The Virtues of Leadership

by Thomas J. Sergiovanni

Teachers and students alike seek frameworks and norm systems that
help them sort out how they fit into a school’s culture. Cultural frameworks
are sources of sense making and meaning that all of us need.

Schools teach their culture best when they embody purposes, values, norms, and
obligations in their everyday activities. Though this principle is widely accepted in
word, it is often neglected in deed. The heartbeats of leadership and schools are
strengthened when word and deed are one. This happens when leadership and vir-
tue work together. Walton’s (1988, 177–78) words are helpful:

The question is not whether virtue can be taught but how it may be taught.
Example, not exhortation, and practice, not principle, take priority: carpenters
become carpenters by building houses; pianists become pianists by playing the
piano; managers become leaders by leading. The same is true of character: people
become virtuous by practicing virtue and by living with moral mentors. If, for any
reason, an organization becomes sidetracked, only managers of sound character
can restore a sense of direction. Disciplined organizations reflect disciplined
leaders whose honed abilities lead them to behave consistently, almost instinc-
tively, in moral ways.

These leaders know and focus on what is important, care deeply about their work,
learn from their successes and failures, take calculated risks, and are trustworthy
people.

This article examines four leadership virtues: hope, trust, piety, and civility. When
these four are at the core of leadership practice, the leverage needed for improving
even the most challenging schools can be discovered.

112 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

The Virtue of Hope

Perhaps the most important, yet most neglected leadership virtue is hope. Hope
often is slighted because management theories tell us to look at the evidence, be tough
as nails, be objective, and blindly face reality. But, facing reality rather than relying on
hope is to accept reality. Relying on hope rather than facing reality is to change reality—
hopefully. Leaders can be both hopeful and realistic as long as the possibilities for change
remain open. Being realistic differs from facing reality in important ways. Being realistic
is to calculate the odds with an optimistic eye—to be aware of the consequences of being
fateful without being preordained to the inevitability of a situation or circumstance.

Why should leaders be hopeful? Because the evidence suggests that hope can change
events for the better. It is widely accepted that sick people who are hopeful members of
support groups which provide encouragement, prayer, or other forms of targeted social
capital get healthier and stay healthier more often than sick people without the benefit
of hopeful social capital. In her review of the literature on hope and health, Roset (1999,
7) found compelling evidence to link the two: “Findings in the health sciences show a
positive relationship between biochemical reactions, attributed to hopefulness, and its
effect upon illness.” Oncologist Carl
Simonton (in Carter 1996, 1) found that
when cancer patients respond to their
challenges with “feelings of hope and
anticipation, the organism translates into
Leadership as moral action is
biological processes that begin to restore a struggle to do the right thing
balance and to revitalize the immune
system.” Medical researchers (Roset
according to a sense of values
1999) found that a sense of hopefulness, and what it means to be a
from an increased sense of control, is
connected with biological changes that
human being.
enhance physical and mental health.

Hope and Wishing

Hope often is confused with wishing. Hope, however, is grounded in reality, not
wishful thinking. It is—to use Menninger, Mayman, and Pruyser’s (1963) term—realis-
tic hope. They (1963, 385–86) argued:

Realistic hope . . . is based on the attempt to understand the concrete conditions of

reality, to see one’s own role in it realistically, and to engage in such efforts of
thoughtful action as might be expected to bring about the hoped-for change. The affect
of hope, in this case, has an activating effect. It helps mobilize the energies needed for
activity. By activity I mean not only motor activity but also the activity of thought or
of relating oneself to another person.

The activating effect of hope makes the difference (Table 1). Wishful leaders are just
that—wishful. They take no deliberate action to make their wishes come true. Hopeful
leaders, on the other hand, react actively to what they hope for and deliberately strive to
turn hopefulness into reality.

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 113

Sergiovanni

Table 1: Wishful vs. Hopeful Leaders

Wishful Leaders Hopeful Leaders

• Passive reaction • Active reaction

• “I wish that these kids would behave.” • “I hope that these kids will behave.
What can I do to help?”

• No faith to back up assumptions • Faith in assumptions and ideas

• No pathways • Pathways

• No action • Action

• No change takes place • Change takes place

Faith
Hope and faith go together. Faith comes from commitment to a cause, from strong
beliefs in a set of ideas, and from other convictions. Hope is so closely linked to faith
that the two tend to blend into one. According to the Bible (Hebrews 11:1), “Faith is
the substance of things hoped for.” This is true of faith in God, and is true of all other
faith. According to Smedes (1998, 21), “No matter what we put our faith in, when
faith goes, hope goes with it. In some ways, hope is faith—faith with our eyes on
possibilities for the future.”

So, how does hope help schools become more effective? Faith often is communi-
cated as a set of true assumptions. We can hope that once these assumptions are
announced, they will come alive, be accepted, and stir others to action. We might
have faith, for example, that:
• all children can learn given the right conditions;
• students can take responsibility for their own learning if we get the student-
teacher role and other important roles set properly;
• schools can be transformed into caring learning communities;
• teachers want to be self-managing and, under the right conditions, take re-
sponsibility for their own learning;
• given the opportunity and training, even the poorest parents can be effective
partners in their children’s education;
• if we provide enough support to students, all will succeed; and
• every teacher can be a leader if the circumstances are right and the issues are
important to them.

These assumptions suggest pathways that bring faith and action together. We can hope,
for example, that students will succeed, but we need to provide the necessary support if
we want to avoid wishful thinking.

114 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

Leaders have an important responsibility. If their hopefulness is based on faith in a

set of assumptions and, if these assumptions become shared by others in their school
community, then a powerful force of ideas will be created. These ideas provide the basis
for a school becoming a community of hope and can fuel the school’s efforts to turn
hope into reality. Developing a community of hope elevates the work of leadership to a
level of moral action. Leadership as moral action is a struggle to do the right thing ac-
cording to a sense of values and what it means to be a human being. Leaders need to be
concerned with what is good as well as what is effective. We find faith in what is good,
and this faith becomes the basis for hopefulness.

From Hope to Action

Action is the key differentiator in hopeful leaders and wishful leaders. Hope is based
on articles of faith that function as assumptions. These assumptions provide the impe-
tus for doing things that will change hopes into realities. Hope is a valuable asset for
children, adolescents, and adults (Snyder et al. 1991). McDermott et al. (2002, 274–75)
described hope as “a cognitive set comprised of goals, pathways, and agency. Individu-
als with high hope possess goals, find pathways to these goals, navigate around ob-
stacles, and develop agency to reach their goals.”

Deliberately realizing hopes requires that they be transformed into goals—goals

that develop into practical pathways. Having the will and determination to travel
these pathways—no matter the obstacles encountered—is the windup key. Unless
this key is turned, there will be no action, and what first appears as hope ends up
being wishful thinking.

Turning hope into reality is a deliberate process that requires answering the follow-
ing questions:
• What are our goals? Goals are what we hope for.
• What are our pathways? Pathways are the routes we take to realize our hopes.
• What are the obstacles? Obstacles are barriers that we must overcome.
• How committed are we to agency—to actually doing something to realize our hopes?
Agency is determined and persistent efforts to travel the pathways.
• Is efficacy present in sufficient strength? Efficacy gauges the extent to which we be-
lieve that we can make a difference and that our efforts will be successful.
• If efficacy is low, how can it be strengthened?

The question of efficacy is critical. Do we believe that we can learn what we must
and use what we learn to successfully realize our hopes? Hopeful leaders recognize
potentials in persons and situations. They believe (Selznick 2002, 70) that “what people
can achieve, or aspire to, is just as surely part of human nature, just as surely sum-
moned by the human condition, as are more negative traits and dimensions.”

Wishful thinking is avoided by taking deliberate action and providing the context
for both organizational and individual efficacy. There is, in a sense, a psychological magic
that helps us move from hope to action. There also are deliberate pathways that can be
traveled to make this transformation.

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 115

Sergiovanni

Roles, Role Relationships, and Role Sets

Faith provides the pathways and sources of leadership authority. When hope, faith,
and action are joined, a covenant of obligations emerges, raising the stakes from man-
agement commitments to moral commitments. When a moral threshold is reached, ad-
ministrators, teachers, parents, and students accept their roles and the elements that
define them. Roles come with expectations that serve as a compass pointing the way
and a beacon lighting the way. Role expectations not only are received, but also are sent.
Expectations that are sent typically deal with rights; received expectations typically deal
with obligations.

The role of student, for example, includes obligations such as to do one’s best, turn
in work on time, help other students, and be respectful. A student also has certain rights,
such as qualified, competent, and caring teachers; instruction that is responsive; a safe
environment; respectful treatment; and a voice in learning.

The collective commitments or promises that students, teachers, administrators,

and parents make are critical. These promises outline the obligations of each role, if
visions are to be realized. Students’ collective commitments to a school vision can be
written for them or by them. Some administrators and teachers may wonder whether
they want to invite students to outline the collective commitments required to help
the school achieve its vision. Because the commitments of students and teachers are
reciprocal, students are tied to those commitments made by their teachers. Thus,
these role relationships contain rights and obligations that define the ties linking the
roles of teachers and students.

Similarly, teachers have roles that include rights and responsibilities. Sociologists
Hage and Powers (1992, 7) viewed a role as “a package of broadly recognized rights and
obligations that define what would be expected of anyone occupying a given position
embedded within a system of social relations.” Rights and responsibilities are the heart
of any role; therefore, roles cannot meaningfully exist without being linked to other roles.
The rights and responsibilities of teachers, for example, are understood within the con-
text of rights and responsibilities of students, principals, and parents.

Hage and Powers (1992, 7) explained, “A role relationship refers to those rights and
obligations commonly taken to define the nature of the tie that links two roles together.”
Bundles of role relationships result in role sets. If these role sets evolve into friendly
networks, then even the most difficult schools will have the moral network for success.
Networks are friendly when role sets are linked to common purposes and shared frame-
works for working together. This linkage can transform networks of teachers and stu-
dents into learning and practice communities.

When transformed, work roles are joined into a shared practice which introduces
moral ties that unite people and bind them to purposes and obligations. Work roles are
patterns of activities and behaviors that emerge from the social context of roles, role
relationships, and sets (Table 2). As the social context for schools changes from simple to
complex, patterns of activities and behaviors change in fundamental ways. Learning

116 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

becomes even more important, as does working together and leadership distributed
across all roles. In today’s learning organization (Hage and Powers 1992, 11), work roles
are defined “in terms of information gathering, problem solving, the production of cre-
ative ideas, and the ability to respond flexibly to new situations or adjust flexibly when
interacting with others.”

Table 2: Key Terms

Term Definition

Role A package of broadly defined rights

and obligations

Role relationships Rights and responsibilities that link

roles together

Role sets Bundles of role relationships that,

when linked to common purposes,
evolve into friendly networks or
communities of practice

Work roles Patterns of activity and behavior

that define how work will be done

Leading and learning together are important because today’s roles make challeng-
ing demands on everyone. Typically, more mental activity, more information, and more
problem solving are required. More learning is required by everyone. Roles, suggested
Hage and Powers (1992, 13), are “defined by goals for which no certain procedure can be
specified, consequently involving a relatively wide range of nonroutine tasks.” It is dif-
ficult, therefore, to chart when a particular role activity might be appropriate. Teachers
and principals must determine how work will be done and time will be spent while
actually doing their jobs, in effect creating their practice in use.

Relational Trust
In role sets, no single person has the power to make things work. Members of an
effective role set are interdependent and held together by relational trust. Trust is the tie
that binds roles together and allows for the creation of role sets that embody reciprocal
obligations.

Social capital and community are close cousins of relational trust. They are so close
that it is doubtful that a school has only one of the cousins. Social capital is the support
that students and teachers need to be more effective learners and doers. Relational trust
refers to the quality and kind of social exchanges found in sets of role relationships.
Trust is high when every party to the role set feels supported and safe. Support and
safety are provided by social exchanges. Social capital and relational trust are the DNA

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 117

Sergiovanni

of community. They are so integral to community life that operational definitions of

community routinely include them.

Bryk and Schneider (2002, 20),

who coined the term for use in edu-
cation, described relational trust as

Leadership is about helping “the social exchanges of schooling as

organized around a distinct set of
role relationships: teachers with stu-
people understand the problems dents, teachers with other teachers,
they face, helping them manage teachers with parents, and with their
school principal. Each party in a role
these problems, and even helping relationship maintains an under-
them learn to live with them. standing of his or her role obligations
and holds some expectations about
the role obligations of the others.”
Relational trust, according to Bryk
and Schneider (2002, 20) is “a com-
plex web of social exchanges [that]
conditions the basic operations of schools. Embedded in the daily social routines of schools
is an interrelated set of mutual dependencies among all key actors: students, teachers,
principals and administrators, and parents. These structural dependencies create feel-
ings of vulnerability for the individuals involved.”

Relational trust is the antidote to the vulnerability that is likely to be experienced by

members of role sets in schools. Regardless of how deep and thorough exchanges are
among people in role sets, without trusting relationships, these exchanges likely would
encourage self-protection and holding back, severely limiting the capacity for collabora-
tion, learning, and improved performance. Without trusting relationships, reciprocal
bonds of obligation found in role sets would be broken, hampering chances for schools
to succeed.

Trust deficits have serious consequences for schools that seem to worsen over time,
such as:
• The less trust there is in a school, the more people keep things to themselves. The
more people keep to themselves, the less trust there is.
• The less trust there is in a school, the more often ideas are hoarded. The more often
ideas are hoarded, the less trust there is.
• The less trust there is in a school, the less likely people are to be helpful and open.
The less likely that people are helpful and open, the less trust there is.

Bryk and Schneider (2003) found that relational trust was an important characteris-
tic of the schools which demonstrated student learning improvements. They measured
relational trust in terms of teacher attitudes toward other teachers, principals, and par-
ents. They found (2003, 43) on average that improving schools showed an 8 percent
increase in reading learning and a 20 percent increase in math learning over five years.

118 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

In the elementary schools studied, they (2003, 122–23) found:

• Collective decision making with broad teacher buy in occurs more readily in schools
with strong relational trust.
• When relational trust is strong, reform initiatives are more likely to be deeply en-
gaged by school participants and to diffuse broadly across the organization.
• Relational trust foments a moral imperative to take on the hard work of school
improvement.

Relational trust was an important catalyst for developing a supportive work culture
characterized by school commitment and a positive orientation toward change. It also was
an important catalyst for developing a facilitative work structure that included developing a
professional community for making decisions together and supporting teacher learning.

Trust First
Schools and school districts that
succeed in bringing about change use
a trust-first approach. Conversely, in
schools and school districts that are
Trust is the tie that binds roles
less effective in bringing about together and allows for the
change, trust is an afterthought—of- creation of role sets that embody
ten preceded by vision, strategy, and
action. Trust gets attention after the reciprocal obligations.
school or school district gets into
trouble. Leaders typically wind up
imposing visions and strategies,
which require increased performance monitoring. Resistance usually results, leaving
leaders trying to mend fences, improve relationships, and get more people on board.

Hurst (1984), former Executive Vice President of Russelsteel, Inc. in Canada, ex-
plained that building trust first and then moving to vision, strategy, and action changed
how decisions were made in his organization. A trust-first approach emphasizes open
communications focused on who we are and what we believe. Hurst (1984, 82) explained,

In our previous existence, the decisions we made were always backed up by hard
information; management was decisive, and that was good. Unfortunately, too few of
these ‘good’ decisions ever got implemented. The simple process of making the decision
the way we did often set up resistance down the line. As the decision was handed
down to consecutive organizational levels, it lost impetus until eventually it was
unclear whether the decision was right in the first place. Now we worry a good deal
less about making decisions; they arise as fairly obvious conclusions drawn from a
mass of shared assumptions. It’s the assumptions that we spend our time working on.

A trust-first approach to strategy development and implementation doesn’t mean

getting everyone on board before implementation. There is a “tipping point” that must
be respected, and support must be cultivated to trigger it. In many cases, reaching this
tipping point does not require a huge majority in favor of the change. In all cases,

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 119

Sergiovanni

however, the secret to change is to make sure that everyone has the support and capac-
ity needed to implement the change successfully. Once a person is successful, and with
trust in place, he or she is likely to accept the change and even to like it. As Fullan (1991,
91) stated, “In many cases, changes in behavior precede rather than follow changes in
belief.” Trust plays an important role in this process. Everyone is vulnerable when try-
ing something new and needs to be assured that mistakes will be accepted and that
support will be there.

Bryk and Schneider (2003) found that principals played key roles in developing trust.
They (2003, 43) suggested, “Principals establish both respect and personal regard when
they acknowledge the vulnerabilities of others, actively listen to their concerns, and es-
chew arbitrary actions. Effective principals couple these behaviors with a compelling
school vision and behavior that clearly seeks to advance the vision. This consistency
between words and actions affirms their personal integrity. Then, if the principal com-
petently manages basic day-to-day school affairs, an overall ethos conducive to the for-
mation of trust will emerge.” By paying attention to personal integrity and other dimen-
sions of trust, linking this trust to purposes, providing competent management support,
and emphasizing capacity building, conditions for change are created and people feel
more willing to give change a try.

The Virtues of Piety

and Civility
Piety embodies showing loyalty,
Piety is a leadership virtue that respect, and affection such as is usu-
ally found among friends, comrades
requires or encourages people to in arms, close colleagues at work,
look inward to their own narrow and other groups where caring and
obligations characterize connections
community affiliations. among people. Civility draws us out-
ward to embrace differences.

Piety is a leadership virtue that

requires or encourages people to look inward to their own narrow community affilia-
tions. This look inward is usually at the expense of looking outward to more rational
and impersonal organizations or groups. As a result, leaders in schools can become
blinded to other views. This blindness encourages isolation and exclusiveness that seri-
ously limit the ability to learn from others, to be exposed to new ideas, to make new
friends, and to meet new colleagues. Though piety is an important ingredient in build-
ing school communities, it also is an ingredient in gangs and cliques that develop special
bonds. When held together by piety alone, these school groups become isolated from
one another.

As Selznick (2002, 68) explained, “Some forms of piety ask too much of us, and for
the wrong objects, or claim immunity from criticism or demand undivided and uncon-
ditional loyalty. Therefore, piety is tempered by the more dispassionate virtue of civility.
Piety demands conformity and justifies exclusion, while civility welcomes diversity,

120 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

encourages tolerance, and legitimates controversy. Civility builds frameworks within

which people can cooperate despite their divergent views and interests.”

Bonding and Bridging Community

The virtues of piety and civility are at the heart of building learning communities
that bond people together while creating bridges that connect them to other people and
views (e.g., Putnam 2000). Effective school communities depend upon the virtue of pi-
ety to provide a floor of shared values and ideas that tie everyone together, provide
security and support, and give the school a special identity that communicates its char-
acter and purposes. At the same
time, bridges need to be built among
different groups within and outside
the school. Bridging honors diver-
sity and provides opportunities for
learning as groups are exposed to
In schools, cultural universals
new ideas. Putnam (2000) likened include the values, standards,
bonding to a sociological superglue
and bridging to a sociological WD40.
and norms that are meant to be
But balance does not just happen. shared by everyone.
Schools and their leaders have to
work at cultivating balanced unity
so that it becomes a central value
within a school’s culture.

When bonding and bridging are balanced, piety and civility become powerful lead-
ership virtues. A school, for example, might bond around shared values and ideas such
as nurturing a caring environment, providing rigorous academic learning, believing in
the importance of effort, and developing faculty relationships that encourage the sacri-
ficing of one’s self-interest for the common good. At the same time, the school might
bridge along other dimensions, such as honoring cultural diversity and providing de-
velopmentally different safety nets for students who are falling behind—safety nets that
respond to different student needs and learning styles in various ways.

One Out of Many

Selznick (2002, 72) offered E pluribus unum (one out of many) as a metaphor for
bringing together the virtues of piety and civility. “We say yes to plurality even as we
uncover convergent truths. A rich variety of beliefs and forms . . . should be accepted
and supported.” On the unum side, Selznick noted (2002, 72), “Human differences are
appreciated most keenly, and welcomed most sincerely, when they testify to an underly-
ing unity. Our common humanity generates diverse ways of life. . . . That same human-
ity produces cultural universals.” In schools, cultural universals include the values, stan-
dards, and norms that are meant to be shared by everyone. These cultural universals are
accompanied by other values, standards, and norms that are meant to be shared by some
but not all. The two sets of values, standards, and norms together create a layered sys-
tem of loyalty and commitments—a floor of common understandings that support dif-
ferences. For example, while all students are expected to dress modestly, they need not

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 121

Sergiovanni

all dress the same. Though students may elect to take a number of courses beyond
the common core, all courses must meet the same standards of rigor, student in-
volvement, and usefulness. Teach-
ers are expected to work together
in professional development that

Learning can be viewed as is tied to grade, team, and depart-

mental purposes, but they may
a private good that serves choose different topics and venues
for learning that suit their own
individual interests but has needs and interests.
little to do with pursuing Leadership and Learning
school goals. Virtues strengthen the heart-
beat of schools. A strong heartbeat
is a school’s best defense against the
obstacles leaders face as they work
to change schools for the better. Strengthening the heartbeat of schools requires that we
rethink what is leadership, how leadership works, what is leadership’s relationship to
learning, and why we need to practice leadership and learning together.

When leaders strengthen the heartbeat, their schools become stronger and more re-
silient. These qualities help leaders to share the burdens of leadership with others, to
create collaborative cultures, and to be continuous learners. Leadership inevitably in-
volves change, and change inevitably involves learning. Both are easier to do if we bet-
ter understand the mindscapes we bring to our practice, examine them in light of what
we want to do, and change them. Change begins with us—with our heart, head, and
hands that drive our leadership practice.

Conventional wisdom tells us that leadership is about finding solutions to problems

that people face. In reality, leadership is more about helping people understand the prob-
lems they face, helping them manage these problems, and even helping them learn to
live with them. Even in the best of circumstances, leadership is difficult. Community
building is a good example. Few leaders find their efforts at community building to be
models of perfect harmony. Important differences exist among members of any faculty
that is alive and well. Wise leaders know, however, that schools need centers of har-
mony that contain enough of what is important and shared to hold things together. At
the same time, they encourage differences in how the center of ideas is embodied in
practice. Community for them is a mosaic (e.g., Etzioni 1996/1997) comprised of many
different elements held together by a common frame and glue. Creating centers of har-
mony is the work of a bonding community. Linking differences and learning is the work
of a bridging community.

Few leaders have the competence, time, and information needed at any given time
to get the job done. Wise leaders try to rely on others and build upon their leadership
capacity. Leaders have funds of knowledge and skills that need constant replenishment.
An important part of a leader’s job is to cultivate and amass the intellectual capital needed

122 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005

 Essays

for the school’s organizational IQ to increase. Smart leaders undoubtedly help, but smart
schools make the difference over time. That is why leadership and learning together are
so important. There can be leadership and there can be learning. There can be a focus on
individuals and the school. Learning can be viewed as a private good that serves indi-
vidual interests but has little to do with pursuing school goals. And, learning (Elmore
2002) can be viewed as something individuals feel compelled to do because it is a public
good that helps schools achieve their goals. In every case, effects multiply when these
dimensions are brought together. Hope, trust, piety, civility, and other leadership vir-
tues can help.

References
Bryk, A. S., and B. L. Schneider. 2002. Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
Bryk, A. S., and B. L. Schneider. 2003. Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership 60(6): 40–45.
Carter, L. 1996. A role for hope in today’s leadership challenge. Hopewatch: Newsletter of the Center for a Science of Hope
5(Summer): 1–4.
Elmore, R. 2002. Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education.
Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Etzioni, A. 1996/1997. The community of communities. The Responsive Community 7(1): 21–32.
Fullan, M., with S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. The new meaning of educational change, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hage, J., and C. H. Powers. 1992. Post-industrial lives: Roles and relationships in the 21st century. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hurst, D. K. 1984. Of boxes, bubbles, and effective management. Harvard Business Review 84(3): 78–88.
McDermott, D., J. T. Pedrotti, L. M. Edwards, and A. M. Houske. 2002. An exploration of hope in catholic school students.
Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 5(3): 274–85.
Menninger, K. A., with M. Mayman and P. Pruyser. 1963. The vital balance: The life process in mental health and illness. New
York: Viking Press.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Roset, S. M. 1999. Exploring hope: Implications for educational leaders. Ph.D. diss., Department of Educational Administra-
tion, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.
Selznick, P. 2002. On a communitarian faith. The Responsive Community 12(3): 67–74.
Smedes, L. 1998. Standing on the promises: Keeping hope alive for a tomorrow we cannot control. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
Snyder, C. R., C. Harris, J. R. Anderson, and S. A. Holleran. 1991. The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(4): 570–85.
Walton, C. C. 1988. The moral manager. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

This article is adapted from Strengthening the Heartbeat: Leading and Learning
Together (2004).

Thomas J. Sergiovanni is the Lillian Radford Professor of Education at

Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He is a member of Kappa Delta
Pi’s Laureate Chapter.

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Winter 2005 • 123