Integrative Leadership Analysis of the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: Join us to Prevent the next Tragedy

Team Emerald Karyn Berg Tom Erickson Elizabeth Hoepner Pano Liao Nick Wallace Amy Walsh

Case Description On December 14, 2012 a young man armed with three semi-automatic weapons entered Sandy Hook Elementary School (Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?, 2013). He shot and killed twenty children and six adults (The Associated Press, 2013). In the aftermath, profound grief, sadness, and anger gripped many nation-wide, who could not believe such violence could be directed toward children as young as six and seven years old (Barron, 2012). Many thought action must be taken to prevent a similar event from happening again (Parsons, Hennessey, & Memoli, 2013), (Washington Post, 2012). In Connecticut, a Sandy Hook Commission was formed to provide legislative recommendations (Malewitz, 2013). As a result, in April, they were able to come to a bipartisan agreement. The laws expanded the assault weapons ban, created the nations first Dangerous Weapons Offender registry, and created eligibility criteria for purchasing ammunition (The Associated Press, 2013). However, at the national level, the expanded background checks and assault weapons ban failed to pass the Senate. Some other states took action, but as a rule, the states that were able to pass bills had a strong Democratic or Republican majority and did not have to seek bipartisan consensus (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013), (Childress, 2013). (Please see Appendix A for description of state-level legislative efforts.)

Integrative Leadership Working Definition We define integrative leadership as a process in which adaptive challenges (complex, multi-dimensional problems with no clear right answer) are addressed by developing strong relationships between leaders (people that have vision and can identify the interconnections between individuals and groups) and experts (individuals with specific subject matter expertise) within a multitude of disciplines, facilitating sustained focus needed to achieve meaningful results, with respect for different ways of knowing, and achieving solutions for the public good that maximize benefits for all stakeholders.

Integrative Leadership Challenges Though this complex situation illustrates challenges at all levels of leadership; challenges in group, organizational, and sectoral leadership seemed particularly critical to the derailment of efforts. Clearly there are multiple wicked problems at play in this case. We chose to focus on lack of progress toward collective action at the national and state levels, despite high levels of motivation and interest. We believe the process stalled because there was no existing container in which discussion and negotiation could take place, polarity of views led to lack of negotiation, and intergroup bias and group territoriality also obstructed

meaningful relationships and discussion between stakeholder groups. (Caruso 2009) In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, much of the engagement between opposing viewpoints took place in arenas that made true discussion difficult such as the media or protest/counterprotests) (Cesca, 2013). As noted above, Connecticuts tragic experience led them to be an important exception to this. Conversations were based on talking points rather than truly gaining understanding of the others hopes and fears. This lack of a container for authentic conversation inhibited true engagement, and this lack of engagement led to lack of sustained attention. In such an intense discussion, we believe that the container must be, as Heifetz put it, a pressure-cooker to keep work and discussion in a productive zone to maintain the sustained interest and investment needed to address an adaptive challenge (Heifetz, 2011). When a crisis such as this occurs, we feel a high level of urgency in finding a solution. However, there was disagreement about problem solving methods and strategies. As a result of the inability to agree on how to resolve the issue, there was lack of action. Urgency and discussion waned, and nothing was achieved. Gun violence and the prevention of mass casualty incidents are similar to many of the challenges we face. They are misdiagnosed as technical challenges when in fact they are adaptive challenges. (For further exploration of technical problems versus adaptive challenges see Appendix B.) As a result, we fall into a cycle in which we continue to fail to progress in addressing complex problems. Clearly, there were very different ideas about what actions should be taken and often open hostility toward those with different viewpoints. However, the lack of an organized and safe container for the discussion prevented those with strong views from gaining an understanding of the rationale behind the views of others. Outside of the state of Connecticut, those who sought change lacked a group that represented a diversity of viewpoints and could represent those viewpoints while searching for common ground. Though both gun control and gun rights advocates agreed that they never wanted an incident like Sandy Hook to happen again, their views of the appropriate prevention strategies were nearly diametrically opposed. Gun rights advocates, including National Rifle Association, gun companies, and other businesses that promote firearms-related activities, felt that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun (CBS DC and Associated Press, 2012). They felt that restricting access to firearms was a violation of rights that would be unlikely to reduce gun violence or improve community safety (Washington Post 2012). On the other hand, gun control groups, including Sandy Hook Promise and Americans for Responsible Solutions, believed that legislative efforts to improve background checks, decrease the capacity of magazines, and ban assault rifles, amongst other efforts, could reduce the likelihood of future tragedies and improve community safety (Americans for Responsible Solutions).

Due to these polarized views and opposing strategies, the stakeholders did not identify shared values and felt they could not negotiate because each gain for their opposition represented a loss for them (Caruso 2009). Missing from the solution was a collective understanding of the perspectives of others that would allow constructive discussion for public value or common good. The distance between ideal solutions for each group and the fact that there are few intermediate opportunities for compromise, made it very difficult to engage, and led to the process stalling. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, those who were willing to negotiate with others who had opposing viewpoints were subject to severe penalties. For example, in Colorado, state senators faced recall elections for proposing increased gun regulations, though a majority of the population supported several of them (Bunch, 2013). Fear of similar consequences may have chilled efforts in the US Senate. Such severe consequences for engaging with the opposition represent high levels of intergroup bias and group territoriality. This creates mistrust between stakeholders and opposing organizations and causes outsiders to view all actions by the group as self-serving rather than for the greater good.

Proposed Recommendations In order to overcome the substantial challenges facing those who wish to address gun violence and mass casualty incidents, we propose to create a group that will serve as a container for discussion within the state of Minnesota. The multi-sector group will be trained to utilize a variety of communication process and relationship building tools that will improve negotiation and break down barriers between stakeholders with differing viewpoints (Ernst & Yip, 2009). It is our hope that the success of this process could lead to similar processes in other states, at the national level, or even for the management of other polarizing issues. Stakeholder Selection Selection of a great team is critical to success both in the initiation and maintenance of a group. Initial selection is critical for buy-in and gaining momentum. When selecting members for an integrative leadership group, the right conditions need to exist to get the right people, at the right place, at the right time, for the right reasons. We believe these conditions exist in Minnesota to address gun violence. Getting the right people involves three critical steps. First, one must ensure that the individual is aware of his strengths and weaknesses. The combination of selfawareness, self-acceptance, and self-confidence leads to high levels of authenticity (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007). Self-awareness and

authenticity will be vital in our group as they foster good negotiation norms. In order to obtain this information, significant research should be done to ensure the strength of the candidates emotional intelligence qualifications. Second, one must find individuals with complementary strengths, perspectives, and expertise. In this instance, it will be necessary to recruit at least one person (Champions) (Noble & Jones, 2006) from each viewpoint who has significant credibility with his or her own stakeholder group (Kouzes & Posner, 2005). One must also ensure that all major stakeholder groups are represented. Third, the individuals must be able to put the cause before their personal careers. Many leaders crave the attention of being recognized or fear being admonished by their constituency. Integrative leaders sometimes need to put these insecurities and concerns aside in order to achieve the goal at hand. Our participants must be at a point in their career in which they are willing and able to engage in this collaborative process. Though this is outside of our control, it must be taken into consideration when considering viable candidates for the integrative leadership effort. Getting these highly qualified people to the right place is the second challenge. Minnesota is well suited for such a challenge because of the existing diversity of views. For instance, Minnesota has strong gun rights advocates both for hunting and for personal protection, but also has advocates for stronger gun control laws. Citizens are also politically pragmatic, often choosing unconventional political leaders with the goal of overcoming stagnation and accomplishing ambitious goals. Another critical component to success is the strong base of cooperative leadership initiatives in Minnesota. There are several strong Corporate Social Responsibility programs, a significant non-profit sector, and the Center for Integrative Leadership at the University of Minnesota who work separately and in conjunction to increase shared value. These characteristics would allow a realistic test case for other states and for other contentious issues. Group and Stakeholder Training The initial stakeholder group will be from diverse sectors and views. They will need to develop a common framework from which to operate. Dedicated time and resources will be allocated to assist them in utilizing a deliberate planning approach for the development of this framework. (Bryson, Crosby & Stone, 2006) A facilitator will engage and train the initial stakeholder group in the preparation of tools to be used for the purpose of group formation, operational context and problem definition. These tools will provide a relational and operational foundation from which the group will work. A mission statement, goals and objectives, roles and responsibilities, ground rules and group norms will be developed and will result in documents that will serve as boundary objects, reminders of previous agreements and work already completed and is meant to bring the group back to focus. Several specific planning tools will be introduced and created with the initial group. After Sandy Hook, policymakers defined the problem as primarily one of

gun control. Because the problem was defined from this narrow perspective, the solutions were unacceptable to a large segment of the population and resulted in a fixed pie, win-lose battle. In the proposed collaborative model, problem definition will result from focused, facilitated discussion. Bryson, Crosby and Stone recommend that the group begin problem definition by starting with a common base of knowledge. Undertaking exploratory and detailed research, the group will span boundaries (Noble & Jones, 2006) by seeking information collected by experts from multiple sectors. In some cases, the group may find the need to commission new research from experts. Not only would the initial group utilize this collection of research in their problem definition phase, but they would continue to utilize it as they seek to educate subsequent stakeholders and in their continued work. Policy Change Cycle (Bryson & Crosby, 2005)

Facilitators would listen for stories, fears, values and triggering events and would note differences and commonalities across members. They would also listen for what is not being said. (Bryson & Crosby 2005). Tools such as Bryson and Crosbys Bases of Power and Direction of Interest diagram (see Appendix C) could be used to identify goals for each stakeholder and to search for relational connections and common themes that unite stakeholders. The initial group will also decide who will be invited into subsequent meetings. This may require the use of tools such as stakeholder brainstorms, participation planning matrices and power versus interest grids (see Appendix D). Tools such as paradox management and polarity mapping would be utilized in the problem-solving phase. (Johnson, 1998) The facilitator would encourage the group to examine the traditional views of problem solving and recognize that they may not be applicable to the situation surrounding gun violence. Paradox management would be introduced as a way to come to agreement when compromise solutions are likely impossible. Polarity mapping attempts to maximize progress toward shared goals while balancing this progress against the

fears of one or both groups. The group discussion may identify outcomes similar to those diagrammed in the polarity map shown in Appendix E. The group would focus on areas in which they agree, begin with that work, proceeding toward conflicting goals as relationships within the group become stronger. To avoid pitfalls of intergroup bias and group territoriality and to set a common frame of reference, training in negotiation and bias awareness will be provided at the outset. (Caruso 2009) The Humphrey School can be looked to for its expertise in negotiation and conflict resolution. See Appendix F for a list of common decision and perceptual biases. Following the initial gathering of the group and facilitated discussions resulting in group norms, problem definition and mission development, it may be necessary to further formalize the structure and its governance. Because of the prolonged engagement required for this process, a formal organizing institution may be necessary. Options to assist in logistics of group meetings, research requests and communications include utilizing a Humphrey capstone group or network administration organization (NAO). (Ospina 2010) (Bryson & Crosby, 2006) If an outside organization is utilized, it will be of critical importance that all participants trust the organization and staff. (Innes & Booher, 2003)

Identifying Threats Complex, multi-sectoral problems such as gun violence and gun control face significant threats to success. It is our hope that by considering the challenges a group such as ours would face, that our process will minimize the risks of these challenges destabilizing the group. The four major obstacles to the groups success would be politics, effective recruitment, procedural justice, and another catastrophe. First, because the issue is so highly polarizing, it will be important for members of this group to avoid public pronouncements that are not approved by the group first. Media engagement strategies and the consequences for violating group norms would be an important of the groups initial discussion. While restricted media engagement limits early engagement of the broader public, it provides time for the group to solidify their shared values and establish core principles. Second, finding and engaging leaders who are willing to dig deeply into this highly controversial issue may be considered impractical. However, using institutional connections, initially through the University of Minnesota, and cascading outward to engage leaders throughout Minnesota will help to overcome this challenge. Because of the profound emotional impact of the Sandy Hook tragedy and the local connection to the Accent Signage shooting, we believe that we can motivate leaders to tackle this challenge.

Third, if either the gun-rights or gun-control groups perceive that the process favors the opposing viewpoint, the process will almost assuredly stall. The importance of procedural justice throughout the process cannot be overstated, and it is the reason we have focused such large amounts of time, energy, and resources on the initial establishment of group norms and problem definition. Our hope is that such a process will reduce the risk that the justice of the process is questioned. Finally, another crisis could derail the groups progress. For example, another mass shooting may cause group members to retreat to interactions with those who share their viewpoints or provoke violations of groups norms such as engagement with the media on behalf of ones stakehold er group. We believe that through the process of understanding the hopes and fears of opposing viewpoints that the temptation to withdraw from the process will be limited because the understanding that we all wish for healthier, safer communities will be shared and understood.

Defining Success In a process in which we have not defined a specific outcome or policy goals, how do we define success? There are three critical outcomes that would determine whether the group is successful. They have been chosen because they represent critical actions in maintaining the group and achieving effective action. First, the group will be successful if they can continue the conversation in spite of other priorities that arise. There is a natural tendency to focus on what is urgent rather than what is important, so maintaining the attention of this busy, highachieving group will be vital to its success. An early indicator of success would be that conversations are sufficiently deep and effective resulting in clear, welldefined goals within the group. Because representation from all stakeholders is critical to achieve a solution that is legitimate to all, they must ensure that all viewpoints (Morse, 2010) are represented throughout the process, with members remaining engaged or seeking replacements until the group achieves its goals. The second indicator of success will be the effective transition to new leaders. Because such a complex, emotionally fraught issue will not be quick to resolve, we would seek a three-year commitment from the initial group. Each initial member would be expected to recruit their successor in an attempt to maintain a balanced group. Because the schedule availability of busy, high-powered people can be unpredictable, gaining commitments from potential future leaders in advance will help to maintain continuity and effective operation of the group. Finally, as noted above, maintaining effective group dynamics and continued work in light of further crises (such as another mass shooting) will be critical to

ongoing work. There is a tendency in high-diversity groups to return to ones respective comfort zone in times of crisis. With a topic as polarizing as gun responsibility, numerous threats could counteract the difficult work of the group. If they can manage to accomplish these three things they will have solid footing on the path to achieving change and, we will consider the process successful.

Conclusion Despite how polarizing the issue of how to address gun violence has been since Sandy Hook, we believe that a more thoughtful and structured approach can lead to a lasting reduction in gun deaths at both the state and the national level. By taking the proper precautions to prevent derailment by ensuring proper group selection and maintenance, and by being able to stay committed to the cause, we believe that gun violence and the fear of gun violence can be reduced over time.

Appendix A Gun Control Efforts Adapted from State Gun Laws Enacted Since Newtown. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-theyear-sincenewtown.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages% 2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp. Dec 10 2013
Issue Gun Permits Public Carry Guns in Schools Mental Health Background Checks Assault Weapons Nullify Federal Law Gun Access Lost/Stolen Firearms Other Total Tighter gun laws 1 0 0 15 12 6 0 9 6 1 50 Looser gun laws 28 22 9 2 2 1 4 2 0 6 76 Vetoes 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 19

States that passed tighter gun restrictions California Delaware Illinois Maryland New Jersey New York Rhode Island Colorado Connecticut Utah Washington North Dakota Minnesota Louisiana Hawaii Texas (MH) Tennessee (MH) South Carolina (MH) Mississippi (MH) Florida (MH) Alabama (MH)

States that passed looser gun restrictions Arizona Indiana Montana Texas Tennessee Missouri Kansas Alaska Alabama West Virginia Utah South Dakota Oklahoma North Carolina Arkansas Wyoming Mississippi Illinois Idaho Virginia New Jersey Nevada Louisiana Kentucky

(MH) signifies that the state only tightened restrictions with regards to mental health. Highlighted states are those that passed both looser and tighter gun regulations (with the exception of mental health regulations)

Appendix B Technical Problems vs. Adaptive Challenges

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS VS. ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES The single biggest failure of leadership is to treat adaptive challenges like technical problems. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS 1. Easy to identify 2. Often lend themselves to quick and easy (cut-and-dried) solutions 3. Often can be solved by an authority or expert 4. Require change in just one or a few places; often contained within organizational boundaries 5. People are generally receptive to technical solutions 6. Solutions can often be implemented quicklyeven by edict ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES 1. Difficult to identify (easy to deny) 2. Require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships, & approaches to roles, relationships, & approaches to work 3. People with the problem do the work of solving it 4. Require change in numerous places; usually cross organizational boundaries 5. People often resist even acknowledging adaptive challenges 6. Solutions require experiments and new discoveries; they can take a long time to implement and cannot long time to implement and cannot be implemented by edict

EXAMPLES Take medication to lower blood pressure Implement electronic ordering and dispensing of medications in hospitals to reduce errors and drug interactions Increase penalty for drunk driving

Change lifestyle to eat healthy, get more exercise and lower stress Encourage nurses and pharmacists to question and even challenge illegible or dangerous prescriptions by physicians Raise public awareness of the dangers and effects of drunk driving, targeting teenagers in particular

Adapted from Ronald A. Heifetz & Donald L. Laurie, The Work of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1997; and Ronald A. Heifetz & Marty Linsky, Leadership on the Line, Harvard Business School Press, 2002

Appendix C Sample Bases of Power: Directions of Interest Diagram (Gun Businesses)

Citizen Rights 2nd Amendment

Minimize Risk

Contribute to Economy Public Opinion Make profitMinimize Costs

Safety

Fulfill Recreational Needs

Gun Businesses
Job Provider Lobbyists

Tax Base Provider

Regulators

Small gun business National Sporting Goods Companies

Appendix D Stakeholder Analysis

Brainstorm Stakeholders Resources Reasons for Involving Reasons for Postponing Involvement Relays information to public too quickly

Media

Community Groups

Can mobilize and reach the people

Large reach, gets information to the community quickly Voices need to be Timing and heard, policy methods need to impacts be carefully planned

Elected Officials

Business Medical Community

Policy making body, funding resources Funding resources Knowledge of public health impact and policy recommendations Knowledge of statistics

Law Enforcement

Public value driven Respected by multiple stakeholder groups Provide data to inform solutions

Self interest

Participation Planning Matrix Stakeholders to Approach, by which means Inform Consult Involve Collaborate

Policy Change Activity

Empower

Initial Organizing Creating ideas for strategic intervention Building a winning coalition for proposal development, review and adoption Implementing, monitoring, and evaluating strategic interventions

Law enforce ment Law enforcement

Business Elected officials Medical community Business Community groups Elected officials Medical community Community groups Medical community Law enforcement Community groups

Power verses Interest Grid

HIGH POWER HIGH INTEREST Elected Officials Gun industry/Business

LOW POWER Community Groups Medical Community

Media _______________________________________________ LOW INTEREST

Appendix E Paradox Management and Polarity Mapping

What we all want: less gun violence, better health, safer neighborhoods What we all fear: more killings, abusive/irresponsible use of guns

Positive outcomes/results of A 1. Deterrence of strangers 2. 3. Thwarting crimes Gun manufacturer

4.

Gun social media

5. More peace and sense of secure in mind 6. Potential positive externalities(Scare burglar) 7. Increase the cost of committing a crime 8. Self defense A. Protecting Gun Ownership Negative outcome Guns can be stolen and commit a crime Higher risk of accidental injury or killing Higher risk of suicides self harm

Positive outcomes/results of B 1. For criminals more difficulty in accessing to gun 2. Restrictions for gun ownership for people with dangerousness 3. Safety components or trigger lock(less accidental death) 4. There will be a general decline of firearm related violent related crimes, particularly homicides http://gun.laws.com/gun-control/gun-control-effects-oncrime-and-murder#sthash.08brR4XP.dpuf B. Controlling Gun Ownership

Negative Outcomes Discrimination/violation of the second amendment Close of the gun manufacture, economic impact Cancelling shooting sports competition (affecting the hobby?) Increase the chance for black market trading

Higher risk of assaults and homicides harm others Intimidation of your friends or guests. Fears in the community

Imposing new burden on government (BG check, evaluation assessment) Affect demand and supply (scarcity) The increased regulation reduces the incentive for firearms manufactures, sports store owners, and other supply chain managers to invest in their business Discourage employers to hire new employees, or develop better/safer firearms.

Appendix F Common Decision and Perceptual Biases Compiled by Prof. Sophie Leroy for Management and Organizational Behavior List of Decision Biases Biases affecting decisions

Confirmation bias (=confirming evidence) the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. Framing influencing how people interpret information based on how the information is presented to them. Such a presentation may highlight only part of the information/issues. Hindsight bias sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the inclination to see past events as being predictable. Illusion of control the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot. Sunk cost, leading to escalation of commitment: When a decision is overly influenced by retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered Escalation of commitment the tendency to continue a course of actions, even when not rational anymore (for example despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong), to justify decisions made in the past or actions already taken. Optimism bias the systematic tendency to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions. Planning fallacy the tendency to underestimate task-completion times. Status quo bias the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same this explains peoples resistance to change. Anchoring: Artificial weight given to unique/specific information The above biases occur both at the individual and group levels. At the group level, people are also subject to common information bias, by which they give more weight to and spend more time talking about information that is shared among the members of the team as opposed to information that is uniquely presented by one of the members. At the group level, people are also subject to groupthink. While we dont often think about it as a bias per se, it affects how a group makes decisions by focusing people on consensus and harmony as opposed to finding the best solution/decision possible. See more details in the slides.

List of perceptual biases (affecting social perception, that is, how I perceive/judge/evaluate others) some of these biases also affect decision making as noted below Note that the confirmation bias (mentioned above) also affects social perception

Egocentric bias occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would. That is, we give ourselves more credit than we give others and than others give us for our actions. (See the slight difference with Self-serving bias) Self-serving bias the tendency to claim more responsibility for ones own successes than for ones own failures. (Tendency to take credit for success and reject blame for failure). It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests. This bias is about how one perceives/evaluates oneself Fundamental attribution error the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while underemphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. It is about how one perceives/evaluates others. Halo effect (+) / Horn effect or forked tail effect (-) the tendency to see a positive or negative trait/event about someone and generalize that trait/event as a characteristic of their overall personality. (Bad performance = they are not smart) Herd instinct Common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict. Can be referred to as Bandwagon bias. This bias also affects decision-making. Ingroup bias the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups. Like me effect (or not like me effect) the tendency to like people who are like us, and dislike people who have different personalities. Negativity effect the tendency to anchor on negative information when forming an impression of someone. That is, once we learn negative information about someone, we tend to put a lot of weigh on that negative information and pay much less attention to positive information. Primacy effect the tendency to overemphasize early information and to anchor ones perception of a person on early information. (opposite of recency effect). This bias is most likely to occur when people are novices about a subject or just learn about someone. It affects both social perception and decision-making. Recency effect the tendency to focus on the most recent information available when forming a judgment. This bias is more likely to occur for people with existing knowledge about a topic or someone. It affects both social perception and decision-making. Stereotyping expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual. Self-fulfilling prophecy the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results (behaviors in others), which will confirm our beliefs.

Appendix G Group Member Contributions Initial Project Identification Tom initially suggested the gun violence problem Entire team brought ideas and discussed options All gathered and synthesized information from press reports, white papers and company literature based on assigned stakeholders Medical/Public Health - Amy Elected Officials/Politicians- Karyn Nick-Community Groups Tom-Business Elizabeth- Law enforcement Pano-Media Presentation Amy and Nick prepared and lead the presentation Pano videotaped presentation Tom, Karyn, Nick, Amy answered questions in Q&A Paper Entire team drafted the outline Tom, Karyn, Elizabeth and Pano first draft of final report Entire team contributed to drafting, reviewing and editing of final report. Amy created gun control efforts spreadsheet, edited citations, cut excess text Pano created polarity map Tom identified bias document Karyn created the stakeholder analysis tools and directions of power diagram Nick identified threats to group success Elizabeth copy-edited report

Works Cited
Americans for Responsible Solutions. Solutions. 10 Dec 2013 <http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/solutions/>. Barron, James. Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut. 14 Dec 2012. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticutelementary-school.html>. Bryson, John M, Barbara C Crosby and Melissa Middleton Stone. "The design and implementation of cross sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature." Public Administration Review (2006): 44-55. Bunch, Joey. Statewide, Colorado voters oppose recalls, but mixed on gun laws. 22 Aug 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23919541/statewide-coloradovoters-oppose-recall-efforts-2-1>. Caruso, Heather M, Todd Rogers and Max H Bazerman. "Boundaries need not be barriers: Leading collaboration among groups in decentralized organizations." Crossing the Divide: Intergroup Leadership in a World of Difference. Ed. Todd L. Pittinsky. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2009. 113-125. CBS DC and Associated Press. NRA: Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun . 21 Dec 2012. 10 Dec 2013 <http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/21/nra-only-way-to-stop-a-bad-guywith-a-gun-is-with-a-good-guy-with-a-gun/>. Childress, Sarah. How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown. 10 Dec 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/newtowndivided/how-the-gun-rights-lobby-won-after-newtown/>. Crosby, Barbara and John Bryson. Leadership for the Common Good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Ernst, Chris and Jeff Yip. "Boundary-spanning leadership: Tactics to bridge social identity groups in organizations." Crossing the Divide: Intergroup Leadership in a World of Difference. Ed. Todd L. Pittinsky. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009. 87-101. George, Bill, et al. "Discovering your Authentic Leadership." Harvard Business Review (2007): 129-138.

Heifetz, Ronald. Adaptive versus Technical. 14 Aug 2011. University of Minnesota Center for Integrative Leadership. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWylIUIvmo&list=PLE9C59A65965E8F16& index=3>. Innes, Judith E and David E Booher. "Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue." Hajer, Maarten A and Hendrik Wagenaar. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 33-59. Johnson, Barry. Polarity Management: A Summary Introduction. Sept 1998. 15 Dec 2013 <http://westonatwood.com/uploads/2/8/4/4/2844368/polarity_management__summary.pdf>. Kouzes, James M and Barry Z Posner. "Leading in cynical times." Journal of Management Inquiry 14 (2005): 357-364. Malewitz, Jim. As Sandy Hook Students Return to School, Connecticut Governor to Launch Gun Violence Task Force. 4 Jan 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/as-sandy-hook-studentsreturn-to-school-connecticut-governor-to-launch-gun-violence-task-force85899440206>. Morse, R S. "Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value." The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010): 231-245. Noble, Gary and Robert Jones. "The role of boundary-spanning managers in the establishment of public-private partnerships." Public Administration 84.4 (2006): 891-917. Parsons, Christi, Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli. Sandy Hook and grief: Gun control advocates plead their case. 13 April 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/13/news/la-pn-sandy-hook-gun-control20130413>. Sandy Hook shooting: What happened? 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html>. Sax-Carranza, Angel and Sonia M Ospina. "The behavioral dimension of governing interorganizational goal-directed networks--Managing the unitydiversity tension." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2010): 327-365.

The Associated Press. Connecticut Governor Signs Gun Measures. 4 Apr 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/nyregion/connecticutlawmakers-pass-gun-limits.html>. Timeline of Events at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 26 Nov 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/timeline-events-sandy-hookelementary-school-21011205>. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Gun Actions Since Sandy Hook Shooting. 13 June 2013. 10 Dec 2013 <http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/gunactions-since-sandy-hook-shooting-85899482178>. Washington Post. Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012 (Transcript). 21 Dec 2012. 10 Dec 2013 <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-1221/politics/36018141_1_mayhem-with-minimum-risk-nra-wayne-lapierre>.