people in the congregation matter, then your total focus can be on

the community.

Two sub-themes emerged in connection with the theme of fostering a people-centered culture at

Community Synagogue that will be expanded upon in the following paragraphs: (a) Shared spiritual leadership supports Community Synagogue as a relational organization; and (b) Shared spiritual leadership enriches the congregational community’s pursuit of relevance in Judaism.

Creating a relational Jewish environment. Participants shared anecdotes that validated the presence of a rich and dynamic social network at Community Synagogue that welcomed each individual. The phrases “relationship” and “being in relationship with” were frequently utilized by participants as they probed how shared spiritual leadership influenced the relational aspects of

Community Synagogue. Staff members expressed different reasons why they thought their individual and team leadership styles contributed to an organization that elevated individuals and brought them together in ways that caused warmth to emanate outward. Alison said that the acceptance of every individual – “as he or she is” -- must be “walked” as well as “talked.” She 252 felt that some of senior members of the congregation modeled this behavior of acceptance, even when it ran counter to their personal preferences: “If you came dressed casually for a service,

I’m sure that [our veterans might have preferred that you dressed nicely. But if you didn’t or you couldn’t, they would still welcome you here with the same sincerity.” Fran added: “It is very homey here, very homey. You could walk in wearing slippers and they wouldn’t look at you twice!” Even in online and print media, people and their stories were featured over programs; there was a deliberate effort to highlight good works that were products of relational initiatives and not simply about individuals working on their own. Comparing the congregation-wide relational thrust in the area of marketing and advertising to the staff’s relational approach to one another and to their work, May commented: “We don’t want to be a programmatic place! Sure, we put on great programs. I’m working on highlighting people in the newsletter – people, people, people! We don’t need a full-page ad for a movie that draws a few people.”

The focus on relationships at Community Synagogue did not just originate from the interests and proclivities of the staff members; rather, members of the congregation joined because they were interested in meeting people who were at the same stage of life. Lily contrasted the families with school-aged children today with her own experience as a younger parent:

Our young families are hungry for relationships with each other and are hungry

for a relationship with the Jewish community in a way that my peers were not.

I’m really the ‘previous generation.’ My peers wanted to drop their kids off at

religious school, have us make them Jewish, and then come back in two hours and

tell us how it went. Actually, most didn’t even bother to tell me how it went

because they didn’t really care. Those were my peers. 253

The researcher had the opportunity to observe young families at the synagogue on one Sunday morning during a site visit to Community Synagogue. The “hunger for relationships” about which Lily spoke became clear at a family education program for first graders and their parents.

The program was co-led by the rabbi and Lily. For a segment of the program, the students and their teacher remained in their classroom while the parents studied with the rabbi and Lily in a separate space. At one point, as the parents heard the sounds of their children coming down the hall, one parent said: “Ohhh…the kids are coming back already?! Can’t we hang out with each other a little longer, Lily?”

Roxy, who had heard about this comment and the enthusiastic vibe in the program that morning, added: “We’ve seen our family culture thriving because we make it a priority to say:

‘You’ve got young kids? You’re a new family? Well, we are going to give you a community of people who are all those things as well!’” Roxy’s statement illustrated the type of positive energy that the staff shared and that was contagious. Lily added: “It starts with us…I think that our sharing leadership benefits the congregation because our relationships are transparent and it is clear that we have this kind of rapport, that we like each other, and that we work in partnership.”

The relational spirit was something that Roxy said, “fits right in with her as a human being.” She found kindred souls at Community Synagogue -- people like herself -- who “continue to give even when there is nothing left….it is good to be surrounded by people who give as much as I do without ever expecting to receive anything in return.”

Examples of relational Judaism were observed throughout Community Synagogue:

Whether it was Lily, who stood outside the front doors, chatting with parents and welcoming children into the building before Religious School, or Becca, who led the weekly “community time” prayer service for the weekday Hebrew students in Grades 3-6, or Shira, who assembled 254 children and adults into instrumental or choral ensembles, or May who was energized each time she gave a tour of Community Synagogue to a prospective member, or Roxy who smiled as she spoke about teens who didn’t say a word in her class last week, but who this week needed to be reminded to stop chatting, or the rabbi who turned every meeting into an opportunity for learning and relationship, Community Synagogue was a place in which people invested, engaged in meaningful work, and cared about one another.

May used the following metaphor in her description of the relational environment at

Community Synagogue: “A rising tide lifts all boats.” [This phrase was made famous by

President John F. Kennedy who, in 1963 used it in an economic context to indicate improvements made in the general economy will ultimately benefit all who live under that economy.] May offered an original interpretation: “If the work [here] is done by and for individuals whom we seek to elevate, then the collective matters as well…. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ means that everything we do here resonates outward and influences the whole.” As such, within each person is the possibility that he or she could make an imprint on the organization so that the synagogue advanced and progressed by virtue of the collective deeds of its members.

Seeking relevance in Judaism and Jewish life. In addition to encouraging a relational community, shared spiritual leadership also deepened one’s search for relevance in Judaism. The opportunity to find meaning in the ancient tradition was referenced by participants as one of the most satisfying products of the shared spiritual leadership structure. The pursuit of relevance was also what gave Community Synagogue its raison d’etre as a religious organization. While other organizations could claim relational aspirations and even value-based frameworks, a spiritual organization, by definition, differs from a secular organization. A spiritual organization is built 255 upon the quest for meaning and the desire to be in harmony with some power greater than oneself.

As part of an initiative to re-design the website, lay leaders and professionals worked collaboratively to craft a new byline that would reflect Community Synagogue as a place of

Jewish meaning-making. The rabbi was the first to mention the “new” mission statement that appeared on all of the revised print and electronic materials of Community Synagogue:

“Community Synagogue: People matter. Judaism matters. What we do here matters.” This phrase was specific enough to define Community Synagogue’s mission, but general enough so that each member could find personal significance in it. For Becca, this new byline meant that every member of the Synagogue Staff was responsible for being aware about what was happening among the people of Community Synagogue. She believed that the leaders needed to be in touch with why people came to the synagogue and what might impel them to return: “If we’ve got all of our fingers on the pulse of what’s happening in the community we serve, among the people whom we serve, and within ourselves, we find a place to meet and grow.”

For Roxy, who came to Community Synagogue having had previous experience in

Jewish non-profit organizations as a college student, the search for meaning and relevance in

Judaism “is a lot about empowerment…that we are actually serving purposes. It’s not just that we are being asked to do the grunt work; we do work that matters.” May found meaning as she gently but firmly re-trained people to move from an antiquated dues-paying membership structure to seeing every person as a potential donor: “I’m accepting donations. I’m not making deals! That’s is a very different picture. It means that I’m working with donors in a philanthropic atmosphere [rather than in an environment of ‘collections.’] She changed the language used in thank you letters sent from Community Synagogue when monetary donations were received 256 from members and non-members: “Rather than saying ‘Thank you. Your donation helps us do all these great things – [with a list that follows],’ we now say: ‘Thank you. Your donation helps us to be great.’”

While these changes have taken time, there was a palpable energy that came from people who together have found meaning in Judaism. Furthermore, there was no limit to the ways that the search for meaning might be carried outside Community Synagogue to improve the world as well. May said: “The spirit of listening to one another, being inclusive, making a place in our community for the homeless and disenfranchised…we try to be more cognizant of the needs of others…The heart and soul of our community is ultimately around social action and social justice.” The rabbi spoke about connecting one’s search for personal meaning in Judaism with one’s actions on behalf of justice for all human beings: “Our Torah has to be a Torah that’s not just about our individual relationships to one another. It is a Torah that includes the bigger social issues and serves as a critique of our world and its issues.”

Making Community Synagogue increasingly nimble and adaptable during times of transition and change. The ninth theme that emerged was that shared spiritual leadership was an important factor in: “Making Community Synagogue Increasingly Nimble and Adaptable during Times of Transition and Change.” This theme is defined as: The continual practice of shoring up the synagogue’s infrastructure and supporting its leadership so that it is able to withstand difficulties and overcome challenges. The staff members saw many advantages to organizational adaptability, particularly as it was tested during transitional junctures. This ninth theme emerged during the final set of interviews, as participants were quietly beginning to process a new but inevitable topic: the anticipated retirement of the rabbi in the next 3-5 years.

Two sub-themes in connection with this theme emerged: (a) Shared spiritual leadership helps 257 those associated with Community Synagogue look to the future with hope; and (b) The processes involved in shared spiritual leadership soften the difficulties brought by change. The following sections will elucidate how these two sub-themes contribute to organizational flexibility and resilience.

Looking to the future with hope. While word of the rabbi’s upcoming retirement did not come as a surprise to anyone, it nevertheless created a fair amount of anxiety as he and his team looked to the future. While there had been no announcement and no date set at the time of this writing, the reality of the rabbi’s retirement was clearly on the minds of those who worked closest with him. May looked at the situation pragmatically: “The congregation has a lot of confidence in the rabbi’s vision to structure something. And when there is a new rabbi who is coming in, s/he will be able to focus on being successful in the community.” She felt confident that the rabbi would do whatever would be needed to leave Community Synagogue in the best possible place when he retired. She believed that everything at Community Synagogue would be challenged over the next year or two but felt that the current shared spiritual leadership structure would bolster their efforts and lessen the inevitable impediments that the transition would bring.

There was consensus among the participants that change is always complex, and that, as a team, the retirement of the “spiritual leader” would put every system, process and framework to the test. Yet, there was an optimistic attitude that pervaded, and there was a certainty that the group would know how to meet this challenge and ease the transition because of their experience together as leaders. Lily looked at this monumental change as an opportunity to make some changes in her own areas of Community Synagogue: “It’s not going to look anything like it does now…but I know that as far as the school goes, I have an incredibly loyal faculty, and many of them are exceptional…But there will definitely be a need for more young teachers.” May said 258 that she would continue to be able to introduce new and prospective members to Community

Synagogue and to speak with them about the congregational community with genuine joy: “Let’s take a tour! Let’s talk about things you want to do! Then people start to see how to navigate this community and feel like it’s a different place than communities they have been a part of in the past.”

Roxy commented that people would certainly feel the rabbi’s absence after almost thirty years, but other members of the team would step in and reach out: “When they have questions, want to talk, or have an idea, they know they can approach any one of us, that someone will respond. Their ideas may be put into motion or written into agenda item for an upcoming meeting.” The rabbi reflected on the stability that he believed was borne of the shared spiritual leadership structure, even with the perennial changes in lay leadership: “Every Temple President and I have made a pact; a covenant that there would be no surprises. ‘I will never do anything intentionally that comes to you as a surprise. I expect the same of you, right?’” There was confidence that the team would continue to do what it does best in the present and would face the challenge of the rabbi’s retirement with an optimistic spirit. With a smile, May referred to one of the rabbi’s frequently quoted statements in her conjecture that certainly things would change, but that the central mission of Community Synagogue would remain intact: “We make Jews. Okay, so there is a little bit of ‘manufacturing’ terminology in there – the “making” part. But, really, that is what we do.”

Being prepared to change oneself and the organization. People in a nimble organization are not afraid of personal or institutional change. The clergy and professional team members at

Community Synagogue were well-acquainted with the dynamics of change. Each participant in this research study voiced the fact that the personal and professional were interconnected in their 259 leadership experience at Community Synagogue. While participants spoke about change as uncomfortable and inconvenient, there was not a fear of change; and in fact, there was a notable openness to the personal change that goes hand in hand with organizational change.

The staff members addressed the inevitability of change and likened an organization’s evolution to that of the human being. Roxy hoped to stimulate change in the programming of the teens in the informal youth program. She described an exercise that she did with the students at the beginning of each academic year, in which they brainstormed about the types of programs and events that they envisioned for the year ahead. They then proceeded to narrow the possibilities and make selections. She said that there was always a tendency on the part of students to want to repeat successful programs from the previous year. However, she continually urged them to be innovative and take risks in their planning. She encouraged them to adopt an attitude of: “We’ve done this in the past…what do we want to do instead?” This process was mirrored within the Clergy and Professional staff as they looked ahead toward new ideas and plans for the future.

Shira told a story about a woman who had an “ah-ha moment” as a result of an evening she had spent at Community Synagogue. The woman had attended a concert at Community

Synagogue that featured a group of Israel women singers and instrumentalists. Shira explained that she and the congregant knew one another; however, the woman was by no means a

“regular.” Immediately after the concert, she approached the cantor and told her how much she enjoyed the concert. But more importantly, she said: “It strengthened what she loved about the community and her connection to it.” Whether it was the originality of the musical group or the fact that the woman was primed for a transformational experience, as Shira described her, this was a person who was waiting to be moved; who was seeking a new perspective or who was 260 interested in making a change in her life. Shared leadership enabled more people to be able to pay close attention to the people in the congregation and then to readily respond to their feelings.

The staff members also mentioned times that change happened without warning or advance preparation. In an organization with so many moving parts and people, change often occurred quickly and with a sense of finality. In discussing the intricacies of change, at least three of the participants mentioned the dismissal of a long-time, extremely popular song leader/music teacher who had left in the middle of the previous school-year. While this event touched many people in the congregation, its impact was most keenly felt by Shira. In addition to his musical responsibilities, she explained, he was also a classroom teacher. Although the impact of his departure was absorbed by the entire professional staff, Shira took over most of his musical functions and covered his classroom teaching for the remainder of the year. She and the other staff members remembered this as an upsetting and disruptive change, yet she said that she tried to turn it into an opportunity for growth for herself and the students in the class:

We all had to slide around to fill the space…with the results that I got to teach

them trope every week...And then I decided that I would teach trope again to the

same grade this year, too. It makes sense. Was this my mission originally? No!

But I think the happy byproduct of this has been that there will be kids who will

never be good at Hebrew, and they are never going to put in the [practice] time at

home, but they do feel like they know these tropes and they have ownership over

something important. Funny enough, now they come into the classroom saying:

‘We want to do tropes all the time!!’

Even when change was not chosen, as in the situation above, the lesson from painful incidents such as this, was that leaders needed to continue to lead. Moreover, spiritual leaders 261 who share leadership needed to lead according to the ways that they had learned and practiced as teammates. Becca thought that it was during difficult moments of change that the mantle of leadership required that one lead with even more clarity and intentionality: “Leadership at times like this involves guidance and counsel borne of wisdom that we [as leaders] have and the members of the congregation don’t, but it never involves imposing myself on someone else.”

Ultimately, she distilled shared spiritual leadership into to three primary practices for herself and her staff partners: (a) being seekers, (b) being learners, and (c) serving as m’lavim – those who accompany others on their journeys. Becca also suggested that these three aspirational activities served as stabilizers during organizational turmoil. May commented that a leader’s response to change revealed useful information about the organization and the people in it: “Spiritual leadership is about being able to use your influence, but it’s also about being ready to change….We have to be willing to change ourselves to make the walls more porous, stretch our arms wider, make our embraces more real.”

Section summary for research question three. Data collected and analyzed for the third research question suggested that shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue has been favorable to the growth and development of the organization. The growth that participants alluded to was evident in the ways that shared spiritual leadership strengthened Community

Synagogue as a Jewish values-based organization, moved the organization toward a more relational and relevant Jewish community, and supported the organization by improving and enhancing its resiliency. The following section will present a summary of Chapter Four.

Conclusion

Chapter Four opened with a review of the research questions for this instrumental case study, a description of the study site, and introductions to the eight participants at Community 262

Synagogue. The chapter proceeded with a discussion of the findings that emerged from data collection and analysis in answer to the three research questions. Data were principally gathered from individual interviews and small focus groups; however, with respect to the third research question on the effect of shared spiritual leadership on the growth and development of

Community Synagogue, direct observations were extremely useful in triangulating results that came from different data sources.

The data in this chapter were topically presented in connection with the three research questions: (a) defining and describing what the sharing of spiritual leadership looked like at

Community Synagogue; (b) identifying those aspects of the rabbi’s spiritual leadership that were not shared by other members of the Synagogue Staff; and (c) assessing how the sharing of spiritual leadership influenced the growth and development of Community Synagogue.

Findings associated with the first research question offered evidence that the sharing of spiritual leadership was largely process-oriented, and that its success in the synagogue setting depended on specific leadership techniques and behaviors that were associated with shared leadership and spiritual leadership. The findings demonstrated that sharing spiritual leadership at

Community Synagogue was complex, time-consuming, and required goodwill and continual practice by all the members of the Synagogue Staff. In order to enact this sharing of leadership, participants paid close attention to the ways in which they communicated with one another, differentiated between those responsibilities that belonged to an individual and those that were shared by the group, and understood that in a spiritual setting, leadership sharing was inspired by the one’s “call” to act in God’s image. That is, the sharing of leadership was consistent with and upheld the basic tenet of Judaism that every moment and every interaction has the potential to embody the sacred. 263

Even as subject participants were cognizant that the sharing of leadership at Community

Synagogue was unique and that hierarchical models were far more typical in synagogues, there were some functions of spiritual leadership that remained in the purview of the rabbi alone and were not shared with other members of the team. The data provided evidence that there were two primary areas at Community Synagogue that belonged to the rabbi and were not shared by him in the same way as other realms: (a) Jewish learning and Jewish law, and (b) the vision for

Community Synagogue.

While neither the rabbi nor the members of the Synagogue Staff went so far to say that these areas were “not shared” at all; nevertheless, with respect to these two categories, the rabbi was universally viewed as the ultimate teacher, the primary decision-maker in areas of Jewish practice, and the unquestioned visionary of the synagogue. The second research question about the rabbi’s singular spheres of influence and authority also led participants to share their impressions of the traits and behaviors of the rabbi that made him unique. This collection of personal characteristics appeared to more significant than simply incidental findings, but at the same time, were not the primary focus of this study. Therefore, the findings were left in the chapter, but were organized into a table without comments. Further comments about these findings will be elucidated in Chapter Five.

The final research question, on the effects of the sharing of spiritual leadership on the growth and development of Community Synagogue, gave participants the opportunity to comment on the connection between shared spiritual leadership and the growth and development of the congregation. Participants’ responses to this question fell into three areas, all of which emphasized the benefit of shared spiritual leadership on organizational progress. Participants viewed the following three areas as organizational benefits resulting from their sharing of 264 spiritual leadership: (a) Strengthening Community Synagogue as a Jewish value-based organization; (b) Fostering a People-Centered Culture; and (c) Making Community Synagogue

Increasingly Nimble and Adaptable during Times of Transition and Change.

Further discussion of these findings, particularly as they led to research conclusions, implications for practice, and suggestions for future research will be included in Chapter Five.

265

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE,

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this study was to understand how shared spiritual leadership was enacted in a medium-sized suburban Reform synagogue in the northeastern part of United States, located approximately one hour from a major urban center. The questions guiding this research study were:

1. How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?

2. What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?

3. How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this

synagogue?

This qualitative case study focused on spiritual leadership and shared leadership as individual and blended phenomena, and as enacted by the rabbi and seven full-time members of the clergy and professional staff team at Community Synagogue. Community Synagogue was selected because of its long-standing rabbi, its well-established professional staff members, and its reputation for excellence. In addition to exploring how shared and spiritual leadership were enacted at this synagogue, the researcher investigated the staff members’ attitudes and perceptions about leadership at Community Synagogue.

Through interviews, focus groups and observations, the researcher attempted to capture the lived experiences of the study participants through data collection and analysis that utilized thick description. In addition to studying the intersection of spiritual and shared leadership in the synagogue, the researcher analyzed the extent to which the rabbi of Community Synagogue shared his authority and responsibility as the spiritual leader of the organization. Finally, the 266 researcher sought to ascertain the influence of shared spiritual leadership on the overall growth and development of Community Synagogue.

The aim of this chapter is to use the nine themes that emerged in Chapter Four, the study’s conceptual framework and the organizational literature to draw conclusions, propose implications for practice, and recommend areas for future research. While the conclusions and recommendation are not exhaustive, they represent the major areas of knowledge that grew out of this case study and that may be applicable to other synagogue sites and faith-based organizations. It is this researcher’s hope that this study will add to the ongoing scholarly conversation on contemporary leadership models by proposing a novel approach to leadership: shared spiritual leadership.

Conclusions

Four conclusions emerged from this qualitative case study that led the researcher to a deeper understanding of the ways in which the sharing of spiritual leadership occurs among the rabbi, clergy and professional staff team in a synagogue setting:

• Horizontal and vertical leadership styles were evident in shared spiritual leadership;

leader gender and team member positions on the team were important factors in

determining the leadership style(s) enacted by the synagogue staff team;

• The personal characteristics of the rabbi, his leadership style, his rabbinic priorities

within the synagogue, his understanding of the meaning of “community” were

significant in determining the extent to which the rabbi shared spiritual leadership.

• The success of shared leadership in the synagogue was dependent on the way the

members of the clergy and professional team were selected, structured in the

organization according to their areas of expertise, were continually monitored for 267

compatibility, and were able to balance their self-interests with the interests of the

team.

• Shared spiritual leadership was a process that was enacted by the rabbi and the

synagogue staff and was based on the dynamics of an ever-progressing relational

framework that included a dimension of the sacred.

The research process, together with the four abovementioned conclusions, led the researcher to the following conceptualization of shared spiritual leadership as it was reached at the conclusion of this study: Shared spiritual leadership is an emergent, hybrid, process-based model for rabbis (and other faith-based clergy) and their staff team members that blends top- down and horizontal shared and spiritual leadership frameworks. Shared spiritual leadership is characterized by its team-based and networked approach, its highly relational nature, and its flexibility in meeting the challenges of twenty-first century organizational life. Shared spiritual leadership in Judaism maintains a strong connection to the sacred Jewish traditions of the past, is enacted through the pursuit of meaning in the present and is dedicated to discovering new modes of Jewish practice and community in the future. Shared spiritual leadership was proposed for this research study to gain a better understand as to how congregational leadership is enacted by rabbis and professional staff members of contemporary American Reform synagogues. For this research endeavor, shared spiritual leadership was based on the blending of two existing leadership approaches: (a) spiritual leadership as understood by Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000), and (b) shared leadership as conceptualized by Carson et al. (2007).

The following paragraphs will expand upon the abovementioned four summary statements, will connect them to the most recent trends in the organizational leadership literature, 268 and will elucidate the theoretical and practical understandings that may be drawn from these research conclusions.

Conclusion One: Horizontal and Vertical Leadership Styles were Evident in Shared

Spiritual Leadership

The first conclusion reached in analyzing the findings of this study was that horizontal and vertical leadership coexisted in Community Synagogue’s shared spiritual leadership framework. At a fundamental level, each participant demonstrated an awareness that leadership at Community Synagogue took on different forms and functions, and that no single leadership style or model was dominant at any one time. Moreover, participants made a distinction between the synagogue’s leadership style -- which was fluid -- and the synagogue’s leader which consistently and exclusively was understood to be the rabbi. Members of Community

Synagogue’s clergy and professional staff team readily acknowledged that, at times, each of them has taken on a leadership position or has been asked to be the point person for a group endeavor; however, only the rabbi was identified as being “the leader” of the synagogue. Staff members at Community Synagogue understood that as team members they had a great deal of responsibility, but they also recognized that they had significant independence and agency in their work. Ultimately, they expressed satisfaction as staff members of Community Synagogue.

They readily shared praise and credit for team successes, and they assumed collective responsibility for errors or missteps on the part of one or more team members.

Over the course of the past forty years, several studies have been conducted in settings in which vertical and horizontal leadership models exist within a single organization. There have also been studies in which shared leadership and hierarchical leadership alternate or shift with one another depending on the task at hand, the team composition, and the existing organizational 269 culture (Krom et al., 2016; Schrum et al., 2016). Pearce (2004) was among the earliest shared leadership scholars to devise a theoretical structure in which vertical and horizontal leadership were considered mutual processes; however, it is only recently that there has been scholarly interest in the convergence of top-down and bottom-up leadership approaches (Grille et al.,

2015; Kezar, 2012; Wang et al., 2014). Contemporary organizational scholars now recognize the benefits of blending top-down, bottom-up and even middle-out leadership styles within a single organization as they are called for at various times in the life-cycle of the institution (Ensley,

Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006; London, 2014).

There are a number of new studies in the organizational literature that highlight the

“overlapping” of different contemporary leadership styles, that call for novel “full-range leadership theories” to be constructed, and that encourage leaders to be trained to know how and when to modify their leadership styles to fit the organization’s needs and circumstances

(Anderson and Sun, 2017; Antonakis & House, 2014; Hannah, Sumanth, Lester, & Cavarretta,

2014). There is an effort by scholars to develop approaches that do not pigeon-hole any team member – leader or follower -- into one leadership style; rather, the current trend reflects a modification in thinking and practice that finds benefit in cultivating “multiple self-identities” with respect to leadership approaches. This means that any one “leadership self-identity” can be invoked by the leader in accordance with the organizational necessity or circumstance (Anderson

& Sun, 2017, p. 93). Moreover, Anderson and Sun (2017) suggest that the goal of creating a

“full-range conceptualization of leadership style [will] bring about some integration to the chaos that characterizes the existing literature on leadership styles” (p, 77).

Several studies on shared leadership confirm that organizations that have a continual alternation between horizontal and vertical leadership are at a strategic advantage to 270 organizations that have only horizontal or vertical leadership. Researchers refer to this leadership style in which there are countless transitions between hierarchical leadership and shared leadership as “balanced leadership” (Muller et al., 2018). An early research endeavor in balanced leadership suggested the presence of a “socio-cognitive space,” comprised of “empowerment, self-management, and shared mental models” features a vertical leader who also serves as the catalyst for horizontal leadership practices across a team (Muller, 2017). These empirical studies are unique in the literature because the research aims go beyond an investigation of leadership from either a vertical or a horizontal perspective; rather, the emphasis is on the iterative and cyclical movements between hierarchical and distributed leadership as they are manifest in organizations. Another area of interest that involves a hybrid conceptualization of horizontal and vertical leadership is the emergent leadership style called “self-leadership” (Stewart, Courtright

& Manz, 2011). Recent research in self-leadership is based on earlier models that examined how external vertical leaders may play pivotal roles in “leading workers to lead themselves” -- even on a temporary basis -- in order to increase team productivity, motivation and performance

(Manz & Sims, 1987). Building on these older studies, contemporary studies on self-leadership highlight the ways in which leaders who are internal or external to the organization can complement a team in which leadership is predominantly horizontal or shared (Carson et al.,

2007; Stewart et al., 2011). Two additional studies offer innovative insights about the role of the vertical leader in a horizontal organization. In one study that is currently in publication, Fransen,

Delvaux, Mesquita, and Van Puyenbroeck (2018) examined the process by which an existing organization with a traditional vertical hierarchy might evolve into a horizontal structure in which leadership is shared. A second study investigated how horizontal and vertical leadership 271 styles – separately and in combination – contribute to the presence and quality of team learning within an organization (Koeslag-Kreunen, Van der Klink, Van den Bossche, & Gijselaers 2018).

The present research study substantiates the current scholarship that a hybrid, blended leadership configuration in which top-down and shared leadership are both utilized holds positive prospects for contemporary organizations. Perhaps it is the fusion of horizontal and vertical leadership at Community Synagogue that contributed to the nimble organizational structure that the researcher observed there, as discussed in Chapter Four. It stands to reason that just as the organization is ever-changing and evolving, so too are the professionals that comprise the team.

Furthermore, in a world in which technology and globalism have prompted immediate and far-reaching changes for people and organizations, it seems beneficial for organizations to have leadership models that are continually oscillating between horizontal and vertical leadership frameworks, and for these organizations to be comprised of individuals who are prepared to assume a variety of organizational roles and functions. The findings that emerged from this case study have led this researcher to look beyond recent leadership scholarship toward highly innovative models that might be applicable to the multi-vocal Jewish tradition as it was conceived by the rabbi at Community Synagogue, and to the progressive nature of Reform

Judaism as a movement.

While not one of the primary aims of this study, it is important to note that for

Community Synagogue’s staff team, it was likely that gender played a role in the staff dynamics, in the enactment of individual and collective leadership, and in the interactions between the study subjects and the researcher. It is already well-known that: “Leadership is a gendered concept, and until very recently, the predominant stereotype of a leader, a CEO, or a senior 272 manager – in society at large and in business organizations in particular – has been overwhelmingly male” (Ladegaard, 2011, p. 4). Therefore, the fact that the leader of this team, the rabbi, was male, and the other seven members of the staff were female was significant and certainly influenced the way in which the staff responded to one another and conducted their work in the synagogue. This topic will be addressed later in this chapter together with recommendations for future study and practice.

Conclusion Two: The Personal Characteristics of the Rabbi, his Leadership Style, Rabbinic

Priorities within the Synagogue, Understanding of the Meaning of “Community” were

Significant in Determining the Extent to which the Rabbi Successfully Shared Spiritual

Leadership

The second conclusion of this study was that the degree to which shared spiritual leadership was successfully enacted depended, in large measure, on the rabbi as leader. It was not enough for the rabbi to plant the seeds of shared spiritual leadership at Community

Synagogue; rather, a successful and enduring model for shared spiritual leadership required his continual attention, tending, and modifications. The seminal research on shared leadership by

Carson et al. (2007) was utilized as one of two studies in the conceptual framework for the present research endeavor. Yet, in addition to the salient section of the study by Carson et al.

(2007) that outlined the underlying conditions of shared leadership in terms of shared purpose, social support and voice (Carson et al., 2017, p. 1222), these authors also proposed that the practice of sharing leadership on a team improves with the presence of a leader or a leader- coach. Carson et al. concluded that “shared leadership can occur in a team with a designated leader or in a team without one” (p. 1228). What is interesting about this finding in connection with the present study is that Carson et al. discovered that coaching in the form of “encouraging, 273 reinforcing, rewarding” is more useful for teams that have “weaker internal environments” than it is for established and harmonious teams (p. 1229).

Several new studies go further to suggest that successful shared leadership directly depends on the presence and quality of a vertical leader, though there are a variety of opinions on which quality or qualities are most important for the leader to enact. Hess (2015) proposed that the “top leader” is instrumental in cultivating shared leadership on a team. Olson-Sanders (2006) suggested that trust is the most important characteristic that a leader must demonstrate in building a shared leadership team. Chiu (2014) singled out humility as the leadership behavior that is most central to fostering shared leadership in an organization. Fransen et al. (2018) found that warmth and competence are the measures that team members most often seek in their team leaders, and that when members find these characteristics in leaders, there is an increased probability that shared leadership will be established and persist over time. One of the most important studies in the literature was conducted by Wassenaar and Pearce (2017) in which the investigators identify the following leader behaviors as positively correlated to shared leadership: empowering leadership, visionary leadership, and leadership that is focused on purpose and values (Wessenaar & Pearce, 2017 cited by Day & Ankonakis, 2018).

A recent study by Raelin (2018) explored “collective leadership” as an emergent leadership framework. Collective leadership is defined as the process by which the leader and the team together take responsibility for the “co-construction” of leadership as part of their organizational endeavors. Collective leadership is rooted in mutual trust and safety and requires the leader to shift the focus of work from any one individual to the group. As such, the leader facilitates group collaboration and decision-making that includes “novel forms of conversation and reflection [in which] participants focus on their interpersonal discourse, on the dilemmas 274 they may be facing, and on the processes that they are using” (Raelin, 2018, p. 59). Perhaps most relevant to the connection between Collective Leadership and the present study is the change in the way that others view the leader and the way that the leader perceives himself or herself: he or transitions from being a “hero to [being a] host.” (Frieze & Wheatley, 2011).

Finally, the idea that the single most important role of the leader is to grow, nurture and support new leaders is certainly not new. In fact, almost one hundred years ago, Mary Parker

Follett (1924) wrote: “Leadership is not defined by the exercise of power but by the capacity to increase the sense of power among those led. The most essential work of the leader is to create more leaders” (p. 3). Recent research about the role of the leader, particularly in collectivist models, such a shared leadership, reflect Follett’s belief that leaders must be cognizant of their primary priority; that is, teaching others the skill and art of leadership (Friedrich, Griffith &

Mumford, 2016; Friedrich, Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009). In a study conducted by Friedrich, Griffith and Mumford (2016), researchers examined how communication, network development, and leader-team exchange in a collectivist structure were mediated by the individual leader’s personality, experience and intelligence (p. 312). There is overwhelming evidence that suggests that one of the most critical features of a successful leader in a collectivist, shared leadership environment is the leader’s ability to “utilize the skills of followers and distribute elements of the leadership role among the followers as the situation demands”

(Friedrich et al., 2014, p. 449).

In the context of the present research study, the rabbi of Community Synagogue referred to himself as a “coach,” but as a “coach who is also a player on the field with the team.”

Interestingly, over the years, members of the staff and congregation have also called the rabbi by the nick-name, “coach.” This appeared to be more than merely an endearing name used to refer 275 to their leader. Rather, the name “coach” may have been used to describe the type of leader the rabbi was perceived to be and may have been indicative of the specific leadership qualities by which he was known and which he practiced in his work. It was clear from interviews, focus groups and observations that the rabbi’s coaching included the specific behaviors to which

Carson et al. (2007) referred in their seminal article about the conditions necessary for shared leadership to successfully exist: he offered encouragement, he reinforced positive interactions, and he recognized and rewarded those who set a tone of professionalism and integrity.

At Community Synagogue, the rabbi – even when he found it necessary to exercise strong and decisive leadership – was viewed by team members as central to the growth and development of the team itself and to the synagogue at-large. Many of the characteristics that scholars have investigated and confirmed as significant to the personality and behavior of the leader were likewise listed among the many human qualities that the rabbi of Community

Synagogue brought to the congregation. In fact, there is a significant alignment between what current scholarship views as the optimal characteristics that a leader brings to his team and those traits ascribed to the rabbi of Community Synagogue in the present study. These traits include, but are not limited to trust, humility, competence and warmth (Chiu, 2014; Fransen et al., 2018;

Olson-Sanders, 2006). Moreover, the emergent leadership approach known as “empowering leadership” was certainly observable at Community Synagogue as the rabbi viewed the traditional rabbinic practice of teaching others, raising up disciples, and developing leaders for the future as part of his role as a congregational rabbi. In looking ahead to his retirement, the rabbi expressed hope as well as confidence that the organization will continue in strength because of the leadership quality of the professional team and the high degree of participation and engagement that exists among members of the congregation. 276

At Community Synagogue, the leadership approach practiced by the rabbi resembled a

“host” and not a “hero” -- even during those times when he deliberately chose to enact a vertical approach or made a top-down decision. While the rabbi’s leadership style was deliberate, confident and clear, he nevertheless solicited feedback and asked for input from the team and utilized the power of his office to coach his team members toward leadership practices that would enable the synagogue and its team to adapt itself to the landscape of the present and to solidify Community Synagogue’s place as a congregation of the future.

Conclusion Three: The Success of Shared Leadership in the Synagogue was Dependent on the Way in which the Members of the Clergy and Professional Team were Selected, were

Structured in the Organization according to their Areas of Expertise, were Continually

Monitored for Compatibility, and were able to Balance their Self-Interests with the

Interests of the Team

A significant but perhaps overlooked predictor of the success of shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue was the actual composition of the eight-member professional staff team. At Community Synagogue, the clergy and professional staff members functioned as a cross-disciplinary work-group that was comprised of individuals with different skills and talents. However, team members viewed themselves as a unit with common goals and objectives and not simply as a group of individuals who happened to work together. When probed as to how the team at Community Synagogue came together and to what factors the team members themselves and other individuals attributed its success, team members were specific and consistent in their responses. In fact, most of them used personal anecdotes, stories or myths from the organization’s history to point out rare instances when people were not good matches 277 for the Community Synagogue staff team – regardless of the personal successes they may have had in their individual roles or in their prior areas of expertise.

While team members struggled a bit to identify what, exactly, they saw as the “magic formula” that contributed to making their particular synagogue staff team a highly successful one, they readily described those few people over the years whose personalities or professional styles “did not fit in” with the culture of the team. In illustrating the nature of these particular

“failures,” team members attributed the lack of success more to cultural and stylistic factors than to differences in organizational goals or objectives. In fact, there were at least two people who were mentioned specifically by team members as “just not working out” as clergy or professional staff team members. Team members emphasized that these people had come to Community

Synagogue from places where they had been successful, and that they likewise went on to engage in new and positive opportunities following their tenures at Community Synagogue.

So, what were the underlying factors that contributed to the success or failure of team members – either in their own minds or in real-time organizational life?

First, participants agreed that being a member of this synagogue staff required long hours, a serious work ethic, an interest in serving others, and the understanding that regardless of one’s job description, there was an expectation set that he or she would teach. The findings that emerged from the present study revealed that members of the clergy and professional staff had definite critiques of Community Synagogue and were well-aware of their own shortcomings and those of their colleagues; however, they modeled loyalty to one another, they expressed pride in their shared vision, and they were cognizant of the highly spiritual nature of their jobs. In fact, more than one member of the staff commented that they viewed their work at Community

Synagogue more as a “calling” than as a “career.” As staff members at Community Synagogue, 278 they upheld positive attitudes toward the organization even during times of difficulty; and, in fact, it was during these challenging junctures that the team members felt that their resilience as a group was proven. Members of the team agreed that working together to overcome obstacles strengthened them as individuals and elevated their collaboration and partnership to higher levels.

The organizational literature is rich with recent studies about the conditions that cause a collection of people to become a working team (Maduka, Edwards, Greenwood, Osborne &

Babatunde, 2018; Rahmani, Roels, & Karmarkar, 2018; Sperber & Linder, 2018; Sweeney,

Clark, & Higgs, 2018). Some of the articles focus on the traits and behaviors of team members, others highlight demographic characteristics of the team members themselves, and still others underscore the attitudes and outlooks that shape individual workers into a cohesive and productive unit. There is also a significant volume of literature at the team level about why certain groups succeed while others fail. Thus, there are many factors that influence the way people work together and that determine the extent to which individuals are willing to cede some of their autonomy for the benefit of the group.

In relation to the present study, there is a variety of research that offers evidence that emotional intelligence and self-awareness on the part of individual team members are positive indicators of group efficacy and harmony. Poulton, Proches and Sibanda (2017) write: “You need to understand yourself and your emotions…so we can fix it if there is something wrong” (p.

1632). This conclusion is certainly consistent with the findings from the present study in which the theme of “knowing oneself” emerged as a pre-requisite for knowing one’s team members.

Especially in the context of shared spiritual leadership which, somewhat ironically, is highly personal and highly relational at the same time, one’s level of self-awareness was often the 279 starting point for the establishment of cohesive team behaviors and effective group practices. In addition, new research confirms that “spiritual well-being” – on the individual and organizational levels – is “dependent both on the spiritual environment [of the organization] and the level of individual responsibility that individuals take for their own faith journeys” (Reid, 2018, p. 59).

Other research demonstrates how the demographic composition of team members influences whether and how a loosely connected group of people evolves into a productive and harmonious team (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Levi (2011) points out that smaller groups of people are more likely to meld into fruitful teams than larger groups, although he does not cite specific numbers. He also maintains that having certain requirements for joining the group helps ensure the success of the team and, to some degree, lessens the probability of discovering later that an individual is a “bad fit” for the team. Other research confirms that high levels of emotional intelligence on the part of individuals in a group is a positive predictor of team success and productivity (Moore & Mamiseishvili, 2012). Levi has also conducted research that offers evidence that team success breeds more team success. That is, group cohesion is fortified by sharing incremental achievements with one another, and by reaching articulated goals and objectives. Furthermore, just as facing conflict and voicing differences of opinion was beneficial to the Community Synagogue team, the conclusion from one of the research studies, included below, also corroborates the findings that emerged from data analysis at Community Synagogue:

“Task conflict, disagreement and differences regarding the goals and methods of the team, requires little intervention and should be encouraged at times, helping a team refine efforts and avoid groupthink” (Krispin, 2017, p. 48).

Finally, positive organizational attitudes are also significant in predicting team success and cohesion. Moreover, they take on even greater importance in organizations that value 280 spirituality and that utilize spiritual leadership as a primary leadership approach (Krishnakumar et al., 2015). In addition to organizational commitment, work-place productivity, and job satisfaction, positive organizational attitudes are connected with spirituality because both are fundamentally about “who we are and how we live” (Bruce & Plocha, 1999 as cited in

Krishnakumar et al., 2015, p. 20). Moreover, the journey of discovering “who we are and how we live” is the same path that inspires people to “search for something higher and of meaning in their everyday lives, including their workplaces” (Cash & Gray, 2000 as cited in Krishnakumar et al., 2015, p, 28). Therefore, if this search for spirituality and connectedness holds for people in their everyday lives and workplaces, how much more does the quest for meaning ring true for those whose everyday lives are spent in service to a sacred community and in connection with a transcendent Presence.

Conclusion Four: Shared Spiritual Leadership was a Process that was Enacted by the

Rabbi and the Synagogue Staff and was Based on the Dynamics of an Ever-Progressing

Relational Framework that Included a Dimension of the Sacred

Shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue existed as a dynamic process and not as a behavioral or trait-based leadership approach. Like other new and emergent leadership approaches, shared spiritual leadership was not something that participants believed could be turned “on” or “off;” rather, it assumed an energy of its own and was very much rooted in the dynamic social network of the organization. Leadership at Community Synagogue did not only concern the rabbi. In fact, spiritual leadership was a participatory endeavor that was carried out by organizational members and even by volunteers who served as lay leaders. Members of

Community Synagogue mentioned collaboration and communication as the most important 281 aspects of their work together on a team, and they connected their work with a Power greater than themselves.

Community Synagogue’s clergy and professional members did not immediately differentiate between leadership roles that they considered “spiritual” from those that they saw as other than spiritual. That is, the staff team at Community Synagogue viewed leadership and practiced it in a comprehensive and holistic manner. So, for example, when asked where the rabbi’s leadership “lived” in the synagogue, participants did not respond with “the Sanctuary” – which would have been an obvious place to “find” spiritual leadership in a synagogue. Rather,

Community Synagogue members and staff alike viewed spiritual leadership as one leadership approach among many and did not limit the practice of spiritual leadership to the rabbi or to a single location, such as the Sanctuary. Rather, spiritual leadership existed wherever and whenever the spiritual leader led. While the spiritual leader was most often identified as the rabbi, he was by no means the exclusive spiritual leader of Community Synagogue. The rabbi’s staff colleagues acknowledged that he had received specialized training in spiritual matters as part of his rabbinical studies; however, when asked directly, they all said that they viewed themselves as spiritual leaders as well.

While it seems self-evident that spiritual leadership would be so closely associated with a belief in or adherence to some deity or power, at Community Synagogue there were multiple pathways to accessing the spiritual and to inspiring others with a sense of spirit as well.

Moreover, the “Spiritual Presence” need not be a theistic, commanding God or God-figure.

While Allison, Kocher and Goethals (2016) maintain that spiritual leadership, traditionally, has been associated with a Deity or higher power (p. 5), more recent research suggests that “[the]

Power need not be divine for people to be transformed spiritually” (Allison et al., 2016, p. 5). In 282 fact, spiritual leadership and shared leadership both emphasize the centrality of human interactions in the “search for transcendent meaning…in relation to nature, music, the arts, a set of philosophical beliefs, or relationships with friends and family” (Astrow, Pulchalski, &

Sulmasy, 2001, p. 285).

Organizational research in the area of cohesiveness in teams provides support for leadership approaches such as shared spiritual leadership, in which the process of leadership and its highly relational nature are as integral to the mission of the team as the particular tasks and functions undertaken by team members (Anwar & Hasnu, 2013; Jago, 1982; Kotter, 2008;

Krispin, 2017; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Northouse, 2018). There have been a few recent church- based studies that elucidate process-oriented leadership in relation to spiritual leadership.

Kujawa-Holbrook and Thompsett (2010) suggest that contemporary church leadership is in the process of “deep change.” The researchers maintain that these changes include a redefinition of the role of the leader/minister, and an understanding of leadership as that which actively

‘happens’ as part of the organizational culture. This process stands in contradistinction to the traditional view of leadership as a trait-based, stylistic extension of the leader. Kujawa-Holbrook and Thompsett write: “[We] are now part of a ‘Total Ministry’ environment, namely one that is primarily a ministering community’ rather than one ‘gathered around a minister” (as cited in

Reid, 2018, p. 60). This faith-based research is certainly applicable to shared spiritual leadership in the synagogue as well.

In another study, Neimann and Stelson (2017) refer to the leadership process and its environment as possessing a “synergy that can only arise out of relationships…[such that]…individuals within an organizational system are never in isolation but are always embedded within larger networks on which they cooperatively depend and that depend on them” 283

(p. 6). Contemporary scholars base their work of “leadership as process” on the early organizational research of three and four decades ago, when it was thought that the primary responsibility of the leader was to create and maintain the most supportive organizational environment possible so that team members would thrive and feel fulfilled (Bass, 1985).

Another approach to understanding shared spiritual leadership as a process rather than as a behavior on the part of the leader may be found in the ways in which leadership is defined in terms of “self-identities” rather than as traits of the leader or activities that the leader performs or enacts. For example, based on their analysis of the contemporary leadership literature, Anderson and Sun (2017) suggest that leader behaviors and activities emerge from what they refer to as

“leadership self-identity categories.” These self-identity categories include leaders who view themselves as: visionary, relational, creative, manager, or community-oriented. Implicit in the work of Anderson and Sun is the notion a leader’s self-perception and self-identity matters, that leaders lead according to the way in which they see themselves as leaders, and that leadership must be considered within the context of an organizational environment. The above leadership concepts and self-identity perceptions are useful in studying another emergent leadership approach known as “leader behavioral complexity” (Anderson & Sun, 2017, p. 91).

Leadership at Community Synagogue was viewed and practiced as dynamic, ever- changing, and, to an extent, self-identity-based. As such, leaders were self-reflective in their approach and in the ways in which they defined themselves, and they actively created leadership spaces for themselves and their colleagues. While there were many adjectives used by study participants to describe the nature of the rabbi at Community Synagogue, in the final analysis, leadership for him was anything but a fixed and static descriptor or a personality-driven endeavor. Rather, what made shared leadership possible at Community Synagogue and what 284 sustained it was its highly relational framework and the degree to which leadership was rooted in the leader’s commitment to the professional team and to the organization as a living organism.

Section Summary

The conceptual framework that was used to shape the present study remains relevant to this study. The two leadership approaches that established the foundation for this original research endeavor were useful in illuminating salient aspects of both shared leadership and spiritual leadership. In combining shared leadership and spiritual leadership into shared spiritual leadership as a theoretical possibility, and in testing its credibility as a practical leadership approach in the synagogue setting, the researcher believes the possibility exists for this novel faith-based leadership approach to be generalized and applied to other religious settings in the future.

At Community Synagogue, leadership was more than a passive attitude or set of discrete behaviors that were practiced and performed by a group of actors on an organizational stage.

Shared spiritual leadership was enacted by individuals on a team that led others in their quests for meaning and who, themselves, traveled along their own individual and collective journeys toward connectedness and transcendence. Theirs was a value-based leadership that was rooted in

Judaism’s ancient, multi-vocal tradition, and shared by the rabbi according to the age-old process of transmission that continues until the present day.

Implications for Practice

The purpose of this synagogue-based instrumental case study was to explore the intersection between shared leadership and spiritual leadership as enacted by the rabbi and members of his staff and professional team at a Reform congregation located in a suburban area of the Northeastern United States. The aim of the research was to determine whether and to what 285 extent the rabbi’s roles and functions as the synagogue’s spiritual leader may be shared by and distributed among the eight members of the synagogue professional team. This research study was prompted by the writer’s awareness that there is a notable dearth of research in the area of synagogue leadership. This lack of scholarship is particularly evident in relation to new and emergent leadership frameworks that have not yet been investigated in faith-based organizations such as churches and synagogues. This reality stands in direct contrast to the recent and voluminous scholarly research in leadership that is currently being conducted in other sectors of public and private organizations, such as in the fields of education, health care, business, nonprofits of all types, and government institutions.

As an ancient organization dating back two thousand years, the synagogue has been the time-honored “central address” of the Jewish community, and, for most Jewish history, the rabbi has been the top-down, traditional synagogue leader. Yet, with the many changes brought by twenty-first century globalism and in light of the dramatic advances in technology, there is evidence that the efficacy of top-down leadership is being questioned in every field and discipline – including synagogues. This means that in order to remain relevant in the contemporary organizational world, synagogues and rabbis stand to benefit by adopting newer, more flattened leadership frameworks that more closely resemble the contemporary organizations in which synagogue leaders and staff members work. These changes will ultimately enable synagogues to thrive in the present and continue to evolve into the future. The present case study focused on one such synagogue rabbi and professional team that has kept pace with contemporary organizational leadership practices through the sharing of the rabbi’s spiritual leadership roles and functions across the eight members of the professional staff team. 286

The following paragraphs will examine the conclusions of this study considering their implications in three areas of practice: (a) the personal practice of this researcher as a synagogue rabbi; (b) the practice of shared spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue; (c) the broad field of Jewish organizational leadership as it is enacted by rabbis and staff members in Reform synagogues throughout the country.

Implications for Personal Practice

As a synagogue rabbi, I have seen many changes in the ways in which rabbis and synagogue staff members interact with and lead congregations. For the past several years, I have sensed that even in the Reform Movement, we have not progressed as quickly or as effectively in organizational leadership as we have in other areas of Jewish observance, education and social justice. I have been fearful that our liberal and progressive synagogues have simply not gone far enough to modernize the ways in which we conceive of and enact leadership within the walls of our own institutions. While we have been attuned and responded to many of the external threats to modern American Jewish life, including secularism, anti-Semitism, religious extremism, and a variety of positions and opinions on the State of Israel, we have not thought carefully enough about how to modernize the training and practice of Jewish leaders and remain relevant amid the sweeping changes in organizational leadership.

I am the only full-time rabbi in a small synagogue in which there are several part-time staff members who work together with me and under my guidance. One area in which this research study will influence my practice as a synagogue rabbi is in the interaction that I intend to have with synagogue staff members. I believe that I have an opportunity to empower them to a greater degree and, despite their part-time status, give them the chance for increased responsibility and self-management within the synagogue. Now that I have a deeper 287 understanding of the underlying conditions necessary for leadership sharing to exist in a synagogue, I hope to find avenues by which staff members can work together and, at the same time, establish themselves as independent leaders. Leadership is not just about delegating; it is about inspiring leadership choices and creating leadership spaces so that they, themselves, will be motivated to deepen their relationships not just with me, but moreover, with one another. The three internal attributes of shared leadership in an organization that Carson et al. (2007) identified – shared purpose, social support and voice – offer the opportunity for increased professional development and instruction in the realm of shared spiritual leadership and these three conditions for shared leadership can be used as a template for the establishment of a value- based series of staff seminars and training sessions. I believe that in addition to inspiring a greater sense of sharing within our staff team, such a staff training series focused on shared purpose, social support and voice (Carson et al., 2007) will also catalyze the prospects for spiritual leadership, which I know exists within staff member, but that will require initiation and activation.

Second, it has become increasingly evident that our lay leadership structure requires rethinking and re-envisioning. In many respects, our governance structure is more vertical than that of our professional leadership. The current, top-down directional flow of synagogue governance– from President to Vice Presidents, to Committee Chairs to synagogue members – needs to be restructured into a more team-based model in which veteran leaders can bring newer synagogue leaders together to form working groups and task forces. Many of our synagogue members are themselves leaders in the for-profit or not-for-profit sectors and are familiar with some of the most current leadership scholarship and practice; however, they are reluctant to become involved in synagogue leadership because they (correctly) view the leadership structure as outmoded and 288 arcane. Promising lay leaders should be encouraged to bring their knowledge of leadership practices and techniques into the synagogue in a way that is comfortable for them and compatible with some of the emergent leadership models that have met with success in the private and public organizational arenas.

Implications for Community Synagogue

The upcoming retirement of the current rabbi after nearly thirty years of service presents an opportunity for the lay and professional leaders of Community Synagogue to consider ways in which the rabbi’s shared spiritual leadership legacy may be maintained and modified for the future. Placing the lessons of shared leadership into practice means that the professional and lay leaders should not be waiting for a new rabbi to make leadership decisions on his own or in a vacuum. Such a situation would represent a more traditional, vertical approach to leadership succession. Rather, the current professional staff team is already positioned to make decisions as a social network and should embark upon making changes to their self-managed leadership areas with the rabbi’s support, well in advance of his retirement. This staff team has already reached a level of empowerment; they understand the organization and its direction in profound and meaningful ways. While they still have the leadership of their long-standing, trusted “coach” to guide them, they, like team “quarterbacks,” can begin to call more of the “plays,” experiment, while they are feeling confident in themselves as a group, and take risks while they are secure in their places on the leadership team.

Implications for American Reform Rabbis and Synagogues

With organizations becoming more and more de-centralized and with communication growing more virtual in nature, the reality of maintaining the synagogue as a bricks and mortar institution and the rabbi as the single, top-down leader will become increasingly challenging. 289

Moreover, in the American Jewish world -- particularly among Reform and liberal Jews – synagogue affiliation has been on a downward trajectory. In addition to the major changes we have observed in Jewish organizational leadership, the very definition of Jewish community and the concept of Jewish continuity are moving targets. The state of Reform Judaism in America today depends on one’s perspective: Some view the Jewish community and the institution of the synagogue within the community as an ever-shrinking place in which fewer and fewer people gather for study, prayer and social activities. While synagogues have been powerful legacy institutions of the past and have been instrumental in supporting Jews in their observance and practice of Judaism, some fear that synagogues have lost their relevance to contemporary Jews who look at synagogues as outdated and arcane, and who have other places in which they find meaning and even spirituality in their lives. Others are more optimistic about the significance of the synagogue to modern American Jews and see today’s technology as providing infinite ways to connect people with other people. According to this viewpoint, the present time is the perfect time to focus on the synagogue not only as relational and relevant, but that at least in part, has the potential to live on beyond its actual walls and structural configurations of the past.

As such, the challenge of Jewish organizational life in America must include training

Jewish professionals to think beyond traditional conceptualizations of what has been historical

Jewish leadership in order to imagine altogether different types of “communities” that are more horizontal than vertical, and that are more de-centralized in actuality as well as in the minds and psyches of those who seek to “belong.” In the future, “belonging” to a Jewish community will likely look radically different than anything that has emerged in the history of Jews and Judaism.

Shared spiritual leadership has the potential to strengthen the fabric of the Jewish community by offering a more flattened, distributed approach to the challenges of modern Jewish life, and by 290 inspiring people to develop and nurture spiritual lives of meaning as individuals in newly imagined “communities.” Synagogues can be places of relevance in which social networks have an exponential capacity to increase existing relationships and incrementally expand the Jewish communal reach. Utilizing leadership modes that are bottom-up, top-down and middle-out, then, it is possible to enhance the durability and resiliency of Jewish organizational life for the future.

Contemporary American Reform synagogues can benefit from creative and innovative hybrid leadership styles – such as shared spiritual leadership – and will need to continue to envision new iterations of Jewish observance and Jewish spirituality and to help Jews navigate the complexities of practicing an ancient religion against the backdrop of the post-modern world.

Recommendations for Future Research

There are many different research directions that could follow from this single-site instrumental case study on shared spiritual leadership in the synagogue. This section will offer some suggestions for areas of future research that have emerged from current trends and through the knowledge that has been gained from this synagogue-based case study.

Evolving and Expanded Definitions of Spiritual Leadership

First, this study offered some additional facets to the ongoing efforts by organizational scholars to define spiritual leadership. Much of the research that was conducted about spiritual leadership at the beginning of the twenty-first century focused on the correlation between spiritual leadership and organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Dent et al., 2005), on the personality of the spiritual leader in an organization (Reave, 2005), on the connection between spiritual leadership and charisma (Houghton, 2010; House, 1976; Weber, 1947), and on the similarities and differences between spiritual leadership and servant leadership theories

(Beazley & Gemmill, 2006). There have also been several studies correlating spiritual 291 intelligence with leader traits (Emmons, 2000; Sultan, Khan & Kanwal, 2017; Zohar & Marshall,

2000).

Over the past twenty years, organizational scholars have continued to wrestle with the definition of spiritual leadership but have made some progress in their evolving belief that spiritual leadership exists along a spectrum of practice and not just as a single static leadership construct. More research is needed to continue to clarify how spirituality differs from religion, and how spiritual leadership is enacted on the team-level and not just on the individual level

(Benefiel, 2012; Biberman, 2003; Dent et al., 2005; Doohan, 2007; Fry & Nisiewicz, 2012;

Krishnakumar et al., 2015).

The present research endeavor may be useful in shedding light on the second abovementioned area in particular; that is, in characterizing how spiritual leadership may be enacted not just by an individual -- in this case the rabbi -- but by an entire synagogue staff team of eight members. It is noteworthy that in the earlier phases of this research study, the definition of spiritual leadership that was used reflected the older literature trends, in which the focus was on the leader. As such, spiritual leadership was understood as a leader’s quest for meaning on behalf of his or her followers. By extension, then, the spiritual leader was viewed as the person whose leadership was rooted in and inspired by a special connection to a transcendent power

(Nicolae & Nicolae, 2013).

However, it became apparent through the data analysis and findings from the present study, that the initial conceptualization of spiritual leadership that was used in this literature review did not go far enough to capture the social complexity of spiritual leadership as it has evolved in theory and practice. The findings from this research study revealed that spiritual leadership was not a monolithic approach; rather, it was a broader and more holistic 292 phenomenon, wherein a leader exercises a variety of leadership styles depending upon the circumstance and framework. This finding corroborates with newer theoretical leadership models where the boundaries between one leadership style and another are blurred, where most or all members are empowered to lead, and where leadership situations shape the leader as well as the organization.

The synagogue would provide a meaningful setting for additional studies on the interaction of leadership styles within a single organization and even within a single leader. In the case of the present study, more research is needed that is focused on shared leadership as a subset of spiritual leadership and not as two separate phenomena. For example, Neimann and

Stelson (2017) offer a definition of spiritual leadership as a “worker-centered shared leadership approach” (p. 1) that would provide an effective starting-point for studies on synagogue leadership teams. This democratic and participatory conceptualization of leadership as

“cooperation, cooperative consensus-based democratic decision-making” would be especially appropriate for Reform synagogues, where these values are upheld as central to the Reform

Movement (Neimann & Stelson, 2017, p. 3). Synagogue-based studies that examine spiritual leadership as a “cooperative and consensus-based” framework will also require researchers to conceive of spiritual leadership as team-based phenomena, which would represent a departure from the prevailing custom of viewing it on the individual level.

More research is also needed in faith-based organizations to explore hybrid leadership models such as shared spiritual leadership. Future studies on the blending of leadership styles will raise the level of credibility for these novel leadership models and will allow for a more nuanced approach to shared spiritual leadership and to the breadth of possibilities that exist for its enactment in synagogues, churches, mosques and other religious settings. Studying leadership 293 from this more hybrid and blended perspective will be instructive in learning how members negotiate their places on teams, especially when there are no delineated boundaries or limitations placed on any leader, and as each leader is free to explore leadership in any area of the synagogue. In continuing to modify the theoretical definitions of leadership and in conceiving what have been disparate leadership, more in terms of networks and whole systems, scholars will be able to move organizational leadership scholarship to new levels of study that will more effectively capture the subtle and intangible characteristics of leadership in the twenty-first century.

Gender and Shared Leadership in Teams

Over the past year alone, there have been numerous research studies conducted on the topic of gender and organizational leadership. Among the topics investigated, of particular relevance to this research are those that address the connections between gender and leadership style, gender and communication, and gender and leadership aspiration (Fritz & van

Knippenberg, 2018; Gardiner, 2018; Lechner, Sortheix, Obschonka, & Salmela-Aro, 2018;

Netchaeva, Sheppard, Morton, & Allen, 2018; Ryan & Dickson, 2018).

There have also been many articles added to the organizational leadership literature in the past five years on the role of gender, specifically as it is associated with shared and distributed leadership (Burton, & Weiner, 2016; Gu, Chen, Huang, Liu, & Huang, 2018; Javidan, Bullough,

& Dibble, 2016; Lemoine, Aggarwal, & Steed, 2016; Mendez & Busenbark, 2015; Mroz,

Yoerger, & Allen, 2018; Xu & Wang, 2018). More scholarship is needed in synagogue settings for researchers and practitioners to more comprehensively understand how the genders of team members, the balance between men and women, and the gender dynamics between and among 294 professionals and lay leaders influence a clergy and professional team in which leadership is both vertical and horizontal in nature.

Shared Spiritual Leadership During Leadership Transitions

While the Community Synagogue clergy team was by and large stable and unchanging for several years, members of the team expressed some apprehension about the major change they were anticipating with the impending retirement of the Senior rabbi within the next five years. There is very little research in the area of rabbinic succession in synagogues, and even fewer studies that are focused specifically on team-based organizational leadership settings such as Community Synagogue. Furthermore, because rabbinic leadership has, through most of

Jewish history, been a top-down, single-man phenomenon, there has not been a need to study synagogue leadership succession within a team-based configuration. However, with more synagogues transitioning to newer, more flattened leadership models, there is a lack of direction and an absence of exemplars to help guide a team like Community Synagogue through a process of leadership transition.

There is some anecdotal evidence in contemporary Reform synagogues that when a clergy and staff team are in place -- and particularly where there is another rabbi serving on the team -- that congregations prefer to elevate the rabbi who has been mentored by the senior rabbi and with whom they are familiar rather than search for a new senior rabbi to replace the outgoing senior rabbi. More research is needed to corroborate this anecdotal finding, and to determine whether there are some theoretical guidelines from other organizational fields that might help guide practice in team-based synagogues during transitions, and specifically around times of senior leadership succession. 295

More research is also needed to assess whether the team approach to shared spiritual leadership will be maintained beyond the departure of the senior rabbi as team leader or whether the team approach changes either in advance of or simultaneous to the arrival of a new senior rabbi. That is, does shared spiritual leadership have a staying power as a leadership model on its own, or is it dependent upon members of the team remaining at the synagogue and advocating for the continued presence of team-based leadership practices?

It would also be also be instructive to investigate whether gender is a factor in team- based leadership succession. That is, more research is needed as to whether there might be any connection between leadership succession and gender in a team-based context. Are women rabbis who are members of the team more likely to ascend to the senior rabbi position when the senior rabbi departs than a male rabbi who is on the same team? Similarly, if a congregation seeks to go outside the current synagogue clergy team to search for a new senior rabbi, will studies be conducted to assess whether that new rabbi is more likely be male? Or female?

Creating an Evidence-Based Curriculum for Shared Spiritual Leadership

Jewish life and Jewish study are rooted in evidence-based scholarship and on empirical research. Rabbinic Judaism represents an entire system of interpretation of texts based on the past but always directed toward the future. The area of organizational leadership studies for rabbis, cantors, and other synagogue professionals is relatively new, but one worthy of attention, especially as changes in practice outpace research and scholarship. Perhaps the present research study might be used as a foundation for the creation of a new type of academic curriculum based on findings and evidence from this study and others that could be directly applicable to Reform synagogue settings. While such a curriculum would potentially be useful to rabbis as practitioners in the synagogue, the research could be expanded to include other faith-based 296 leaders as well. With significant volumes of research in nearly every area of Judaism, this type of evidence-based research leading to an academic curriculum would go a long way in enhancing the research on trends in rabbinic leadership and on the evolution of synagogues as organizations for the next generation of Jewish scholars.

Larger-Scale Research Studies Evaluating the Quality of Shared Leadership in Synagogues

There is a continuing need for synagogue studies that evaluate and identify the leadership models that are being used by rabbis and their professional colleagues in synagogues. To date, there is simply not enough knowledge about the leadership styles of synagogue rabbis in general, or about exactly what underlying conditions influence leaders in synagogue settings. As such, there is a need for some large-scale quantitative studies so that data can be gathered to assess correlations between the style of the leader, his or her age, gender, length of tenure, synagogue size, professional team composition, and synagogue leadership history.

While there is historical evidence that most synagogues have been led by rabbis in a traditional vertical framework, it would be beneficial to learn how today’s rabbis view their own leadership practices and whether there are commonalities among and between contemporary rabbis throughout the country. While this is admittedly very basic research, it is necessary to carry out so that a base is established and so that a common vocabulary can be developed with which to address the topic of rabbinic synagogue leadership. To date, there are enough definitions of the major leadership models that exist in the secular organizational literature that could be used to create a broad-based leadership research study for rabbis. A large-scale study or series of studies will create the necessary benchmark in synagogue organizational leadership research that will lay the foundation for more targeted studies on individual rabbis and synagogues in the future. 297

Once the above-mentioned general research is conducted, it will be beneficial to know more about whether the practice of shared spiritual leadership lives in other congregations in addition to Community Synagogue. While there was certainly benefit to the sharing of spiritual leadership at Community Synagogue, it is largely unknown whether the findings from this synagogue team can be generalized to other synagogues. Now that the present research study has endeavored to define the phenomenon of shared spiritual leadership, it will be important to have some measures or instruments by which to positively recognize it and evaluate its efficacy.

Continued research in this area might include studies that compare and contrast leadership styles in synagogues on specific areas of synagogue life, such as: the time required for decision- making, the overall satisfaction of the rabbi and staff members, the productivity of team members, the quality of services offered to members of the congregation, the duration of the rabbi’s tenure, the likelihood of burnout on the part of the rabbi and/or synagogue team members.

Personal Reflections

I am very grateful to have had the opportunity as a “mid-career rabbi” to more deeply explore leadership from a scholarly perspective. I have always been able to recognize leadership in others and believe that I have had good success in what was largely an intuitional approach to my own leadership; however, this research has enriched my knowledge and enhanced my practice. I hope to better balance my own rabbinate between the scholarly and practitioner aspects, using organizational literature and the people whom I have met through this doctoral process as resources to improve and enhance my service to the Jewish community.

I now understand the meaning of the frequently quoted truism of qualitative research methodology that “the researcher is the primary instrument of analysis.” After these months and 298 years of coursework, research, writing and re-writing, the beauty and difficulty of qualitative research rests, for the researcher, in the paradox between his or her passion and objectivity.

While I entered the data collection phase and site visits to Community Synagogue feeling impassioned about what I thought I would find there, I concluded my analysis equally impassioned about what I did not find and have been musing about which new and related projects I will pursue next. Just as human beings are complex, changing, and rarely binary in terms of perceptions and personalities, organizations are much the same: they are wonderfully complicated, messy, and sometimes impossible to understand and describe.

There are limitations to research just as there are limitations to researchers. If I were to identify a single, overarching limitation to this study, it would be that I unexpectedly fell in love with Community Synagogue. I certainly checked my biases, used techniques to allow the data to speak, maintained processes to objectify my subjectivity; however, I confess that what I saw – and what I received – from Community Synagogue and its rabbi and staff team was more than I could have ever anticipated. After deep reflection, I can say that this was not a love borne out of idealism or subjectivity on my part; it was rather a deep gratitude for the highly integrated and magnificently coordinated means by which this staff team approached its sacred work. I felt a constant measure of admiration for what I believe that I objectively and dispassionately witnessed: shared spiritual leadership at the highest level of sharing and of spirit.

It is written in the Mishnah, Pirke Avot 2:16: לֹא עָלֶיָך הַמְּ לָאכָה לִגְּמֹר ,וְּ לֹא אַתָ ה בֶן חֹורִ ין לִבָטֵ ל מִ מֶ נָה

It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.

For Community Synagogue and for me, the study, the work, and the sharing of spirit will continue. 299

References

Abrahams, I. (2011). Jewish life in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication

Society of America. (Original work published in 1896).

Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1998). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln,

(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 79-109). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and

leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166.

doi:10.1177/1548051809335360

Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., Short, J. C., Mathieu, J. E., & Chen, G. (2011). The

etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of

Management, 37(2), 610-641.

Albee, R. (2000). A clergywoman of the new generation: Evolving interpretations of gender and

faith. Sociology of Religion, 61(4), 461.

Allen, B. L., & Morton, L. W. (2006). Generating self-organizing capacity: Leadership practices

and training needs in non-profits. Iowa State University, 44(6).

Allison, S. T., Kocher, C. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2017). Frontiers in spiritual leadership:

Discovering the better angels of our nature. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Alvesson, M. (1992). Leadership as social integrative action. A study of a computer consultancy

company. Organization Studies, 13(2), 185-209.

Amar, A. D., Hentrich, C., & Hlupic, V. (2009). To be a better leader, give up

authority. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 22-24. 300

Ammerman, N. T. (2014). America’s changing religious and cultural landscape and its

implications for theological education." Theological Education 49(1), 27-31.

http://hdl.handle.net/2144/11658Ammerman, N. T. (2013).

Ammerman, N. T. (2013). Sacred stories, spiritual tribes: Finding religion in everyday life. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. (2017). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the need for a

new ‘full‐range’ theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 76-96.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of

transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746-771.

Anwar, J., & Hasnu, S. (2013). Ideology, purpose, core values and leadership: How they

influence the vision of an organization? International Journal of Learning and

Development, 3(3), 168-184.

Ariel, D. S. (1995). What do Jews believe? The spiritual foundations of Judaism. New York,

NY: Schocken Books.

Ariel, Y. (2012). A German rabbi and scholar in America: Kaufmann Kohler and the shaping of

American Jewish theological and intellectual agendas. European Judaism, 45(2), 59-77.

Aron, I., Cohen, S. M., Hoffman, L. A., & Kelman, A. Y. (2010). Sacred strategies:

Transforming synagogues from functional to visionary. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishing.

Ashforth, B. E., & Pratt, M. G. (2003). Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron. Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance, 93-107.

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and

measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145. 301

Astrow, A. B., Puchalski, C. M., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2001). Religion, spirituality, and health care:

Social, ethical, and practical considerations. The American Journal of Medicine, 110(4),

283-287.

Avni, S., & Bekerman, Z. (2013). Introduction to the special issue: Rethinking Jewish

education. Diaspora, Indigenous & Minority Education, 7(1), 1-5.

doi:10.1080/15595692.2012.742056

Avolio, B. J. (2010). Full range leadership development Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasbramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed

teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In M. M.

Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of

work teams: Team leadership, (pp. 173-209). Atlanta, GA: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Jung, D., & Garger, J. W. (2002).

Development and preliminary validation of a team multifactor leadership

questionnaire. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,

and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Ayranci, E., & Semercioz, F. (2011). The relationship between spiritual leadership and issues of

spirituality and religiosity: A study of top Turkish managers. International Journal of

Business and Management, 6(4), 136.

Baker, D. C. (2003). Studies of the inner life: The impact of spirituality on quality of life. Quality

of Life Research, 12(1), 51-57. 302

Banks, R. J., & Powell, K. (2000). Faith in leadership: How leaders live out their faith in their

work, and why it matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing

teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.

Baron, S. W. (1952). A social and religious history of the Jews: High middle ages, 500-1200.

New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free

Press, Collier Macmillan.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia, PA: Open

University Press.

Bassey, M. (2003). Case study research. In Swann, Johann, Pratt, & John (Ed.), Educational

research in practice (pp. 111-123). New York, NY: Continuum.

Bassey, M. (2004). Case study research. In Miles, Huberman, & Michael (Ed.), Qualitative data

analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 111-123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Beazley, D., & Gemmill, G. (2006). Spirituality and servant leader behavior. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion, 3(3), 258-270.

Bell, J. (2008). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers (5th ed.).

London, England: McGraw-Hill Education.

Benefiel, M. (2005a). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational

transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 723-747.

Benefiel, M. (2005b). Soul at work. Dublin, Ireland: Veritas Publishing. 303

Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace:

History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A review of

literature. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/

Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2014). The role of leader boundary activities in enhancing

interdisciplinary team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 46(1), 83-124. doi:

10.1177/1046496414560028

Berenbaum, M. (1988). Effectiveness and professional responsibilities. Sh'Ma: A Journal of

Jewish Responsibility, 18(346), 41.

Berg, J. L. (2015). The role of personal purpose and personal goals in symbiotic

visions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(443). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00443

Berman, S. (2001). The ideology of modern orthodoxy Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish

Responsibility. Retrieved from http://shma.com/2001/02/the-ideology-of-modern-orthodoxy/

Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods.

Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Berson, Y., Da'as, R., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). How do leaders and their teams bring about

organizational learning and outcomes? Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 79-108.

Biale, D. (2010). Power & powerlessness in Jewish history. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Biberman, J. (2003). How workplace spirituality becomes mainstreamed in a scholarly

organization. Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, 421-

428.

Binci, D., Cerruti, C., & Braganza, A. (2016). Do vertical and shared leadership need each other

in change management? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 558-578. 304

Birnbaum, T. H., & Friedman, H. H. (2014). Ezra and Nehemiah: Lessons in moral and spiritual

leadership. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2390230

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to

enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13),

1802-1811. doi:10.1177/1049732316654870

Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership:

A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and

Applied Management, 7(3), 304.

Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (2000). Management: Meeting new challenges. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing Company.

Blackaby, H., Blackaby, H. T., & Blackaby, R. (2011). Spiritual leadership: Moving people on

to God's agenda. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional

improvement: Principals’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 476-

500.

Blau, J. L. (1972). Modern varieties of Judaism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Bleiberg, J. R., & Skufca, L. (2005). Clergy dual relationships, boundaries, and

attachment. Pastoral Psychology, 54(1), 3-22. doi:10.1007/s11089-005-6179-5

Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The importance of self- and shared

leadership in team-based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership

dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296-318. 305

Blohm, U. (2006). Women clergy working with rituals. Feminist Theology: The Journal of the

Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology, 15(1), 26-47.

doi:10.1177/0966735006068848

Boblin, S. L., Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., & Robertson, K. (2013). Using Stake’s qualitative case

study approach to explore implementation of evidence-based practice. Qualitative Health

Research, 23(9), 1267-1275.

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of

qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391-409.

Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research (1st ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and

research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269.

Bolden, R., & Gosling, J. (2006). Leadership competencies: Time to change the

tune? Leadership, 2(2), 147-163.

Bonfil, R. (2013). Men of knowledge and power: A tentative profile of medieval rabbis. In W.

Homolka, & H. Schöttler (Eds.), Studia Judaica: Rabbi - pastor - priest: Their roles and

profiles through the ages. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Publishers.

Borowitz, E. B. (1983). Reform Judaism today Springfield, NJ: Behrman House, Inc.

Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-

factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 238-263.

Bradford, D. L. & Cohen, A. R. (1998). Power up: Transforming organizations through shared

leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Brandt, E. (1996). Corporate pioneers explore spirituality. HR Magazine, 41, 82-87. 306

Briscoe, F. M. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and

intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38(1), 23-41.

Bronznick, S. (2002). Women's leadership will transform our organizations. Sh'Ma: A Journal of

Jewish Responsibility, 32(590), 1.

Brown, E. (2007). Personal, institutional, and communal leadership: Rethinking leadership

development for the Jewish community. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 82(3), 234-

243.

Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and

deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 954.

Brown, S. M., & Malkus, M. (2007). Hevruta as a form of cooperative learning. Journal of

Jewish Education, 73(3), 209-226.

Bruce, F. F. (2006). Tradition: Old and new. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Bruce, W., & Plocha, E. F. (1999). Reflections on maintaining a spirituality in the government

workplace: What it means and how to do it. International Journal of Organization Theory &

Behavior, 2(3/4), 325-347.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Nord, W. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Buchanan, D. A., Addicott, R., Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., & Baeza, J. I. (2007). Nobody in

charge: Distributed change agency in healthcare. Human Relations, 60(7), 1065-1090. 307

Burkhart, L., Solari-Twadell, P. A., & Haas, S. (2008). Addressing spiritual leadership: An

organizational model. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 38(1), 33-39.

doi:10.1097/01.NNA.0000295629.95592.78

Bush, T. (2013). Distributed leadership. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 41(5), 543-544. doi:10.1177/174114321348949

Butin, D. (2010). Structuring your research. The education dissertation: A guide to practitioner

scholars (pp. 57-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bycel, L. T. (1995). Tradition or renewal? Notes on a modern rabbinic school

curriculum. Religious Education, 90(1), 71-88.

Cantrell, D. C. (1993). Alternative paradigms in environmental education research: The

interpretive perspective. Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Education Research, 8,

81-104.

Carroll, B., Levy, L., & Richmond, D. (2008). Leadership as practice: Challenging the

competency paradigm. Leadership, 4(4), 363-379.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An

investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social

constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-

562.

Carter, J. (2012). Let the beauty we love be what we do: A case study in communication-centered

leadership (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (UMI No. 3504287) 308

Cave, A. (2014). God, Buddha, Steve Jobs and lessons of spiritual leadership. Forbes. Retrieved

from https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewcave/2014/05/30/god-buddha-steve-jobs-and-

lessons-of-spiritual-leadership/#3648b1795a38

Cawthorne, J. E. (2010). Leading from the middle of the organization: An examination of shared

leadership in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(2), 151-157.

Cedarbaum, D. G. (1999). The rabbi as master. The Reconstructionist, 64(1), 39-42. Retrieved

from http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=4930

Chambliss, Daniel F., Schutt, Russell K. (2012). Making sense of the social world: Methods of

investigation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

research. London, England: Sage Publications.

Chase, E. (2017). Enhanced member checks: Reflections and insights from a participant-

researcher collaboration. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2689-2703.

Chaston, J., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2015). When spirituality meets hierarchy: Leader spirituality

as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(2), 111-128.

Chen, C. C., Belkin, L. Y., & Kurtzberg, T. K. (2007). A follower-centric contingency model of

charisma attribution: The importance of follower emotion. In Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-

Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of

James R. Meindl, (pp. 115-134). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Chen, C., & Li, C. (2013). Assessing the spiritual leadership effectiveness: The contribution of

follower's self-concept and preliminary tests for moderation of culture and managerial

position. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 240-255. 309

Chen, C., & Yang, C. (2012). The impact of spiritual leadership on organizational citizenship

behavior: A multi-sample analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 107-114.

Chia, E. K. (2011). Theological education in a multi-religious world. New Theology Review: An

American Catholic Journal for Ministry, 24(4), 75-78.

Chen, C., Yang, C., & LI, C. (2012). Spiritual leadership, follower mediators, and organizational

outcomes: Evidence from three industries across two major Chinese societies. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 890-938.

Chreim, S. (2015). The (non) distribution of leadership roles: Considering leadership practices

and configurations. Human Relations, 68(4), 517-543.

Clevenger, C., & Cadge, W. (2015). Institutional change in American religion. Emerging trends

in the social and behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0185

Cohen, A. (2006). Renewing the old and sanctifying the new: Models for rabbinic leadership in

the twenty-first century. Conservative Judaism, 58(4), 80.

Cohen, N. W. (2008). What the Rabbis said: The public discourse of 19th century American

Rabbis. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Cohen, S. M., Kress, J. S., & Davidson, A. (2003). Rating rabbinic roles: A survey of

conservative congregational rabbis and lay leaders. Conservative Judaism, 56(1), 71-89.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London, England:

Routledge.

Cohon, S. S. (1948). Judaism, a way of life. New York, NY: Union of American Hebrew

Congregations. 310

Coleman, E. D. (2014). The nature of leadership: A case study of distributed leadership amidst A

participative change effort (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3504287)

Collinson, D., & Collinson, M. (2009). Blended leadership: Employee perspectives on effective

leadership in the UK further education sector. Leadership, 5(3), 365-380.

Conger, J. A. (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in

organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.

Cowan, R. (2011). Letting go of power. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 41(676), 1.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into

Practice, 39(3), 124-130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2007). Shared leadership: A post-heroic

perspective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of Leadership

Studies, 3(1), 40-67. 311

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of

leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 77-

86.

Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership–a review of the

literature. Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.

Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualising spiritual leadership in secular organizational contexts and

its relation to transformational, servant and environmental leadership. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 596-608.

D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of different

forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7),

1964-1991.

Dalrymple, J. (1981). Team Ministry in the City Parish. The Furrow, (32)4, 212-219.

Dauermann, S. (2009). The rabbi as a surrogate priest. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in

leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The

Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the

threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211-216.

Deckman, M. M., Crawford, S. E. S., Olson, L. R., & Green, J. C. (2003). Clergy and the politics

of gender. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 621-631. doi:

doi:10.1046/j.1468-5906.2003.00207.x 312

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a

codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development

research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical

review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership

Quarterly, 16(5), 625-653.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral

theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative

validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.

Dhiman, S. (2017). Leadership and spirituality. Leadership today (pp. 139-160). New York, NY:

Springer Publishing.

Diamond, J. A. (2011). Maimonides, Spinoza, and Buber read the Hebrew Bible: The

hermeneutical keys of divine “Fire” and “Spirit” (ruach). The Journal of Religion, 91(3),

320-343.

Diner, H. R. (2004). Looking for leadership in all the right (and wrong) places. In J. Wertheimer

(Ed.), Jewish religious leadership: Image and reality (pp. 591). New York, NY: Jewish

Theological Seminary.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership

theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing

perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

D'Innocenzo, L., Kukenberger, M., & Mathieu, J. (2014, January). Predicting leader role

occupancy: A functional leadership approach. In Academy of Management 313

Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 170-187). Briar Cliff Manor, NY: Academy of

Management.

Doohan, L. (2007). Spiritual leadership: The quest for integrity. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O'Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J.

B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of

leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 635-653.

Drummond, S., & Aiello, H. (2012). The integrative seminar across seminaries. Reflective

Practice: Formation and Supervision in Ministry, 29.

Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit

performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 807-833.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on

follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management

Journal, 45(4), 735-744.

Ebener, D. R. (2007). The servant parish: A case study of servant leadership and organizational

citizenship behaviors in high performing catholic parishes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database

Ebener, D. R., & O'Connell, D. J. (2010). How might servant leadership work? Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 20(3), 315-335.

Ehrhardt, A. (1954). Jewish and Christian ordination. The Journal of Ecclesiastical

History, 5(02), 125-138.

Eisenberg, R. L. (2010). Jewish traditions: A JPS guide. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication

Society of America.

Elazar, D. J. (1984). The development of the American synagogue. Modern Judaism, 255-273. 314

Elazar, D. J., & Monson, R. G. (1982). The evolving roles of American congregational

rabbis. Modern Judaism, 73-89.

Eleff, Z. (2014). From teacher to scholar to pastor: The evolving postwar modern orthodox

rabbinate. American Jewish History, 98(4), 289-313.

Eleff, Z. (2016). Who rules the synagogue? Religious authority and the formation of American

Judaism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ellenson, D. (2003). Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the creation of a modern Jewish orthodoxy.

Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Ellenson, D. H. (2004). After emancipation: Jewish religious responses to modernity. Cincinnati:

Hebrew Union College Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? motivation, cognition, and the psychology

of ultimate concern. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 3-26.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of

startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217-231.

Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared

leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human

Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329-346.

Etzioni, A. (1965). Dual leadership in complex organizations. American Sociological

Review, 30(5), 688-698.

Faierstein, M. M. (2016). Grave visitation by Rabbi Isaac Luria and Rabbi Menachem Mendel

Schneerson. Modern Judaism, 36(1), 31-41. 315

Fairholm, G. W. (1997). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and community in the

new American workplace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Fairholm, M. R., & Gronau, T. W. (2015). Spiritual leadership in the work of public

administrators. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(4), 354-373.

Fernando, M. (2011). Spirituality and leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The sage handbook of leadership (pp. 483-494). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fine, S. (1996). Sacred realm: The emergence of the synagogue in the ancient world. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2003). The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and

team adaptability. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2016). Leadership process models: A review and

synthesis. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206316682830

Fishman, A. (1995). Modern Orthodox Judaism: A study in ambivalence. Social Compass, 42(1),

89-95.

Fishman, T. (2013). Becoming the people of the Talmud: Oral Torah as written tradition in

medieval Jewish cultures University of Pennsylvania Press.

Fritz, C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Gender and leadership aspiration: The impact of work–

life initiatives. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 855-868.

Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership Shared leadership: Reframing the hows

and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 316

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative

Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Fogarty, S. G. (2009). Gender and leadership behavior among senior pastors. Ajps, 12(1), 137-

167.

Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co.

Foster, C. R. (2008). Identity and integrity in clergy formation. University of Saint Thomas Law

Journal, 5, 457.

Foster, C. R., Dahill, L. E., Golemon, L. A., & Tolentino, B. W. (2006). Educating clergy:

Teaching practices and pastoral imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man's search for meaning. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Fransen, K., Delvaux, E., Mesquita, B., & Van Puyenbroeck, S. (2018). The emergence of shared

leadership in newly formed teams with an initial structure of vertical leadership: A

longitudinal analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(2), 140-170.

Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., Evans., T., Fineberg, H., Garcia, P., Ke, Y.,

Kelley, P., Kistnasamy, B., Meleis, A., Naylor, D., Pablos-Mendez, A., Reddy, S.,

Serwadda, D., & Zurayk, H., (2010). Health professionals for a new century: Transforming

education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756),

1923-1958.

Friedman, E. (2011). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Friedman, H. H., Friedman, L. W., & Fireworker, R. (2006). 'An understanding heart to judge

your people': The view of successful leadership in the Hebrew Bible. John Ben Shepperd

Journal of Practical Leadership, (1)1, 103-117. 317

Friedman, H. H., & Langbert, M. (2000). Abraham as a transformational leader. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(2), 88-95.

Friedrich, T. L., Griffith, J. A. and Mumford, M. D. (2016). Collective leadership behaviors:

Evaluating the leader, team network, and problem situation characteristics that influence

their use. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 312-333. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.004

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Mumford, M. D., Yammarino, F. J., & Ruark,

G. A. (2014). Collectivistic leadership and George C. Marshall: A historiometric analysis of

career events. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 449–467.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.012.

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A

framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and

team expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933-958.

Frieze, D., & Wheatley, M. (2011). It's time for the heroes to go home. Leader to

Leader, 2011(62), 27-32. doi:10.1002/ltl.489

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6),

693-727.

Fry, L. W. (2005). Introduction to the leadership quarterly special issue: Toward a paradigm of

spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 619-622.

Fry, L. W. (2016). Spiritual leadership. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public

Policy, and Governance. (pp. 1-6). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2353-1

Fry, L. W. J. (2009). Spiritual leadership as a model for student inner development. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 3(3), 79-82. 318

Fry, L. W., & Matherly, L. L. (2006). Spiritual leadership and organizational performance: An

exploratory study, presented at Academy of Management meeting, Atlanta, 2006. Killeen,

TX: Tarleton State University.

Fry, L. W., Matherly, L. L., & Ouimet, J. (2010). The spiritual leadership balanced scorecard

business model: The case of the cordon bleu‐Tomasso corporation. Journal of Management,

Spirituality and Religion, 7(4), 283-314.

Fry, L. W., Matherly, L. L., Whittington, J. L., & Winston, B. E. (2007). Spiritual leadership as

an integrating paradigm for servant leadership. Integrating Spirituality and Organizational

Leadership, 70-82.

Fry, L., & Nisiewicz, M. (2013). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual

leadership. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Furman, F. K. (2012). Beyond Yiddishkeit: The struggle for Jewish identity in a Reform

synagogue. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gardiner, R. A. (2018). Hannah and her sisters: Theorizing gender and leadership through the

lens of feminist phenomenology. Leadership, 14(3), 291-306.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic books.

Geh, E. Z. (2014). Organizational spiritual leadership of worlds “made” and “found”: An

experiential learning model for “feel”. Leadership & Organizational Development J, 35(2),

137-151. doi:10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0052

Gehrke, S. J. (2008). Leadership through meaning-making: An empirical exploration of

spirituality and leadership in college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 49(4), 351-359. 319

Gertel, R. E. B. (1997). The synagogue revitalized: Challenges and prescriptions. Journal of

Jewish Communal Service, 73, 291-299.

Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19(8), 1-8.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. The

Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12, 27-49.

Glanz, R. (1970). The German Jewish mass emigration: 1820-1880. American Jewish

Archives, 22(52), 1-4.

Glazer, N. (1989). American Judaism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of

Qualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.

Gunzel-Jensen, F., Hansen, J. R., Jakobsen, M. L. F., & Wulff, J. (2017). A two-pronged

approach? Combined leadership styles and innovative behavior. International Journal of

Public Administration, 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2017.1303711

Goh, J. W. P. (2009). “Parallel leadership in an ‘unparallel” world’” - Cultural constraints on the

transferability of western educational leadership theories across cultures. International

Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(4), 319-345.

Goleman, L. (2002). Teaching what may not be practiced: A review of teaching theology and

religion. Teaching Theology & Religion, 5(4), 236-242.

Gordis, D. (2005). Rabbinic education for an evolving community. In Z. I. Heller (Ed.), Re-

envisioning the synagogue (pp. 155). Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Co.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press. 320

Greenstein, D. (2006). “To a land that I will show you:” Training rabbis for the future. Teaching

Theology & Religion, 9(2), 97-102.

Grille, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Development and preliminary validation of the shared

professional leadership inventory for teams (SPLIT). Psychology, 6(1), 75.

Grille, A., Schulte, E., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Promoting shared leadership: A multilevel analysis

investigating the role of prototypical team leader behavior, psychological empowerment,

and fair rewards. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 324-339.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4),

423-451.

Gronn, P. (2009). Leadership configurations. Leadership, 5(3), 381-394.

Gronn, P. (2015). The view from inside leadership configurations. Human Relations, 68(4), 545-

560.

Gross, P. R. (2001). An examination of curricular revision in the Rabbinical School: What are

the goals of the JTS Rabbinical School education? (Doctoral dissertation, Jewish

Theological Seminary of America. Department of Jewish Education).

Gruenewald, M. (1957). The modern rabbi. The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, 2(1), 85-97.

Gryn, H. (2016). Freedom and authority in Judaism. In B. Gates (Ed.), Freedom and authority in

religions and religious education, (pp. 51-58). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gu, J., Chen, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., & Huang, S. (2018). A multilevel analysis of the

relationship between shared leadership and creativity in inter‐organizational teams. The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(2), 109-126.

Gundolf, K., & Filser, M. (2013). Management research and religion: A citation

analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 177-185. 321

Haas, P. J. (2016). Jewish law reform in nineteenth-century Europe. Legitimacy, legal

development and change: Law and modernization reconsidered (pp. 159-169) New York,

NY: Routledge Publishing.

Haffeld, J. (2013). Sustainable development goals for global health: Facilitating good

governance in a complex environment. Reproductive Health Matters, 21(42), 43-49.

Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. (2015). Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership is the

search over? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 693-718.

Hallinger, P., & Richardson, D. (1988). Models of shared leadership: Evolving structures and

relationships. The Urban Review, 20(4), 229-245.

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership friend or foe? Educational Management Administration

& Leadership, 41(5), 545-554.

Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Leadership in schools facing challenging

circumstances. Management in Education, 16(1), 10-13.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership

and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4),

337-347.

Harris, M. (2001). Organising modern synagogues: A case of multiple models. European

Judaism, 34(2), 123.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and

methodological orientations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1). doi:10.17169/fqs-

18.1.2655

Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British

Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202-214. 322

Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. Essential Guide to qualitative methods in organizational

research, 323-333.

Hartman, D. (2001). A heart of many rooms: Celebrating the many voices within Judaism.

Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.

Harvey, R. V. (2005). Rabban Gamaliel (First Limited Edition). Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

Hatch, M. J., Kostera, M., & Koźmiński, A. K. (2006). The three faces of leadership: Manager,

artist, priest. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 49-68.

Hays, P. A. (2004). Case study research. Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in

education and the social sciences, 217-234.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms

of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22(6), 1165-1185. doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009

Herring, H. (2012). Tomorrow's synagogue today: Creating vibrant centers of Jewish life.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.

Hershey, M., Milgrom, S., & Wiener, T. (2000). Rabbinic partnership: A new model. Sh'Ma: A

Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 31(574), 10.

Herskovitz, P. J., & Klein, E. E. (1999). The Biblical story of Moses: Lessons in leadership for

business. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 6(3/4), 84-95.

Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America: The modern experience New York, NY:

Schocken Books. 323

Heschel, A. J. (1951). The Sabbath: Its meaning for modern man. New York: Farrar, Straus &

Giroux.

Heschel, A. J. (1976). God in search of man: A philosophy of Judaism New York, NY:

Macmillan Publishers.

Hess, L. M. (2008). Formation in the worlds of theological education: Moving from “what” to

“how”. Teaching Theology & Religion, 11(1), 14-23.

Hezser, C. (1997). The social structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine.

Heidelberg, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and

team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387-397.

Hirsh, R. (2004). We need leadership, not leaders. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish

Responsibility, 34(610), 6.

Hirsh, R. (2001). Decision making in the congregational system. Reconstructionist, 65, 13-21.

Hoch, J. E., Dulebohn, J. H., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Shared leadership questionnaire (SLQ):

Developing a short scale to measure shared and vertical leadership in teams. Visual

Presentation at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)

Conference.

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,

structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3),

390.Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. (2010). Is the most effective team leadership

shared? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(3), 105-116. 324

Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study

research. Paper presented at the Learning and Skills Development Agency Conference,

Cambridge, England.

Hoffman, L. A. (2006). Rethinking synagogues: A new vocabulary for congregational life.

Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.

Hoge, D. R. (2006). Religious leadership/clergy. Handbook of religion and social

institutions (pp. 373-387). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership. Shared

leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publishing.

Hosking, D. M. (2007). Not leaders, not followers: A post-modern discourse of leadership

processes. In Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on

leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl, (pp. 243-263). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishers.

Hotchkiss, D. (2016). Governance and ministry: Rethinking board leadership. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.

Houghton, J. D. (2010). Does Max Weber's notion of authority still hold in the twenty-first

century? Journal of Management History, 16(4), 449-453.

Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Krishnakumar, S. (2016). The what, why, and how of spirituality

in the workplace revisited: A 14-year update and extension. Journal of Management,

Spirituality & Religion, 13(3), 177-205.

House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working Paper Series 76-06. 325

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:

Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

Hyman, P. E. (2016). Gender and assimilation in modern Jewish history: The roles and

representation of women. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Irving, J. A. (2014). The development and initial testing of the purpose in leadership inventory:

A tool for assessing leader goal-orientation, follower-focus, and purpose-in-

leadership. Servant Leadership, 1(1), 53-67.

Jackson, S. (2000). A qualitative evaluation of shared leadership barriers, drivers and

recommendations. Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(3/4), 166-178.

Jacob, W. (1985). The changing world of Reform Judaism: The Pittsburgh Platform in

retrospect: Papers presented on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pittsburgh

Platform. From the proceedings of 1885. Pittsburgh, PA: Rodef Shalom Congregation.

Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3),

315-336.

Jamaludin, Z., Rahman, Nik Mutasim Nik Ab, Makhbul, Z. K. M., & Idris, F. (2011). Do

transactional, transformational and spiritual leadership styles distinct? A conceptual

insight. Journal of Global Business and Economics, 2(1), 73-85.

Javidan, M., Bullough, A., & Dibble, R. (2016). Mind the gap: Gender differences in global

leadership self-efficacies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 59-73.

Jeon, K. S., Passmore, D. L., Lee, C., & Hunsaker, W. (2013). Spiritual leadership: A validation

study in a Korean context. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 10(4), 342-357. 326

Johns, L., & Watson, J. (2006). Leadership development of women preparing for

ministry. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 15(2), 111-142.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job

performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological

Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of

workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2),

129-142.

Kabbesa-Abramzon, R. (2012). Legitimacy, shared ethos and public management. Society and

Business Review, 7(3), 289-298.

Kanarek, J., & Lehman, M. (2013). Assigning integration: A framework for intellectual,

personal, and professional development in seminary courses. Teaching Theology &

Religion, 16(1), 18-32.

Kang, J. H., Solomon, G. T., & Choi, D. Y. (2015). CEOs' leadership styles and managers'

innovative behaviour: Investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial

context. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 531-554.

Kaplan, D. E. (2003). American Reform Judaism: An introduction. New Brunswick, NJL Rutgers

University Press.

Kaplan, E. K. (1996). Holiness in words: Abraham Joshua Heschel’s poetics of piety. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

Kaplan, M. M. (2010). Judaism as a civilization: Toward a reconstruction of American-Jewish

life. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America. 327

Karp, A. J. (2015). Jewish continuity in America: Creative survival in a free society. Tuscaloosa,

AL: University of Alabama Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Kaya, A. (2015). The relationship between spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship

behaviors: A research on school principals' behaviors. Educational Sciences: Theory and

Practice, 15(3), 597-606.

Kelman, R. S. (2002). The rabbinic leader and the volunteer leader. Religious Education, 97(4),

322-334. doi:10.1080/00344080214722

Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom-up/top-down leadership: Contradiction or hidden

phenomenon. Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725-760.

Kim, S. (2005). Balancing competing accountability requirements: Challenges in performance

improvement of the nonprofit human services agency. Public Performance & Management

Review, 29(2), 145-163.

Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2006). Measuring the intangible: Development of the spirit at

work scale. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1). Atlanta, GA.

Kletz, P., Almog-Bareket, G., Habisch, A., Lenssen, G., Loza Adaui, C., Ben-Hur, S., & Jonsen,

K. (2012). Ethical leadership: Lessons from Moses. Journal of Management

Development, 31(9), 962-973.

Kletz, P., Almog-Bareket, G., Habisch, A., Lenssen, G., Loza Adaui, C., & Gottlieb, E. (2012).

Mosaic leadership: Charisma and bureaucracy in Exodus 18. Journal of Management

Development, 31(9), 974-983. 328

Kocolowski, M. D. (2010). Shared leadership: Is it time for a change. Emerging Leadership

Journeys, 3(1), 22-32.

Koeslag-Kreunen, M. G., Van der Klink, M. R., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijselaers, W. H.

(2018). Leadership for team learning: The case of university teacher teams. Higher

Education, 75(2), 191-207.

Kohler, G. Y. (2012). The rabbinical seminaries. Reading Maimonides' philosophy in 19th

century Germany (pp. 87-127). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Koivunen, N. (2009). Collective expertise: Ways of organizing expert work in collective

settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(02), 258-276.

Koteen, L. (2009). Shifting conversations to increase governance effectiveness in a U.S.

synagogue (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (UMI No. 3368987)

Kotter, J. P. (2008). Force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York,

NY: Simon and Schuster.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman,

Ilgen, Klimoski & Weiner (Eds.) Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational

psychology, (pp. 333-367). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1996). Team leadership and

development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. M.

Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), (pp. 253-291). Atlanta, GA: Elsevier

Science/JAI Press. 329

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and

teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.

Kpers, W. (2007). Perspectives on integrating leadership and followership. International Journal

of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 194-221.

Kress, J. S., Cohen, S. M., & Davidson, A. (2007). Perceptions and roles of conservative rabbis:

Findings and implications related to identity and education. Journal of Jewish

Education, 73(3), 191-207.

Kriger, M. P., & Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy

organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317.

Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of

leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 771-

806. doi://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.007

Krishnakumar, S., Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Ellison, C. N. (2015). The “good” and the

“bad” of spiritual leadership. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(1), 17-37.

doi://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2014.886518

Krishnakumar, S., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The “what”, “why” and “how” of spirituality in the

workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153-164.

Krispin Jr, K. R. (2017). Strengthening ministry teams: Facilitating unity and

cohesiveness. Christian Education Journal, 14(1), 42-51.

Kron, P., Linecker, M., Graf, R., & Clavien, P. A. (2016). Leadership in the 21st

century. European Surgery, 48(3), 157-162.

Kujawa-Holbrook, S. A. (2010). Born of water, born of spirit: Supporting the ministry of the

baptized in small congregations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 330

Küpers, W. (2007). Perspectives on integrating leadership and followership. International

Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 194-221.

Kushner, L. (1999). Arbitrarily small synagogues or sacred commons. Sh'Ma: A Journal of

Jewish Responsibility, 30(564), 11-15. Retrieved from

http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=8775

Ladegaard, H. J. (2011). ‘Doing power’ at work: Responding to male and female management

styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 4-19.

Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.

Langkos, S. (2014). Research methodology: Data collection method and research tools. Derby,

England: University of Derby. doi:10.13140/2.1.3023.1369

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, C. (1999). Staff nurse empowerment and collective

accountability: Effect on perceived productivity and self-rated work effectiveness. Nursing

Economics, 17(6), 308.

Lazerwitz, B., & Harrison, M. (1979). American Jewish Denominations: A Social and Religious

Profile. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 656-666. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094593

Lebeau, W. H. (1997). Rabbinic education for the 21st century. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish

Responsibility, 27(527), 6.

Lechner, C. M., Sortheix, F. M., Obschonka, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2018). What drives future

business leaders? How work values and gender shape young adults' entrepreneurial and

leadership aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 57-70.

LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (2000). Ethnography and qualitative design in

educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 331

Lee, S., Lovelace, K. J., & Manz, C. C. (2014). Serving with spirit: An integrative model of

workplace spirituality within service organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality &

Religion, 11(1), 45-64.

Lee-Davies, L., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2007). Shared leadership: Leading through

polylogue. Business Strategy Series, 8(4), 246-253.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). What we have learned and where we go from

here. Distributed leadership according to the evidence, (pp. 269-282). New York, NY:

Routledge Publishing.

Lemoine, G. J., Aggarwal, I., & Steed, L. B. (2016). When women emerge as leaders: Effects of

extraversion and gender composition in groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 470-486.

Levinson, R. E. (1974). American Jews in the west. The Western Historical Quarterly, 5(3), 285-

294.

Liebman, C. (1968). The training of American Rabbis. The American Jewish Year Book, 69, 3-

112. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23604339

Lincoln Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past.

In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue, (pp. 67–87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lloyd, B. (2010). Power, responsibility and wisdom exploring the issues at the core of ethical

decision making. Journal of Human Values, 16(1), 1-8.

London, M. (2014). Team processes for adaptive and innovative outcomes. Team Performance

Management, 20(1), 19-38. doi:10.1108/TPM-05-2013-0012 332

Lookstein, H. (2010). The role of the rabbi in the fiscal health of his congregation. In Y. Prager

(Ed.), Toward a renewed ethic of Jewish philanthropy (pp. 321-334). New York, NY:

Yeshiva University Press.

Lummis, A. T., & Nesbitt, P. D. (2000). Women clergy research and the sociology of

religion. Sociology of Religion, 61(4), 443.

Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and

methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.

Macnaghten, P. & Myers, G. (2004). Qualitative research practice. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F.

Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 65-79). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Maduka, N. S., Edwards, H., Greenwood, D., Osborne, A., & Babatunde, S. O. (2018). Analysis

of competencies for effective virtual team leadership in building successful

organisations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(2), 696-712.

Magonet, J. (2006). The Future of Rabbinic Training. European Judaism, 39(2), 152-155.

Magonet, J. (2012). Rabbi Dr. Werner van der Zyl and the creation of Leo Baeck College. The

German rabbinate abroad: Transferring German-Jewish modernity into the world? European

Judaism, 45(2), 103-111.

Maloney, O. (1996). Shared Ministry. The Furrow, 47(3), 135-143.

Mandel, S. (2010). Making Jewish education relevant for the 21st century student. The Jewish

Educator. Retrieved from https://thejewisheducator.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-

jewish-educator-summer-2010-mandel.pdf

Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly (32)1, 106-129. 333

Marder, J. (1991). How women are changing the rabbinate. Reform Judaism, 19(4), 4-8.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.

Markham, I. S. (2010). Theological education in the twenty-first century. Anglican Theological

Review, 92(1), 157.

McDuff, E. M., & Mueller, C. W. (2002). Gender differences in the professional orientations of

protestant clergy. Sociological Forum, 17(3), 465-491.

McKenna, R. B., & Yost, P. R. (2007). Leadership development and clergy: Understanding the

events and lessons that shape pastoral leaders. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 35(3),

179-189.

McLaughlin, C. (2005). Spirituality and ethics in business. European Business Review, 17(1),

94-101.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group

leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization

Science, 17(1), 64-79.

Mendez, M. J., & Busenbark, J. R. (2015). Shared leadership and gender: all members are

equal… but some more than others. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 36(1), 17-34.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social

constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341.

Meindl, J. R., Mayo, M., & Pastor, J. C. (2002). Shared leadership in work teams: A social

network approach (Working Paper). Retrieved from 334

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan_Pastor3/publication/5013504_Shared_Leadership

_In_Work_Teams_A_Social_Network_Approach/links/0912f5081201c2ebc7000000.pdf

Meng, Y. (2016). Spiritual leadership at the workplace: Perspectives and theories. Biomedical

Reports, 5(4), 408-412.

Merriam, S. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In J. M. Peters (Ed.), Adult education:

Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study, (pp. 42-65). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and

expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation John Wiley & Sons.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A network

analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management, 42(5),

1374-1403.

Meyer M. A. (1988). Response to modernity: A history of the Reform Movement in Judaism.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, M. A. (1971). Jewish religious Reform and Wissenschaft des Judentums: The positions

of Zunz, Geiger and Frankel. The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, 16(1), 19-41. 335

Meyer, M. A. (2004). Two persistent tensions within Wissenschaft des Judentums. Modern

Judaism, 24(2), 105-119.

Meyerson, D., & Scully, M. (2003). Tempered radicalism: Changing the workplace from within.

In R. Ely, E. G. Foldy, & M. Scully (Eds.) Reader in Gender, Work, and Organization, (pp.

265-272). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Crossroads tempered radicalism and the politics of

ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600.

Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2014). Top

management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated

mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 128-148.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, S. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2007). The leadership team. Harvard Business Review, 85(4),

90-98.

Miller, D. W., & Ewest, T. (2015). A new framework for analyzing organizational workplace

religion and spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(4), 305-328.

Miller, G. D. (1997). Contextualizing texts: Studying organizational texts. In G. D. Miller

(Ed.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 77-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at

spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers. 336

Mogulof, M. (1995). Rabbis and synagogue administration: Practice and problems. Journal of

Jewish Communal Service, 71, 325-332.

Mohr, W. K. (2006). Spiritual issues in psychiatric care. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 42(3),

174-183.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional

approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of

Management, 36(1), 5-39.

Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research:

A contemporary dialogue (pp. 56-85). London, England: Sage Publications.

Moskowitz, S. (2015). Gender and Leadership among Reform Rabbis in the United States and

Canada (University of Michigan Honors Thesis). Retrieved from

https://lsa.umich.edu/orgstudies/current-students/os-honors/past-os-honors-theses.html

Mroz, J. E., Yoerger, M., & Allen, J. A. (2018). Leadership in workplace meetings: The

intersection of leadership styles and follower gender. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 25(3), 309-322.

Müller, R. (2017). Balanced leadership: A new perspective of leadership in organizational

project management. Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project

Management, Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management.

Müller, R., Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Vaagaasar, A., Bekker, M., Jain, K. (2018). A theory

framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects. International Journal

of Project Management,36 (1), 83-94. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.003

Murphy, J. A., Worlock, D., Carey, E., Formby, J., Kearney, S., & Mooney, G. (1973). Co-

responsibility and the clergy. The Furrow, (24)7, 443-456. 337

Nadell, P. S. (2003a). American Jewish women's history: A reader. New York, NY: New York

University Press.

Nadell, P. S. (2003b). On their own terms: America's Jewish women, 1954-2004. American

Jewish History, 91(3), 389-404.

Neimann, T. D., & Stelson, U. M. (2017). Emergence of spiritual leadership: Creating internal

ownership and empowerment in complex organizations. Encyclopedia of strategic

leadership and management (pp. 194-206).

Nell, I. A. (2015). ‘Preaching from the pews:’ A case study in vulnerable theological leadership:

Original research. Verbum Et Ecclesia, 36(1), 1-9.

Nesbitt, P. D. (1997). Gender, tokenism, and the construction of elite clergy careers. Review of

Religious Research, 38(3), 193-210.

Netchaeva, E., Sheppard, L., Morton, S., & Allen, E. (2018, July). A Meta-Analytic Review of

Sex Differences in Values and Motivations Associated with Leadership. In Academy of

Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 16472). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of

Management.

Newman, J. (1950). Semikhah (ordination): A study of its origin, history, and function in

rabbinic literature. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Nicolae, M., Ion, I., & Nicolae, E. (2013). The research agenda of spiritual leadership: Where do

we stand? Review of International Comparative Management, 14(4), 551-566.

Nicolas, A. (2013). A call for spiritual leaders. America

Magazine. doi://americamagazine.org/issue/call-spiritual-leaders

Normore, A. H., & Collard, J. (2007). Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural

contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 740-755. 338

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

O’Connor, P. M., & Quinn, L. (2004). Organizational capacity for leadership. The Center for

Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2, 417-437.

O’May, F., & Buchan, J. (1999). Shared governance: A literature review. International Journal

of Nursing Studies, 36(4), 281-300.

Olson-Sanders, T. (2006). Collectivity and influence: The nature of shared leadership and its

relationship with team learning orientation, vertical leadership and team

effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Order No. 3237041)

Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2015). Personality and charismatic leadership in context: The

moderating role of situational stress. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 49-77.

O'Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2002). When two (or more) heads are better than one:

The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44(4), 65-83.

Pacho, T. (2015). Exploring participants’ experiences using case study. International Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 5(4), 44-53.

Parry, W., & Bryman, A. (2006). Leadership in organizations. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C.,

Lawrence, T.B., Nord, W.R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.,

pp. 447-468). London: Sage Publications.

Pastor, J. C., & Mayo, M. (2002). Shared leadership in work teams: A social network

approach (Working paper). Instituto de Empresa, Area of Economic Environment, 2-10.

Pava, M. (2015). Leading with meaning: Using covenantal leadership to build a better

organization London, England: Macmillan Publishers. 339

Pearce, C. L. (1997). The determinants of change management team (CMT) effectiveness: A

longitudinal investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses Database. (UMI No. 9736615)

Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to

transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.

Pearce, C. L. (2007). The future of leadership development: The importance of identity, multi-

level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity,

emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes. Human Resource Management

Review, 17(4), 355-359.

Pearce, C. & Conger, J. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared

leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows

and whys of leadership (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi:

10.4135/9781452229539.n1

Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2007). Shared leadership theory. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18(3), 281-288.

Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self

and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130-140.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of

leadership. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115-139.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. J. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the

effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,

transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172-197. 340

Peregoy, R. (2016). Toward a further understanding of work as spiritual. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion, 13(4), 271-287.

Petuchowski, J. (1991). One Hundred Years of American Conservative Judaism: A Review

Essay. American Jewish History, 80(4), 547-565. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23884497

Philipson, D. (1907). The Reform Movement in Judaism. London, England: Macmillan & Co.

Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental

Investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(6), 543-562.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the

relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal

of Management, 24(5), 643-671.

Platt, J. (1992). Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40(1), 17-

48. doi:10.1177/001139292040001004

Plaut, W. G. (2015). The rise of Reform Judaism: A sourcebook of its European origins. Lincoln,

NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Polat, S. (2011). The level of faculty members’ spiritual leadership (SL) qualities display

according to students in faculty of education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15,

2033-2041.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.

Potter, L. E., von Hellens, L., & Nielsen, S. (2010). The practical challenges of case study

research: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research on IT, 1-5. 341

Poulton, C., Proches, C. N. G., & Sibanda, R. (2017). The impact of value systems on the

development of effective leadership. International Business Management, 11(8), 1629-1636.

Prager, Y., & Hirt, R. S. (Eds.). (2010). Toward a renewed ethic of Jewish philanthropy. New

York, NY: Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press.

Prell, R. (2007). Women remaking American Judaism. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University

Press.

Quinn, P. M. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Raelin, J. A. (2014). The ethical essence of leaderful practice. Journal of Leadership,

Accountability and Ethics, 11(1): 64-72.

Raelin, J. A. (2016a). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative

agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131-158. doi:10.1177/1742715014558076

Raelin, J. A. (2016b). It's not about the leaders: It's about the practice of

leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 45(2), 124-131.

doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.02.006

Raelin, J. A. (2018). What are you afraid of? Collective leadership and its learning

implications. Management Learning, 49(1), 59-66. doi:10.1177/1350507617729974

Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social

inquiry. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rahmani, M., Roels, G., Karmarkar, U. S., (2018) Team leadership and performance: Combining

the roles of direction and contribution. Management Science 64(11), 5234-5249.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2911 342

Raphael, M. L. (2011). The synagogue in America: A short history New York, NY: New York

University Press.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687. doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003

Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment:

An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 53-75.

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of

leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social

reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 547-568.

Reid, G. (2018). Spirituality and aging: How worship communities of older adults sustain their

faith in the absence of traditional ordained leadership. Journal of Religion, Spirituality &

Aging, 30(1), 48-62.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London, England: Sage Publications.

Richman, Barak D. and Libenson, Daniel J. (2014). Right-skilling: rabbis and the rabbinic role

for a new century Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2772061

Richman, E. (2007). Training rabbis to lead. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 37(637),

11-13.

Ridberg, Y. (2002). Leadership from a feminist pulpit. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish

Responsibility, 32(590), 10.

Rischin, M., & Livingston, J. (1991). Jews of the American West. Detroit, MI: Wayne State

University Press.

Rivkin, E. (1969). Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic sources. Hebrew Union College

Annual, 40, 205-249. 343

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Roozen, D. A. (2012). Educating religious leaders for a multireligious World: Outcomes and

learning. Theological Education, 47(1), 85-104.

Rosensweig, B. (1970). The emergence of the professional rabbi in Ashkenazic Jewry. Tradition:

A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 11(3), 22-30.

Rosenthal, G. S. (1978). The many faces of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist

& Reform. Springfield, NJ: Behrman House Publishing.

Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the

convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133.

Rubenstein, J. L. (2005). The culture of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Publications.

Ruderman, D. (2004). Jewish studies: A remarkable success story. Proceedings of Jewish

Cultural Awards in Scholarship, 20.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). The method chapter: Describing your research

plan. Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (3rd ed.,

pp. 87-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rudolph, D. J. (2009). The rabbi as pastor-theologian Torah scholars qua ecclesial leaders in the

post-Biblical Jewish context. Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology Symposium

(SAET), 1. 344

Ruether, R., & McLaughlin, E. (1998). Women of spirit: Female leadership in the j\Jewish and

Christian traditions. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Runesson, A., Binder, D. D., & Olsson, B. (2008). The ancient synagogue from its origins to 200

CE: A source book. Boston, MA: Brill Publisher.

Ryan, I., & Dickson, G. (2018). The invisible norm: An exploration of the intersections of sport,

gender and leadership. Leadership, 14(3), 329-346.

Sachar, H. M. (2013). The course of modern Jewish history. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Safferstone, M. J. (2005). Organizational leadership: Classic works and contemporary

perspectives. Choice, 42(6), 959-975.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Sales, A. L. (2012). What research teaches about the possibility of reinventing Jewish

education. Journal of Jewish Education, 78(4), 316-319.

doi:10.1080/15244113.2012.732774

Sales, A. L., Samuel, N., Koren, A., & Shain, M. (2010). Deep change in congregational

education. Journal of Jewish Education, 76(4), 358-378.

doi:10.1080/15244113.2010.518346

Salovaara, P. (2011). From leader-centricity toward leadership: A hermeneutic narrative

approach. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

Samuels, L., & Aron, I. (1999). Shared leadership in a congregational change effort. Journal of

Jewish Education, 65(1/2), 25-41. 345

Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental:

Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 9(4), 21-31.

Sandmel, S. (1973). The rabbi and his community. In D. Marmur (Ed.), Reform Judaism: Essays

on Reform Judaism in Britain dedicated to Rabbi Werner van der Zyl. London, England:

Reform Synagogues of Great Britain.

Saperstein, M. (2006). Preparing rabbis for the future. European Judaism, 39(2), 146-151.

Saperstein, M. (2013). Positions of Jewish leadership: Sources of authority and power. European

Judaism, 46(1), 50-59.

Sarna, J. D. (1998). The cult of synthesis in American Jewish culture. Jewish Social

Studies, 5(1/2), 52-79.

Sarna, J. D. (2004). American Judaism: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Saxe, L., Sasson, T., & Aronson, J. K. (2015). Pew’s portrait of American Jewry: A reassessment

of the assimilation narrative. American Jewish Year Book 2014 (pp. 71-81) New York, NY:

Springer Publishing.

Schacter, J. J. (1993). Introduction. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 27(4), 6-

Schonfeld, J. (2009). Leadership and creativity. Sh'Ma: A Journal of Jewish

Responsibility, 39(658), 12.

Schorsch, I. (1981). Zacharias Frankel and the European origins of Conservative

Judaism. Judaism, 30(3), 344.

Schrum, L., Niederhauser, D. S., & Strudler, N. (2016). Competencies, challenges, and changes:

A US perspective on preparing twenty-first century teachers and leaders. In J. M. Spector, 346

D. Ifenthaler, D. D. G. Sampson, P. Isaias, Competencies in teaching, learning and

educational leadership in the digital age (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Schuster, D. T. (2016). Working with adult learners: The value of tzimtzum. Reflective Practice:

Formation and Supervision in Ministry, 36, 22-36.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of

Qualitative Research, 1, 118-137.

Schwartz, S. (1999). The rabbi as spiritual leader. The Reconstructionist, 64(1), 24-33.

Schwarzfuchs, S. (1993). A concise history of the rabbinate. Hoboken, NJ: B. Blackwell

Publishing.

Seltzer, R. M., & Bemporad, J. (1997). Ellis Rivkin on Judaism and the rise of

Christianity. CCAR Journal, 43, 1-16.

Seltzer, S. (2006). Whither scholarship? The rabbinate vs. the academy. Judaism, 55(217/18), 4-

11.

Sendjaya, S. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring spiritual leadership in

organizations. International Journal of Business and Information, 2(1), 104-126.

Sendor, M. (2016). Jewish religious leadership. In Alon Goshen-Gottstein (Ed.), The future of

religious leadership: World religions in conversation (pp. 77-102). Lanham, MD:

Lexington Books.

Shalit, A., Popper, M., & Zakay, D. (2010). Followers' attachment styles and their preference for

social or for personal charismatic leaders. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 31(5), 458-472.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. 347

Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, M. C., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Follower-centered perspectives on

leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific

Publishing Company.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Sherman, W. H., & Wambura Ngunjiri, F. (2010). Lessons in spiritual leadership from Kenyan

women. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(6), 755-768.

Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory

and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding

alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 959-978.

Shulman, S. (2001). The impact of women in the rabbinate. European Judaism, 34(2), 91-108.

Silverstein, A. (1995). Alternatives to assimilation: The response of reform Judaism to American

culture, 1840-1930. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumption, limitations, delimitations, and scope of the

study. Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Seattle, WA: Dissertation

LLC.

Sklare, M. (1972). Conservative Judaism: An American religious movement. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America.

Smith, P. (2000). Culture and charisma: Outline of a theory. Acta Sociologica, 43(2), 101-111.

Smith-Tyler, J. (2007). Informed consent, confidentiality, and subject rights in clinical

trials. Proceedings from American Thoracic Society, 4(2), 189-193.

doi:10.1513/pats.200701-008GC 348

Snyder, S. (2013). The simple, the complicated, and the complex: Educational reform through

the lens of complexity theory (Working Paper). OECD Education Working Papers, (96), 1.

doi:10.1787/19939019

Southard, R. F. (2002). The theologian of the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform: Kaufmann Kohler’s

vision of Progressive Judaism. In Kaplan (Ed.), Platforms and prayer books: Theological

and liturgical perspectives on Reform Judaism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld

Publishing Group.

Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate

managers: A model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 221-244.

Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2018). The impact of top management teams on firm innovativeness:

A configurational analysis of demographic characteristics, leadership style and team power

distribution. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 285-316.

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2) 143-150.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of

qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative

Research, 17, 273-285.

Statnick, R. A. (2004). Elements of spiritual leadership. Human Development, 25(4), 14-24.

Steinsaltz, A. (2006). The essential Talmud. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multilevel review.

Journal of Management, 37(1), 185-222. 349

Strassfeld, M. (2006). A book of life: Embracing Judaism as a spiritual practice. Woodstock,

VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.

Sultan, S., Khan, M. A., & Kanwal, F. (2017). Spiritual intelligence linking to leadership

effectiveness: Interceding role of personality traits. PEOPLE: International Journal of

Social Sciences, 3(2).

Sun, P. Y. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant

leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544-557.

Sun, P. Y., & Anderson, M. H. (2012). Civic capacity: Building on transformational leadership

to explain successful integrative public leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 309-

323.

Sweeney, A., Clarke, N., & Higgs, M. (2018). Shared leadership in commercial organizations: A

systematic review of definitions, theoretical frameworks and organizational

outcomes. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(1), 115-136.

Sweeney, P. J., & Fry, L. W. (2012). Character development through spiritual

leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(2), 89-107.

Tauber, S. (2007). Between reason and emotion: Intellectual and existential tensions in

contemporary rabbinic education; a portrait of Neil Gillman. Journal of Jewish

Education, 73(3), 227-259.

Tauber, S. M. (2013). Teaching through personal stories: Congregational rabbis and teaching

adults. Journal of Jewish Education, 79(4), 432-452.

Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1-

19. 350

Temkin, S. D. (1985). The Pittsburgh Platform: A centenary assessment. Journal of Reform

Judaism, Fall, 1-12.

Teutsch, R. D. (2015). Growing rabbis. eJewish Philanthropy, 1.

doi://ejewishphilanthropy.com/growing-rabbis/

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation

data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in

qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23-41.

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thompson, L. D. (2006). Positive ambiguities in synagogue management—Senior rabbis and

executive directors. Update, 1-47.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis:

In search of meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tolle, E. (2004). The power of now: A guide to spiritual enlightenment. Novato, CA: New World

Library.

Travis, M. (2008). Supporting clergy in postmodern ministry. Practical Theology, 1(1), 95-130.

Truman, A. W. (2010). The lived experience of leadership for female pastors in religious

organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (UMI No. 3418884) 351

Tubin, D., & Pinyan-Weiss, M. (2015). Distributing positive leadership: The case of team

counseling. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 507-525.

Turkel, E. (1993). The nature and limitations of rabbinic authority. Tradition: A Journal of

Orthodox Jewish Thought, 27(4), 80-99.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

Van Ameijde, J. D., Nelson, P. C., Billsberry, J., & Van Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership

in higher education institutions: A distributed perspective. Higher Education, 58(6), 763-

779.

Victor, J., & Somehagen, J. (2015). Shared leadership and its future potential: Why do, how to

and then what? (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://www.diva-

portal.org/smash/get/diva2:817286/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Vincent, A., Anfara, J., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Walton, A. (1941). Resistance to change. (pp. 89-102). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill Book

Company. doi:10.1037/10943-007

Walton, W. E. (2012). Side by side. Priscilla Papers, 26(4).

Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational

leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in

three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7),

1083-1101. 352

Wang, M., Guo, T., Ni, Y., Shang, S., & Tang, Z. (2019). The effect of spiritual leadership on

employee effectiveness: An intrinsic motivation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology,

9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02627

Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181-198.

Wassenaar, C. L., & Pearce, C. L. (2017). Shared leadership. In J. Antonakis, & D. V. Day

(Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 167-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Watson, G. (2013). Resistance to change. In R. Cohen, J. McManus, D. Fox, & C. Kastelnik

(Eds.), Psych City: A simulated community, (pp. 246-257). Elmsford, NJ: Pergamon Press,

Inc.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. (A. M. Henderson and T.

Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1952). Ancient Judaism. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1920).

Weissman, C., & Margolius, M. (2002). A systems approach to school and synagogue change:

The case of Beth Am Israel. Agenda: Jewish Education, 15, 41-44.

Wertheimer, J. (2003). The American synagogue: A sanctuary transformed. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Wertheimer, J. (2005). The American synagogue: Recent issues and trends. The American

Jewish Year Book, 105, 3-83.

Wertheimer, J. (2018). The new American Judaism: How Jews practice their religion today.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 353

What is spiritual leadership? Women's Theological Center. Retrieved from

doi://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/womenstheologicalcenter.pdf

White, E. G. (2014). Prophets and kings. Altamont, TN: Harvestime Books.

Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy leadership:

The leadership wisdom of the apostle Paul. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 749-770.

doi://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.006

Wiener, S. (1997). A rabbinate for Clal Yisrael - The academy for Jewish religion. Sh'Ma: A

Journal of Jewish Ideas, 27(528), 6-7. Retrieved

from http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=8466

Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). The nursing father: Moses as a political leader Tuscaloosa, AL:

University of Alabama Press.

Wilhelm, C., & Grill, T. (2012). The German rabbinate: A broad introduction. The Leo Baeck

Institute Yearbook, 57(1), 69-72.

Wilhelmson, L. (2006). Transformative learning in joint leadership. Journal of Workplace

Learning, 18(7-8), 495-507.

Wodzinski, M. (2014). The question of Hasidic sectarianism. In S. J. Bronner (Ed.), Framing

Jewish culture: Boundaries and representations (pp. 126-148). Portland, OR: The Littman

Library of Jewish Civilization.

Wodziński, M. (2016). Space and spirit: On boundaries, hierarchies and leadership in

Hasidism. Journal of Historical Geography, 53, 63-74.

doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2016.04.016

Wolfson, R. (2013). Relational Judaism: Using the power of relationships to transform the

Jewish community. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing. 354

Wong, P. T., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised

servant leadership profile. Proceedings from The Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

Wood, M. S. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in management teams. International

Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 64-85.

Wood, M. S., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management

team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(3), 251-272.

Worley, J. A. (2018). Visionary leadership in a team-oriented setting. In Engaged

Leadership (pp. 63-83). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Wylen, S. M. (2000). Settings of silver: An introduction to Judaism. New York, NY: Paulist

Press.

Xu, C., & Wang, Y. (2018, July). Shared Leadership: Exploring the Multidimensional Structure

and Relationship with Gender Identity. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.

2018, No. 1, p. 10980). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and

Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152.

Yin, R. (2000). Rival explanations as an alternative to 'reform as experiments'. In L. Bickman

(Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: David Campbell's legacy (pp. 239-267).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Yin, R. (2004). Case study methods. Manuscript in preparation.

Young, M., Krasner, J., Weinberg, R., Moskowitz, N. S., Gerard, L., Aaron, S., (2018). Scaling

success in Jewish education. Gleanings: A Dialogue on Jewish Education from the 355

Leadership Commons at the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education, 5(2),

3746.

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Boston: Pearson Education.

Zainal, Z. (2017). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 5(1), 1-7.

Zeldin, M. (2007). How are rabbis educated? Journal of Jewish Education, 73(3), 159-162.

doi:10.1080/15244110701731680

Zeldin, M., & Kurshan, A. R. (2002). The landscape of Jewish educational research. Journal of

Jewish Education, 68(1), 7-12.

Zhou, W., & Vredenburgh, D. (2017). 8. dispositional antecedents of shared leadership emergent

states on entrepreneurial teams. In C. Ben-Hafaïedh & T. M. Cooney (Eds.), Research

handbook on entrepreneurial teams: Theory and practice (pp. 164-186). Cheltenham,

England: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Zohar, D., Marshall, I., & Marshall, I. N. (2000). SQ: Connecting with our spiritual intelligence.

New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Zola, G. P., & Dollinger, M. (2014). American Jewish history: A primary source reader.

Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press.

Zucker, D. M. (2009). How to do case study research. Teaching Research Methods in the

Humanities and Social Sciences. 2. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/nursing_faculty_pubs/2

Zweifel, T. D., & Raskin, A. L. (2008). The rabbi and the CEO: The Ten Commandments for

21st century leaders. New York, NY: SelectBooks, Inc.

356

Appendix A: Letter of Introduction to Study Site Point-Person

November 2017 Dear Rabbi, Thank you so much for your generosity in opening your synagogue to me and to this research on the intersection of spiritual leadership and shared leadership among the rabbi, clergy and professional staff members in a Reform synagogue setting. I am conducting this research in partial fulfillment of my doctorate at Northeastern University in Boston, MA under the direction of Dr. Elisabeth Bennett, who is serving as my doctoral research chairperson. The results of this research may be useful to twenty-first century Reform synagogue clergy, staff members, and lay leaders who seek new paradigm for synagogue leadership that preserves the spiritual roles of the rabbi and other leaders, and at the same time enables leadership sharing across a synagogue staff team. The proposed research study will be a qualitative case study. As such, it will require the researcher to be interacting with professional and lay leaders in your organization through interviews, focus groups, and observations. In this type of research, it is important to gain as much detail from the words and experiences of the organizational stakeholders as possible to better understand your synagogue’s leadership model, to learn and how it is enacted, and in what ways it contributes to the well-being and growth of the congregational community. By listening to the narratives, observing the behaviors, and paying attention to the experiences of the synagogue clergy, staff and lay leadership, it is this researcher’s objective to gain insight as to how the contemporary models of shared leadership and spiritual leadership might be developed and implemented in novel ways in synagogue and other faith-based settings. Therefore, this research project will involve a few different data collection methods over the course of several site visits to your synagogue, to be arranged with and overseen by you. I would like to be able to conduct interviews, collect and study materials for a document review, facilitate focus groups, and carry out observations of targeted synagogue programs, meetings and constituency groups. Specifically, I am interested in arranging for the following site-wide activities over the course of my visits to the synagogue: 1) time for a 30-minute phone call with you to review study parameters and informed consent document followed by a 45- minute phone or video call with all proposed participants by way of introduction and to answer questions; 2) time for two sets of individual interviews of 60-70 minutes each with the six identified members of the clergy and staff leadership team; 3) time for two sets of focus group meetings of 50-60 minutes each with selected administrative, educational, and programmatic staff members; 4) time for researcher observation of high-level professional and/or lay meetings, targeted synagogue services, programs and events, selected holiday and life-cycle ceremonies; and 5) access to relevant synagogue print and electronic historic documents and congregational by-laws, policy statements, marketing materials and other information relevant to the structure, operations and core values of the organization. A proposed data collection timeline is included below. It is my hope that this case study will positively contribute to the scholarly conversation in the areas of contemporary synagogue leadership, and that from it, a new theoretical model called “shared spiritual leadership” will emerge and offer a deepened sense of clarity as to how to enhance Reform synagogue leadership practices for the new millennium. 357

I appreciate your willingness to support this research study and look forward to your participation and partnership. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact me either by email [email protected] or by phone at 617.947.8479. Many thanks in advance and all good wishes. Warmly,

Rabbi Lisa S. Eiduson Doctoral Student at Northeastern University Boston MA College of Professional Studies

358

Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Letters

Individual Recruitment letter to Professional Leadership Staff Members

Rabbi Lisa S. Eiduson, Doctoral Student Dr. Elisabeth Bennett, Principal Investigator (Doctoral Advisor) Northeastern University College of Professional Studies 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02116

DATE

Dear (Rabbi, Cantor, Co-Director of Education A, Co-Director of Education B, Director of Youth Engagement, Executive Director):

I am writing to invite you to participate in a research project. The purpose of this research is to understand how spiritual leadership and shared leadership – separately and together – are enacted in your synagogue site XX. The study is being conducted for my student doctoral thesis project at Northeastern University in the Doctor of Education program, under the direction of my doctoral research chair, Dr. Elisabeth Bennett. The results of the study will be useful to twenty- first century Reform synagogue clergy, staff members, and lay leaders who seek new paradigms for congregational leadership that preserves the spiritual roles of the rabbi and other leaders, and at the same time enables leadership sharing across a synagogue staff team. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. This research project will involve a few different data collection methods over the course of several site visits to your synagogue, to be overseen by the rabbi. If you decide to participate I am asking you to commit to the following: 1) two sets of one-on-one interviews; 2) researcher observation time at selected meetings, programs, ceremonies, services and events at which you may be present; and (3) researcher review of synagogue-wide and departmental documents that provide information about the history, policies and values of the synagogue.

Following is more detailed information about each of the numbered data collection methods in the paragraph above. Each interview will last about 60 to 70 minutes and will be scheduled at your convenience, preferably in person, during one of my on-site visits. The interview includes questions about your professional role at the synagogue, the nature of your work, details as to the ways in which you interact with the clergy and professional colleagues, and how you think that leadership is conceived of and enacted in your synagogue. Time for researcher observation of synagogue-wide activities at which you are present will be scheduled in consultation with the Rabbi and will include a variety of meetings, classes, programs, events, and religious ceremonies. You will be made aware of all observations that include you, and any preliminary scheduling of observations will be confirmed by me in advance of the specific observation session. Finally, your permission for me to review any relevant written or electronic documents, correspondences and historical materials that are specifically related to your role or your departmental responsibilities will give me the opportunity to investigate how the synagogue’s 359 leadership practices reflect the expressed mission and objectives of the congregational community. Please know that your answers to questions and your participation in this study will be held in confidence. You will not be identified by name in any interim or final study reports. Any of your responses, quotes and interactions, or observations about you will be referenced by an assigned pseudonym, so that your real name, synagogue name and all identifying information cannot be easily connected to you. Your responses and participation and my research observations, findings and conclusions will in no way jeopardize you or your position at the synagogue. These measures to protect your confidentiality should enable you to be candid in your responses to questions and is meant to reassure you as to the integrity of the study procedures. Though you may feel a little uncomfortable sharing personal or difficult information and insights, you should nevertheless be assured of the confidentiality of your contributions to this research endeavor.

Other than the possibility of feeling discomfort from time to time, there are no foreseeable risks or negative consequences for taking part in this study. You will not be compensated in any way for your participation in this study. At different junctures during the study, I will check in with you to confirm any quotes or responses, and/or to review previous information that may be attributed to you to ensure the most accurate research reporting and analysis, and to clarify any questions or inconsistencies prior to finalizing the study. I will be more than willing to share my findings and conclusions of this study prior to any publication possibilities. It is my hope that this case study will positively contribute to the scholarly conversation in the areas of contemporary synagogue leadership, and that from it, a new theoretical model called “shared spiritual leadership” will emerge and offer a deepened sense of clarity as to how to enhance Reform synagogue leadership practices for the new millennium. Thank you for your time and for considering whether you would like to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating and/or have any questions regarding your participation, please contact the student researcher, Lisa Eiduson by DATE via email at [email protected] or by phone at 617.947.8479.

Sincerely, Rabbi Lisa S. Eiduson

360

Individual Recruitment Letter to Selected Administrative, Educational, and Programmatic Staff

Rabbi Lisa S. Eiduson, Doctoral Student Dr. Elisabeth Bennett, Principal Investigator (Doctoral Advisor) Northeastern University College of Professional Studies 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02116

DATE

Dear (Financial Manager, Executive Secretary, Religious School Secretary, others as needed,):

I am writing to invite you to participate in a research project. The purpose of this research is to understand how spiritual leadership and shared leadership – separately and together – are enacted in your synagogue site XX. The study is being conducted for my student doctoral thesis project at Northeastern University in the Doctor of Education program, under the direction of my doctoral research chair, Dr. Elisabeth Bennett. The results of the study will be useful to twenty- first century Reform synagogue clergy, staff members, and lay leaders who seek new paradigms for congregational leadership that preserves the spiritual roles of the rabbi and other leaders, and at the same time enables leadership sharing across a synagogue staff team. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. This research project will involve a few different data collection methods over the course of several site visits to your synagogue, to be overseen by the rabbi. If you decide to participate I am asking you to commit to the following: 1) two sets of focus group meetings; 2) researcher observation time at selected meetings, programs, ceremonies, services and events at which you may be present; and (3) researcher review of synagogue-wide and departmental documents that provide information about the history, policies and values of the synagogue.

Following is more detailed information about each of the numbered data collection methods in the paragraph above. Each focus group will last about 50 to 60, will be scheduled at the convenience of the participants, and will take place in person, during one of my on-site visits. The focus group will be composed of a small group of your colleagues at the synagogue and will be exploring the topic of leadership at your synagogue. You and the other participants will be encouraged to reflect on who the leaders of the organization are, who takes responsibility for specific synagogue functions, and how you as a focus group participant view yourself within the organizational structure of the synagogue. The focus group will feel more like a conversation than an interview, and you will be encouraged to interact with the other members of the focus group as you consider and respond to the themes that are raised. Time for researcher observation of synagogue-wide activities at which you are present will be scheduled in consultation with the Rabbi and will include a variety of meetings, classes, programs, events, and religious ceremonies. You will be made aware of all observations that include you, and any preliminary scheduling of observations will be confirmed by me in advance of the specific observation session. Finally, your permission for me to review any relevant written or electronic documents, correspondences and historical materials that are specifically related to your role or your departmental responsibilities will give me the opportunity to investigate how the synagogue’s 361 leadership practices reflect the expressed mission and objectives of the congregational community.

Please know that your answers to questions and your participation in this study will be held in confidence. You will not be identified by name in any interim or final study reports. Any of your responses, quotes, interactions or observations about you will be referenced by an assigned pseudonym, so that your real name, synagogue name and all identifying information cannot be easily connected to you. Your responses and participation and my research observations, findings and conclusions will in no way jeopardize you or your position at the synagogue. These measures to protect your confidentiality should enable you to be candid in your responses to questions and is meant to reassure you as to the integrity of the study procedures. Though you may feel a little uncomfortable sharing personal or difficult information and insights, you should nevertheless be assured of the confidentiality of your contributions to this research endeavor.

Sincerely, Rabbi Lisa S. Eiduson

362

Appendix C: Informed Consent Documents

Informed Consent Document for Professional Leadership Staff Members (total of six individuals)

Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies

Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Elisabeth Bennett (Principal Investigator); Lisa S. Eiduson (Student Researcher)

Title of Project: Shared Spiritual Leadership: A Case Study Exploring a New Leadership Model for Rabbis and Synagogue Leaders

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study: You are being invited to participate in a research study. This form will tell you about the study, but the researcher will explain it to you also. You may ask this person any questions that you have. When you are ready to make a decision, you may tell the researcher if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you don’t want to. If you decide to participate, signing this form means you consent to participate in the study. The researcher will ask you to sign this statement and a copy will be provided to you afterward.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? You are being asked to take part in a research study because you are member of the clergy and/or professional staff at [the site].

Why is this study being done? The purpose of this study is to is to understand how spiritual leadership and shared leadership – separately and together – are enacted at [the site].

What will I be asked to do and where will this take place? If you decide to participate in this study, you agree to participate in two one-on-one interviews. There will also be researcher observation periods during the program, and you may be asked to provide access to documents related to the history, policies and values of [the site]. Interviews, observations and the focus group sessions will be scheduled at times convenient for you as a study participant and they will be audio and/or video recorded. Interviews and focus groups will be scheduled as in-person sessions. A list of research study experiences is found below with approximate time commitments were appropriate. You agree to participate in the following:

1. Two 60-70-minute interviews that are audio or video recorded. 2. Observations by the researcher during selected synagogue meetings, programs, ceremonies, services and events at which you may be present and that are audio recorded. 3. Review of synagogue-wide and departmental written and electronic documents that provide information about the history, policies and values of the synagogue. 363

The data collection time commitments outlined above are approximate. You may be contacted via email with follow-up questions, to clarify your answers or to review transcripts and interpretations for accuracy. An interview guide will be given to each participant prior to the sessions so you are aware of the types of questions that will be asked. Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? There are no perceived risks or negative consequences for taking part in this study. Your participation and/or your responses to any questions will in no way jeopardize you or your position at the synagogue. These measures to protect your confidentiality should enable you to be candid in your responses to questions. Though you may feel a little uncomfortable sharing personal or difficult information and insights, you should nevertheless be assured of the confidentiality of your contributions to this research endeavor.

Will I benefit by being in this research? There is no anticipated direct benefit to you as a participant in this study. However, information you share through this research endeavor may contribute to creating a new paradigm for synagogue leadership, and the emergence of a new theoretical model called “shared spiritual leadership” that would offer a deepened sense of clarity as to how to enhance Reform synagogue leadership practices for the new millennium. Who will see the information about me? Your participation in this study will be handled in a confidential manner. The researcher will assign you a pseudonym, a unique name that is not your real name, that will be used during the data collection and analysis phases of this study. Your pseudonym will protect your identity. Only first names will be used during the focus group session. As a focus group participant, please know that your responses will be heard by other members of that focus group, and that you will also be privy to their responses. The student researcher will remind focus group members that confidentiality is important to ensure that all participants feel comfortable, and that no information shared in the focus group will be discussed outside the focus group session itself. The student researcher is the only person who knows how your personal information connects with the data that will be collected during in this study. The final study report will not identify you and any direct responses, quotes or references to you or something you shared will be used with your pseudonym.

Computer files are saved and stored on a password-protected computer, a password protected Dropbox folder and backed up on an external hard drive. The Dropbox folder is only accessible to the researchers of this study. Paper files, paper notes and other paper documents will be scanned, de-identified and stored. The external hard drive and all paper files are secured in a locked cabinet accessible only to the student researcher. Audio recordings, video recordings, interview transcripts and notes, paper files, master lists of participant names and any other data with identifiable information will be destroyed within one year of the completion of the study (digital files deleted, and paper files shredded). Files and information with the pseudonyms will be stored indefinitely. Consent forms will be stored and secured in a lockable cabinet and destroyed after three years (digital consent forms deleted, and paper consent forms shredded).

If I do not want to participate in this study what choices do I have? 364

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary.

Can I stop my participation in this study? You are free to end your participation in this research at any time, and you do not need to answer questions to which you would rather not respond. You may terminate the study at any time by simply telling the study researcher that you have decided not to participate any longer. If you decide to quit, it will not impact you or your position in the organization in any way.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions or concerns about participation in this study, you may contact the student researcher, Amy Whitney via email at [email protected] or by phone at 617.947.8479. You may also contact Dr. Elisabeth Bennett, the primary investigator for this study, by email at [email protected].

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant? If you have questions or concerns about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 490 Renaissance Park, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Ph: 617-373-4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish.

Will I be paid or given a gift for my participation? You will not be compensated in any way for participating in this research study.

Will it cost me anything to participate? There are no costs associated with participating in this study.

Is there anything else I need to know? You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. Interviews, focus groups and observations may be audio recorded.

I agree to take part in this research. ______Signature of study participant Date ______Email address of study participant Preferred Phone # & Type ______Printed name of study participant ______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent ______Printed name of person above

365

Reaffirmation of informed consent after the first interview and additional data collection: □ Second Interview ______Study Participant Initials ______Date □ Observations ______Study Participant Initials ______Date Informed Consent Document for Selected Administrative, Educational, and Programmatic Staff Members (total of three to six individuals, expected)

Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies

Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Elisabeth Bennett (Principal Investigator); Lisa S. Eiduson (Student Researcher)

Title of Project: Shared Spiritual Leadership: A Case Study Exploring a New Leadership Model for Rabbis and Synagogue Leaders

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? You are being asked to take part in a research study because you are member of the clergy and/or professional staff at [the site].

Why is this study being done? The purpose of this study is to is to understand how spiritual leadership and shared leadership – separately and together – are enacted at [the site].

1. Two 50-60-minute focus groups that are audio recorded. 2. Observations by the researcher during selected synagogue meetings, programs, ceremonies, services and events at which you may be present and that are audio recorded. 366

3. Review of synagogue-wide and departmental written and electronic documents that provide information about the history, policies and values of the synagogue.

The data collection time commitments outlined above are approximate. You may be contacted via email with follow-up questions, to clarify your answers or to review transcripts and interpretations for accuracy. A focus group guide will be given to each participant prior to the sessions so you are aware of the types of topics that will be discussed. Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? There are no perceived risks or negative consequences for taking part in this study. Your participation and/or your responses to any questions will in no way jeopardize you or your position at the synagogue. These measures to protect your confidentiality should enable you to be candid in your responses to questions. Though you may feel a little uncomfortable sharing personal or difficult information and insights, you should nevertheless be assured of the confidentiality of your contributions to this research endeavor.

If I do not want to participate in this study what choices do I have? Participation in this study is entirely voluntary.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions or concerns about participation in this study, you may contact the student researcher, Lisa Eiduson via email at [email protected] or by phone at 617.947.8479. You may also contact Dr. Elisabeth Bennett, the primary investigator for this study, by email at [email protected].

Will I be paid or given a gift for my participation? You will not be compensated in any way for participating in this research study.

Will it cost me anything to participate? There are no costs associated with participating in this study.

Is there anything else I need to know? You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. Interviews, focus groups and observations may be audio recorded. I agree to take part in this research. ______Signature of study participant Date ______Email address of study participant Preferred Phone # & Type ______Printed name of study participant ______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent ______Printed name of person above 368

Reaffirmation of informed consent after the first focus group and additional data collection:

□ Second Focus Group ______Study Participant Initials ______Date □ Observations ______Study Participant Initials ______Date

369

Appendix D: Introduction for Interviews

Individual Interview Protocol ~ For Eight Members of Clergy/Professional Staff

Interviewee: (Name and Title) Interviewer: Lisa S. Eiduson Date: Location of Interview:

INTRODUCTION TO INTERVIEW

[GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS]: Hello and welcome. I would like to begin by thanking you for agreeing to participate in this interview and in my research study. As you know, the purpose of my study is to explore how shared spiritual leadership is enacted in your synagogue, particularly among and between the eight members of your clergy and professional staff team. Today is the first of two individual interviews in which I am hoping that you will participate. In this first interview, I hope that we will get to know each other, and then I will proceed to ask you some questions that address two aspects of this study and its research questions: shared leadership and spiritual leadership. The second interview will take place toward the end of my visits to the synagogue, will serve as a follow-up to today’s interview and will focus on how shared spiritual leadership contributes to the growth and overall enhancement of the synagogue. I am hopeful that the questions will be thought-provoking and will elicit some creative thinking on your part.

The purpose of the interview is for you to share your honest perceptions and insights in response to the questions I will ask you. Please realize that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. It is important to me that you feel comfortable with me and with the questions I ask. So, please, do not hesitate to ask if you would like more clarity on a question and/or if you would like something repeated or restated during our conversation.

[VOICE RECORDING]: If it is okay with you, I will be tape-recording our conversation using two different recording devices, in case one of them mal-functions or fails. I would like to record this interview so that I can get all the details, but at the same time be able to carry on a focused conversation with you. I assure you that all your comments will remain confidential. I will be compiling a report which will contain all participants’ comments without any reference to your real name or any other personal information. So, are you comfortable with my recording this interview today?

I will ask for your confirmation a second time, so that I can begin this recording with your verbal consent. [TURN ON RECORDING DEVICES]. Do you agree to be recorded today? [PAUSE for consent] Thank you. I will also be taking notes during the interview. Please be assured that I am the only person with access to the recordings. Any files with identifiable information will be destroyed within one year after the completion of the study. Files and information using pseudonyms will be stored indefinitely. Consent forms will be stored and secured in a lockable cabinet and destroyed after three years. 370

[INFORMED CONSENT]: To meet the Northeastern University human subject requirements for research, I emailed you an informed consent document prior to today. I also have one with me that you must sign [GIVE FORM TO PARTICIPANT]. Basically, this document includes: (1) The voluntary nature of your participation, and your right to end this interview and/or withdraw as a study participant at any time; (2) The confidentiality of any information that you share; (3) The fact that I do not anticipate that your participation in this study will cause any detriment or harm to you; and (4) Your freedom to skip any questions that you prefer not to answer. Do you have any questions? [PAUSE. Wait for response.] If you agree and are willing to participate, please sign the informed consent form I have given to you. [PAUSE. Wait for them to sign.] And again, so we have your consent audio recorded, may I confirm that you give your consent to participate in this study? [PAUSE. Wait for response.] Thank you. The first interview will be about 60-70 minutes. The second interview will be between 50-60 minutes. Today, I have a variety of questions to ask you. If our time runs short, please know that I may interrupt you so that we can more through additional questions. Do you have any questions before we begin?

371

Appendix E: Interview Guide for Interview #1

Study Participant:

Pseudonym: ______Real Name Initials: ______

Title: ______Gender: ______

Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Number of Years on Staff at Other Synagogues______

Education: ______

Academic/Professional Degrees and/or Certifications: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

Warm-Up Questions: 1. Please tell me about your position and/or responsibilities with the synagogue? • Prompt: Role vs. title • Prompt: What areas of the synagogue are you most involved in? • Prompt: Are you responsible for programs? People? Both? 2. What kind of professional experiences did you have prior to coming to the synagogue? 3. How would you describe the synagogue? • Prompt: In your own words, how would you describe the mission and/or vision of the synagogue? • Prompt: What adjectives or descriptive phrases would you use to describe the synagogue? • Prompt: Can you tell a story or anecdote that illustrates the essence or culture of the synagogue as an organization? 4. Who sets the mission and vision of the synagogue? 5. What does it mean to be a “leader” in the synagogue? • Prompt: Professionals and/or lay leaders? • A single person or a team? • Is leadership static or changing? 6. Do you consider yourself a leader of the synagogue? How would you describe your leadership? Who do you lead? Whom do you consider to be your leader in the organization?

Main Body Questions: Research Question #1: [How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?] 1. Who are the “spiritual leaders” of the synagogue? 2. What words would you use to describe the overarching leadership style and culture that exists at the synagogue? • Prompt: What types of activities is the spiritual leader(s) involved in? 372

• Prompt: Is it primarily one person? Or multiple people? If multiple people, ask participant to assign percentages representing relative spiritual leadership responsibilities? 3. Is spiritual leadership connected to a place? A program? A set of responsibilities? • Prompt: What is the nature of spiritual leadership in the synagogue? Where does spiritual leadership “live”? Who “owns” spiritual leadership? 4. Do you think that there are areas in which spiritual leadership is “shared”? • Prompt: Can you describe where you have seen the sharing of spiritual leadership? • Prompt: Can you tell a story about a time when you saw spiritual leadership shared and by whom? 5. Can you sketch the organizational structure of the leadership team? • Prompt: What shapes/lines/symbols would you use to illustrate the organizational chart? • Prompt: Is there only one version of the picture? Or does it change? If so, when does it change and how many iterations do you think there are?

Research Question #2: [What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?] 1. How does the rabbi guide the synagogue spiritually? • Prompt: In what other ways – in addition to spiritual leadership – does the rabbi lead the congregation? Try to describe in detail. 2. Is there anyone else who has leadership roles or responsibilities in any of the areas that you just described? • Prompt: Try to enumerate the different areas in which the rabbi leads (ie. education, prayer, social justice, community representation, etc.). 3. What or who do you think gives the rabbi his authority to lead in these different areas? 4. Do you think that of the areas of rabbinic leadership that there is one that stands out and/or transcends the other? • Prompt: If you had to boil down the rabbi’s leadership to one feature or area, what would it be? 5. In your experience, has anyone challenged the leadership of the rabbi in the specific area you mentioned in Question 4? • Prompt: How is it known and/or communicated that this leadership area is of central significance? • Prompt: How do people know that this area belongs to the rabbi alone? 6. In your experience in other synagogues – either as a member, a guest, or a staff member – would you say that the leadership realm that you attribute to the rabbi and the rabbi alone exists as the primary function/priority elsewhere? • Prompt: Compare/contrast.

Final Question: Is there anything you would like to ask me? Would you like to add any final thoughts or impressions to our discussion today? [CONCLUSION AND THANK YOU]: Thank you so much for your time, energy and thoughtful responses. I am grateful for the opportunity to get to know you. 373

Appendix F: Interview Guide for Interview #2

Study Participant:

Pseudonym: ______Real Name Initials: ______

Title: ______Gender: ______

Warm-Up Questions: 1. Are you familiar with “spiritual leadership?” • Prompt: Offer a brief definition of spiritual leadership as a well-known leadership model in faith-based settings as well as secular settings.

2. What qualities of a person or a role or a setting make someone a spiritual leader? 3. Are you familiar with “shared leadership?” • Prompt: Offer a brief description of shared leadership, and its emergence as a twenty-first century leadership alternative. 4. What qualities of a person or underlying organizational conditions lay a foundation on which shared leadership might emerge and be sustained? Research Question #3: [How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this synagogue?]

1. Now, I want you to think back to those areas in which spiritual leadership is shared. What do you think are the benefits of sharing leadership?

• Prompt: Benefits to the organization? Benefits to the organizational members? Benefits to the organizational staff (ie interviewee)?

2. Please tell me some specific ways in which the sharing of spiritual leadership has positively affected the synagogue community?

• Prompt: Specific examples?

3. How are the benefits of leadership sharing celebrated in the synagogue? Do you believe that these benefits are sustainable into the future? How do you predict that your synagogue will perpetuate the benefits of shared spiritual leadership and what might be the next steps in leveraging these advantages?

4, In your opinion, what might make someone “qualified” or “eligible” to share spiritual leadership with the rabbi?

374

5, What reasons might synagogue members suggest are the advantages/disadvantages of share spiritual leadership? Final Question: Is there anything you would like to ask me? Would you like to add any final thoughts or impressions to our discussion today? [CONCLUSION AND THANK YOU]: Thank you so much for your time, energy and thoughtful responses during both interviews. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to you and learn from your insights.

375

Appendix G: Field Notes Report Template Researcher: Lisa S. Eiduson Date: Time: Location: Data Collection Process:

Researcher Observation(s) Researcher Interpretation(s)

General Notes

Researcher: Date: Time: Location: Date Collection Process:

Researcher Observation(s) Researcher Interpretation(s)

General Notes

376

Appendix H: Introduction to Focus Groups

For Administrative Assistant, Religious School Secretary (and others, if needed)

Interviewer: Lisa S. Eiduson Date: Location of Focus Group:

INTRODUCTION TO FOCUS GROUP

[GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS]: Hello and welcome. I would like to begin by thanking you for agreeing to participate in this focus group and in my research study. As you know, the purpose of my study is to explore how shared spiritual leadership is enacted in your synagogue, particularly among and between the members of your staff team. Today, I am going to be facilitating the first of two focus groups in which I would like you to participate. In this first focus group, I hope that we will first get to know each other. Then, I will proceed to ask you some general questions that address the research questions that guide this study. The second focus group will serve as a follow-up to today and will take place toward the end of my visits to your synagogue. At that time, you will have the opportunity to return to any of today’s questions to expand upon or further elucidate your responses after having had some time to reflect on them.

The purpose of the focus group is for you to share your honest perceptions and insights in response to the “focused” questions I will ask you. Please realize that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. It is important that you feel comfortable with me and with the questions I ask. So, please, do not hesitate to ask if you would like more clarity on a question and/or if you would like something repeated or restated during our conversation. [VOICE RECORDING]: If it is okay with you, I will be tape-recording our conversation using two different recording devices, in case one of them mal-functions or fails. I would like to record this interview so that I can get all the details, but at the same time be able to carry on a focused conversation with you. I assure you that all your comments will remain confidential. I will be compiling a report which will contain all participants’ comments without any reference to your real name or any other personal information. So, are you comfortable with my recording this interview today?

I will ask for your confirmation a second time, so that I can begin this recording with your verbal consent. [TURN ON RECORDING DEVICES]. Do you agree to be recorded today? [PAUSE for consent] Thank you. I will also be taking notes during the interview. Please be assured that I am the only person with access to the recordings, and I will be using pseudonyms to identify you. But, please realize that confidentiality is a two-way agreement. Therefore, I ask that you kindly refrain from any discussion about our conversation today outside this room. This includes both your responses and those of your colleagues, since we must all be responsibility for confidentiality and privacy.

377

Any files with identifiable information will be destroyed within one year after the completion of the study. Files and information using pseudonyms will be stored indefinitely. Consent forms will be stored and secured in a lockable cabinet and destroyed after three years.

[INFORMED CONSENT]: To meet the Northeastern University human subject requirements for research, I emailed you an informed consent document prior to today. I also have one with me that you must sign [GIVE FORM TO PARTICIPANT]. Basically, this document includes: (1) The voluntary nature of your participation, and your right to end this interview and/or withdraw as a study participant at any time; (2) The confidentiality of any information that you share; (3) The fact that I do not anticipate that your participation in this study will cause any detriment or harm to you; and (4) The freedom to skip any questions that you prefer not to answer. Do you have any questions? [PAUSE. Wait for response.] If you agree and are willing to participate, please sign the informed consent form I have given to you. [PAUSE. Wait for each of participants to sign.] And again, so we have your consent audio recorded, may I confirm that you give your consent to participate in this study? [PAUSE. Wait for each participant to agree.]

Thank you.

Today’s focus group will be about 60 minutes. Today, I have a variety of questions to ask you. If our time runs short, please know that I may interrupt you so that we can more through additional questions. Do you have any questions before we begin?

378

Appendix I: Focus Group Guide for Focus Group #1

Focus Group Participant Information

1. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: _____

Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

2. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: _____

Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

3. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: ____

Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

Warm-Up Questions: 1. Can you tell me about your position and/or responsibilities with the synagogue? • Prompt: What areas of the synagogue are you most involved in? • Prompt: Are you responsible for programs? People? Both? 2. How would you describe the synagogue? • Prompt: What adjectives or descriptive phrases would you use to describe the synagogue? • Prompt: Can you tell a story or anecdote that illustrates the essence or culture of the synagogue as an organization? 3. Who would you say is the “leader” of the synagogue? • Prompt: Professionals and/or lay leaders? • A single person or a team? 4. Do you consider yourself a leader of the synagogue? • Tell a story about when you felt as if you were a “leader” in your work?

Main Questions: Research Question #1: [How is spiritual leadership shared in the synagogue?] 379

1. Who would you say is the “spiritual leader” of the synagogue? 2. How would you describe the person’s (people’s) leadership style? • Prompt: What types of activities is the spiritual leader(s) involved in? 3. Does the spiritual leader(s) share leadership (in the spiritual sense)? • Prompt: How? Where? Can you describe where you have seen the sharing of spiritual leadership?

Research Question #2: [What elements of spiritual leadership belong exclusively to the role of the rabbi?] 4, What or who do you think gives the rabbi his authority in spiritual areas? 5. If you had to boil down the rabbi’s leadership to a single area, what would it be? 6. In your experience, has anyone ever challenged the leadership of the rabbi in this specific area? 7. In your experience in other synagogues – either as a member, a guest, or a staff member – would you say that the leadership realm that you attribute to the rabbi and the rabbi alone exists as the primary function/priority elsewhere? • Prompt: Compare/contrast.

Research Question #3: [How does shared spiritual leadership influence the growth and development of this synagogue?]

Now, I want you to think back to those areas where leadership is shared: 1. Do you think that it would be beneficial to have more sharing of leadership in the synagogue – in a general sense? • Prompt: Who would benefit? Would it affect your job and/or your areas of responsibility? Are there downsides to this sharing as well? 2. Do you think that it would be beneficial to have more spiritual sharing of leadership in the synagogue – in a general sense? • Prompt: Who would benefit? Would it affect your job and/or your areas of responsibility? Are there downsides to this sharing as well? 3, Are there specific people who would be sharing this leadership capacity with the rabbi? Who are they? How would the “who” be determined? 4, Who might like this? Who might not?

Wrap-Up Questions: 1. Are you familiar with “spiritual leadership?” • Prompt: Offer a brief definition of spiritual leadership as a well-known leadership model in faith-based settings as well as secular settings. 2. Do you feel that this synagogue is a spiritual place? Who is responsible for the sense of spirituality? Describe. 2. Are you familiar with “shared leadership?” • Prompt: Offer a brief description of shared leadership, and its emergence as a twenty-first century leadership alternative. 380

3. What qualities of a person or role or conditions of a setting make for shared leadership?

Reflection and Closure: [DISCUSSION AS A GROUP]: So, let me try to summarize a bit to make sure that I heard and understood you clearly. [DRAW SOME GENERATION CONCLUSIONS]. Do you think that I am representing your opinions correctly? Please feel free to add to or correct my overall summary. [CONCLUSION AND THANK YOU]: Is there anything you would like to ask me? Would you like to add any final thoughts or impressions to our discussion today? Thank you so much for your time, energy and thoughtful responses. I am grateful for the opportunity to get to know you.

381

Appendix J: Focus Group Guide for Focus Group #2 (If needed)

Focus Group Participant Information

1. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: _____ Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

2. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: _____

Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

3. Pseudonym: ______Real Initials: ______Gender: ____

Title: ______Number of Years on Staff at Selected Synagogue Site: ______

Education: ______

Full Time or Part Time (Circle one)

Topic #1 ~ Spiritual Leadership: 1. Who would you say have been spiritual leaders for you – past and/or present? 2. How are (were) those spiritual leaders alike? How are (were) they different from one another? 3. Is a spiritual leader at one time always a spiritual leader? • Prompt: Yes or No? If yes, please describe the underlying qualities of spiritual leadership? Personal or situational? Both? If no, what changed? You? The leader? The situation? The setting? 4. What makes the rabbi at this synagogue a spiritual leader? Do you consider him to be your spiritual leader? Please describe.

Topic #2 ~ Shared Leadership: 1. Have you ever “shared” leadership before? If so, when? • Prompt: Describe the setting and/or the circumstances. Could be within a family, organization, volunteer endeavor, workplace. 382

2. In your mind, what is involved in the successful sharing of leadership? • Prompt: Under what conditions does it “work?” 3. Are there areas in which you think sharing leadership is not possible or not beneficial? • Prompt: Where does leadership sharing fall short? Or is not feasible? Think about different sectors of life: politics, businesses, schools, workplaces? 4. Tell three anecdotes about how you have shared leadership at the synagogue? 5. Describe how the rabbi shares leadership in this synagogue and with whom? 6. Do you think that the rabbi should share leadership more frequently? Less frequently? 7. Who benefits from the rabbi’s leadership sharing?

Topic #3 ~ Shared Spiritual Leadership 1. Do you think that the rabbi’s leadership in the spiritual realm can be shared? 2. What are some ways that the synagogue might change if this were the case? 3. What do you think the positive changes might be? 4. What do you think might be the downside of the expanded sharing of spiritual leadership by the rabbi? 5. In your opinion, what might make someone “qualified” or “eligible” to share spiritual leadership with the rabbi? 6. Which synagogue stakeholders might be in favor of this increased sharing of spiritual leadership? 7. Which synagogue stakeholders might resist the increased sharing of spiritual leadership? Final Question: Is there anything you would like to ask me? Would you like to add any final thoughts or impressions to our discussion today? [CONCLUSION AND THANK YOU]: Thank you so much for your time, energy and thoughtful responses during both interviews. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to you and learn from your insights.

383

Appendix K: Observation Template

Researcher: Lisa S. Eiduson Date: Time: Location: Activity/Setting: Participant Pseudonyms:

Observations Interpretations Opportunities

What do I notice? How to How do I understand what I What questions have been describe what I see? observe? What conclusions “answered” by this What are the interpersonal can I draw? How do I explain observation? dynamics that I perceive? the social dynamics? What new questions arise? Next steps are…?

384

Appendix L: Document Review Template Researcher: Lisa S. Eiduson Date:

Type of document?

Title/Date(s) of document?

Notable physical features/condition?

Author of document?

Title/position of author of document?

For whom was the document intended?

Most important three pieces of information about the synagogue and/or 1. community conveyed by the document?

Purpose of document?

Relevant quotes?

Questions to ask author of the document?