Dorothy Danaher White

This article focuses on the issues faced by leaders in the past and how they relate to issues here in the present. The concentration will be leadership, administration, and governance. Through an examination of leadership transitions, initiatives, and issues, the learner hopes to develop a greater appreciation of the complexity of various situations involving authority and the limits thereof and the range of knowledge, skills, and expertise needed by effective leaders.

The leadership provided by the Earl of Warwick during the turbulent War of Roses between the House of Lancaster and the House of York in fifteenth-century England is instructive, as put forth in Warwick the Kingmaker (Kendall), and King Edward IV (Ross). Rather than focusing on the Kings involved, this discussion attends to another example of national leadership.  The Earl of Warwick never became King himself, but he did serve as the de facto ruler of England as advisor to a very youthful King Edward IV for a period of three years. The Earl is called the Kingmaker because he used both the power of negotiation and persuasion, as well as force of arms, to place King Edward IV on the throne.

The Earl of Warwick is an historical figure who embodied the “knight in shining armor” image so often referred to even in today’s modern parlance. He was born in, in the year 1428 (Kendall,). At that time, there was almost no distinction between the leader and the armed force that backed him or her up. In many cases, if not most, the leader led the armed force directly. In modern times, in the United States, the European Union, and other well-established and organized societies such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, the leader relies on a specialized military force led by generals to enforce the power structure that maintains the hierarchy that the leader rests upon. In the England of the middle ages, however, it was often necessary for the leader to wield the sword him or herself.

This lesson from history will be discussed from two perspectives. The first will be an analysis based on leadership theories from French and Raven, Fisher, Wheatley, and Pate . The second will be an analysis based on human development theories from Bowman and Commons (Commons, et al). Although it is not possible to present all the historical detail so beautifully presented by Kendall in his book Warwick the Kingmaker, an attempt was made to present enough information to illustrate the Earl of Warwick’s amazing use of advanced reasoning to create new military equipment and strategy, and to then combine this military advantage with a new level of advanced statesmanship.

The Earl of Warwick and the Bases of Social Power

French and Raven presented a potent description of the structure of how leaders gain and maintain power:  Expert, referent, legitimate, charismatic, reward, and coercion.

Expert power is based on the knowledge and expertise of a leader. A follower is more likely to accept leadership from a person whom he or she believes has special knowledge or expertise about a particular issue. According to Kendall, the Earl of Warwick had a great deal of expertise in the arts of war and diplomacy – skills he started developing at a young age.

Richard Neville, later to become the Earl of Warwick, grew up in a society that was becoming more and more difficult to govern. Kendall describes the government of the King as lacking in “both moral authority and force.” Feudal ties were no longer able to hold the realm together, and each lord was obliged to raise and maintain armed forces loyal to them. Richard’s father, the Earl of Salisbury, used this system of ‘livery and maintenance’ to protect his estates. According to Kendall, Richard was helping his father command the garrisons of Carlisle and smaller outposts before his 18^th birthday. He also helped his father lead raids to punish sheep-stealing and village-burning. In addition, young Richard helped his father negotiate breaches of the truce with Scots envoys. In 1446 he was appointed joint warden with his father and had already earned the spurs of knighthood (Kendall, pp. 20-21)

French and Raven define referent power as the admiration the follower has for the leader. This base of power can be developed and nurtured through personal relationships with others. Referent power can also be enhanced by raising the status of the leader. Someone who has achieved a measure of fame and glory can achieve a high level of referent power. Although Richard Neville had attained a certain amount of admiration as a young man while under his father’s tutelage, he had to go on to earn admiration in his own right.

Legitimate power is the power inherent in a leader’s official title. It is derived from the follower’s belief that the leader has the legitimate right or authority to assume a particular position of leadership. Much of the strength of this power is based on the follower’s values regarding the rights of the leaders as defined by a particular code. If the follower fails to acknowledge the leader’s authority based on a particular code that has meaning for that follower, there will be no power behind the official title.

The Earl of Warwick derived his legitimate authority from both wealth and the large amount of territory he commanded. In July of 1449, Richard Neville was named Earl of Warwick, through his marriage. He then became the master of the Beauchamp estates, baron of Elmley and Hanslape, lord of Glamorgan and Morgannoc. All of his land was located between South Wales through Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire, including almost a hundred manors and twenty castles. Over fifty estates were scattered in the counties of Warwick, Oxford, Hertford, Northampton, Nottingham, Stafford, Rutland, Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Devon, and Cornwall, and in the far North he owned Barnard Castle, a stronghold perched high above the Tees.

In addition to possessing legitimacy in his own right, Warwick chose to back a person of great legitimate authority – Richard, Duke of York, as King of England. York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, Edward III’s second son, as well as from Edward’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley. Thus, h was considered by many to have a better title to the crown than Henry VI himself, who descended from Edward’s fourth son, John of Gauntlet. York’s legitimacy was also enhanced by his holding of the largest estate in England. In addition, the Duke of York had a connection by marriage with the Nevilles, who were the most powerful family group in England at the time (Kendall, pp. 22-23).

French and Raven define reward power as the ability of the leader to bestow upon his or her followers either material rewards or rewards of social status and or actual authority. The Earl of Warwick had a very dramatic style. He led his men bravely and with honor, which provided the rewards of status, given that battles of that day were fought wearing shining armor, trumpeted by heralds and decorated with banners. The following is an account of one of Warwick’s first major battles, a War of the Roses battle between the Yorkists (Red rose) and the Lancastrians (White rose), in St. Albans, in the year 1455. “Shouts of triumph sounded in the lanes. York and Salisbury had smashed across the barriers and were driving Somerset’s men before them. St. Peter’s Street was a hell of swords and glaives and whining arrows. Warwick was clearing a path so that his archers could fire toward the market place. There stood a ring of mailed nobles surrounding the King’s banner and the slight figure of Henry himself. Spare the commons! Warwick was shouting. Aim for the lords!’” (Kendall, p. 28).

In addition to being rewarded by the status of fighting a royal battle in which they were able to capture King Henry, Warwick’s men also were encouraged by his emphasis on attacking the leadership rather than the followers. Although he himself was a member of the aristocracy, the Earl of Warwick was able to arouse public sympathy by such tactics. The Lancastrians had made themselves vulnerable by misusing their authority to loot towns and villages. The Lancastrians also used other nefarious and illegal ways to appropriate property. Warwick, on the other hand, not only paid his men well but allowed them to loot the goods of his enemy lords rather than take from the commoners. In fact, after King Henry was captured, “While Warwick, York, and Salisbury were escorting the King to the abbey, their men happily pillaged the baggage and appropriated the horses of the Lancastrian Lords” (Kendall, p. 30).

It is important to note that Warwick, York, and Salisbury held onto their legitimate power even while attacking the King, because they drafted a document justifying their actions and even enclosed a manifesto as evidence that they were appropriately asserting their authority: “Warwick, York, and Salisbury drew up an appeal to their sovereign, declaring that for their own safety and the Kings they were coming to him, armed in order to dispel the lies of their enemies . . . . On the evening of May 21 they sent a second appeal to the King, enclosing a copy of the Royston manifesto. They may as well have saved ink and parchment, for Somerset pocketed both communications” (Kendall, p. 27).

The above example of the War of the Roses battle at St. Albans is illustrative of the use of coercive power as well as reward power. French and Raven define coercive power as the ability of the supervisor to punish subordinates with disciplinary actions, fines, firing, or salary reductions. Organizations differ in the extent to which supervisors can give out punishments and rewards. In private companies it is not unusual for a supervisor to be able to give raises and promotions to a subordinate. In government organizations, an individual supervisor might not be able to do so because these rewards are determined by legislative action.

Government was structured differently back in the Middle Ages, but in England there was a still a sensibility in the populace that the actions of their nobles should derive from divine authority. One of the Earl of Warwick’s great strengths was that his military strikes were well-planned in terms of battlefield logistics and using the most up-to-date technology available in his day. Another one of his strengths is that he relied upon negotiation in the beginning of disputes, documented this negotiation, and turned to military action as a last resort. The Earl of Warwick inspired his men to go into battle with his vision of a better England. Leaders today could take advantage of this lesson from the distant past – followers do better when they feel inspired and uplifted by their mission.

One modern leadership theorist that advises modern leaders to avoid depending on authority is James Fisher. Fisher’s theory emphasizes over and over again in his book, Positive Power: Your Path to a Higher Leadership Profile, the importance of relating well to others with vision and inspiration, with persuasion, rather than the strong arm of authoritarianism. “Power is the ability of A to persuade B to do something B might otherwise not do (p. 15).” Organizations, especially modern nation states, are very diverse, with citizens at different educational levels, in different occupations, in different ethnic groups, in different religious groups, and different locations, even living outside their country of origin and/or citizenship. Trying to impose authority under such circumstances is often going to be counterproductive.

Although it is tempting to characterize the societies of the past as being homogeneous, England in the Middle Ages was actually quite diverse. The Earl of Warwick was a successful leader in large part because he embraced this diversity, and, in fact, made it work to his advantage. Across the English Channel, on the coast of what is today modern France, England actually had control over the province of Calais. This control was precarious when the Earl of Warwick became Captain in 1456. Calais was important commercially, in particular because of the wool trade, as well as being perceived as an English foothold in French territory. However, the English court had been weakened by corruption and there were not enough funds to keep the military force on land or on the seas strong enough to defend the territory (Kendall, p.37).

The Yorkist Earl of Warwick negotiated with Parliament to secure funds to pay the wages of the soldiers by threatening not to assume the post of Captain of Calais at all. The Lancastrian Queen, enraged by this maneuvering, hastily created a special court to remove him, but then lost credibility when a member of this same court imprisoned a justice. The Queen’s misuse of her political power in a coercive manner, as well as the unjust coercion practiced by a member of her court, resulted in her failure to oust the Earl. The Earl of Warwick went on to transcend the boundaries of custom and tradition to forge an alliance with the Duke of Burgundy, who had an intense rivalry with the French King. Warwick was thus able to insulate himself from the Lancastrians in Calais, allowing the Yorkist cause to strengthen across the channel in England.

Fisher carefully defines the difference between management and leadership. He states that while “good management is important, it is not leadership… We do not need dictatorial ‘expert –Rocky type jungle fighters, or completely conforming creative organization types…” (p. 55-56). In Fisher’s terms, the Lancastrian Queen behaved like a “jungle fighter” while the Earl of Warwick used “vision and inspiration” to win the day.

Robert H. Pate is also quite clear on the difference between authority and leadership. He is actually more critical of authority than Fisher, which is clear from the tone of his definition of authority. “Based upon my direct observations, authority grants the legitimate right of a leader to entice, even force, others to do what is considered important to achieve” (p. 2). He contrasts the system of authority with the ideal system of leadership based on inspiration, and gives a thorough description of each one of these different systems. In fact, Pate contrasts and compares these two systems to inspire the reader to try methods of leadership based on the ideal system.

Pate, as does Fisher, goes on to offer an alternative way for leaders to achieve their goals for an organization. The alternative way for Pate is to be rewarded with obedience and loyalty by one’s followers through inspiration. He gives Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples of these kinds of leaders. Pate points out that their followers invest in a leader because they believe the leader will guide them towards successful achievement of their goals. These goals don’t have to involve direct material reward. The hoped for reward for the followers of Ghandi was freedom from the tyranny of the British Crown (p. 2).  India did achieve independence from Britain after the movement inspired by Ghandi.

The Earl of Warwick certainly was not non-violent, but he did pave the way for the more just and non-violent societies that were to evolve in the future. By using his skills and negotiation to build alliances across cultural boundaries, the Earl of Warwick was not only able to pay the soldiers of Calais but increase their number and inspire their loyalty. Unlike other nobles of his day, the Earl of Warwick did not look down upon merchants. This openness and creativity helped to consolidate his position in Calais, and ultimately, the Yorkist position. “The merchants, impressed by his zeal to ensure the safety of their trade, were not long in opening their purses to him, nor did he hesitate to deplete his own funds to eke out the slender supply provided by the government. Quickly perceiving the importance of the Kentish ports to his position, he set about making friends in Dover and Sandwich and Lydd and Romney.”

The Earl of Warwick was also flexible and creative in learning new skills from those with less status and authority: “He enlisted shipmasters to teach him the arts of navigation and marine warfare. In those days, naval tactics were simple and direct: A fierce game of ram, board, and overpower. He was soon as much at home on ships as at the head of an armed cavalcade. He had quickly grasped that the offensive strength of Calais lay in its command of the sea…” (Kendally, pp. 40-41).

The modern leadership theorist Margaret Wheatley would have applauded the Yorkist Earl’s creativity and original approach to both politics and warfare. Wheatley’s assertion that imposing an old-fashioned, rigid model from outside is not healthy for an organization is in accordance with Fisher’s theory distinguishing management from persuasion. Wheatley cites definitions of intelligence related to the ability to process information effectively. Wheatley challenges organizations to avoid rigid hierarchies of command that stifle honest feedback and discussion. She states that employees need to be able to interpret more complex information and to be more skilled in order for organizations to succeed in the modern world. Wheatley states that we should be reassured that the notion of “permeable boundaries” in our organizations is less frightening if we remember that we have “deep support” from natural processes (p. 112).

The Earl of Warwick was quite adept at recognizing changing trends and was able to adapt with remarkable speed. Early in his career, when he was Captain of Calais, his rapid but well-informed transformation from foot soldier to sailor was soon tested, and his new little fleet of only five ships performed remarkably well. He first assumed command in the fall of 1456 and in the spring of 1458 the Calais flotilla was attacked by Spain: “The Earl of Warwick had never fought at sea. He was woefully overmatched. He immediately gave the order to attack. At a signal from the flagship, his little squadron, marshaled in tight formation, changed course. Headed by the five men-of-war, it sailed directly for the heart of the enemy line” (Kendall, p. 42).

Although this course of action might seem rash, upon closer examination the Earl of Warwick was well prepared for this encounter: “The Earl stood beneath his banner on the forecastle, men-at-arms and master mariners gathered about him. Gunners waited by the scattering of cannon mounted on the decks. Archers and pikemen braced themselves against the shock of ramming” (Kendall, p. 42). At the end of the six hour battle, the Spanish were forced to retreat. They had lost a total of eight ships, two of which had sunk and the other two now in the possession of the Earl of Warwick. The Spanish had also lost 200 hundred men to the Earl’s eighty, and the Earl had managed to keep all of his ships (Kendall, p. 43).

Wheatley uses the example of computer programs that plot chaotic relationships that ultimately turn into patterns. Wheatley encourages us to think in terms of shapes, not facts. Wheatley draws on personal experience with organizations in which she can detect corporate culture by interacting with any employee in the hierarchy. The above example illustrates how the Earl of Warwick effectively met the needs of all the parties concerned with his goal of successfully defending Calais, from Kings to soldiers to merchants to ship masters.

Wheatley describes how organizations become shaped over time and that organizations must not only make mission statements, but also be true to them. It can be humbling to admit that old ideas are ineffective. Wheatley relies an a charming writing style using illustrations of beautiful patterns drawn from the study of the natural world to engage the reader.  These charming illustrations are obviously intended to persuade readers that the virtues of the ideal system she is proposing are more attractive than whatever false security the old system offers.  Wheatley’s illustrations are reminiscent of the banners and ceremonial uniforms used by the Earl of Warwick to charm Kings as well as inspire loyalty from his men.

Developmental Theory and the Earl of Warwick

The venerable Earl of Warwick’s leadership skills certainly met good leadership criteria laid out by modern leadership theorists Fisher, Pate, and Wheatley. However, how does the Earl measure up in terms of the advanced stages of adult development as measured by the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (see Table I)? Ardith Bowman ( explored the relationship between organizational change and the developmental stages of employees and shed light on the relationship between leadership and the employee’s developmental stage, albeit indirectly. Bowman asked, “What kind of change in behavior is generally expected of employees in restructured organizational cultures?” (Bowman, p.1) According to theorists cited by Bowman, Kanter, Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford and Weisbord, an ideal employee is multiskilled, adaptable to change, independent thinking, risk-taking, willing to participate in decision-making and problem-solving, and able to reflect and act upon processes that affect the quality of an organization’s products and/or services.

The Earl of Warwick certainly participated and in fact paved the way for organizational change in 15^th century England and France. According to Kendall, it is important to study the Earl of Warwick because he was “a Western European man, and in him lies concentrated the reason why that small corner of the earth, in the four centuries after his death, came to dominate all the rest. The waning Middle Ages, flushed with the germinating forces of the Renaissance, produced a blaze of princes. Warwick stands at the center of a great political duel-the first fire of nationalism-waged by Edward IV of England, Charles, Duke of Burgundy, and Louis XI of France (Kendall, pp. 12-13).

Bowman turned to the field of adult developmental theory and discovered these same qualities are desirable in employees in an organization committed to change. Certainly part of the Earl of Warwick’s skill set – i.e., multiskilled, adaptable to change, independent thinking, risk-taking, committed to decision-making and problem-solving, and able to reflect and act upon processes that affect the quality of an organization’s products and/or services – also are reflected in the higher stages of adult development (then known as the General Stage Model, Commons, et al,). Bowman cites Rulon, a developmental theorist who asserted that the quality and quantity of perspective-taking, complexity of conflicts, level of responsibility, and participation define the socio-moral complexity of a job (p. 24). Bowman also cites two other developmental theorists (Demick and Miller,) who edited a volume devoted to developmental psychology and the work environment.

Bowman was seeking to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding employee performance and how it is “shaped by organizational work practices” (p. 10). Bowman cites Warr and Conner on a relationship between the cognitive demands of a work project and the thought processes of the employee. Bowman noted that as work demands in contemporary organizations become more complex and challenging, it would follow that employee reasoning in the workplace must also become more complex. Bowman went on to cite theorists who had found a relationship between cognitive functioning in the workplace and cognitive development (Streufert & Swezey; Vogt & Murrell; Demick & Miller).

The evolution of English and French society from medieval to renaissance certainly fits the criteria for organizational change. Trying to impose a reliance on authority was already becoming counterproductive by the 15^th century.  Those with a higher level of reasoning, such as the Earl of Warwick, were able to assert themselves through an evolving form of adult reasoning that needed to be at the metasystematic stage or above. Advanced stages of reasoning were needed to create the new social structures that evolved at the time, including new military technology.

As the War of Roses became more heated in the early 1460’s, in an attempt to ambush the Lancastrian Queen, the Earl of Warwick spent four days constructing elaborate defense works that had never been used before. The archers were given large mobile shields with swinging “doors” through which the arrows could be shot and then closed for protection. These “pavisses” were studded with threepenny nails so when they were rushed by the enemy, the archers could throw them down as mantraps. Accessible points of attack were guarded by thick-corded nets, festooned with nails, and to protect the soldiers from cavalry, wooden lattices, also studded with nails, were placed strategically. Caltrops, or iron hedgehogs with points damaging to man and horse were also placed at possible avenues of attack. The Earl of Warwick also had artillery along with handguns of the Burgundian contingent, which shot lead pellets or iron-tipped arrows –very advanced for that day (Kendall, pp. 92-93).

The above innovations relied on the Earl’s ability to coordinate information and ideas from a variety of sources. At the metasystematic stage of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, at least two systems of formal propositions from the systematic stage (the previous stage), are compared on the basis of system properties and hierarchically ordered. One system is the target–in this case, traditional military strategy and apparatus, and the other is the system to be transformed–advanced, novel military strategy and equipment. The subject is able to identify transformational rules for changing the system to be transformed into the target system–the Earl of Warwick consulted with masters of the appropriate trades as well as studying the art of war in order to combine the various systems to create a novel and formidable system of defense.

The Earl of Warwick’s statesmanship also continued to evolve, aided by his military genius. In 1462, the Lancastrians again organized to attack the Yorkists. The Earl helped build and cement alliances with Lords Ogle, Strange, Say, Grey of Wilton, Lumley to field a host of knights attacked Bamburgh castle. The Earl of Kent and Lord Scales lay siege to Alnwick Castle and the Earl of Worcester led armies to fight Dustanburgh. Although the Earl of Warwick had to defeat castles that were on high cliffs and virtually impregnable by the traditional technology available at that time, he employed a very modern system of daily accountability to ensure that each of these three siege armies were supplied with food, munitions, and reinforcements.

The Lancastrians were not able to equal this complex system of alliances and military technology. They continued to rely on old methods and eventually their resources were exhausted. However, rather than use his military might to crush them, the Earl of Warwick offered them peace on generous terms. (Kendall, p 118-119). The Lancastrians did rally again, find more allies, such as the Scots, and strike a few more times, but the Earl of Warwick gained stronger allies. He was able to attract these stronger allies and legitimize his authority by pointing out the failings of the current King. King Henry was then suffering from mental illness, which perhaps explains why he allowed the excesses and illegal activity of the Queen. The Earl of Warwick was thus able to garner the support of commoners, including merchants. Warwick was also able to attract the more modern members of the aristocracy to his cause, and continued to press his advantage until King Edward IV took the throne.

King Edward was a powerful warrior. However, this young king was only 18 years of age when he became ruler of England, and he relied heavily of the Earl of Warwick. At the time King Edward ascended to the throne, the Earl of Warwick was considered the defacto ruler of England. This arrangement lasted for the next three years. During that time, documents were sent to both the Earl of Warwick and the King Edward, and the King deferred to the Earl in almost all matters. Eventually the Earl of Warwick fell out of favor with the King and then out of power. However, the Yorkist military and administrative achievement laid the groundwork for a much stronger England. This stronger England eventually evolved into the British Empire and produced the American Colonies. France and other European societies were also pushed into modernization by forces within and without her borders, but the English system was intricately intertwined with these systems.

The conflict between the old, authoritarian systems and more modern systems of government eventually produced two World Wars. Popular culture tends to focus only on those more spectacular and much more fatal events and ignore the conflicts that preceded them, but there is much to be learned from the earlier time periods as well.

Lessons for Modern Leadership

Although it is tempting to romanticize the past and to assume that knights were involved in simplistic exercises such as defending their own castles or laying siege to others, an in depth analysis of history reveals that the knights of old had to modernize and develop systems of both military strategy and equipment, as well as legal systems in order to succeed. The leaders and their knights who did not modernize, the Lancastrians, lost to those who did, the Yorkists. Overall, the pace of change in the Middle Ages and later the Renaissance might seem quiet compared to our recent history, but the basic principles of leadership are the same.

To briefly revisit the modern leadership theorists mentioned above, though Pate does not refer to developmental theory, the leadership style he advocates in accordance with the more advanced stages of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity–metasystematic reasoning and above (See Table I). Wheatley’s leadership style also reflects these advanced stages. Wheatley’s theory is also in accordance with Bowman’s assertion that the effective functioning of complex organizations requires advanced levels of reasoning.

Even in the distant past, in the Age of Chivalry, under the leadership of the Earl of Warwick and later King Edward the IV, the Yorkists formed a new and more complex form of government that employed a superior military, appealed to popular sentiment and created a more evolved legal system. The Yorkists ensured that all of their actions were supported by legal reasoning and written decrees. The Lancastrians tried to answer these legal assertions and military advances by relying on out-moded tradition, but their efforts were clumsy by comparison. Eventually support for the Lancastrians and their old-fashioned ways eroded.

By combining advanced military strategy with the ability to cross cultural barriers such as social status, language and geography, the Earl of Warwick was able to combine various systems to produce a new and improved system that has continued to evolve to create the powerful, if flawed, European Union and the United States of America. Rather tthan consign the lessons learned during such turbulent times to dusty books studied only by historians, modern leadership theorists would do well to take note in order to prepare for the next set of challenges, whatever they may be.

References

Bowman, A. (1996). The relationship between organizational work practices and employee performance: Through the lens of adult development. (Doctoral dissertation: The Fielding Institute, Alameda, CA). DAI-B 57/04, p. 2901, Oct 1996. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from http://www.tui.edu/library/loginRedirect.asp?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=742631421&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=68174&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Commons,M. el. al (2007). Applications for the Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System. (HCSS). Available from Dare Institute, Commons@tiac.net, or Http://dareassociation.org/.

Fisher, J. (2002). Positive Power: Your Path to a Higher Leadership Profile. Provo, Utah: Executive Excellence Publishing

French, J. and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Kendall, P. (1957). Warwick: The Kingmaker. London: Phoenix Press.

Pate, R. (1995). Some observations of successful leaders and their use of power and authority. Journal of Counseling & Development, Nov/Dec95, Vol. 74 Issue 2.

Ross, C.. (1974). Edward the IV. St. Great Britain. Edmundsbury Press, Ltd.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

 About the Author

Dorothy Danaher White, Ed.D., graduated from Harvard University and works as a psychologist for various rehabilitation centers located in Miami. Dr. White currently serves as Editor of Adult Development, the journal for the Society for Research in Adult Development, which publishes papers about adult and adolescent cognitive development. She is a main contributor to the scoring system known as the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, originally developed by Michael Commons, Ph.D. at the DARE Institute. Her article in Developmental Psychology on cognitive differences with regard to gender in children has been well cited and earned her an entry in Who’s Who. Dr. White also contributed to the development of a new instrument to measure adult cognitive development which was featured in Discover Magazine.