Monthly Archives: April 2015

Greenleaf writes: The conventional trustee role may be described as a ‘reacting’ role. In such a reacting role, trustees usually do not initiate or shape the character of the institution, nor do they see it as their role to examine … Continue reading →

Today I will conclude our brief exploration of Greenleaf’s ‘third ambiguity’ – the need for a healthy tension between belief and criticism. Greenleaf writes: A critical watch, however, requires more than just a critical frame of mind. It requires that … Continue reading →

NOTE: Given the importance of this challenge I will be devoting this post and my next post to exploring it. Greenleaf writes: A third ambiguity is the need for a healthy tension between belief and criticism as part of the … Continue reading →

Greenleaf writes: A second ambiguity is the disability that goes with competence. …A critical disability that goes with expanding competence is the inability (or unwillingness) to examine the assumptions by which one operates. …Very few people, as individuals or as … Continue reading →

Greenleaf writes: The trustees’ concern is complicated by the condition that life within the institution is not wholly rational (no more than anywhere else). …it presents three kinds of challenges which can bring virtual paralysis to the administration if there … Continue reading →