Foster Portfolio Project 1 Running Head: SCHOLARLY BOOK REVIEW Scholarly Book Review Submitted by Alice M. Foster LEAD510 Leadership in Context Southwestern College June 2010 Foster Portfolio Project 2 Kellerman, B. (2004) Bad Leadership what it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Introduction The word Leadership tends to bring to mind good and positive images of powerful and impactful leaders who made a difference. Kellerman presents the notion that the study of leadership has focused solely on the good side of leadership creating confusion and misleading educators and students alike. Kellerman postulates that only studying the good side of leadership has done a disservice to the world at large by separating the “bad leaders” from the good leaders and calling them something other than leaders. That to truly understand leadership the curriculum must examine the good and the bad in context and in relation to the followers who can also be good or bad. Thesis Statement Kellerman’s thesis is based on the following assumption (espoused by Kellerman): The current curriculum and training in leadership is synonymous with good leadership and by design omits the study of “bad leaders” by calling them something other than leaders. Kellerman’s premise is: The study of leadership must include the good and the bad leaders. To encourage development of good leaders, educators and learners alike must understand that leadership is not inherently good or bad but that it can be both. Kellerman asserts that the by refusing to admit that bad leadership is still leadership, is “tantamount to a medical school that would claim to teach health while ignoring disease”. For this book Kellerman states/claims to have researched the previous literature on leadership and that the current understanding/definitions of leadership neglect the fact that leadership can be good or bad. Foster Portfolio Project 3 Major Points Kellerman’s book presents three related premises that must each be examined in turn before moving on to the next one. The first is the premise that the current research and education focuses solely on leadership as good. To support this premise Kellerman refers to the current literature which proposes that good leadership can be taught and learned. That leadership should be studied because the corporate world needs good leaders, but the neglectful inclusion of bad leadership in the curriculum is damaging and misleading. That it is not possible to separate the word leadership from coercion, that there is an inherent different between coercing people to do things and influencing them to do things as they are both the same. Through a presentation of current leadership texts, Kellermon proposes that by only studying leadership as good then students and educators alike will be unable to distinguish good leadership from bad whereby evil can easily be perpetrated. The second related premise, if one accepts Kellerman’s proposal that leadership is both good and bad, is that there are two fundamental categories of bad leadership, ineffective and unethical. Kellerman proposes that the distinction is not theoretical but is based on empirical evidence, that all examples of bad leadership “is bad in one, or sometimes both, of these ways”. Kellerman states that ineffective leadership is leadership that fails to produce the desired change. The lack of results can be traced to a missing elemental component of leadership such as “missing traits, weak skills, strategies badly conceived, and tactics badly employed” the intentions are good but plan was flawed. The second category of bad leadership as defined by Kellerman is unethical which relates to the leaders inability or unwillingness to distinguish between right and wrong. Foster Portfolio Project 4 Kellerman breaks this discussion down into the current research on the definition of the word leadership. Kellerman states that “I take issue with” James MacGregor Burns’s definition of the word leadership in that he implies that leadership is out of necessity an ethical act. Kellerman uses the current literature to define what is unethical by states that Burns goes on to suggest “ethical leaders put their followers’ needs before their own, unethical leaders do not. Ethical leaders exemplify private virtues such as courage and temperance. Unethical leaders do not. Ethical leaders exercise leadership in the interest of the common good. Unethical leaders do not”. Kellerman refutes the simplistic views and suggests instead that ineffective and unethical leadership is a part of the human condition and to guard against it there must be a better understanding of the actions. This is where Kellerman presents the third premise. If one accepts that leadership includes good and bad leadership and that bad leadership is either ineffective or unethical, then one can accept that there are seven types of bad leadership (as proposed by Kellerman). Through Kellerman’s research of hundreds of contemporary cases of bad leadership including the private, public and nonprofit settings, both in the US and abroad, she states that all bad leadership can fall into one of seven categories; incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular and evil. Before launching into any definitions of these categories, Kellerman attempts to forestall any criticism of her typology by offering cautionary notes about the types being no purer than other types, that there are wide ranges of the level of bad, that historically opinions change, that views differ based on perceptions and that the word type do not mean a personality type or that the use of rigid as a personal trait. Foster Portfolio Project 5 Kellerman also separates the seven types into two distinct categories as it relates to her stated opinion that bad leadership falls into the realm of ineffective or unethical. That the seven types she presents are to be looked at as a continuum where the first three types are more about being ineffective and the last four tend to refer to unethical, sometimes it is impossible to distinguish because the bad can be either. Kellerman’s proposal is centered around the concept that the world needs to quit viewing the word leadership as a good thing and start accepting that leadership is also bad in hindsight based on the intentions of the leader as well as the means the leader employed. Kellerman seems to focus a tremendous amount of time trying to contradict or at least minimize the current literature to promote her own with such statements that Hitler was a great leader to some. So if we view all great leaders in terms of her typology of bad leadership we can avoid in the future the pitfalls of accepting a leader who is ineffective or unethical. Critical Assessment Kellerman’s basic premise can be viewed from two different perspectives, from the semantics of language and the perception of a word or from the intent of the word and therein lies a flaw in her basic reasoning. You must accept Kellerman’s concept that the word leadership can be applied equally to Hitler and to Gandhi for any of her succeeding premises to be accepted. The second flaw noted in Kellerman’s reasoning is the research cited tends to be focused solely on the positives of leadership curriculum wherein Kellerman constantly refers to the lack of discussion of the bad side of leadership. As to the first premise being flawed, Kellerman makes the distinction about good or bad leadership about intentions, appearances and perspectives which are based on personal assumptions about the inherent goodness or badness of an act. Rather than Foster Portfolio Project 6 analyzing the context and the results to determine whether a leader is good or bad. Unfortunately this distinction can lead to labeling a leader as bad because of a perspective, Jack Welch was labeled “Neutron Jack” when he eliminated 100,000 jobs and destroyed the internal mechanisms of GE (Hartwick, 2001) to create a flatter organization and change the culture of GE. If Jack Welch had failed to accomplish what he accomplished then he would have been labeled an ineffective leader because although his intentions were good his plan would have been flawed. Kellerman would have typed him at best as incompetent, rigid in that he was not willing to change from his vision regardless of how much damage he was doing, intemperate in that he was rough and brusque, unwilling to make allowances for differing opinions to how he wanted things done, callous in that he cut 100,000 people from their jobs and did not care what happened to them and their livelihood. But because the ends justified the means, Jack Welch is labeled as the leader who unarguably leads General Electric “known and respected as a model in the area of management innovation” (Hartwick, 2001). The second flaw noted in Kellerman’s book is the idea that all leadership curriculum neglected to discuss the bad in leadership, and the constant references to the works of leading researchers about how leadership as a term is inherently good. Yet a look at some of the current curriculum includes a plethora of information about bad leaders and bad leadership, and Kellerman’s arguments are flawed because the information presented from researchers is skewed to support her how suppositions. For example, Kellerman argues the point using a quote from John Gardner “In our culture popular understanding of the term (leadership) distinguishes it from coercion – and places Foster Portfolio Project 7 higher on the scale of leadership those forms involving lesser degrees of coercion.” Yet four paragraphs later Kellerman is stating as a fact that Gardner’s quotation “makes plain, today leaders who use coercion are generally judged to be bad”. First of all Kellermans interpretation of what Gardner is stating is only one interpretation, yet she states her opinion of Gardner’s quote as a fact and attributes it to Gardner, this is misleading and provided as support for her assumptions Kellerman then goes on to use her perception of Gardner’s quote as a comparison to Machiavelli by stating that Machiavelli believes that the only kind of a bad leader is the weak leader. This statement in and of itself is a misleading conclusion that Kellerman states as fact. That Machiavelli believes the only kind of a bad leader is the weak leader, is a supposition on her part that is based on her own perception of Machiavelli’s works. Based on Hartwick’s (2001) excerpts of The Prince, a leader can be bad because of the winds of fortune, the environment in which the leader is in position, because of the followers and the leaders inability to manipulate them or because of the leaders ability to see the political mechanisms that are in place. Machiavelli understood the importance of virtue “those who become princes by the paths of virtue, acquire their principality with difficulty but hold it with ease”, Machiavelli at times seems to suppose that virtue is a weakness yet believes completely that a virtuous person can be a great leader. Another example of Kellerman’s apparent misuse of research to support her own theory is the quote attributed to Cuilla Ethics: The Heart of Leadership in regards to unethical leadership, “Ciulla argues that leaders who do not look after the interest of their followers are not only unethical but ineffective”, yet the citation used is from a review of Ciulla’s Carving Leaders from the Warped Wood of Humanity rather than from Cuilla’s Foster Portfolio Project 8 book. Kellerman then goes on to state about Ciulla and the same book “At the same time, she takes the position that the standards to which we hold leaders should be the same as those we hold for everyone else – no lower and no higher” and that these two cannot translate. After a thorough review of Cuilla’s works in Ethics, the Heart of Leadership the reader is left wondering how Kellerman came to this conclusion and where the information came from. In point of fact Ciulla clearly states “What society is now demanding, and what business ethics is advocating, is that our business leaders and public servants should be held accountable to an even higher standard of behavior than we might demand and expect of ourselves” (Ciulla, 2004, p. 36). As for Kellerman’s argument that current research and curriculum only look at leadership as a positive and good thing, just a simple look at current literature will dispel that supposition. In Leadership, enhancing the lessons of experience, authors Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy discuss leadership from many different aspects and this text is offered as curriculum in Leadership Education through Southwestern College. As a widely accepted text regarding Leadership, the authors use empirical studies as well real- life examples to demonstrate leadership in action. On page 6 of the text the authors begin describing all the different ways that leadership has been defined by researchers: The process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner (Bennis, 1959), there is nothing rosy about this definition or about this being good or bad. Directing and coordinating the work of group members (Fiedler, 1967), not to a positive or good. Foster Portfolio Project 9 An interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because they have to (Merton, 1969). Not a mention about the inherent goodness in the definition of leadership. Transforming followers, creating visions of the goals that may be attained, and articulating for the followers the ways to attain those goals (Bass, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Again, no mention of the definition of leadership being inherently good or ethical. The process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals (Roach & Behling, 1984). These many different definition of leadership come from the same researchers that Kellerman uses to defend her position that Leadership is becoming inherently about being good and excluding the study of bad leadership. For example in Kellermans three major problems for limiting leadership to good leadership she states that doing so is misleading. Kellerman then goes on the state “As Bernanrd Bass has observed, there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” And then goes on to state that each of these definition is value-free so that it makes no sense to distinguish between leaders and power wielders. Kellerman is making the leap from a discussion about the word leadership being linked to being good and that all the literature is then referring to bad leadership as power wielders. In point of fact Kellerman only references power wielder as a name she applies to Hitler, because it is her concern, not something other researchers have stated. So in her argument that it is misleading, what she is attributing to Bass and other researchers is something that she actually coined herself. It seems to be an apparent attempt by Foster Portfolio Project 10 Kellerman to attribute her own suppositions to create a theory for which she has developed a typology to prevent something from happening which in reality does not appear to be happening. Personal Reaction Kellerman’s arguments were difficult to accept in light of the research and knowledge already gained through the Master of Science in Leadership Program. There is so much information available about leadership, leadership and followers, leadership in context, leadership theory and practice, ethics in leadership, that contradicts Kellermans basic premise. For instance, in the text Leadership Enhance the Lessons of Experience there is a tremendous amount of information regarding the bad things that leaders do, the dark side of personality, emotional intelligence, abuses of power, why do leaders fail. If there is a chapter titled why do leaders fail, the dark side of personality then it would tend to lead the reader to assume that there is a dark side and a bright side to leadership. That leadership is not inherently good or bad it is about the actions of a leader that will determine whether the leader is good or bad. In Leadership Theory and Practice, Northouse (2007) devotes an entire chapter to Leadership Ethics and what it means, where it comes from, all the different theories that discuss ethics and how ethics impacts leadership. In no way does the text refer to leadership as good, moral or ethical, In regard to leadership, ethics has to do with what leaders do and who leaders are. It is concerned with the nature of leaders’ behavior and their virtuousness. In any decision-making situation, ethical issues are either implicitly or explicitly involved. The choices leaders make and how they respond in a given Foster Portfolio Project 11 circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics” (Northouse, 2007, p. 342). There is no inherent value given or applied to the term leadership as it being good, there is discussion about how leadership can be bad depending on the followers, the context and the ethics of the leaders. When Kouzes and Posner (2002) introduce the five practices of exemplary leadership they state “As we looked deeper into the dynamic process of leadership, through case analysis and survey questionnaires, we uncovered five practices common to person-best leadership experiences” (p. 13) the entire book is about benchmarking great leaders and trying to emulate the five practices to become great leaders. There is no distinction between good and bad leadership and no expectation that all leaders are great, it is a pathway to becoming a leader who can get extraordinary things done. Kellerman does provide some food for thought, some good discussion about how educators and students may not get the balanced approach of leadership without looking at the good and the bad, but it was difficult to get past the erroneous suppositions the author makes on which her entire theory is built. It reminded me greatly about building a pyramid, if the base of the pyramid is not sound, then the presumption is that the rest of the pyramid will fail the test of time. If you do not have a solid foundation for a theory to be built upon, then it is difficult to consider anything that flows from the original argument is valid. Foster Portfolio Project 12 References Ciulla, J.B.(2004) Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd Ed.) Westport, Connecticut London: Praeger. Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases (2001) Confucius, Machiavelli and Rousseau: Studies in Contrast. Oneonta, NY: Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute. Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases (2001) Elizabeth I, Queen of England. Oneonta, NY: Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute. Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., Curphy, G.J. (2006) Leadership Enhancing the lessons of experience (5th Ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Kellerman, B. (2004) Bad Leadership What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B.Z. (2002) The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Northouse, P.G. (2007) Leadership Theory and Practice (4th Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Foster Portfolio Project 13 Appendix A The Book Review or Article Critique: General Guidelines This handout should be included as an appendix to your assignment, so Portfolio readers will understand the overall assignment requirements. An analytic or critical review of a book or article is not primarily a summary; rather, it comments on and evaluates the work in the light of specific issues and theoretical concerns in a course. The book review is concerned with an authors treatment of a particular overall topic, in this case leadership. Keep questions like the following in mind as you read Bad Leadership, make notes, and then write the review according to the format guidelines provided. Introduction 1. What is the specific topic of the book or article? What overall purpose does it seem to have? For what readership is it written? (The preface, acknowledgements, bibliography and index can be helpful in answering these questions. Don't overlook facts about the author's background and the circumstances of the book's creation and publication.) Thesis 2. Does the author state an explicit thesis? Does he or she noticeably have an axe to grind? What are the theoretical assumptions? Are they discussed explicitly? (Again, look for statements in the preface, etc. and follow them up in the rest of the work.) Main Points 3. Summarize the main points the author makes. What kinds of material does the work present (e.g. primary documents or secondary material, Foster Portfolio Project 14 literary analysis, personal observation, quantitative data, biographical or historical accounts)? 4. How is this material used to demonstrate and argue the thesis? (As well as indicating the overall structure of the work, your review could quote or summarize specific passages to show the characteristics of the author's presentation, including writing style and tone.) Critical Assessment 5. What exactly does the work contribute to the overall topic of your course? What general problems and concepts in your discipline and course does it engage with? 6. Are there alternative ways of arguing from the same material? Does the author show awareness of them? In what respects does the author agree or disagree? 7. What theoretical issues and topics for further discussion does the work raise? (Here is where some outside research comes in to play) 8. What does other literature say about some of the same topics the author presents? Is the author thorough in his or her presentation of alternative points of view? Is he or she familiar with other literature? (More outside research here) Personal Reaction 9. What are your own reactions and considered opinions regarding the work? Some reviews summarize the book's content and then evaluate it; others integrate these functions, commenting on the book and using summary only to give examples. You should do the latter. 10. Is there anything of value to be learned in a practical sense from reading Bad Leadership? How, specifically, can you integrate the topics covered in the book with your own professional and personal life? Are there particular behaviors, attitudes, etc you will change as a result of this reading? Foster Portfolio Project 15 EXAMPLE SJAC Belzer, Alisa (2002). “I don‟t crave to read”: School reading and adulthood. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46 (2), 104-113. INTRODUCTION The experiences of our youth surely impact our adult lives in many obvious ways. Less obvious, perhaps, are those experiences from our youthful school years in which our studies and the teachers who were our mentors, guides, and role models altered for better or worse our perceptions of schooled topics such as “math”, “history”, or “reading.” It is in the examination of the latter, of course, that Belzer presents her notion that adult learners may actually be more literate than perceived by others or by self-report and that indeed such adult learners continue into their adulthoods to be impacted by the “self-talk”, perceptions, and internal definitions of “reading” that were established and reinforced by their youthful school experiences with reading. THESIS STATEMENT Belzer‟s thesis is based on the following assumption (espoused by Belzer): If an individual had negative, or even neutral, experiences with reading as a youth in school, that individual thus has negative connotations, emotions, images, and mental labels for the word “reading” and for what they perceived the act of reading to be. Belzer‟s premise is: how adult learners think about (i.e., visualize, label, internally define) “literacy” and “reading", thought processes which Belzer believes are the direct result of schooling experiences as a youth, Foster Portfolio Project 16 negatively influence the individual‟s interest in reading, which then decreases the behavior of practicing reading, and without practice, fluency itself is negatively impacted. Fluency, Belzer asserts, is a significant element of the most common definition of “literate.” For this article, Belzer states/claims to have researched the impact/differences made by past school experiences on nontraditional learning as an adult. MAJOR POINTS Belzer‟s article presents two inter-related significant premises – and one spin-off assertion of a logical continuum - that blend into the basic belief that adult learners are impacted by things experienced as a youthful learner. Belzer presents information gained through oral interviews with five African American female subjects, all participants in a GED program, none of whom having reported positive, rewarding, reinforcing, or even practical experiences with the activity of “reading.” Indeed, her five interviewees did not see themselves either as “readers” or particularly “literate” and indicated through interviews that they had experienced embarrassing, shameful, frustrating, or at best limited experiences with regard to school-based reading activities. Because of those negative, or in some cases neutral, experiences these females considered “reading” and “literacy” as being something applicable to others, not for themselves. They equated the word, and act of, reading with novels (books for pleasure-reading), the emotion of frustration and the opinion of “pointless.” Thus, reading for pleasure, per Belzer, is impacted by our internal pictures about “reading” – and implies that those internal pictures were carved rather viciously onto our youthful psyches. Belzer‟s basic premise can perhaps be best expressed in the phrase “My ability to see reading as useful and positive is impaired because of my bad experiences as a youth in school.” While never stated by Belzer, perhaps a converse statement would be more stimulating: “I view reading positively because I had no negative experiences while a youth – with respect to school reading.” Belzer spins-off one continuum of logic from the first premise. Her logic flows like this: 1) Youth X experiences negative feelings and actions in school Foster Portfolio Project 17 with respect to reading; 2) As a resultant, Youth X becomes alienated and disengages intellectually; 3) Adult X, who had those negative experiences as a youth, is prevented by those youthful experiences from engaging in additional reading as an adult; 4) Lack of additional reading (i.e., “practicing reading”) impacts fluency; 5) Lack of fluency is connoted as “illiterate” to American society and to educators. Belzer‟s second premise is that society generally and educators specifically fail to define correctly the word “literate”. Belzer considered each of her five subjects to be “literate” as each was able to read and pay bills, execute basic life-functions requiring at least a modicum of reading skill, and were successfully remaining alive and participating in the activities of American life. Belzer believes that society‟s mis-defining of “literacy” is one of the contributing culprits in the problem studied in this article. She points out that there are various forms of literacy – for example, school, community, and personal literacy. The problem, per Belzer, is in society‟s use of the word “literacy” in a monochromatic application. She believes that each of these forms of literacy is still, well, literacy. Belzer argues that we limit our pallets to one figurative color by using the word literacy in a small, restrictive manner. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT Verhoeven and Snow (2001) reported on the apparent importance of “enthusiasm and engagement” with regard to developing proficiency in fluent reading skills. Belzer seems to have overlooked the basic fact that adults are capable of generating and experiencing both, even as adults! She did acknowledge the distinction between “playful and engaging” (p. 107) material and material which is “meaningless”, but these really are not dichotomies. The important variable was the element of practicality for these interviewees. „Playful and engaging‟ makes almost any activity fun, certainly, but the women in this study had made time in their daily lives to peruse pragmatic information that was also personal to them. Their reading-for-pleasure came by way of Esquire or Ebony magazines and other similarly culture-specific publications, and they did Foster Portfolio Project 18 not view that kind of reading as having less value per se. They simply read what they were interested in. The question begs to be asked: Don‟t we all? Regardless of our upbringing and our experiences, good or bad during our youthful school days, as adults don‟t we read what we really are interested in? Belzer missed the more interesting and more pertinent point….and questions. Her poorly argued points about these five subjects and their “literacy” was frustrating at best. The argument should be: There is evidence that enthusiasm and activities which make us “engage” seem to support our brain‟s ability to comprehend, to be stimulated, and to do certain things well – including reading. Thus, if an adult learner is unstimulated, depressed, economically poor, malnourished, or just plain intellectually dull (e.g., lacking curiosity about the world, etc.), that person may not have any interest in reading, for example, an epic like Moby Dick. What are the indicators, the variables that allow adult learners to override any negative youthful experiences so that they may participate with language (written and spoken) in ways that are pleasurable and meaningful to them? Inserting as an issue the question “what is literacy?” is off the mark. PERSONAL REACTION Belzer‟s arguments were, frankly, difficult to consider without laughing out- loud. At one point she states, “….school reading and writing have a particularly strong influence in defining literacy for these learners and that these definitions stay with them in adulthood, despite practices that may contradict them” (p. 106). Yet in reading carefully the statements provided by the interviewees, it is clear that these women were not particularly self-critical of their reading skills and for the most part seemed to consider themselves basically acceptable human beings. They were clear about their preferences, likes, dislikes, wants and needs. These subjects all were capable of getting through daily life quite adequately and simply did not have any desire – for a myriad of reasons – to launch into reading, say, Anna Karenina. It was obvious: they just didn‟t have any interest in it. In fact, these individuals might never have connected the dots between “bad Foster Portfolio Project 19 youthful experiences in school reading” and “I don‟t want to read Shakespeare,” until Belzer connected them for these interviewees. The actual dilemma – missed by Belzer – is: What is the result, the impact, the outcomes of the choices of reading material and the implied intellectual value placed on various written items in American culture? Belzer endeavored to connect the experience “bad school as youth” with “I don‟t read big novels now”. The connection simply was not established, if one even exists. So many elements were not controlled-for in the study. Consider, for example, any of the following variables: status of their parents as they were being raised (were parents present), parent‟s intellectual skills (particularly gifted or challenged?), values imparted by the parents on them as youth (valuing concentration and focus on a hobby or playing in the street). Belzer interviewed five African American women, connected dots that may not have even been present before the interviews, and arrived at the conclusion that these adults had somehow been permanently scarred by their experiences as youths and thus would never be the kinds of “literate” readers that Americans imagine when that phrase is used. Her logic is apples and oranges mixed together, and all the fruit has gone bad to boot. Americans have changed in the past four decades. In the 1960‟s, we socially valued the “classics”, those novels that changed our opinions and swayed our lives. We imparted those values of reading and thinking about the content of books and ideas to our youth. But the past four decades have brought with them all of the advances of science and the progress of efficiency. Our “available” leisure time and our perception of the use of time have changed. Belzer‟s presentation implies that nothing has really changed in America, and if it had not been for unenthusiastic, sadistic, untalented teachers these poor subjects would now be enjoying lives rich with literature. The topics of literacy, fluency, the emotional and intellectual joys of literature, and reading for pleasure versus reading for information are far too complicated to compress into a neatly compacted paradigm. The experiences of Foster Portfolio Project 20 youth do, of course, influence our adult lives. But youthful experience is not the singular variable that rules our choices as adults. References Belzer, Alisa (2002). “I don‟t crave to read”: School reading and adulthood. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46 (2), 104-113. Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. (Eds.). (2001). Literacy and motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.