Leadership in Edmund Keeley’s Fiction
By Ipatia K. Apostolides
(excerpts taken from my Ph.D. Dissertation(2022))
ABSTRACT
A relationship exists between literature and leadership. Many leaders are not born leaders, but grow in leadership through life experiences, being influenced by other leaders, being formally educated on leadership, or reading books, fiction, or nonfiction. A leader reading fiction can learn from the story’s setting, plot, and its characters facing challenges. These characters ultimately have to make decisions, which often have consequences. However, there is another aspect of this: the element of an author who is also a leader, and one who writes leadership elements into their fiction. Edmund Keeley (2005), a professor at Princeton, an author of several novels and nonfiction, a translator of Greek poems, and president of at least two non-profit organizations (PEN America, 2012; MGSA), is the focus of this paper, which will analyze his leadership elements found in some of his fiction (The Libation, Voyage to a Dark Island, A Wilderness Called Peace, Some Wine for Remembrance, and The Megabuilders of Queenston Park).
---------
The following exploration of Keeley’s writings relies on the relationship between literature and leadership. Literature is an important leadership component, mainly when leaders use it to communicate with and influence their followers. One example can be seen in Robert Greenleaf’s essay “Essentials of Servant-Leadership” (Spears & Lawrence, 2002); the idea of a servant being a leader came while Greenleaf read Herman Hesse’s Journey to the East. In the story, Leo, a servant, accompanies a party on their journey; when Leo disappears, the group falls apart, and they abandon their trip. Years later, Leo became the leader of the Order. Therefore, Greenleaf claimed that “the servant-leader is servant first”– as Leo is portrayed (p. 23). Greenleaf also asserted that Leo “is the symbolic personification of Hesse’s aspiration to serve through his literary creations–creations that are greater than Hesse himself–and that his work, for which he was but the channel, will carry on and serve and lead in a way that he, a twisted and tormented man, could not - as he created” (p. 25). In both these cases, Greenleaf emphasizes the character in the story displaying servant leadership and the author’s serving through his writing, revealing a form of servant leadership.
In Barbara Kellerman’s (2010) book Leadership: Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence, she stated that “twenty-first century leadership learning excludes the liberal arts almost entirely – literature, history, and philosophy, to take obvious examples – in favor of a focus on a practical purpose” (p. xiv). However, she argued that reading great leadership literature manifests an indirect yet measurable effect on the world. Written words could be instruments of change by inciting or inspiring the reader to think and act differently. Kellerman offered many examples of influential authors who have used language to change our world, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, and Rachel Carson. These authors became leaders indirectly by sitting, writing, and influencing society with their written works. During the 1960s and 1970s, several movements occurred in the United States, and the writings of ordinary people aided these; Rachel Carson, a scientist and author, published Silent Spring in 1962, which helped the environmental movement grow; Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” published in 1963, propelled the civil rights movement; also the women’s movement, ignited by Betty Friedan’s 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, challenged the roles of the domesticated woman and urged women to get jobs that paid them for their work.
In addition to writing literature, a leader can learn from reading literature. Badaracco (2006) affirmed that by reading literature, a leader could learn from the character’s thoughts and actions when challenged. Badaracco taught an MBA class at Harvard, which required the students to read works of canonical fiction from the classics to the modern day. These stories “cast a strong light on the recurring test of character faced by men and women in positions of responsibility” (p. 5). Badaracco noted two fundamental challenges a leader faces while reading fiction: their humanity, as in fears and hopes, and keeping an agenda in a changing world (p. 6).
Steven Sample (2002) taught his students in his leadership class the importance of reading books that have lasted hundreds of years and have influenced our culture, like the leaders in the Bible, Plato’s Republic, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. An example of a leader who read poetry and the classics is Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States; he was born in a log cabin in Kentucky and became an avid reader. He read poetry and enjoyed reading several of Shakespeare’s plays, including King Lear, Richard III, Henry VIII, Hamlet, and especially Macbeth (Armenti, 2022). One of Lincoln’s famous quotes was, “All I have learned, I learned from books” (Kalima Quotes, 2022). Shoup and Hinrichs (2020) also maintained that stories teach leaders the art of leadership, yet most leaders hesitate to use the classics and storytelling in their leadership practice. After his death, a handwritten manuscript found in President Truman’s desk drawer stated, “readers of good books, particularly books of biographies and history, are preparing themselves for leadership…. not all readers become leaders. But all leaders must be readers” (p. x). Truman’s note affirmed his belief in the importance of reading toward the growth and development of a leader.
Bolea and Atwater (2016) posited that self-awareness or self-observation is essential for effective leadership. Whenever Keeley sat down and wrote fiction or nonfiction, he probably conversed with himself, going over events in his life and others, sifting through what was necessary and what was not. His writing allowed for and nurtured the development of his self-awareness, and this probably contributed to his leadership style. Not enough research has been done on the importance of authors as leaders. More research is needed in this area.
An avid reader, Keeley began writing at a relatively young age. He dedicated his first novel, The Libation, published in 1958, to his parents. He won the Rome Prize of the Academy of Arts and Letters for that novel (Social Networks and Archival Context, n.d.). He published his first five novels and several Greek translations by 1975. As a communicator and through the media of translating poetry, novel writing, and nonfiction works, Keeley revealed aspects of his leadership style to his followers or readers. A prolific author, Edmund Keeley not only published eight novels listed in Table 1, but he also wrote, from 1950 through the 1980s, several short stories and a 1950 play titled And This, My Son. The Keeley Archive at Princeton University Library houses many of his unfinished or unpublished manuscripts (Princeton University Library, 2022). Table 1 includes eight novels by Edmund Keeley.
Title | Year of Publication |
The Libation | 1958 |
The Gold-Hatted Lover | 1970 |
The Imposter | 1970 |
Voyage to a Dark Island | 1972 |
A Wilderness Called Peace | 1985 |
School for Pagan Lovers | 1993 |
Some Wine For Remembrance | 2001 |
The Megabuilders of Queenston Park | 2014 |
Because of the enormity of Keeley’s publications, only a portion of the novels concerning his leadership style were explored in detail here. The criteria for choosing these novels included bestsellers, award-winning books, and stories with leadership components. Each novel will include an interpretation and analysis.
Data Analysis
The Libation
Keeley published his first novel, The Libation, in 1958, and it received the Rome Prize from the American Academy of Arts and Letters and the New Jersey Author Award (in 1960). According to Keeley, he dedicated the novel to his parents (Keeley, 2005). The book’s settings, people, and situations are almost biographical compared to Keeley’s memoir. It takes place in northern Greece, with villages like Kastania, where Achilles stops on his way to Salonika, and Kastoria, west of Salonika (Keeley, 1958). Keeley lived in Thessaloniki in his youth, as written in his memoir (Keeley, 2005). These three years in Keeley’s life significantly impacted and nurtured his love for Greece.
The story revolves around Timothy Gammon, a young American, whom Keeley intriguingly likens to a “modern sibling of Orestes and Electra.” After World War II, Timothy returns to northern Greece in search of answers regarding his missionary father’s death and the inheritance he left behind (Keeley, 2005, p. 314). Keeley’s theme in The Libation parallels the ancient Greek writer Aeschylus’s play Libation Bearers, which is part of a trilogy. In Aeschylus’s masterpiece, the characters Orestes and Electra, the children of King Agamemnon, are separated and remain oblivious to their true kinship. Similarly, Timothy and Helen, childhood companions, share the same fate, unaware of their true relationship as siblings. As the plot unfolds, the wife murders her husband, the king, ultimately bringing Orestes and Electra together and setting off a series of calamitous events. In a parallel narrative, the revelation of Timothy and Helen’s familial ties promises to intertwine their lives in a manner similar to the ancient Greek tragedy.
In The Libation, Thomas Gammon dies, which propels Timothy, his son, to return to Greece for the inheritance (Keeley, 1958). He meets his childhood friend Helen, who has grown up, and they fall in love. Each chapter denotes a different time, jumping back and forth from Timothy’s time in 1950 to his father’s period of 1922, then back to 1950, then to 1926, then back to 1950, then to 1928, until the present 1950. By doing this, Keeley shows the progression of Cassandra’s and Gammon’s secret love affair and Timothy’s relationship with Helen. Several subplots are simultaneously occurring: Timothy Gammon’s visit to Kastoria after his father’s death to claim his inheritance, Timothy and Helen’s incestuous relationship, Cassandra and Thomas Gammon’s secret love relationship, and their deception regarding their two children. Although it is interesting to read, this weaving of dates back and forth complicates the story. It strains the reader’s memory as they try to remember the details several pages earlier in a previous chapter.
Interpretation and Analysis. In 1922, Timothy’s father, a thirsty Thomas Gammon, walked with sandaled feet, intent on preaching to the natives. His destination is the square in Kastoria, Greece (Keeley, 1958). He is driven by a mission from God and a solemn promise to his dying father. This image of Thomas Gammon donning sandals draws a striking resemblance to Jesus and infers a servant-leader role, wherein he devotes himself to serving the people through his preaching (Greenleaf, 1970). However, he soon realizes the need to “remove the stains of his sin before he tried to purify the flesh of others” (Keeley, 1958, p. 17). This introspective passage unveils Gammon’s internal doubts about his sins. It parallels the internal conflict Keeley grappled with as a teenager at Camp Cory as he confronted the struggle between becoming externally pure and his competing inner passions (Keeley, 2005). To effectively influence followers, a leader should strive to understand them and their needs, while followers, in turn, should seek to comprehend their leader’s talents, strengths, mental model, and aspirations (Avolio, 2005; Bass, 2008; Gilstrap & Morris, 2015; Greenleaf, 1970). A strong connection needs to occur between the follower’s self-image and the image the leader is promoting through the mission or vision. Through this connection, they could advance together toward a shared objective. However, it does not always work that way. Concealed agendas might interfere, which may have been the case in this story.
In The Libation, Gammon is perched on a chair and strives to read the Greek Bible to the town's villagers (Keeley, 1958). However, despite his sincere efforts to read the Bible and influence his followers through scripture, this attempt as a servant leader falls short. He is sidetracked when young Cassandra approaches him. Attractive but married, Cassandra brings Armenian, a half-witted boy she adopted. Believing in Gammon’s supposed healing powers, Cassandra implores him to heal Armenian. However, despite his earnest efforts, Gammon cannot heal him. Consumed by his passions, Gammon lusts for Cassandra. He lives with her and her husband, Achilles, who is his partner in the firm. Cassandra and Gammon secretly sire two children together, Timothy and Helen. Thomas decides to depart when Timothy is born, taking him with him. Their separation marks a pivotal rupture in his relationship with Cassandra, forever altering their course.
Fate brings their two grown children, Timothy and Helen, together years later. They fall in love, not knowing they are siblings. As their relationship deepens, Timothy discovers too late the unsettling truth that they share the same inheritance, challenging his morality. He grapples with the deception of his parents and struggles to accept Cassandra as his mother. The theme of honesty is recurring in The Libation, particularly when Timothy Gannon questions the deceit of his parents. This theme of honesty is paramount in leadership and has been extensively explored in the literature on leadership; when leaders lack honesty, they become unreliable and undependable (Northouse, 2019). As evidenced in his work, Keeley appears to have been keenly aware of this.
Although this was Keeley’s first novel, he was well-read in ancient Greek literature by Aeschylus. Even Keeley’s choice of his novel’s title, The Libation, resembles Aeschylus’s play Libation Bearers and reveals a parallel story of the siblings discovering their hereditary connection. From there, moral issues abound, like whether Gammon and Cassandra should tell the truth to the siblings.
Gammon’s attempts at leading prove futile as a Bible-toting preacher, as a father to his two children, and as Cassandra’s lover. His ethical foundation is lacking, tainted by deceit and a propensity for dishonesty. On the surface, he may present a façade of morality. However, he is not because he perpetuates deception and fails to communicate openly about his relationship with Cassandra to his children. Transparency eludes him, even with those closest to him. Gammon accomplishes the only realm of success in this story through his work, and he amasses wealth along the way. Yet, this wealth fails to bring happiness to Cassandra or their children, serving as a poignant reminder that material prosperity alone cannot fulfill the deeper needs of the human heart.
Voyage to a Dark Island
In Keeley’s Voyage to a Dark Island, published in 1972, leadership components come to the forefront, including honesty, trust, integrity, courage, and communication skills. The leader at the helm is Malone, whose role as a legitimate authority stands on a rational ground, where “obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order” is relevant here (Weber, 1978a, p. 215). Malone’s legitimacy as a leader is revealed through his decisions, interactions with the narrator and the rest of the group, and his actions. The narrative unfolds as the protagonist joins Brewster, a protestant Christian he has known for five years and a scuba diving teacher; others in the group include the Greek divers Achilles and Kosta and an Englishman named Newell-Morgan, all under the leadership of the American war hero, Malone. Their purpose is to journey to the island of Kythera and search for sunken treasures. Some men from the group bring their girlfriends along, while Malone brings his wife, Valerie. They discuss such mundane topics as toilet privileges. Despite the informal setting, Malone effectively communicates his decisions to the group, akin to conducting a structured board meeting, thoroughly considering the pros and cons of each choice.
Interpretation and Analysis. In this story, delicate matters are discussed, like how to go about telling the nonessential travelers to leave the ship without hurting anyone’s feelings. An example of this is when Malone approaches the narrator of the story, and he narrates:
He wanted me to work out a diplomatic way of clearing the yacht immediately of all unnecessary visitors so that we could get moving around the point to identify the wreck site. I told him I’d just as soon not be the one to order people ashore, diplomatically or otherwise. (Keeley, 1972, p. 50)
This scene is like a leader requesting a follower to perform a task for them. The narrator responds to Malone, “It seemed to me that it might help to kill some of the lingering suspicions about our intentions if we allowed anyone who felt like it to come along on our first official trip to the site” (Keeley, 1972, p. 51). Malone follows up on the suggestion and decides, “It might save time in the long run if we just announced that we were about to raise anchor and move around the point, in case any of the visitors on board had to go ashore” (p. 51). Decision-making and open communication are essential to Malone’s effective leadership (Grisham, 2006). He not only decides what to do next but also communicates it in such a way as not to insult or offend anyone. Malone appears to care for his followers.
Another situation Keeley brings up in this tale is the rough sea and the difficult time the speedboat is having, struggling against the forces of the waves (Keeley, 1972). Newell-Morgan prefers using the shot line instead to return to the boat, but Malone is against it for the following reason (Keeley, 1972):
You may have great faith in your shot line, but there are six of us involved here. And since I have responsibility for the expedition as a whole, I’m not going to take unnecessary risks while there’s still plenty of time to let this meltemi die out. (p. 59)
Meltemi, the Greek name for strong seasonal winds, plays a significant role in the unfolding events. Malone’s response to the situation shows his responsibility as a leader, transparency, and the importance of followers to him and their safety. Although Newell-Morgan and a couple of others express their willingness to go down, Malone prioritizes their safety and does not want them to do so because of the rough sea. However, Newell-Morgan challenges Malone’s decision by stating, “I’d like a chance to put the question before the full group” (p. 59). This statement of requesting the group’s input signifies a democratic approach (Bass, 2008; Northouse, 2019), implying that the collective decision of the people carries more weight than that of the leader. Furthermore, it reflects Newell-Morgan’s lack of trust in Malone’s judgment or leadership. As a follower, he actively resists the leader’s decision (Kellerman, 2008), but that does not mean the leader must comply with the follower’s perspective. This scene highlights the complexity and delicate balance between leadership and followership dynamics.
In response to Newell-Morgan’s challenge, Valerie, Malone’s wife, steps in and asserts, “If anything happens, my husband’s the one who’ll pay for it” (Keeley, 1972, p. 59). Her statement serves as a reminder to both the characters in the story and the readers that her husband has legitimate power and authority to be the leader (Weber, 1968, 1978a). It is also a veiled threat that Newell-Morgan, a subordinate, might experience consequences if he resists (Kellerman, 2008). There is more discourse as they weigh the pros and cons. The curator, Alexi, backs Valerie’s claim by stating that the Department of Antiquities is made out to Dr. Malone and his expedition, and no one has the legal right to explore the wreck independently. He verifies the legitimate authority of Malone. With this information presented, the argument appears to reach a resolution.
Meanwhile, Malone decides upon the diving team assignments (Keeley, 1972). The narrator wants to be paired with him, but although Malone wants it also, he considers the men’s morale above this request. His wife tells him, “There might be a tactical advantage in pairing certain people” (p. 34). Still, Malone perceives, “I just don’t think Valerie is fully aware of what an underwater diving team requires in the way of trust and cooperation when you’re working day in, day out, at two hundred feet” (p. 35). Keeley’s use of the words “trust” and “cooperation” suggests a democratic leadership where the leader relates to their followers and builds trust with them (Bass, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Achilles also gives Malone a private lecture on international ethics and does not think assigning the teams by chance is good, as Malone wants to do. According to Achilles, diplomacy dictates that each team include at least one Greek diver, which influences Malone, prompting him to make the changes. The narrator observes that if the Greek divers were to make significant discoveries, it would bring “honor to the junta, further permits to Malone, and possible reinstatement to Kosta” (p. 73). The reference to the “junta” stems from the military dictatorship prevailing in Greece from 1967 to 1974, when the novel was published (Greek Junta, 2022). The narrator also acknowledges Achilles’s impact on Malone. The involvement of these different people offering Malone their ideas and views also implies a democratic leadership style. Followers can assume leadership roles in the right environment.
Throughout the story, multiple issues arise, and much of the narrative focuses on preparing for the dive and resolving these challenges (Keeley, 1972). The small island lacks the necessary resources, necessitating improvisation with what is available. Additionally, several pieces of equipment, including the carburetor, are malfunctioning, negatively affecting the air quality in the tanks. These issues indicate a disorganized operation and poor planning on Malone’s part, which are paramount to a successful operation. Keeley’s knowledge of diving is evident as he delves into the intricacies of the process, emphasizing the importance of timing everything during the descent and the necessary decompression afterward. He also mentions the effects of narcosis when down there, when the brain lacks oxygen, impairing cognitive function. Difficulties discerning one’s direction in the water can further impede clear thinking, which adds danger to the dive. In addition to effective planning, these details are essential for Malone to grasp as a leader.
The first two divers comprise the Greek Achilles and the Englishman Newell-Morgan. They dive to “find the cylindrical rock and pinpoint it in terms of depth and distance, to establish visually the most likely lie of the wreck” (Keeley, 1972, p. 78). Newell-Morgan indicates he has his own plans. According to the narrator, Newell-Morgan displays “a shrewd bit of insubordination, because all he had to do at that distance to stay out of touch with the yacht was to duck his head under the surface and pretend to be having a look around” (p. 80). This insubordination is something that leaders deal with, especially if their followers, like Newell-Morgan, have competing leadership qualities (Kellerman, 2008). However, Newell-Morgan’s arrogance ultimately costs him his life. His failure to follow his leader’s decision parallels the consequences that befall a soldier in battle. In such circumstances, it is crucial for the soldier to be united with their leader and move forward as a cohesive unit or else risk losing their life.
Meanwhile, Achilles manages to return but experiences difficulty breathing and complains about the foul taste of the air in the tank. Achilles successfully reaches the hull of the wreck. During the conversation, Achilles reveals to the narrator and Malone that Newell-Morgan ventured into deeper water as if he knew what he was doing, but Newell-Morgan fails to return. The narrator discusses Achilles’s dirty air tank with Malone and figures it may have been one of the first tanks filled right after the compressor broke down. Malone advises the narrator against diving if the air quality is poor, showcasing his concern for the narrator’s well-being.
As Malone and Kostas prepare to dive next, Valerie, Malone’s wife, expresses her concern for his safety. She tells Malone, “But if you go down now who’s going to keep control of things up here?” (Keeley, 1972, p. 84). Malone replies that it is his turn to dive next, and he explains that he cannot rearrange the order due to the accident that occurred. Malone’s decision to dive next exemplifies a critical leadership component where the leader is actively involved in the team and assumes responsibility for the outcome. However, by descending, he risks his own life. After Malone and Kostas, the Greek diver, venture underwater to investigate what happened to Newell-Morgan, they do not return.
After retrieving Newell-Morgan’s dead body, the narrator and the others worry about its decay and how to keep it cool to avoid rotting under the sun. These are decisions that the ordinary person rarely gets to make. The narrator recovers all three bodies and their fates. Achilles, the Greek, decides to take charge with force. Because of the decaying process, Achilles does not want to transport the bodies but insists on having a funeral and throwing them overboard. Valerie, Malone’s wife, resists Achilles’s decision; she does not want to leave her husband there without a funeral. The ending shows the narrator and Valerie developing a relationship.
The resistance to leadership is magnificently portrayed when different followers, Newell-Morgan and Achilles, question Malone’s legitimate authority as a leader (Kellerman, 2008). Achilles survives and takes over, replacing Malone (Keeley, 1972). In another story, The Libation, Keeley also names one of his characters, Achilles. Achilles may or may not have been a real person in Keeley’s life, but the fact is that the name Achilles appears in two of his stories. In this story, Brewster resembles Keeley’s friend, Bruce Lansdale, who taught Keeley to be a K-boat skipper (Keeley, 2005). These conjectures by the researcher have not been verified by Keeley.
A Wilderness Called Peace
Although Keeley’s 1985 novel, A Wilderness Called Peace, is considered fiction, it reads like creative nonfiction. A significant source for this novel is Keeley’s younger brother, Robert V. Keeley, a diplomat in Cambodia from 1974 to 1975 (Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 1998). Keeley credits him in the Acknowledgments section of the book: “I have drawn on the following sources in creating an image of actual events in Cambodia and Thailand from 1975 through 1983: conversations with Robert Keeley, Deputy Chief of Mission Phnom Penh, 1974-1975” (p. 5). Keeley takes his writing seriously and, like an investigative reporter, visited the Thai-Cambodia border in 1982 to attain primary data. He also conducted personal interviews for this novel (p. 5). During an interview with the researcher, Keeley stated this about A Wilderness Called Peace: “It was the most important thing I did” (personal communication, June 19, 2021). In 1975, Pol Pot, the leader of the communist regime, the Khmer Rouge, ruled over Cambodia. Influenced by China’s Cultural Revolution under Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot forced people from their homes into rural areas, causing thousands of deaths from starvation and execution. During his four-year reign, he oversaw the death of over one million people (Biography, 2014). Keeley captured these atrocities through his writing.
Through the eyes of several witnesses, from Sameth to her adopted daughter Thirith to Macpherson’s son Tim, Keeley captured the horrific events in Cambodia and Thailand from 1975 through 1983 and beyond (Keeley, 1985). In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, under the leadership of Pol Pot. Pol Pot pursued his vision of an agrarian utopia and went about isolating the Cambodian people. This vision seemed right to him despite the immense suffering and loss of over two million lives under his regime due to executions, starvation, and disease. Even though chaos reigned, destroying families, he did not veer from this path. Throughout Keeley’s life, he experienced political leaders who exhibited dictatorial or autocratic tendencies, from Hitler and Metaxas in the 1930s and 1940s to the military dictatorship in Greece in the late 1960s to the Marxist Pol Pot in the 1970s (Burns, 1978). Personally exposed to the tragic results of Hitler’s regime when he visited Greece after the war, Keeley witnessed the devastation. He learned from his friends how badly they fared, and this affected him deeply (Keeley, 2005).
Interpretation and Analysis. Sameth, a woman of mixed European, Asian, and Khmer heritage, resided in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime (Keeley, 1985). The narrative unfolds through this main character’s eyes as she chronicles the horrors she witnesses in a notebook to her former lover, Tom Macpherson. Although they had been living apart for several years, they had spent intimate time together while he was a diplomat in Cambodia. By having Sameth record her experiences in a journal, Keeley ensures the reader can trust the authenticity of her words.
Sameth begins the story by writing in her journal on April 13, 1975, “Our government has declared a state of emergency, and so there is to be no holiday” (p. 13). She documents the harsh and oppressive conditions imposed by the authoritarian government, leading to the countless loss of lives (Burns, 1978). In the journal, Sameth describes what she experiences: traveling with others, being forced from her home, and leaving her identifying documents behind to avoid execution. She informs the reader about the slaughter of countless Cambodians by the Communist Pol Pot regime, the Vietnamese invasion and occupation, and the guerrilla conflict that resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees along the Thai-Cambodian border (Isaacs, 1985). The delineation between old refugees and new refugees sometimes becomes blurred. Her strength is that she knows English and French and teaches those languages. In her journal, Sameth notes how she travels with others and what she sees and hears. She becomes attached to a family and eventually adopts Thirith, their teenage daughter, after the mother dies and the father disappears.
Four years later, the story switches to Macpherson’s point of view (Keeley, 1985). Sameth’s previous lover, Tom Macpherson, an American diplomat, received her notebook from Tan Yong while in Washington, D.C. Tan Yong is Sameth’s friend. Tan Yong asks Macpherson to see about helping Sameth’s adopted daughter, Thirith, come to the U.S. and receive an education. Macpherson is concerned because his wife, Ismini, knows nothing about Sameth and his relationship with her. He wonders how he could explain to his wife about helping Sameth’s adopted daughter. Their meeting is interrupted by Polk Ball, who is curious about what is happening, but they do not tell him anything. Polk Ball’s name is like George Polk, an American journalist murdered during Greece’s civil war. Keeley writes about Polk’s murder in The Salonika Bay Murder. In this story, Polk Ball is a shady character.
Knowing it would be difficult to search for Sameth’s adopted daughter because of the complications it would garner in his marriage, Tom Macpherson takes Sameth’s notebook and gives it to his son, Tim, to read (Keeley, 1985). He hopes Tim, who has dropped out of college, will travel to Cambodia and find Sameth and Thirith. The goal is to bring Thirith back to America to be educated in medicine. This willingness to help Sameth’s adopted daughter shows servant leadership. Servant leaders prioritize their followers rather than themselves (Greenleaf, 1970). Tom’s altruistic behavior, followed by his son’s willingness to help, shows a servant leadership style witnessed in both the father and son. Their actions and behavior put the follower first, sharing control with them and encouraging their growth (Northouse, 2019).
Meanwhile, Sameth has a relationship with Maarten, but it goes nowhere when he reveals his Christianity, and they separate. Sameth encounters several lovers and does not want to marry or have her own family. Even though there are opportunities to leave her country, she chooses not to. Sameth reaches forty years of age later in the story and has lost touch with her adopted daughter, Thirith, who joins the Khmer Serei group, a youth military movement. However, at the end of the story, Sameth finds the strength to reach out and communicate with Thirith.
The story moves forward from Thirith’s point of view (Keeley, 1985). She has become involved with Tao Lom, the leader of the Khmer Serei group, in capturing Polk Ball because he is selling arms to the wrong group. She carries a weapon and threatens to kill him. Meanwhile, they lock Ball in a bamboo cage, and Thirith guards him while awaiting the committee’s decision. Polk Ball questions how they could be the wrong group if they were all Khmers. He resists the leadership's decision to capture him (Kellerman, 2008). Here, Keeley clarifies the difference between the two groups through Ball’s questions. The mention of a committee deciding Ball’s fate implies to the reader that the Khmer Serei group is democratic, as opposed to the communist party Khmer Rouge, ruled by the Marxist dictator Pol Pot.
Thirith’s thoughts circle the prisoner. She realizes the futility of his capture “when he revealed that he had no sense at all of the difference between Khmer Serei and the Khmer Rouge, except that one was to the right in its economics and the other to the left” (Keeley, 1985, p. 228). Thirith believes that Tao Lom should have listened to reason and not followed his fanaticism by keeping Ball. She resists Tao Lom’s decision to keep Ball (Kellerman, 2008). To maintain his standing as the leader in the movement, they would either have released Ball or fulfilled Tao Lom’s impulse to do away with him on the spot. Ball complains aloud about the Geneva Convention and the rights of prisoners. According to the 1949 Geneva Convention, civilians during the war should be protected from harm or inhumane treatment (Geneva Convention, 1949). His complaint also shows Keeley’s awareness of human rights violations and the consequences to leaders who impose them.
Thirith realizes that Tao Lom’s movement could get into trouble because of Ball. At that moment, Thirith shifts from being the follower and assumes the role of the leader; she releases Ball and lets him find his way back. She thinks about the different excuses she would give to Tao Lom and the movement about his escape. However, her actions get her into trouble, and they watch her closely afterward.
Tim arrives in Cambodia and eventually finds Thirith. Tim and his friend D.J. convince Tao Lom to let Thirith journey to America with them (Keeley, 1985). Thirith travels with them, feeling wary, and their truck becomes stuck in the mud. D.J. gets out of the truck in search of branches to help ease the problem with the mud; however, an exploding mine damages his leg. After Thirith treats his leg wound efficiently, they take him to the hospital. Thirith’s treatment for him confirms her potential for a career in the medical field. Thirith goes with them to Bangkok.
Macpherson meets with Tim and convinces him to marry Thirith for convenience in bringing her to the United States (Keeley, 1985). Tim and Thirith agree to the arrangement, and they marry and come to America, where they remain married. However, the issue of having children comes up, and Thirith does not want any, but Tim does. Thirith’s unwillingness to have children causes conflict in their marriage. At the end of the story, Sameth writes a letter to Thirith to convince her to have children.
Interestingly, the father, Tom Macpherson, and his son, Tim, also have the same first names given in The Libation, with the father being Thomas Gammon and the son, Timothy. Also, the idea of helping a teenage girl receive an education is similar in both stories. These recurring themes are interesting because they reveal a significant influence on Keeley’s life, but the source of that influence is not clear to the researcher.
Human rights violations, a recurring pattern seen in Keeley’s novels about atrocities caused by communist regimes, merit further discussion. Bandura (1999) posited that people will behave in ways stemming from the dictates of authority, “and do not feel personally responsible for their actions” (p. 196). This moral disengagement occurs because of the displacement of responsibility. Hinrichs (2007) argued that leaders could order followers to engage in unethical behavior, such as crimes of obedience, because of the power imbalance. Legitimate authority creates the obligation for followers to follow the rules, regardless of their personal preferences or interests (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989). In this novel, Keeley depicts human rights violations, as observed in Some Wine for Remembrance, which describes the massacre of women and children during World War II and the Greek Civil War. Keen to record these atrocities, Keeley succeeds in revealing them to the world through his written works.
Some Wine for Remembrance
In Keeley’s book, Some Wine for Remembrance (Keeley, 2001), he describes a retired journalist’s path in unearthing the truth behind the Chortiatis massacre, a Greek village massacre in northern Greece by Germans during World War II. Even though Keeley marked this as fiction, the Chortiatis massacre happened at the end of World War II in 1944 (Chortiatis Massacre, 2022). After King George II and his government escaped to Egypt in 1941, a central leader did not exist in Greece (Greek Civil War, 2022). Without a leader to guide them, the guerrillas and groups, like the communist ELAS, gathered strength and fought in the war. The ELAS fighters defended Greece, which was occupied by Germany, Bulgaria, and Italy at that time. Chaos reigned, and many lives were lost. The massacre of the women and children in Chortiatis affected Keeley deeply after visiting northern Greece in 1949 and witnessing the destruction's aftermath. In a 2013 YouTube interview with Greek TV, Keeley stated this about his postwar visit to Greece: “That was a devastating experience to see what had happened to so many villages” (Cultureisforall, 2019). This 2013 Greek video was uploaded to YouTube in 2019.
Interpretation and Analysis. In the story Some Wine for Remembrance (Keeley, 2001), Wittekand, an Austrian friend whom he met at a post-war conference on journalism, persuades Ripaldo, a journalist, to research the truth about the leader behind the Chortiatis massacre during the war (Keeley, 2001). Putting this into context, as the Axis powers left Greece, opposing groups within Greece began a civil war that lasted from 1943 to 1949 (Greek Civil War, 2022). A committee of journalists is alarmed that a statesman starting his campaign for a political career may have committed war crimes during the war, including the Chortiatis massacre. During the war, Herr Omega (Big O), a Wehrmacht officer and German Nazi, was stationed near that village but kept silent about his dealings during that time.
When Wittekand approaches Herr Omega (Big O) about being stationed in Arsakli near Chortiatis, Big O denies his involvement, saying he is just a scribe marking the military events. Big O states, “I never issued orders. Others issued orders. I followed orders” (p. 19). In this case, Big O was following orders. According to Bandura (1999), people will behave in ways stemming from the dictates of authority, “and do not feel personally responsible for their actions” (p. 196). This moral disengagement occurs because of the displacement of responsibility. Hinrichs (2007) argued that leaders can order followers to engage in unethical behavior because of the power imbalance. This was the case with Big O and other followers during the war. Human rights were being violated during World War II, and Keeley was keen on recording these atrocities in his story.
Through interviews, letters, and journals, Ripaldo slowly unveils the truth (Keeley, 2001). One old-timer warns him that “he wasn’t likely to get the whole truth out of anybody who survived the World War or the Civil War. It depended on your politics, he said” (p. 25). After World War II, Greece experienced internal fighting between its left and right factions, which culminated in a civil war between the Greek state and the communists. According to that old-timer, finding the truth was challenging, yet Ripaldo discovers that it is not always the case.
Vassilis Angeloudis, another person Ripaldo contacts, gives a deposition, where he declares this about what his mother told him (Keeley, 2001):
I don’t really care what you do with your life, because I have to say that I don’t expect you to do much with it. And I don’t expect you to tell me or anybody else the truth all the time. But never lie to yourself. If you can help it. (p. 27)
Vassilis continues, stating, “So I no longer lie to myself, and I will not lie to you or your machine if I can help it” (p. 27). The machine he is referring to is Ripaldo’s tape recorder. Angeloudis’s statement tells the reader that people are willing to tell the truth, and what he is about to say is true, even though this is fiction. Ripaldo intends to find out who the leader was who allowed this atrocious massacre of the women and the children to take place.
Vassilis states how soldiers are supposed to follow orders. Still, then he questions what happened by saying, “But were there orders to burn every house in the village and kill every living thing they could catch so that ashes and fragments of bone for burial and nothing else to feed the village memory?” (p. 35). His question reflects Keeley’s question of why followers commit these atrocities. Vassilis continues by agreeing to his party’s policy to eliminate the enemies by killing them, and if it meant doing so by terror, they would do it. Angeloudis states he was responsible for executions. He followed orders because he thought the “Party knew best” (p. 36). When he went to prison later by the right-wing government, it allowed him time to contemplate these things.
By the end of the deposition, Ripaldo still does not know if the Austrians or the Germans were responsible for the massacre. Vassilis mentions how he met the beautiful Marina and how she worked for the Germans after the killings. It took him ten years to convince her to marry him. Later in the story, she talks about her relationship with the blond soldier when she was young, which ties indirectly to the rest of the story.
Ripaldo also interviews Ebert, a German injured in that village during the massacre. These primary and secondary sources for Ripaldo’s research are similar to those in research studies. Ebert counters his efforts by questioning him intensely, almost mocking him; he replies to Ripaldo, “Tell your ‘we’ that I know nothing and confirm nothing. I protect only myself. Though of course I refuse to belong to those who betray what they once believed when the political wind turns in another direction” (p. 192). Ripaldo replies (Keeley, 2001):
It’s not a question of betrayal … It’s a question of honesty. Of integrity. Of - how can I put it? - of being responsible for what one has done and acknowledging the truth of one’s past instead of living a lie. (p. 192)
Ripaldo’s reply, as he speaks about truth, integrity, and responsibility, reveals components of a leader’s character. These character traits described by Keeley in his writing help give the reader a glimpse into his leadership style, even indirectly. It could be that this dialogue also hinted at Keeley’s beliefs in morality. In this scene, Keeley could have been Ripaldo.
Believing that the Big O was the leader in charge of the massacre, Ripaldo attends a play and accosts him there. His life is spared, but Wittekand’s committee no longer wants him to research this man. Big O wants Ripaldo discredited, saying he was not there during the massacre. In the end, Ripaldo never really gets the man, but the novel is a form of information that reveals human rights violations.
Keeley published this novel after having been president of PEN America. He may have been more tuned into the human rights situation because of PEN America’s focus on human rights. This theme of human rights violations is a recurring theme in Keeley’s writing and appears in Keeley’s A Wilderness Called Peace. The topic of followers committing atrocities can be explained by moral disengagement, as described by Bandura (1999). People behaving under the dictates of authority “do not feel personally responsible for their actions” (p. 196). This moral disengagement occurs because of the displacement of responsibility. Hinrichs (2007) argued that leaders could order followers to engage in unethical behavior because of the power imbalance. Although what the followers did during the war was not directly linked to Keeley’s leadership style, it revealed his compassion for exposing the truth during the war.
The Megabuilders of Queenston Park
This 2014 novel was published two years after Keeley’s wife, Mary, passed away. Keeley was 86 and felt isolated after her death, so he moved to Princeton Windrows’ adult community (personal communication, June 19, 2021). Although The Megabuilders of Queenston Park was written as a novel, much of it was taken from Keeley’s experience while his wife was still alive. The story relates to his ranch home in Princeton, New Jersey, the enormous building next to his house, and the new construction developed in his neighborhood (Dube, 2014; Persico, 2014). Also, several passages throughout this novel focus on change, democratic leadership, communication with followers, strategy, and politics (Bolea & Atwater, 2016). Through actions and dialogue, Keeley revealed these leadership characteristics. He knew how to apply leadership through his writing and address the issues involved with it.
Interpretation and Analysis. When the Solar Estates executive approaches Cassie and Nick Mandeville to tear down their property and build a new one, a much larger one, like the new McMansion in their Queenston Park neighborhood, they become alarmed (Keeley, 2014). They have lived in their ranch home, built around World War II, for over thirty years. It has a sizeable lot near Princeton University, where Nick has worked for many years.
The Solar Estates construction company comprises Randy Parker and his son, Tim Parker. Randy Parker visits Nick and Cassie Mandeville to convince them to sell their home so his company can tear it down and build a modern house on the property. The couple is not as interested in selling their home when they agree to his visit, but want to know more about him because of an ancient Greek saying, “know your enemy” (Keeley, 2014, p. 24). From this small phrase, Keeley shares with the reader the real reason the Mandevilles have allowed this visit; they look at Randy as an ‘enemy.’ Vygotsky (1962) argued that one needs to know the motivation behind speech, which answers the question of the “why” of their speech. The Mandevilles agreed to the visit by Randy Parker and privately shared that “thought” about him being the enemy with the reader, but they did not share that thought with Parker. Tension is brewing underneath the surface. This novel addresses several negative factors that result from this change, such as living in one’s home for many years and having to leave, the environmental impact from the construction of the larger houses, flooding potential, and pollution from the nearby brook.
Keeley switches to Randy Parker’s point of view, making Parker the main character instead of a minor character. This allows the reader to be privy to Parker’s thoughts and observe his depth of feelings and know-how in thinking like a leader. Parker wants to convince the Mandevilles with facts about their aging property, but realizes people could also be sentimental. He fails to persuade them the first time. Madsen, Cameron, and Miller (2006) assert that organizational change interventions cannot be successful unless a change occurs in the individual. For change to happen, an individual’s readiness for change (RFC) must emerge. In addition, Parker’s role adds ambiguity to the story. His role is not black-and-white, where he can be seen as the villain by the reader. His feelings and thoughts about his wife and son complicate his character.
After that visit, Randy Parker attempts a second chance and returns to the Mandeville home with more ammunition, including his wife Edna, son Tim, and wife Sheila (Keeley, 2014). Parker assumes his wife could charm the couple, and his son could cool the sentiment; this passage implies that Parker’s wife is charismatic and successful in leading. Cassie accepts the second visit after Nick mentions that this visit would allow Randy Parker to “rectify what he’d call an apparent failure of communication between them, a misunderstanding of shared prospects” (p. 39). This second visit fails to convince the Mandeville couple to sell their property. Instead, it pushes them to become more involved in the neighborhood by attending the next Township Meeting with their neighbors. Their actions imply that the Township is a democratically run organization.
Nick decides that by attending the Township Meeting with his wife over the installation of sidewalks, they could bring up the issue of Solar Estates’ new construction. Their actions suggest a democratic approach, where the followers have a voice in the decision-making (Bass, 2008). He and Cassie have never become involved in these meetings before. Nick heard rumors that several people from the neighborhood “were planning to show up at the Township Meeting to protest. Great. Local democracy in action” (Keeley, 2014, p. 36). Resistance to change is one thing that leaders must overcome to convince their followers to move forward (Kotter, 1996). Keeley portrays the step-by-step process of resistance by the couple and others in their neighborhood to the construction company.
At the Township Meeting, Cassie stood up and spoke about her views on the McMansion (Keeley, 2014). The mayor at the meeting is the only one who opposes her, saying there are two sides to this issue; the owners who sold their properties to the Solar Estates also have a democratic right. Here, the mayor could represent Keeley’s point of view, who also tends to see two sides to an issue.
After the meeting, the builder, Randy Parker, sees the newspaper article about his McMansion, causing the neighbors to boil and think about what to do. He believes, “It came down to a matter of strategy. Criticize your potential clients, even if you think them your enemies, and you end up sounding defensive. If you’re going to take a stand… keep on the offensive” (p. 58). Here, Keeley uses Randy’s point of view, showing his vision and goals. Randy continues his strategic thinking in the following passage (Keeley, 2014):
Maybe the best you can do is write a letter to the editor in a more or less conciliatory tone, simple language, simple truth, something about your not having intended to offend anyone with your comments in an interview you hadn’t solicited, your intention being merely to point out that there is a demand for luxury homes in Princeton, New Jersey, and good market opportunities for most anybody living there. (p. 59)
Providing the opponent’s (Randy Parker) thoughts to the reader reveals the complex thinking that a leader goes through, as Keeley did in writing this separate viewpoint. He understood him. Keeley went one step further and defined Solar Estate’s mission as “community improvement in the American way of responsible free enterprise in a democratic society” (Keeley, 2014, p. 59). One of the essential rules of a leader is to maintain their organization’s mission (Northouse, 2019). Again, the word democratic appears here.
In another passage in this book, the reader observes Cassie’s viewpoint as she wonders about her paranoia and recalls the junta in Greece and its ‘bad government’ during the student uprising at the Polytechnic and “how the dictatorship could work on your psyche” (Keeley, 2014, p. 67). More on this 1967-1974 dictatorship is revealed in the 2019 article by Chrysopoulos. These lasting effects of a corrupt government are a warning by Keeley on how much damage such a government can inflict on its citizens.
The story continues, emphasizing the environmental land erosion and flooding that the construction could cause. Randy’s son, Tim, disappears after Cassie voices what seems like a threat, and the police are on her tail. Nick uses detective thinking to find Tim and uncover the truth based on a hunch. Ultimately, Nick and Cassie stay at home and do not leave.
Several events that point to leadership happened in this story. Randy Parker owned a construction company with his son, Tim Parker. Randy was a leader and did several things to communicate with and influence the Mandevilles to see his mission or goal in building new construction in their neighborhood. Therefore, one primary focus of his was to convince them to see the benefits of selling their home to him, such as making money from the sale. Still, having attached sentimental or intrinsic value to their home made it difficult for him to overcome.
Bolea and Atwater’s J-Curve Leadership Model (2016) can apply to this novel. The first few elements toward mastering leadership are setting the direction and building a team. Randy Parker has done that already with the direction he wants to take his construction company, and he has gathered a team that includes his wife, son, and daughter-in-law. Looking at the third element of this model, shaping the identity and purpose of the organization, Parker must address the possibility of interference from competing or resistant minds (Kellerman, 2008). He first reaches out to the Mandevilles to communicate his vision. He convinced their neighbor down the street to sell their home, but in this case, not the Mandevilles. Parker must use different tactics to change their minds. He brings his family with him on the second visit, hoping they will use their charm to change the Mandevilles’ minds, but that fails, too. When his son Tim disappears, it shows a rift in their relationship. This rift would be considered a low point in the J-Curve Leadership Model (Bolea & Atwater, 2016). For his construction company to move forward or upward, Parker must build trust and nurture relationships with his clients or followers (Grisham, 2006). Having conversations with the Mandevilles is how Randy builds trust, an essential characteristic of a leader (Grisham, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Nick’s readiness to serve Randy by hunting down his son, Tim, in Washington, D.C., shows a connection with Randy. By the end of the story, the Mandevilles make peace with the fact that even if Randy’s company leaves town, someone else will come in their place and build.
References
Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. (1998). Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. Ambassador Robert V. Keeley interview. https://www.adst.org/OH%20TOCs/Keeley,%20Robert%20V%20.toc.pdf?_ga=2.258735885.649523858.1530108519-1308586563.1517517701
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc. Publishers.
Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Badaracco, J. (2006). Questions of character. Harvard University Press.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (4th ed.). Free Press.
Biography. (2014, April 2). Pol Pot biography. https://www.biography.com/political-figure/pol-pot
Bolea, A., & Atwater, L. (2016). Applied leadership development. Routledge.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row, Publishers.
Chortiatis Massacre. (2022, March 28). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chortiatis_massacre
Cultureisforall. (2019) Edmund Keeley interview. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ei1vhyn6M
Dube, I. (2014). Novel taps into the backlash over McMansions. The Artful Blogger. https://whyy.org/articles/novel-taps-into-the-backlash-over-mcmansions/
Geneva Convention. (1949, August 12). Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf
Gilstrap, C. A., & Morris, A. (2015). Role fluidity and emergent leadership. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(3), 153–173. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1730193834?accountid=10378&pq-origsite=primo&forcedol=true
Greek Civil War. (2022). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War
Greek Junta. (2022). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta#Coup_d'état_of_21_April
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Greenleaf Center.
Grisham, T. (2006). Metaphor, poetry, storytelling, and cross-cultural leadership. Management Decision, 44(4), 486-503. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610663027
Hinrichs, K. T. (2007). Follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071791907304225
Isaacs, A. R. (1985). Corruption, Cruelty, Cambodia. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/07/books/cooruption-cruelty-cambodia.html
Kalima Quotes (2022). Abraham Lincoln. https://www.kalimaquotes.com/quotes/128/all-i-have-learned-i
Keeley, E. (1958). The libation. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Keeley, E. (1972). Voyage to a dark island. Curtis Books.
Keeley, E. (1985). A wilderness called peace. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Keeley, E. (2001). Some wine for remembrance. White Pine Press.
Keeley, E. (2005). Borderlines: A memoir. White Pine Press.
Keeley, E. (2014). The megabuilders of Queenston Park. Wild River Books.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership. Harvard Business School Press.
Kellerman, B. (2010). Leadership: Essential selections on power, authority, and influence. McGraw Hill.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. Yale University Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzM1MDUyX19BTg2?sid=0566483d-73f9-405a-9c29-1a539be5293b@sessionmgr102&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Madsen, S. R., Cameron, R. J., Miller, D. (2006). Influential factors in individual readiness for change. Journal of Business and Management, 12(2), 93-114. http://jbm.johogo.com/pdf/volume/1202/1202-93-110.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. (8th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
PEN America (2012, October 26). Edmund Keeley: PEN President from 1991 to 1993. https://pen.org/multimedia/edmund-keeley-pen-president-from-1991-1993/
Persico, J. J. (2014). Princeton professor emeritus takes tongue-in-cheek approach in novel about local real estate. Times of Trenton. https://www.nj.com/mercer/2014/05/princeton_professor_emeritus_takes_tongue-in-cheek_approach_in_novel_about_local_real_estate.html
Princeton University Library. (2021, June 25). Library access. https://library.princeton.edu/services/access
Princeton University Library. (2022). Edmund Keeley papers. https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9911279133506421
Sample, S. (2002). The contrarian’s guide to leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Shoup, J. R., & Hinrichs, T. W. (2020). Literature and leadership: The role of the narrative in organizational sensemaking. Routledge.
Social Networks and Archival Context. (n.d.) Keeley, Edmund. https://snaccooperative.org/view/28696297
Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Kelle
Vygotsky, Lev. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Weber, M. (1968). The concept of legitimate order. In S. N. Eisenstadt (Ed.). Max Weber on charisma and institution building; Selected papers. University of Chicago Press.
Weber, M. (1978a). The types of legitimate domination. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: Volume 1 (pp. 212-299). University of California Press.
Weber, M. (1978b). Charisma and its transformation. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: Volume 2 (pp. 1111-1157). University of California Press.
----------------
No comments:
Post a Comment