Archetypes of Experiential Education Personnel: Leadership Qualities in a Team Context


In this age of participation trophies, it seems glib to assert that “everyone’s a leader.” However, what is perceived as a leaderis merely a single role with a specific set of skills in a unit of leaders within their own areas. As I work with ministry volunteers, students, and other artists, I emphasize the value that a person has, not as a participant but as a codirector. In other words, rather than considering oneself a guitar player in a jazz band, the musician must realize that they are one of several directors of the band who happens to be able to guide the single guitarist how to best facilitate the band’s final product. This perspective takes the ego element out of what should be a team effort, without diminishing the value of the individual. It is a major paradigm shift thatI have found lends insight and affirms the teamwork without diminishing the value of the individual.

There are several analogies for leadership that have worked for centuries. One of these is the illustration of the body, where each role is defined but absolutely necessary for full bodily function. “If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?” (1 Cor. 12:17, NIV). Aesop cited the fable in which the body went on strike to protest the stomach receiving all of the food that they procured or processed, only to find themselves weak and dying for lack of nutrition (Aesop, n.d.). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Seneca, and Shakespeare each used the analogy of the body to describe the unique function of each part and itsindispensability. Another analogy is the functionality of a kitchen: “In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use” (2 Tim. 2:20, NIV).

Experiential Education (EE)

Experiential education (EE) is one way to demonstrate the concept of roles graphically and practically. EE is generalized as amethod of developing an immersive experience to assimilate, develop, or demonstrate innate skills, knowledge, and critical thinking (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). To define it as simply “learning by doing” demotes the complex integration of the above as well as the complex processes by which experiences are transformed into character-changing learned behavior, further devaluing the unique contribution of each segment. It is a problematic course of education, being difficult to quantify and adaptable to various learning styles, personalities, and group dynamics (Ballard, 2015). The most successful approaches are designed andmethodical, whether for teaching purposes arising from team problems or “initiatives,” or incidental in an academic or business model where there may be less formal organization.

More significantly, various exercises in such an environment emphasize these elements, if more directed rather than incidental. For example, the classic challenge or ropes course is designed to teach participants the dynamics of teamwork, withthe hopes that self- and team-evaluation and awareness may not only take place during the exercise but carry onward into corporate tasks outside the exercises.

While most evident in the focused, team-building maneuvers, EE principles are found in any team-oriented project that combines skillsets, progression, activation, and vision for the fulfillment of a goal. Musical groups, service-learning trips, athletic teams, business models, and peripheral or “sub-models” (i.e., think tanks, ad hoc committees, juries, and focus groups) all have elements of experiential education, even in the processes of implementing previously learned skills (Davidson, 2012). Each has atask that is outside the concept of team building but is best realized when compartmentalization is limited, to the benefit of the whole (Roberts, 2009). In a poignant summary of the benefits of EE, psychologist Carl Rogers stated, “Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my own experience (Rogers, 1954, n.p.).

Such processes within these models can adhere to general principles in fractal theory, which puts forth the concept that levels of units may be perceived on a hierarchical basis (Fractal Foundation, n.d.) and, as such, may be applied to multiple disciplines (Condé, 2001). A business with a vague objective of attaining a significant market share may be an  overarching company goal. They may treat each department (research and development, marketing, manufacturing, logistics, etc.) as “members of the body” with unique attributes that may or may not be internally ordered. In turn, each department is made up of smaller units; for example, marketing may include departments in Europe,North America, South America, and Asia. In this analogy, each unit continues to have talents based upon skillsets within the unit, such as knowledge of culture, global connection, and logistics. The marketing unit may have universal concepts, but diverse cultures alone are different enough to sway its methodology. These, in turn, are made of smaller groups and so on, until the group contains individuals, each with their own set of skills, talents, and personality traits that contribute to the unit above.

The largest church staff follows a similar hierarchy but is more complex in that it is a mix of full-time, part-time, and volunteer staff, each of whom is called to a specific role, as talent and spiritual gifts allow. For example, the worship team may have a designated leader, but the roles of each musician are specific to each person’s needs and skills.

A quick narrative of a program on a teambuilding course (TBC) is worth presenting to put the concept of leadership archetypes into the context of team functionality. The subjective nature of the method allows for greater adaptation and interpretation by both team members and facilitators, based on group dynamics and sociopsychology, the personality of the facilitator, and the physical dynamics of the location. While this form of experiential education has many variants, thisarticle’s conclusions were directly related to personal experience and observation, as well as to practice that was adapted from the program at Covenant Heights Conference Center, which in turn had many principles in common with that of Project Adventure (Project Adventure, n.d.).

The Experiential Education Process

The experiential education (EE) process is a way of developing teamwork, cooperation in the achieving of a task, recognition of the skills and weaknesses of each team, and understanding the unique process of achieving a goal. Its approach tends to focus on these instead of a purpose at hand, although all of these are present at any given task (be it outreach, marketing, education, performance, or administration). EE is functionally a litmus test for both the dysfunctional and functioning team.

Because TBC is intentionally team- and individual-invasive, certain rules and processes need to be explained. Because the group has volunteered to be under a teacher or facilitator, this may arguably be the first initiative or challenge, as it acknowledges subjugation to an outside authority, one that is not part of “the group.” This relinquishing of authority puts the facilitator in an exceptional position of trust. The individuals within the group come to a point of understanding that they will be challenged, that they may need to go beyond their comfort zones, and that the course may require them to expose physical and emotional vulnerabilities. All negativity touching these vulnerabilities is forbidden; only encouraging is allowed. Each person and team has the option to opt out of participation when their limits become too much. Challenge-by-choice is a common mantra that encourages participation; however, each person is different with different sets of non-negotiable points and is not forced to go beyond the personally comfortable point.

The facilitator knows when to push or encourage the group, determine rules, scenarios, and guidelines. This often works by increasing a physical requirement for an athletic group, “blinding,” “muting,” or otherwise disabling overly vocal ordynamic leaders, or stopping a stumped group and moving to a simpler task to prevent discouragement. The facilitator also leads the debriefing period after each element or exercise, allowing and prompting feedback from the group and from each member.

A Day on the Ropes Course

The ropes course experience takes place best throughout an entire business day, from around 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Activities are divided into four categories: (a) warmups, (b) de-inhibitors, (c) initiatives, and (d) high course initiatives (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2008). The first activities, warmups, are simply exercises that introduce members of the team to each other (if necessary) and present the types of exercises found in the TBC program on a very basic level. The facilitator presents ground rules, including the prohibition of negativity, challenge-by-choice, and physical contact.

De-inhibitors follow. Because of the physicality of a TBC in its exercises, these exercises are necessary to help participants understand proper touching, emotional support and boundaries, and physical and emotional trust. An example of these is the well-known trust fall series, in which participants graduate from simple falling back and safety techniques to allowing group members to literally catch a participant from a five-foot platform. Arguably, this is the vital point of the entire day: if it fails, the group is limited in what it can participate in and to what extent. When successful, it allows additional safety measures in physical activities that are dependent upon each individual. It builds a confidence in each member and within the group toprogress to more difficult exercises. While common, de-inhibitors are conducted for more than mere fun. Even though participants may have performed the exercise previously, the unique makeup of each team brings adifferent dynamic to the process and changes each exercise.

“Initiatives” is the term we use to describe exercises that include problem solving. At this point, the facilitator presents thegroup with a scenario. This is a narrative that runs throughout the day, as needed. Usually having a silly or far-fetched storyline,the scenario allows coherency between initiatives, a light-heartedness, and an excuse to modify the type, number, and parameters of initiatives with little logic needed.

Beginning and advanced low-course initiatives are generally fun and easy; activities on the low course increase physicality tothe initiative problems, helping the team progress to more difficult initiatives. Examples include walking a tightrope over “aboiling pit of lava,” getting an entire team over a 12-foot wall, or retrieving an item from a seemingly impossible location. As the parameters of initiatives increase, solutions are more complex and varied, and they become specific to each group and its dynamics. Proper facilitation and mutual team support become vital at this point.

High course initiatives take place at anywhere from 15 to 40 feet above the ground and require harnessing and belaying techniquesfor safety. It is limited to one or two people at a time but integral with the support of the remainder of the team. For almost everyperson, there is a degree of uncertainly, nervousness, or even fear as they contemplate traversing via a single cable high above theground or “free” jumping for a trapeze bar hanging 15 feet in front of them. While the ideal situation requires participants to workin pairs, this part of the course usually puts the most pressure on the individual. In all cases, the rest of the group role is relegated to encouragement and support.

While this is the most emotionally challenging part of the TBC, it is also the most attractive. Many groups, in my experience, just want to do the exciting high ropes course, and they suffer through the low course initiatives to get to that point. However, it is vital for group dynamics to progress to this point, and hindsight measures progression and accomplishment for the team. Very often, the progression to this point ensures the completion of the high course; further, it is necessary to develop the maturity necessary that helps the individual, and therefore the team, succeed. Groups that, for whatever reason, choose to bypass the low initiative series have greater individual problems and little or no group cohesiveness on the high portion of the TBC. Furthermore, the group dynamic development is integral to the success of the individual, as the participant is encouraged to complete an element in spite of personal misgivings, as supported by the group.

Role Development

Through the process of concentrated guidance, TBCs draw out roles of leadership within a team. It is important thatparticipants draw conclusions about themselves and also about what it means to participate to reach a goal. It becomes clear thatleadership’s definition expands beyond simply “taking control” and also involves assertiveness within specific standards. These standards are determined by experience, skills, team needs, and makeup.

Individual experience is important, for it determines what sort of interpretive lens any principle must filter through. Given the extremes, one may focus entirely upon the team, ignoring a proper perspective on one’s contribution—to the detriment and eventual annihilation of the “self.” In this case, it no longer serves any purpose to the team because its contribution is effectively neutralized. (For more discussion on the societal implications of these principles, see C. S. Lewis on the role of the individual versus the state in Mere Christianity & The Screwtape Letters: Complete in One Volume [2003].) Or a person may become so focused on “self” that they begin no longer serving the goals of the team. In both extremes, team goals are not addressed, much less met.

To varying degrees, those on the TBC who are perceived as leaders begin to take control. As the day progresses, it becomes clear that these leaders are simply those who are vocal and passionate, not necessarily those best suited to guiding a team. Simply being loud or extroverted does not denote leadership. A good facilitator will pick up on this and shut down each leader some way,such as imposing a “mute disease,” rendering communication difficult if not ineffective. As the group sits in limbo, others begin to take control in varying ways. It is for this reason we must redefine the term “leader” in light of team contribution.

The “Alpha” Leader

Since leadership roles tend to rise from the crowd as the circumstances require, a trait should be noted here. The TBC usually initiates the so-called “alpha” leader, as presented by Erlandson and Ludeman (2006). “An alpha is defined as ‘a person tending to assume a dominant role in social or professional situations or thought to possess the qualities and confidence for leadership. Alphas are both indispensable to progress and potentially hazardous” (Erlandson & Ludeman, 2006, p. 3).

A classic example of an alpha is the athletic hero of high school days. Within the comparatively shallow culture of the average high school, excitement, physically admirable traits, and talent all combine to somehow elevate jocks to some sort of leadership pinnacle suitable for anything from student council to mayor. But scoring the winning touchdown only shows an ability to run effective and opponent-confounding patterns and does not really denote leadership. This is not to say, of course, that such athletes are not leaders. Leadership ability in athletes comes from more applicable qualities than demonstrating physical prowess, such as self-sacrifice, dedication, and self- and team-discipline associated with developing athletic skills.

Jesus, in Luke 12:48 expressed the concept originally, but it is more popularly known from Marvel Comics’ Spider Man: “With great power comes great responsibility” (Lee & Ditko, 1962). Balance and perspective are paramount.

The Leader

What is leadership? Stogdill (1974), in Fairholm (2004), states, “There are as many definitions of leadership as there arepersons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 579).

Erlandson and Ludeman’s (2006) article focuses on the leader with various traits:

• commanders, who “mobilize the troops” (p. 39)

• visionaries, who “see possibilities and opportunities” (p. 39)

• strategists, who are “thinkers . . . oriented toward data and facts” (p. 39)

• achievers, who “push plans forward [with] keen oversight” (p. 39)

Thus, different types of leaders exhibit skills that shape or affect the command status but are otherwise considered peripheral to overall team goals, strategies, and tactics. Within this paradigm, the person with the role of commander is no more than amember of the team whose activities facilitate the role of organization and direction. It is for this reason that the definition of “leadership” extends beyond the despotic.

The four traits tend to overlap in some ways and grossly neglect traits or roles imperative to the successful role of leadership in any area. In a worst-case scenario—without temperance or context—they present great temptation into demagoguery. To clarify, we will reorganize the four leadership traits into five archetypes: (a) mobilizer, (b) achiever, (c) theorist, (d) evaluator, and (e) motivator. One must consider the fact that these aren’t “leadership traits” found in a single dynamic or charismatic person but are incorporated into the roles.

These five archetypes are classifications that I have observed, organized, and labelled according to my years of observing experiential education sessions, teams, music groups, administration, and business meetings—and, of course, in challenge courses intended for team building. I have strongly recommended that students of psychology and sociology spend time observing ropes and challenge courses to see these roles in their natural state, for application in both theory and practice.


The first example of leadership roles is the nominal and best-known—although not only—leader: the mobilizer. Erlandson and Ludeman (2006) refer to it as the role to “organize the troops” (p. 39). This is a viable definition as far as it goes, but it falls short inthe following ways. Defining this statement does not include a “prompting” motion of any kind, initiating direction, difficult decision-making at an impasse (i.e., where “the buck stops”), or taking responsibility for a team’s or subordinate’s mistakes. Asthe wicked queen in Lewis’s story (1955b) justifies her style of leadership, “Ours is a high and lonely destiny” (p. 68). As we willsee, destiny is often not the sole purveyor of the mobilizer but also of the group dynamic. The mobilizer does not show how to get there (theorist), understand logistics (achiever), identify problems along the way (evaluator), or keep people moving as they travel (motivator).

The mobilizer is not the theorist, although these roles may exist (to varying degrees) in a single person. Even in such a case,they are usually subservient to a primary role and may inhibit effective operations of that role. It is usually detrimental to the goal of a team for the mobilizer to be a thinker, evaluator, or other role. Often the leader’s secondary role is not as efficient as those with it as their primary. Additionally, when the mobilizer assumes other roles, objectivity is lost to practical and philosophical bases. Who wishes to follow a mobilizer who believes their own ideas are “the best” or whose admonitions to “charge” are watered down as they mistakenly assume the role of motivator without support?

A leadership position, therefore, must have a defined role even within that position lest the following occur. A mobilizer position lends itself to power. When the mobilizer realizes their role is to mobilize and not to theorize, analyze, achieve, or motivate, the role becomes defined, limited, and focused. It is the mobilizer’s role to assimilate and implement ideas and vision, not to initiate or usurp them.

A dictatorial assumption by a mobilizer can blind the person to incoming information by decreasing objectivity. A mobilizer must be able to fairly evaluate and implement, but only with the advice and consent of the participants in the same manner that Congress ideally advises and consents to the president’s nominations. The team’s dynamic will determine the correct balance between a democratic anarchy and a tyrannical dictatorship.

Fairholm’s (2004) article implies the inevitable structures that a mobilizer’s personality will bring to the team. Again, the mobilizer must utilize the primary skills in the other roles as manifested elsewhere, rather than assuming them (Fairholm, 2004).


The achiever puts concrete, forward-moving action to the theory or plan. In team building exercises, this is most evident in physical ways, such as the athletic person reaching for the object, climbing for the objective, or even carrying team members through or over an obstacle. But even here, the achiever role has much less to do with being “big and strong,” athletic, or even“smart” or mechanical; rather, this role deals with the appropriateness of the natural talent or physical skillset of the teammember. The skillset changes based on the problem at hand, but it often provides a consistent anchor throughout multiple related problems the team may encounter during the task.

An achiever has a concrete, measurable skill or purpose. In a business model, this might look like a marketing expert with computer skills implementing an algorithm for research before a team’s determined action, or it could be a team member with social talent making the strategic phone calls. In my experience, this particular trait became obvious in one particular team with which I worked: a group of fourth-graders. The primary difficulty involved letting anarchy be a teaching point in a system that naturally rewards the “control-freak.” (The teacher was constantly being told to “stay out of it!”) The mobilizers, theorists, and analyzers tried to shout each other down and ignored their own—and the other—roles; the team settled from mere frustration as they failed the first attempt.

The exercise in which this group was participating involved two boards and a stick intended to reach a bucket thatcontained a “radio” that would save them from being “lost at sea.” Their final solution—one that they devised without teacher or facilitator interference—involved the active use of two participants whose physical advantages had previously been seen as hindrances, if not outright ignored. However, a very heavy child saw his advantage as he strode forward and confidently sat on the board that anchored safely the second board. The other child was a scrawny kid whose slight figure was the attribute that allowed him to crawl out on said board to retrieve the “radio” without crashing the whole system. Neither had been considered of value in such a physical activity, but the exact characteristics others perceived as negatives were the very things that allowed the team to accomplish its goal. It also had the added benefit of raising the value of these students in the estimate of the team, providing in estimable cohesion throughout the rest of the day.

The role of achiever turns negative in similar ways to others: it becomes detrimental when not implemented or implementedfully. The most obvious is the persona who lacks self-confidence or is simply lazy. If the heavy child had not recognized his weight as an asset, the team would have catastrophically failed. As possible with other roles, the ineffective achiever can also confuse the skillset, mistaking it for something they do not have or even mistaking it for another role.

A weak achiever may desire the mobilizer role, perceiving that it is a way to promotion—and in many models, this is true, although not commonly beneficial to the group. It is most visible and pragmatic when the skill is directly related to the task (such as in athletic competition), and as such it is commonly confused with power. (For an example, observe those athletes whose skills bring them to the attention of a professional draft, yet they do not have the skills in personality, communication, business, PR, or teamwork to generate a career, much less contribute to team success.) The timid achiever must recognize that his inaction or self-pity hurts the team efforts as much as it may selfishly soothe sensitive emotions. The definition of achiever means theskillset is not just a contributor to the group effort, but it is uniquely so.


The theorist is unique in that the ideas include areas outside the group’s paradigm. This is particularly important as the best or most competitive solution often lies outside it. As the saying goes, “If it were easy, everyone would be doing it” (Abbott & Greenhut, 1992, n.p.). Erlandson and Ludeman (2006) use the term “visionary” for this role and describe the theorist as someone who sees possibilities and opportunities. This role can and should also have the “theorist” traits, as the visionary must,out of necessity, go hand-in-hand with a concrete plan. As stated earlier, this is a trait of leadershipbut usually in the context of a leader or, in our definition, mobilizer. Often, this trait is easily usurped. This limits the actualprocess, because at worst it implies “wishful thinking” and at best it cripples the direction for the group. It has several functions beyond this that are important to emphasize.

A theorist is not only visionary, which implies defining a generalized goal, but also has the ability to see practical andconcrete ways to that goal. Many business models are aware of a “what-if” approach, which has the potential to become a “what-if-we-did…” mentality that puts legs to the theory. Magretta (2002) offers an excellent example of how this might play out in thebusiness world in her article “Why Business Models Matter.” This extends to everything from the long-term strategy to thetyranny of the immediate and develops the process on a concrete and practical basis. The ideas presented by a theorist range from extreme “blue-skying” vagueness (although valid and applicable) to concrete and practical steps to accomplish the goal. Fruition usually depends upon the evaluator for strategy and the mobilizer for implementation.

The negative characteristics of a theorist are similar to the achiever and for much the same reasons. Their values dependdirectly upon action and process. The factors of laziness (described above) and the desire for a position of greater visibility apply here as well.

Because theorists are often artists or creatively oriented, they present ideas from the depths of intuition and from an affective perspective. Creative types are beneficial for thinking emotionally, but while this generates enthusiastic impetus for the process, it is also highly modified by sentiment.

Objectivism is not the key element, as great ideas generate excitement while negative feedback of any kind (especially harsh feedback) leaves a theorist easily demoralized and withdrawn. This, again, is detrimental to the team purpose. If then, no idea is forthcoming,results are flawed, misdirected, or completely erroneous.


The theorist works hand in hand with the evaluator. The evaluator is similar to Erlandson and Ludeman’s (2006) thinker, but the difference is that our analyzer is much less able to initiate an idea than improve the idea presented, not unlike the famous campaign ad for BASF: “We make it better” (Deutsch, 2004, n.p.). An evaluator uses analytical skills to find often minute butalways critical flaws or tweak the details. The job is to take a general, viable format presented by the theorist to make it practicaland implementable.

Objectivity and tact are vital components for an effective analyzer. Hypercriticism does more than squelch the creative flow of the primary and peripheral theorists and analyzers; it demoralizes the entire team when the perception is that no idea is viable, practical, or even generically “good.” A second negative concerning the analyzer is related to hyper-criticality. For whatever motive (occasionally this is also a need for external visibility and affirmation), an analyzer may find false flaws or, arguably worse, existing flaws that their subjective viewpoints fail to identify as relevant. (See Lynn’s memorandum, “Transmittal ofMeeting Minutes,” for an example of data used selectively [2016], and a summary of resulting issues by Miller, “NGO- DrivenEPA regulations based on bad science need reform” [2017]). While time ticks away (immediate for the tactical group; longer term and more insidious for the strategic group), it is wasted as team members who are less qualified try to “correct” or erase the perceived or irrelevant flaws.


A role that Erlandson and Ludeman (2006) neglect is one that many pragmatists ignore entirely, yet it has proven to be vital. It also happens to be another of the Apostle Paul’s mandates and is practically and spiritually evident in a churchcongregation and staff (Collins, 2008). Note Paul’s directives in 1 Thessalonians 5:11, “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (NIV), and in Hebrews 3:13 “But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called ‘Today,’ so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (NIV). The Old Testament emphasizes this as well. There are many examples in the Proverbs, and, in the context of leadership and duty, the Lord directs Moses to“commission Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him, for he will lead this people” (Deut. 3:28, NIV).

Many of a utilitarian bent discount the immaterial and qualifiable as “unmeasurable,” and so the motivator and theorist tend to get discounted in favor of other more visible and tangible roles. Yet even in the secular arena, a recent article in NationalGeographic documents the role of “positive thinking” on personal bases, as well as the surprising things that result from a group corps d’esprit (Vance, 2016).

The motivator encourages and maintains positivity before and during a crisis or task and during debriefing. Rather than acting as a simple “Positive Pollyanna,” the motivator focuses on what works. Aside from focusing on the things that went or are going “right,”the motivator identifies elements that are to be kept and pursued and deemphasizes things that are detrimental or impotent to the goal of the project or team. In this perspective,they are similar to evaluators, except that with their intuitivism they relate more to theorists.

As with the theorist, the motivator is negatively influential by hypercriticism, and by focusing on negative elements, the motivator casts results in a dark stance. A motivator is the first to be deeply discouraged and must maintain a balance between maintaining a depressed atmosphere and the hyper-activity manifested in unrealistic cheerleading. The most effective motivator is not easily swayed by either side but maintains a type of objectivity—even in the affective world. Because it is in the affective area of the human experience, it is probably most important for the motivator to maintain this balance above all the other roles lest a type of bipolar disorder permeate the team character.


One must distinguish between traits, as outlined by Erlandson and Ludeman (2006), and roles. As shown, more than one offive roles within a team dynamic can be assimilated by a single person, although with most, a single role rises to dominance. Thus, each role can incorporate the traits. It may be best perceived that traits are subservient to each role, as each role is a component of leadership.

This article is not meant to neutralize principles of authority. Authority will not affect these roles, but these roles may lieunder the banner of authority. For example, I was the director of my church’s worship ensemble, whose lead singer was particularly skilled in that role. He had a great voice and an uncanny way of relating to the audience. My roles in that context were theorist, with evaluator close behind. To take on the role of lead singer would have been detrimental to the way the music was presented and received, and it would have distracted from the role of congregational music, not to mention worship. It would also have distracted me from my roles in codirection; I could do it, but it was not my primary skill nor was it the best choice for congregational leadership. To his credit, the lead singer recognized my skill as a producer/director and arranger. My position as one of authority required direction, but my roles as leader were actively theorist and evaluator.

Sharing leadership is not an anarchical democracy, but it is clear that there must be a certain amount of altruism for a team to work most effectively. When one considers that they are the “expert” at being “themselves,” they are the leader: no one can be “themselves” better! Tempering that, they must also realize that they are not the expert in everything, or even anything else, any more than a mouse can claim expertise in being a hawk. Even the mobilizer of the group must be recognized as an “expert” in mobilization— and mobilizing in only theway that particular leader can do. The conductor may lead the orchestra but does not have the expertise on, say, oboe that the oboist has. An inside player in basketball rarely has the skillset that a point guard has and certainly does not have it in quite the same nuances that the teammate actually has. Embracing that balance comes from recognizing that one has “honor enough toerect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth” (Lewis, 1955a, p. 218).

Jack Ballard, PhD, is a media producer, music director, and Fulbright Scholar/Specialist. He has taught and developed programs in experiential education,studies abroad, adventure programming, and team development.


Aesop. (n.d.). The belly and the members. Fables of Aesop.

Abbott, E., & Greenhut, R. (Producers), & Marshall, P. (Director). (1992). A league of their own [Film]. Parkway Productions, Columbia Pictures.

Ballard, J. (2015). Assessing experiential education [Paper presentation]. College Music Society (Great Lakes Region) Conference.

Collins, R. F. (2008). The power images in Paul. Liturgical Press.

Condé, S. (2001). The fractal artist. Leonardo, 34(1), 3–10.

Davidson, S. D. (2012). Idea bank: How a fall music retreat can help create a teamwork focus for your orchestra. Music Educators Journal,99(2), 30–32.

Deutsch, C. H. (2004). A campaign for BASF. The New York Times.  Erlandson, E., & Ludeman, K. (2006). The alpha male syndrome (1st ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.

Fairholm, M. R. (2004). Different perspectives on the practice of leadership. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 577–590.

Fractal Foundation. (n.d.). What is chaos theory? what-is-chaos-theory/

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

Lee, S., & Ditko, S. (1962). Amazing Fantasy #15 (Formerly: Amazing Adult Fantasy). Marvel Comics.

Lewis, C. S. (1955a). The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Harper Collins.

Lewis, C. S. (1955b). The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew. Harper Collins. Lewis, C. S. (2003). Mere Christianity &The Screwtape Letters: Complete in One Volume.

Harper Collins Publishers.

Lynn, S. (2016). Transmittal of meeting minutes of April 19–21, 2016 FIFRA SAP meeting held to consider and review scientific issues associated with “Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of biomonitoring data.” United States Environmental

Protection Agency. chlorpyrifos _sap_april_2016_final_minutes.pdf

Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review.

Miller, H. (2017). NGO-driven EPA regulations based on bad science need reform.

The Hill.


Project Adventure. (n.d.). Project Adventure homepage.

Roberts, J. W. (2009). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents of experience in education [Dissertation, Miami University].

Rogers, C. (1954). On becoming a person (online version). Houghton Mifflin.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (2008).Team challenge course & mobile initia-

tives manual. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Vance, E. (2016). Unlocking the healing power of you. National Geographic: The healing power of faith, 230(6).

Leave a Reply