The Future of Leadership Development

Susan Elaine Murphy, Ronald E. Riggio, Susan Elaine Murphy, Ronald E. Riggio

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2003
• eBook ISBN: 9781135630089
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Applied Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Leadership in today's organizations is a tough business. Organizational leaders face a number of challenges as their jobs, and the world around them, become increasingly complex. Trends, such as organizational "delayering, " rapid technological advances, and increased employee empowerment require that leaders adapt their techniques and styles of leadership to meet these new challenges. Consequently, there has been an explosion of interest in leadership in recent years as researchers and management educators struggle to understand the process of leadership development, how it operates, and what characteristics make effective leaders. Born of these questions, the 11th Annual Kravis-de Roulet Leadership Conference at Claremont McKenna College brought together an impressive slate of scholars whose theories, research, and cutting-edge techniques are now gathered together in this impressive volume. Each chapter asks and answers questions about the current state of the field while providing future direction for research to help bridge the gap between leadership researchers and leadership development practitioners. Notable topics include chapters on "e-leadership" and leadership within the "virtual" organization, exploring 360-degree feedback, the importance of "social capital, " and a comprehensive analysis of the well-researched theory of Leader Member Exchange.

V
Leadership Development: Applications & Practice

11

Leadership Development in Higher Education Institutions: A Present and Future Perspective

Roya Ayman, Susan Adams, Bruce Fisher, and Erica Hartman
Institute of Psychology and Leadership Academy
Illinois Institute of Technology

For centuries all over the world, societies have had an interest in developing leaders (Ayman, 1993, 2000). In ancient Greece, Plato in his Republic discussed the lifelong process necessary to develop the philosopher-king. This process of education, according to Plato, consisted of required stages and time periods necessary for the evolution of a person into a leader of society. In his estimation a person would not achieve a sufficient level of maturity to become a leader until the age of 45 or 50. The curriculum presented by Plato was broad based and long term; it focused on developing the body as well as the mind. Thus, to foster development in a leader, a program needs to start early and be holistic (Plato, trans. 1993).

Today, leadership development programs are widespread (Day, 2000). Most large companies (e.g., Anonymous, 1999; Egan, 1999) and business schools have some type of executive development program (e.g., Smith, 2000). Some agencies, such as the Center for Creative Leadership, in collaboration with companies and universities, have extensive programs to assist aspiring executives and managers to learn about effective leadership (e.g., Anonymous, 2000). These types of adult development programs abound. For example, Honan (1998) stated that there are “nearly 700 leadership development programs at American academic institutions today” (see page), which he assessed was double the number of programs existing 4 years prior. However, some would argue that the supply of programs is still not keeping up with the high demand. In fact, Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (1999) proposed, “One thing is certain, however. The nation’s ability to respond and prosper will depend on the quality of leadership demonstrated at all levels of society” (p. i).

The overwhelming concern for effective leadership brings attention to the need for a systematic curriculum for leadership development in institutions of higher education (see Riggio, Ciulla, & Sorenson, chap. 12, this volume). The Center for Creative Leadership’s compilation of existing leadership programs within universities (Schwartz, Axtman, & Freeman, 1998) showed the number and variation in these types of leadership development programs. Although there were a great number of programs, there were a limited number of systematic assessments of leadership development programs in higher education. The scarcity of clear assessments makes it difficult to demonstrate that these programs are developing effective leaders. In the current chapter we review two studies that provide assessment for programs in higher education. In addition, we examined leadership development programs at several highly ranked institutions of higher education by examining these programs based on principles of development, validated theories of leadership effectiveness, and program evaluation.

There are only two studies to date that have investigated leadership development programs in higher education (Olson, 1999; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). The W. K. Kellogg Foundation sponsored the first evaluation study. Between 1990 and 1998, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, funded 31 leadership development programs for young adults in response to the need for developing leaders in our society. Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (1999) conducted an independent evaluation of the foundation’s funded programs. The W. K. Kellogg Foundation developed a review panel of nine external experts in leadership development and program evaluation. A description of each program was collected, and each program representative completed an informational survey. The programs held diverse goals and utilized various types of settings or samples (i.e., community groups, high schools, colleges, and universities). The programs included various methods for leadership development such as the use of mentors, guest speakers, and community service opportunities. Of the funded programs, 77% were directed or co-directed by students, and 72% of the programs used their graduates as mentors. For those in academic settings, 58% developed new courses, 14% developed leadership minor and major areas of study, and 35% used faculty awards and grants.

Although the Kellogg report showed that all programs they reviewed included some form of self-evaluation, in addition, the report summarizes the results of two independent evaluation studies. One was a short-term pre- and posttest study that was conducted with the Leadershape Institute for Engineers. The results demonstrated that the participant training experience was positive and their scores on transformational leadership skills improved. Another long-term study, over a 3-year period (in 1994 and from 1997 to 1998), compared 10 institutions that had received a W. K. Kellogg grant and implemented leadership training and development programs to similar institutions that did not. The students were evaluated on 14 individual measures related to leadership such as “understanding self, ability to set goals, sense of personal ethics and willingness to take risks, personal and social values, leadership skills, civic responsibilities, community orientation and multicultural awareness” (see page). In comparing participating and nonparticipating institutions, the students of the institutions participating “were much more likely to report significant changes on the measured leadership outcomes” (see page).

The Kravis Leadership Institute study focused on undergraduate leadership programs that offered leadership degrees, minors, or certificates (Olson, 1999). This study identified 49 institutions with formal academic programs, of which they conducted interviews with a select 10 institutions. In describing these programs, there are a few notable highlights: Only 3 out of 10 schools conducted systematic follow-up with alumni, all had community service requirements, the majority had an internship component, experiential learning and research were included in several of the programs, and over 90% at least had a course on leadership. Some of the changes programs sought to make for improving the program included an increase in financial support and the number of faculty, innovation in the method of instruction, more rigorous assessment and evaluation, and the use of methods, such as 360-degree feedback.

In summary, these two studies had different objectives with differing samples. The W. K. Kellogg study was broad reaching, including community, high school, and college programs, whereas the Kravis Leadership Institute was exclusively focused on higher education institutions. Program content and delivery were more comprehensive in the W. K. Kellogg programs. The Kravis Leadership Institute primarily focused on programs that offered courses or degrees in leadership. The W. K. Kellogg study only focused on programs that were funded by their foundation.

Although both studies were valuable and met important objectives, there are remaining unanswered questions regarding leadership programs in higher education, such as, how do students juggle their existing majors with the additional requirements of leadership programs. Can we expose our college students to leadership skills and experiences without expecting them to get a second degree? There are many graduates of colleges and universities who move up the career ladder and have not been prepared for the ensuing responsibilities that come with a more prestigious position. Therefore, the focus of this project examines leadership programs that are not based on academic courses or degrees in leadership in highly ranked institutions of higher education.

To embark on this task, a brief explanation of essential ingredients of leadership development programs is presented by highlighting the differences among training, education, and development programs. In addition, the various learning processes that we recommend be incorporated within the delivery of program content are briefly reviewed. After presenting the methodology of the study, the results of our investigation are described. In the results, we identify the number of programs adhering to our criteria, and moreover, we note which principles of theory and research in leadership are included in the programs. In concluding, some future directions for program development and evaluation are offered.

DIFFERENCES AMONG TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT

Before we examine the various programs, it may be of value to consider the differences among training, education, and development. These terms are often used interchangeably (Wexley & Latham, 1991), though each can reflect a unique requirement and objective. Nadler (1984) said that without clear objectives and expectations, it would be difficult to design an appropriate program. He further expanded on these terms and provided a definition for each. His elaborations demonstrated the implications of training, education, and development on the resources, audience, and evaluation strategies of the learning program.

Nadler’s definition of training is “learning related to the present job” (see page). The learners should be individuals that need the training to improve their performance. There should be an agreement on what the training is about, and the supervisor should have a plan to use the skill of the trained employee once the training is completed. The evaluation of training should be directly reflected in improved performance on the particular aspect of the job for which the employee was trained.

On the other hand he defined education as “learning to prepare the individual for a different but identified job” (see page). The distinction made is in regard to timing: Training is for the present and education is for the future. In addition, it seems that education encompasses more content areas than training. The learner under this condition should be an individual who is targeted for changes and future plans. In this setting the learning may not result in improvement of performance in the present job. In this situation, the learner should be considered as a potential resource or human capital. The knowledge, skills, and awareness gained through an education program will prepare participants for the future. The evaluation of this program should focus on whether the learner has learned the skills and knowledge. However, it may not be easy to immediately determine its transferability into results or even behavior. Perhaps the promotion and future success of the learner are more relevant.

Nadler’s (1984) definition of development is different from the other processes of learning. He defined it as “learning for growth of the individual but not related to a specific present or future job” (see page). So, although both education and development are future oriented, an education program is more focused on an eventual career, but development is more focused on the person’s growth. Unfortunately, this term has been misused at times. For example, management development programs in companies are more similar to training and education programs, than to leadership development programs, due to their focus on teaching participants how to manage and attend to different management functions. Development also inherently requires time. Although one could give a training and education program within a short period of time (e.g., half a day or a 40-hr program), development is a long-term process. For example, Avolio (1999) and McCauley, Moxley, and Van Velsor (1998) described leadership development as a process where life experiences are integrated into an individual’s leadership capacity. The evaluation of developmental programs is more difficult. Some assessments of developmental programs could be interim assessments of learning, and commitment to the goal of personal development and change.

Therefore, it seems that the similarity and differences of these approaches are based on the time frame and the breadth of exposure to a given domain. Clearly training compared to education is more focused on the present and is more specifically focused on a task or a skill. Developmental programs seem to be focused on a longer time period of learning, and the goal is more general, such as an individual’s growth.

When comparing training to education, it could be said that training may be part of an educational curriculum, or it could be free standing. In turn, educational programs seem to also be part of the developmental plan of an individual on a particular path in life. Presumably one could say that education is included within developmental programs. If the goal is development, then the process is an educational curriculum and training is a more specific component of the education process.

In addressing leadership development programs specifically, McCauley et al. (1998) identified three components of a development program: assessment, challenges, and support. Assessment provides an awareness of the level of an individual’s performance at a given time. It provides identification of strengths and weaknesses. Development cannot take place if one does not know at what level he or she is performing compared to the standard or ideal. Among the many assessment strategies acknowledged, 360-degree feedback, or multisource rating, provides the needed qualities of insight, self-reflection, and self-awareness (see Conger & Toegel, chap. 3, this volume; Atwater et al., chap. 4, this volume). Assessment centers are another highly valued assessment method that provides participants with developmental feedback. An essential feature of the assessment center method is the use of situational tests (i.e., simulations) to observe specific behaviors. In addition, assessment centers involve trained raters who make independent observations and ratings of participant’s behaviors and then reach consensus on their ratings (Thornton, 1992).

McCauley et al. (1998) found that challenge, defined as experiences that force people out of their comfort zone, is an important component of leadership development. Challenge can be due to a lack of experience in an area or to the level of difficulty in the goal. So diversity of experiences and range of difficulty wil...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• About the Authors
• Series Foreword
• Introduction to The Future of Leadership Development
• I Setting the Stage
• II Leadership Development Challenges
• III Leadership Development Techniques
• IV Leadership Development Theory
• V Leadership Development: Applications & Practice