Dean, Judge, and Bishop: Lessons from a Conflict and Implications for School Leaders, 5(17)
Vernon J. Storey
University of Victoria
storeyv@uvic.ca
Abstract
Introduction
Conflict in organizations, including schools, affects both the individuals involved and those observing the scene. Colleagues, staff, and boards/authorities, all of whom have expectations for school leaders, assume that those individuals will assume significant roles in resolving conflicts. However, many who face these expectations, though confident in the disciplined practice of their craft, may find themselves ill-prepared for the undisciplined skirmishing that often surrounds conflictive issues.
This article will consider how school leaders might be aided to develop knowledge and skills to strengthen their ability to address workplace conflict resolution. I will examine a historical circumstance that offers an example of unproductive management of conflict, using case study strategy to examine these events. For the student of leadership, case studies offer a valuable learning tool. Documentation of real-world examples can capture the complexity of circumstances that often confront school leaders. Case examples offer in their complexity opportunities for individual reflection and group analysis, potentially important contributions to preparation and professional development.
This article presents a case example and an analysis and application of that case. The first section will examine the origins, escalation, and outcome of an 1870s conflict between Edward Cridge, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Victoria, British Columbia, and George Hills, first Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Columbia. The case, which ended with a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice Matthew Baillie Begbie, was the first of such magnitude for the Church in that corner of the (then) British Empire. While the context of this set of circumstances was ecclesiastical, the case offers a well-documented opportunity to explore on a broader basis the nature and effects of conflict between individuals of influence and prominence within an organization. The second section of the paper considers critical elements and underpinnings of conflict situations as observed in this instance. It offers an analysis and perspective that may aid the student of leadership in applying the model to life in schools. The overall intent is to contribute both to our understanding of interpersonal conflict in the organizational setting and to the use of case analysis as a learning tool.
The Powers That Be: A Case of Conflict
In the 1850s, Victoria was transformed by gold fever. Almost overnight, the infant community was faced with a new reality, "a flood of people … sweeping onward to and over the mainland like a tidal wave … hundreds of thousands of gold-seekers … filled the streets of our little city" (Fawcett, 1912, p. 255). Cridge, known for his commitment to and care for the community, was overwhelmed by the demands of his colonial pastorate. In a logical move that would have unanticipated consequences, he appealed to the Church in Britain for help — "one missionary for the goldfields and one to help in Victoria" (Underhill, 1984, p. 3)
Cridge’s plea was heard by Baroness Angela Burdett-Coutts, a wealthy Anglican churchwoman whose enthusiasm led her to suggest a grander plan. She was convinced the Church needed a more solid presence in the form of a diocese and bishop; she would underwrite the startup costs. Imagine Cridge’s surprise when the Reverend George Hills, later to refer to himself as "G. Columbia," stepped off the boat as Bishop of the fledgling diocese and the original minister’s ecclesiastical superior. Edward Cridge’s "cry for help brought forth not only energetic young clergymen but a bishop to whose rule he must presumably submit"(Underhill, 1984, p. 3).
The two clerics’ early days together were cordial enough, though the future course of their relationship was perhaps predictable from the start. Edward Cridge was the first, and, until Hills’ arrival, the only Anglican clergyman in town. He had asked for something different than he had received, and that without consultation. Although Cridge was well known and respected in Victoria, his situation had changed suddenly, substantially, and irrevocably. Hills, on the other hand, surely would have argued that he had been duly appointed — Cridge would have to recognize both the new Bishop’s authority and his own new subordinate status. From that point on, faintly at first and then written in large, bold letters, the situation developed into a conflict of considerable proportions and over a century of consequential developments.
The Cridge-Hills conflict developed from an undeclared round of sparring into a sorry battle for supremacy. Several realities paved the way for conflict. Edward Cridge was an established and appreciated member of the fledgling community. He was recognized for his commitment to the social and cultural welfare of the community. He was responsible for founding Victoria’s first hospital. Edward and Mary had worked tirelessly to care for orphaned children, of whom there were many in this frontier town, despite losing four of their own children to scarlet fever in a three-month period.
Hills, on the other hand, was a newcomer and an outsider, sent to the westernmost part of North America by a church that to many seemed remote, distanced by both geography and culture. The Bishop’s assignment was not just to assist a beleaguered pastor, but to establish the Church’s presence and hierarchy in a rough-and-tumble community with "mud on its boots." His style was remote, again in contrast to the involved and well-connected Cridge.
Hills was followed quickly by an iron church building, constructed in England with further largesse from the Baroness Burdett-Courts, inspected by Hills, disassembled, shipped to Victoria, and reassembled as the Bishop’s own church. Interestingly, as Hills organized the diocese, he did not make the iron church the cathedral. Instead, he renamed Cridge’s pastorate Christ Church Cathedral and installed Cridge as the Dean, an act that underlined for the original minister his secondary position. In 1868, Hills offered Cridge an Archdeaconry, a gesture declined by Cridge, who may have seen this as a subtle move to relocate him elsewhere. In fact, the Bishop himself later acknowledged that the offer was extended "only as an act of justice to the senior clergyman of the diocese, and minister of the church named to be the cathedral" (Peake, 1959, p. 79). Edward Cridge also met resistance from one of the young ministers assigned to the area. During one of the Bishop’s absences, Cridge attempted to assert hierarchical authority over the junior pastor, who refused to accede and threatened to appeal to Hills. Clearly, Edward Cridge and George Hills were marching toward an impending collision. To this point, the skirmishing between the two clerics was simply a fact of everyday, though troublesome, organizational life. That would change as another contributing reality fuelled the flames of conflict.
In 1869, Christ Church Cathedral was destroyed by fire. It was rebuilt, and the new building was consecrated in 1872 on a day when "the smouldering potential for conflict between Dean Edward Cridge and Bishop George Hills also burst into open flame" (Storey, Worobetz & Kennedy, 1999, p. 31). Events at evensong, the final consecration service, became the proverbial "straw that broke the camel’s back."
The historical record does not tell why Bishop Hills invited the Venerable Archdeacon Reece to speak at the consecration service, nor whether he had proposed his visitor’s topic. We do know that Hills was a "High Church" Anglican, while Cridge was committed to the more evangelical emphasis and relaxed practice of the "Low Church," a stance with undoubted appeal in a community that had already pushed many boundaries. Reece believed that "reverence and devotion were deepened and increased by a degree of formality and ceremonial in the services of the Church" (Peake, 1959, p. 79). He delivered a ringing affirmation of ritualism, a controversial subject within the Church and one certain to arouse passions in this gold-rush community.
Edward Cridge could not contain himself. This was "his" church, and Reece’s exhortation was unacceptable. As a local newspaper reported:
To Hills, the dispute was a straightforward matter of Church authority challenged. Canon law subjected Cridge to his Bishop. The Dean had violated his oath, and he continued in open defiance. Cridge, on the other hand, chose to reject Church law, asserting instead his sole authority as a pastor. Two otherwise mature leaders began to behave in ways that made Tuchman’s question relevant:
It is instructive to examine the stances of the two men, Hills representing the right and might of the Anglican Church, Cridge relying on his credits in the bank of public opinion and on a position he asserted as morally superior. Clearly, Hills had a significant legal advantage, a fact Cridge should perhaps have considered more carefully from the start. The Church had established operating structures and procedures, regularities to which the first minister had assented by oath. Throughout the "post-Reece" phase, Hills consistently operated according to policy and communicated to Cridge that he expected the same from his ecclesiastical subordinate.
Evidence indicates that the Bishop was both confident in his position and prepared to keep to a minimum the sanctions imposed on the Dean, who remained obdurate throughout. In a final attempt to resolve the dispute and preserve the stability of Church operations without recourse elsewhere, Hills held out an olive branch:
Perhaps knowing what was inevitably to follow, Cridge went further, suggesting that the Bishop was acting illegally as his sole "accuser, witness, governor, and judge" (Cridge, 1872-74). On January 8, 1874, Cridge stated in a letter published in Victoria papers that every congregation, with its accepted pastor, is a complete and autonomous church. He also asserted that in regard to the dispute the Bishop could not be his judge because of an inherent conflict of interest. Despite the possible logic of Cridge’s assertion, the proper forum for any debate about changing the rules was the Synod, not a cleric’s direct challenge to his bishop regarding administrative fairness.
The gauntlet had been dropped. G. Columbia had two choices, one almost untenable. He could let the matter drop, conceding defeat, or he could bring the Dean before an ecclesiastical court (Bishop’s Court). He chose the latter. On September 22, 1874, Cridge was found guilty of 16 of the 18 charges brought against him and was suspended by the Bishop. A local paper reported the Bishop’s actions and editorialized in a way that might have encouraged the recalcitrant Cridge:
Defied again, Hills sought a ruling from the British Columbia Supreme Court. Chief Justice Begbie was troubled by the case. His reputation during the wild days of the gold rush had earned him the nickname "The Hanging Judge," but this was no matter of brawling in the usual sense, although that term had been used to describe Cridge’s behaviour following the Reece incident. The clergymen were prominent citizens and personal friends of Justice Begbie, who tried to persuade the ministers to settle out of court. Cridge finally apologized for his evensong outburst but would not revoke his statements regarding the Bishop’s authority. The Bishop could not accept continued defiance, and the matter was brought to trial.
In the court’s view, the canon laws of the Anglican Church were clear — legal right was on the side of G. Columbia. On October 24, 1874, the Chief Justice found for Bishop Hills and issued an interlocutory injunction barring Edward Cridge both from ministering as rector of Christ Church and from acting as a clergyman for the Anglican Church. In an interesting footnote to the court case, one writer has suggested that Judge Begbie, "much saddened by this quarrel between two of his old friends, privately sent the dean a cheque to cover his expenses. Cridge preserved it, but never cashed it" (Pethick, 1975, p. 72). On May18, 1875, Mr. Justice Gray finalized the matter in his judgement: "No man is compelled to belong to a church or society of which his conscience disapproves, but while he belongs to it he must be governed by its laws. He cannot refuse to abide by the conditions of membership, yet claim its advantages" (Supreme Court of British Columbia, 1875). Cridge may have been correct in his assessment that he had popular support, but clearly he had lost the legal battle.
It was time to move on. At a hastily called meeting the weekend following the initial judgement, over three-quarters of Cridge’s former flock departed Christ Church Cathedral and voted unanimously to form a congregation of the Reformed Episcopal Church. Cridge was soon preaching from his new pulpit in the Church of Our Lord, which remains active today in downtown Victoria. Both the land for the building and the funds for an organ were donated by Sir James Douglas, first the Hudson’s Bay Company representative, later Governor of British Columbia. That year, Cridge was named Reformed Episcopal Bishop, continuing in that and his pastoral role until retiring in 1895 at the age of 78 years. He remained in Victoria until his death in 1913, a pioneer social worker, one of the city’s more colourful characters, and patriarch of a large family, some of whose members remain in the city. Bishop Hills returned to England shortly after Cridge was ousted from the Anglican Church.
A Model for Analysis and Application
The process of leader preparation and development lies along a loose continuum from happenstance and experience to formal programs. It is characteristic of leadership roles that growth and improvement often rest on the individual’s own initiative, especially after entry requirements have been met and an appointment has been made. In most cases, leaders are expected at least to be fully qualified, at most free of evident flaws and weaknesses. Often, though, the phrase "lonely at the top" captures the isolation of the leadership role more than we would wish. Our frequent lack of care and attention for those in positions of responsibility may be one reason for our frequent concern that too few appear willing to assume school leadership roles.
One relevant strategy for leader development is the use of case study as a learning tool that enables participants to explore approximations of reality to encourage individual reflection and group dialogue. Because the case is recorded rather than dynamic, it enables the learner to examine a base of data that "stands still" for examination. Although the case example can be enhanced through the use of technological innovations, even in its basic form it is highly applicable to the study of leadership issues.
The first portion of this article has outlined a case example with opportunity for analysis and application. I will present the analysis within a framework of five stages in the dispute’s development: (a) the presence of a defining reality as background and context, (b) the existence of a pattern of reinforcing events, (c) the occurrence of a critical incident, (d) the response patterns displayed by the parties, and (e) the outputs and outcomes arising from the dispute. For each stage, I will offer sample study questions for use by an individual or group to enhance understanding and enable application. The questions are illustrative only, as is the case itself — the point of this article is to propose an approach to analysis and application of lifelike situations by educational leaders engaging in a process of professional development.
The assumption in providing a question-based framework for examining a case example is that there is merit both in systematic, disciplined examination and in group exploration and discussion. Students of leadership carry a range of backgrounds and experiences that can usefully be considered in light of available research and literature. The case study approach acknowledges that multiple possibilities exist for selection, evaluation, and implementation. Group consideration of a case example can enhance opportunities for disciplined consideration. For an audience of leaders, this example of conflict and its resolution is relevant for both content and process.
The circumstances of this case present a pattern typical of many organization-rooted disputes. While this conflict occurred between two individuals, it is difficult to separate the individual from the organizational components. To a considerable extent, each man sought to define the problem in terms of the organization and his perception of his own role in relation to it. Bishop Hills offered policy-based support for his position, as did Edward Cridge, except that Cridge referenced his position only to Scripture, which he asserted represented a "higher power" than the Church as an organization. The origin of Church policy, Cridge asserted, was found in the Bible, and he offered his personal interpretation of the meaning of Scripture in regard to the matter. While that constituted a primary presenting set of arguments, it is important to note also that, for both men, there may have been a personal, ego-based component to the conflict.
Stage 1: Defining Reality
For Cridge, background and context were provided by a single defining
reality. As Victoria’s pioneer minister, he had placed before the Church
of England a legitimate call for assistance. He had also specified the
nature of the requested help. He had presented his plea to an Anglican
Church hierarchy half a world away, an organization that surely regarded
itself as policy-maker. While in post-millennial fashion and with post-millennial
communication capabilities we might have preferred a more consultative
approach, the Church was certainly operating on firm ground in determining
its policy (creation of a Diocese) and in allocating its resources (seed
money and a Bishop complete with church).
Logically, one might ask: "If the Church in its wisdom had determined that the appropriate response was to create a diocese, why not appoint Edward Cridge, the resident minister, as Bishop?" Undoubtedly, the thought had also crossed Cridge’s mind. Clearly, the Church’s decision to appoint George Hills had removed control from the local minister and placed it squarely in the hands of the new bishop. Both Cridge’s circumstances and his status had changed drastically with the imposition of this new reality.
While the specific circumstances of the Cridge-Hills case are far removed from today’s organizations and their leaders, there are relevant parallels: a defining and seemingly unalterable set of facts, the need to work creatively with existing realities in mind, and the need for analytical skill to enable sense to be made of the situation. The following study questions, structured for use with this particular case, could be adapted easily to other cases:
1.1 What elements of the case seem largely predetermined and relatively unchangeable by Edward Cridge?Our substantive focus relative to this case is conflict and its resolution. Our process focus is the task of equipping school leaders to be reflective, to engage in dialogue, and to develop skills of analysis and application. The study question approach can encourage the sort of disciplined preparation that will enable busy leaders to make best use of the scant amount of time and priority available for systematic learning. In each instance, we encourage discussants engaged in the learning effort to search for relevant parallels within their organizations.
1.2 What are some key indicators that an element or factor of a particular situation should be accepted as a necessary parameter or an unalterable circumstance?
1.3 What alternatives exist for the individual facing an unacceptable "necessary?"
1.4 What early actions by either Hills or Cridge might have reduced the possibility of conflict?
1.5 What factors might have mitigated against early evasive or corrective action?
Stage 2: Reinforcing Events
The early years of the Cridge-Hills relationship were marked by events
that reinforced the Church’s decision to appoint a bishop. Hills saw himself
as policy implementer, an assignment that he pursued vigorously. Clearly,
he considered the original minister an organizational subordinate, admitting
later that his spurned offer to Cridge of an archdeaconry was made only
as a token recognition.
The steps taken by Bishop Hills established from the beginning that his task was to establish in Victoria a clear presence for the Anglican Church. With no indication that he had assessed local need, he approved the construction of the iron church. He moved quickly to establish and conduct a synod as clear evidence of the presence and authority of Church hierarchy. Even Hills’ naming of Christ Church, rather than his own, as the Cathedral, reinforced the presence and power of the Bishopric. When denominational activities were conducted at Christ Church, the Bishop would take charge, while Cridge would be relegated to the lesser role of Dean.
Hills had legitimate authority to do all of these things, a fact that Cridge probably should have acknowledged. While there may have been understandable personal reasons for his recalcitrance, Cridge appears to have gambled unwisely on his ability to gain personal victory over the Bishop, who represented the legitimate organization to which Cridge was legitimately subject. From the start, an onlooker might have observed that this was a battle Edward Cridge would lose.
Evidence in Cridge’s diary suggests that he was accustomed to seeking counsel from others. In addition, the public offered much comment and advice through the newspapers throughout the dispute. One wonders about both the thoughtfulness and objectivity of Cridge’s confidantes and Cridge’s own critical judgement in assessing advice he was offered. Again, the elements of the dispute in this specific case are directly relevant to the practice of leadership in contemporary settings. Several study questions are applicable:
2.1 Assuming for yourself the position of Edward Cridge, identify events that you would consider to have reinforced the defining reality facing you.Stage 3: Critical Incident
2.2 What might have been the position-shaping interests of Cridge? of Hills?
2.3 Identify response possibilities that might have addressed the interests of both parties and perhaps offered more effective advice.
2.4 As Cridge, would you have selected the strategy of directly discussing the matter with Hills? If so, at what point, and how would you present your case? If not, what would have been your preferred strategy?
Clearly, Archdeacon Reece’s sermon paved the way to a critical incident on this path of events. One could speculate whether Hills had structured the event as a showdown, but the suggestion lacks supporting evidence. From Cridge’s perspective, an unacceptable incident had occurred in "his" church; Hills would not have agreed. With his response, Cridge started a positional battle that could have only one eventual outcome — victory for the Church, albeit a bittersweet "win."
The critical incident triggered an outpouring of public sentiment for and against Cridge. The Dean had the advantage of long-standing and excellent reputation. He was known for his contributions to the development of the Victoria community. Though Hills was a more recent arrival, he carried the authority of bishop and the respect of office that accompanied the designation. The stage was set for a play performed in front of a divided audience. The critical incident provides an opportunity for analytical dialogue around several questions:
3.1 Assume that the events of the evensong service constituted a critical incident. What do you consider to be the defining characteristics of a critical incident?Stage 4: Response Patterns
3.2 Using your response to the above as a base, identify the elements of a particular critical incident in which you have been involved or that you have observed.
3.3 Identify several opportunities for resolution, beginning with the day after evensong. Include both opportunities in the historical record and others that could have been considered. Apply similar thinking to an incident from your own experience.
The day after evensong saw the beginning of a series of letters between G. Columbia and Edward Cridge. The Bishop cited canon law and Cridge offered a perspective on Scripture couched in the language of defiance. Hills proposed a minimum penalty for the offence; Cridge would have none of it. Hills, forced to act on behalf of the Church, referred the matter to Bishop’s Court; Cridge refused to accept the legitimacy of that body’s ruling. Offered an opportunity by the Chief Justice to settle the matter privately, Cridge would only apologize for his unseemly outburst at evensong.
Perhaps the response stage is the most crucial in determining a path toward conflict resolution. Most onlookers are prepared to accept error, even a challenge to legitimate authority. The interested but somewhat distant observer with little to lose may take cues from the behaviour of the disputants and choose a side on the basis of personal acquaintance, the opinions of others, the apparent importance of the matter, or even the time available to consider the matter amid other priorities. In this case, the response pattern became a vehement and sustained challenge to the authority of church government — a policy challenge. It is critical to note that Cridge viewed himself as church "government" of equal authority and importance with Hills. The approach of these two men in authority, though, resembles misgovernment as characterized by Tuchman.
Tuchman has described the historical phenomenon of "pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests" (Tuchman, 1984, p. 4). Although we have described these incidents primarily as occurring between two individuals, Hills’ and Cridge’s appointments as representatives of the state Church of England add a "governmental" flavour to the controversy. In Tuchman’s terms, the dispute could be described as "folly" or "perversity — the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved" (Tuchman, 1984, p. 5). She has identified three criteria for identifying a course of action as folly:
Tuchman suggests that to qualify as folly, a course of action must not only have been contrary to self-interest, it must have been perceived so in its own time. Certainly the newspaper coverage, at least one side of it, communicated that perception. There was one clear opportunity available throughout as a resolving action — Cridge could have acknowledged error and complied with the Bishop’s authority. Yet even Hills’ final "olive branch" did not move Cridge in that direction.
A question might be raised about Edward Cridge’s choice of counsel throughout the dispute. Clearly, as recorded in his diary, he sought advice from his associates. On one occasion, that advice helped him to form his decision to decline the archdeaconry. Perhaps, though, his circle of advisers lacked an "honest broker," someone who might have helped him develop a more useful perspective on the circumstance and its probable outcome. In fact, the outcry from the locals who favoured the Dean’s position may have blinded him to pitfalls on his chosen road.
In this conflict, neither party was prepared to abandon his fundamental position. The battle quickly became "Church vs. Cridge;" at that point, the result was inevitable. Cridge, who had left no viable alternative, found himself playing a role he would have denied, but one captured succinctly by Quinn as "the self-centred little boy holding tightly to his swing … one of the last things we want to consider is our own selfishness and immaturity. We resist reflecting on our own fear of change" (Quinn, 1996, p. 36). Quinn argues that for a leader to have significant impact on an organization, he or she must engage in the effort of deep, rather than incremental, change at a personal level:
During the response stage, choices are made regarding advancement of interests through presentation of positions. For leaders, the challenge is to probe events and circumstances for underlying interests of parties involved and work toward those ends rather than selecting positions for favour. When the administrator is a party involved, as Cridge alleged regarding Hills, the possibility exists that interests will clash. This case leads directly to an opportunity to examine the possibilities of an interest-based approach to understanding and resolving the dispute, an approach that may avoid what Tuchman terms folly:
4.1 Clearly, Cridge and Hills had established firm positions on the matter in dispute. How would you analyze the case in terms of their interests as opposed to their positions?Stage 5: Output and Outcomes
4.2 Propose an interest-based resolution to this dispute.
4.3 Develop a set of guidelines to help you and your organization determine whether a dispute is best resolved verbally, in writing, or by a combination of these two methods.
The Cridge-Hills dispute was marked by several in-process outputs: the Bishop’s letter of reprimand, the Church court ruling, and finally, the Supreme Court rulings of Chief Justice Begbie and Mr. Justice Gray. In the legal sense, the matter ended with those judgements. Outputs, though, are not always synonymous with outcomes. This particular positional battle ended with no clear winner (although perhaps each disputant would have argued that he had triumphed) and little satisfaction of interests. The Anglican Church lost a large membership of significant influence in Victoria. Cridge, recognized and respected throughout his life, became Bishop of a relatively unknown, somewhat marginalized denomination. Bishop Hills returned to England an unhappy man. An observer of the religious scene might have noted a pattern somewhat inconsistent with the faith for which both churches stood.
The matter of outcomes is often more complex and difficult to assess than the policy outputs of a final decision in regard to a conflict. The matter of resolution is a philosophic question: Can a conflict truly be resolved? What constitutes resolution? Perhaps we can be more certain about resolution in output, which is usually identifiable and measurable, than about resolution in outcome, which is more likely to occur on a ragged front. Several discussions might be useful for study of this and parallel cases:
5.1 Distinguish between case outputs and outcomes and identify each as applied to this example.I have asserted the value of case study as a learning tool in the preparation and in-service training of school leaders, using conflict as the focus of study and a historical case as its content. The dispute was analyzed in terms of a developmental sequence of five steps, with questions and brief comments to provide an approach to study and discussion and a guide for facilitators. Key elements of this instructional approach include:
5.2 In relation to a dispute with which you are familiar, identify outputs and outcomes. What other outputs might have been possible, and how might their selection have influenced outcomes?
5.3 What strategies might be employed to anticipate outcomes based on knowledge of various outputs that could be selected in a dispute for which alternatives are available?
Conclusion
- Location/writing of a case example that approximates a real-world situation.
- Ensuring sufficient detail and complexity to permit disciplined study.
- Ensuring availability of background data (literature, research results, etc.) to inform the study process.
- Developing/assembling resource material for use by a facilitator or group leader.
- Developing study questions focused on intended outcomes of the study process.
References
______. Daily British Colonist, 2 December 1872, 23 September 1874. Victoria, BC: Daily British Colonist.
Fawcett, E. (1912). Some reminiscences of old Victoria. Toronto: William Briggs.
Hills, G. (1872-74). Personal letters to Edward Cridge. In Supreme Court of British Columbia, Trial of the Very Reverend Edward Cridge, 1875. Victoria, BC: Victoria Standard.
Peake, F. (1959). The Anglican Church in British Columbia. Vancouver: Mitchell Press.
Pethick, D. (1975). Men of British Columbia. Saanichton, BC: Hancock House.
Quinn, R. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Storey, V., Worobetz, T. & Kennedy, H. (1999). The Home: From Orphan’s Home to Family Centre, 1873-1998. Victoria, BC: Cridge Centre for the Family.
Supreme Court of British Columbia (1875). Trial of the Very Reverend Edward Cridge. Victoria, BC: Victoria Standard.
Tuchman, B. (1984). The march of folly. New York: Ballantine.
Underhill, S. (1984). The Iron Church. Victoria, BC: Braemar.
Author Notes
Vernon J. Storey, Ed.D., Professor
Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies
Faculty of Education, University of Victoria
Box 3010, Victoria, B. C., Canada V8W 3N4
Phone: (250) 721-7872
Fax: (250) 721-6603
Email: storeyv@uvic.ca