The Handbook for Student Leadership Development

Chapter 1

Advancing Leadership Education

Susan R. Komives

Since my first year in higher education more than 45 years ago, I have been fascinated by student leadership development. As an undergraduate positional student leader at Florida State University, I became aware of what I would now call my leadership identity. As a new professional at the University of Tennessee, I wove leadership into my resident assistant training course in 1970. It was also at the University of Tennessee that—following the maxim that one’s scholarship is largely autobiographical—my dissertation in 1973 was on leadership. Concurrently, as a young woman professional when the glass ceiling was cracking, I gained tremendous affirmation from numerous professional sessions focused on women’s leadership and career advancement. Gender attributions and difference in leadership fascinated me! Subsequently, at Denison University a colleague and I designed an undergraduate leadership course in 1974 and started offering student leadership workshops, often in trade with colleagues at nearby universities for programs they would do on my campus.

In those early years, Greenleaf’s (1970/1991) servant leadership work came to me as an underground movement. Copies of Greenleaf’s papers and those by such thinkers as Kathy Allen and Parker Palmer were typed on stencils or dittoes, passed around among friends as must-reads, and then photocopied so many times they became illegible. Those of us passionate about leadership began finding each other at conferences sponsored by associations like the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and longtime colleague Denny Roberts and others began coalescing around a movement to focus professionally on college student leadership development. It is truly exciting to see the evolution of these efforts over the years and the many threads that have woven the rich and thick leadership education tapestry we find today.

This chapter sets the context of college student leadership development in higher education by tracing select historical developments and recent trends that have enhanced the field of leadership education. It identifies current issues and needs in leadership education, focusing on college student leadership programs. As noted in the Preface, the focus of this Handbook is on college programs, with a specific emphasis on programs in student affairs. Our thesis is that all leadership educators are responsible for this shared journey of advancing the college student leadership agenda, and readers can situate themselves in areas that need their attention, pique their interests, and use their talents.

Professionalization of Leadership Education

Over the past 30 years, leadership education has evolved from a fragmented set of atheoretical (even antitheoretical), uncoordinated activities with little common language or practices to a field with established theoretical frames, conceptual models, standards of practice, and diverse pedagogical strategies. The field has a body of scholarship, emergent assessment and research, and support systems for practitioners such as professional associations and graduate preparation courses, all evidencing a student-centered focus incorporating and responsive to student diversity (Astin & Astin, 2000; Brungardt, 1996; Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives, Dugan, Owen, Slack, & Wagner, 2006; Komives, Longerbeam, Mainella, Osteen, Owen, & Wagner, 2009). The emergent professionalism in the field is encouraging.

Themes in the Development of Leadership Education

The history of leadership education is intertwined with the evolution of leadership studies. This analysis includes select initiatives in leadership studies that propelled the development of leadership education. The analysis that follows benefited from observers of this evolution, including Georgia Sorenson’s (2000) analysis of the leadership studies history with an emphasis on the role of James MacGregor Burns; Mark Troyer’s (1997, 2004) reviews of the field and case studies of several leadership curricular centers; and Renardo Hall’s reflections on Black student leadership programs (personal communication, July 27, 2009).

In the mid-1990s, I began to chronicle influences on the development of college student leadership programs (see Appendix 1.1 at the end of this chapter: Select Chronology of Influences on the Contemporary Development of College Student Leadership Programs and Related Activities). From that first analysis it became clear to me that a coalescence of events from the 1980s and early 1990s palpably shaped the field of college leadership education, resulting in impressive depth and breadth. Denny Roberts’s (2007) overview of the evolution of the field of leadership education woven with student affairs philosophies and values provides additional wisdom and insight into this history. Although informed by many colleagues over the years, with my appreciation, the full responsibility for the chapter’s weaknesses is mine, and I acknowledge it is the-leadership-world-according-to-Susan and as such brings the frames and lenses I have to making meaning of this evolution.

APPENDIX 1.1: Select Chronology of Influences on the Contemporary Development of College Student Leadership Programs and Related Activities*

The advancing field of leadership education was informed by the evolution of scholarship, the cross-fertilization of interested professionals in association settings, the growing work of clearinghouses, centers, and institutes, and the blossoming and sharing of diverse pedagogies. The sophistication in those elements led to the establishment of standards of practice, the development of theories and models for the college population, assessment measures, and increased scholarly research. Woven through all these elements was a commitment to student-centered practices that advanced the leadership capacity of diverse students working in diverse contexts. Current developments include the emergence of the student leadership industry with contributions from publishers, consultants, professional speakers, and private companies that sponsor student leadership institutes, assessment measures, and training institutes.

Although there is one grand narrative interweaving all these elements (as elements became normative, other dimensions emerged and some developed in tandem), this section of the chapter presents some dimensions in the evolution of each theme so that the reader can see one perspective on the growing complexity and depth of the state of the field. Certainly there are many more contributions and facts that can be included; those stated illustrate the evolution of key themes, often highlighting the first or early contributions to the field.

Associations and Their Support

Professional interest in leadership has existed for generations in student affairs work. In 1974, a number of student affairs professionals dedicated to leadership education expanded their work in ACPA and formed the Inter-Associational Task Force on Leadership Development, reaching out to like-minded professionals in such groups as the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I), and the National Association of Campus Activities (NACA). The fine work of this group led to many initiatives, such as a leadership development model that differentiated leadership training, education, and development (Roberts & Ullom, 1989), a compilation of leadership resources (see 1980 in the Chapter Appendix), and the first book on student leadership programs (Roberts, 1981).

In 1987, I came to the University of Maryland and with the support of the longtime vice president for student affairs, William Bud L. Thomas Jr., scanned the higher education environment, and determined that the field would benefit from a clearinghouse that would organize the growing body of resources and be a lightning rod for advancing networking and the scholarship on leadership education. With the support of other entities such as the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) and the Task Force (chaired by Nance Lucas), in 1989 the University of Maryland formed the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs (NCLP). Lucas came to the University of Maryland and joined me as a cofounder of the NCLP. Concurrently, the Commission on Student Involvement in ACPA continued its interest in leadership, NACA supported similar goals, and in 2002 Ainsley Carry initiated a Knowledge Community for Student Leadership Programs (KCSLP) in NASPA.

On a parallel track, college leadership educators in the agricultural and extension community were re-visioning their youth leadership work and in 1989 founded the Association of Leadership Educators (ALE). The emergence of the International Leadership Association (ILA) in 1998–1999 brought a broad-based group of leadership educators together with leadership faculty and scholars, community leadership activists, and business consultants together in a global context. The Leadership Education Member Interest Group is the largest group within ILA.

Associations provide substantial supports to advance professional work. In addition to the leadership programs at generalist conferences like ACPA and NASPA, the annual conferences for leadership focused-associations like ALE and ILA provide immersion in the best of leadership scholarship and practice. Several associations like ACPA, NACA, and NASPA have joined with NCLP and each other to provide key professional development programs. For example, NACA and NCLP provide the summer, theme-based National Leadership Symposium. In those settings 75–80 leadership educators explore such thematic topics as spirituality and leadership or global leadership with authors of key books and colleagues. Starting in 2004, ACPA, NASPA, and NCLP have cosponsored the popular Leadership Educators Institute that occurs every two years. Other professional development formats have evolved: ILA sponsors webinars, NASPA’s KCSLP sponsors group conference calls, and ACPA has sponsored short-term, online leadership courses. Associations have also advanced standards of practice noted later in this chapter.

Centers, Institutes, and the Leadership Industry

The business world of leadership development is surrounded by a plethora of centers that support the advancement of managerial or organizational leadership. Entities such as the CCL, founded in 1970, ventured into higher education leadership in the early 1980s. CCL sponsored faculty symposia and published compendiums supporting leadership education containing course syllabi and training resources. As a result of CCL’s decision to discontinue their higher education thrust, their popular summer institute shifted to the Jepson School of Leadership Studies in 1994, and CCL sent their database of sample course syllabi to the then-new NCLP. The Center for Applied Ethics, founded in 1964 by Robert Greenleaf, substantially broadened its base and renamed itself the Robert K. Greenleaf Center in 1985 and is now known as the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Training materials for diverse leadership contexts emerged in the 1980s (e.g., University Associates’ Pfeiffer and Jones materials); specialty centers and materials now exist for churches, the military, youth programs, and community activists along with education and business.

In 1989, Georgia Sorenson established the Center for Political Leadership and Participation at the University of Maryland. The center expanded in 1996 to become the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership to sponsor numerous think tanks with grants from the Kellogg Foundation, substantially advancing leadership studies and establishing the International Leadership Association. Numerous annual institutes emerged in the 1990s, including the Rocky Mountain Leadership Institute and the Kravis Institute at Claremont McKenna, resulting in the annual release of books with papers from those theme-based gatherings.

In the 1980s, a number of organizations began to emphasize leadership for targeted groups of college students. In 1984, the National Association of Women in Education (NAWE) sponsored the National Women Student Leaders conference that was subsequently sponsored by NASPA and the American Association of University Women (AAUW) after NAWE’s closure. Conferences for Black student leaders emerged in the 1980s, including a series of conferences at Bowie State University for student leaders in historically Black colleges and universities.

The industry surrounding student leadership development has emerged since the mid-1990s. It now includes a plethora of consultants, motivational speakers, and student conferences sponsored by entities such as PaperClip Communications and Magna Publications. Magna’s National Conference on Student Leadership has included a competency-based certificate process since 1994. The first magazine focusing on student leadership was the Student Leader in 1992. Numerous publishers’ holdings (e.g., Sage, Jossey-Bass) now offer a variety of books and other products targeting student leadership development. Jossey-Bass, who acquired the Pfeiffer and Jones materials, also publish The Leadership Challenge and The Student Leadership Challenge materials, Exploring Leadership, the NCLP’s social change model book (Leadership for a Better World), and Emotionally Intelligent Leadership for Students by Shankman and Allen.

Scholarship

The scholarship about leadership has always been substantial. When I became a graduate faculty member and began a serious focus on leadership scholarship in the late 1980s, a colleague aptly described that many of us felt lost in the leadership forest and were looking for pathways out of the glut of confusing scholarship. Those pathways have become more clear, thanks in great part to the work of the University of San Diego’s Joseph Rost (1991), who published Leadership for the 21st Century. This thoughtful book sorted through the classic models of leadership, which the author referred to as managerial or industrial models, and brought awareness to the relational, ethical, process models of leadership, which he referred to as postindustrial.

Largely focused on managerial leadership and political leadership until the 1980s, Burns’s (1978) publication of Leadership motivated many leadership educators to embrace a transforming, ethical approach to leadership development. This emphasis elevated the role of the follower and shifted the focus to all people involved in the leadership process. The new growing body of organizational behavior literature informed leadership education programs in the early 1980s as well (see Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1983). Kouzes and Posner’s (1987) research that led to their book The Leadership Challenge and five exemplary practices provided a framework that captured the attention of campus leadership educators. Not since Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership models of the early 1970s had a framework proved so applicable to student affairs practice. Kouzes and Posner (2008) went on to develop other resources including a student version of their survey instrument (the Student Leadership Practices Inventory) and a student version of The Leadership Challenge. The body of scholarship continues to expand. Leadership educators will find nearly 100 useful essays in Couto’s (2010) two-volume Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook.

Despite the wide range of leadership publications, there were few books suitable as a text for college students until the 1990s (see Daft, 1999; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993). Specialized materials such as the Hartwick Classics (Brown, 1994) offered leadership resources in the humanities using film and other literary works. In the late 1990s, a number of textbooks emerged that promoted a specific perspective on leadership. In 1996, the guidebook for the social change model of leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996) was published. NCLP became the guardian of the social change model guidebook and in conjunction with Jossey-Bass published a student textbook, Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (Komives, Wagner, & Associates, 2009). In 1997, Peter Northouse published his first edition of Leadership (a general overview text), and in 1998, Nance Lucas, Tim McMahon, and I (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998, 2007) published Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference, which presented the relational leadership model. Following several editions of his popular text, in 2008 Northouse published a student workbook (Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice) to accompany his text, and Kouzes and Posner (2008) framed their work for students with The Student Leadership Challenge: Five Practices for Exemplary Leaders. Scholarly books abound, and leadership educators have a dizzying array of choices in formal leadership curricula (e.g., Daft, 2002; Heifetz, 1994).

Leadership Journals

Specialty journals about leadership research began to appear as scholarly thinking expanded. This includes the 1989 debut of the highly respected Leadership Quarterly, followed by the 1993 Journal of Leadership Studies published by Baker College and focusing exclusively on leadership education; it has since shifted in focus and is now known as the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. In 1991, NCLP began issuing three theme-based publications annually. NCLP’s Concepts & Connections has served a clearinghouse function for scholarly content, campus program spotlights, book reviews, and research updates. NCLP added a theme-based monograph series, Insights & Applications, in 2000 and in 2006 published the first edition of the Handbook for Leadership Programs. ALE debuted the first issue of their free online journal, the Journal of Leadership Education, in 2002. Dozens of leadership journals now exist.

Theories and Conceptual Models

It is important to observe that the growing community service movement in the late 1980s, ranging from the founding of the student organization COOL in 1984, Campus Compact in 1985, and subsequent federal emphasis in national service, is a parallel and integrated movement that I think influenced the leadership movement toward leadership for social responsibility and civic engagement. In 1996, a key contribution to college student leadership development occurred and linked the service and leadership movements with the release of the social change model of leadership development (SCM). Envisioned by a team including principal investigators Alexander and Helen Astin, along with leadership educators like Nance Lucas, Denny Roberts, Tony Chambers, Carole Leland, Kathy Shellog, me, and others, the emphasis on values in this model resonated with student leadership educators who readily adopted it. In 2000, the Astins and colleagues expanded on the SCM in Leadership Reconsidered, which aimed to propose a leadership model for higher education that examined the constraining and empowering beliefs among key shareholder groups, such as faculty, students, and student affairs staff. Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin (2006) observe the social change model to be the most widely used student leadership model; it now gets even broader attention as the focus of a new student textbook, Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (Komives, Wagner, et al., 2009).

Nance Lucas, Tim McMahon, and I (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998, 2007) called these emerging models—relational or reciprocal models—since they emphasize the dynamic process of leadership among people working together toward common purposes. These models brought an emphasis on the role of character and what Avolio and his colleagues (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) would later label authenticity.

A second set of beneficial theories emerged through the study of how leadership is actually learned or developed. Numerous scholars began to present research findings and pose conceptual models on this topic (Brungardt, 1996; Day, 2001; Hall, 2004; Hogg, 2001; Lord & Hall, 2005; van Velsor & Drath, 2004). In 2001, a University of Maryland research team conducted a study of how college students developed to be effective in the relational leadership model that resulted in the creation of the leadership identity development model (LID) (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005). LID was eagerly received by leadership educators and is being applied and operationalized in further research at the time of writing this Handbook. These theoretical frames are described further in Chapter 2.

Theoretical Integration

Leadership education programs are designed to help individual students raise their knowledge, develop their attitudes, and build their skills for effective leadership across a diverse array of contexts. The design of early leadership programs was informed by Chickering’s (1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993) psychosocial vectors and various cognitive development models (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Perry, 1968/1970). In recent years, leadership educators have incorporated concepts of leadership as a social identity in convergence with other social identifies (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) to connect concepts of leadership with individual dimensions of identity and development (Hoppe, 1998; Komives, Longerbeam, et al., 2009; Lord & Brown, 2004).

Programmatic and Pedagogical Differentiation

Pre-1980, cocurricular leadership programs offered specific leadership training for students in positional roles such as organizational presidents or resident assistants and expanded over time to retreats and workshops for targeted populations like emerging leaders and women. Peer leadership mentoring models evolved and were refined by groups like fraternal organizations. As leadership education expanded, delivery modes through both the curriculum and cocurriculum were both differentiated (e.g., academic leadership minors and majors) as well as integrated (e.g., new courses were often initiated and taught by student affairs leadership educators and supported by a sponsoring academic department). The first comprehensive study of elements of leadership programs was published by the Kellogg Foundation in 1999; Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt’s Leadership in the Making presented common practices among quality programs and presented case studies from diverse institutional settings. This study presented early research on the impact of programs on leadership outcomes.

Academic Programs

Early leadership minors and majors were often stimulated through an incentive from major donors. For example, the McDonough Center at Marietta College in 1989 and the first leadership major at the Jepson School of Leadership studies at the University of Richmond, which admitted its first class in 1992, benefited from external giving. It is estimated that more than 1,000 college and universities offer leadership courses, minors, or majors (Brungardt, Greenleaf, Brundgardt, & Arensdorf, 2006). These academic programs are included in many academic disciplines and are also increasingly designed as interdisciplinary programs. Concurrently, academic leadership programs for developing leadership among social identity groups emerged.

Experiential Learning

Not constrained to only classroom delivery models, student affairs educators have long valued the learning that occurs through experience. With roots back to John Dewey, Kolb’s (1981) model of experiential learning has served as a foundation for many cocurricular learning models. Leadership experiences such as adventure education trace back to the post–World War II era and evolved to become such programs as Upward Bound (Miles & Priest, 1999; Priest & Gass, 2005) with more recent applications including both high and low ropes courses (Rohnke, Wall, Tait, & Rogers, 2007). Community service was enriched through service-learning pedagogy and has been affirmed as a high-impact learning strategy for leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007) as well as a central vehicle for advancing socially responsible leadership (HERI, 1996).

Leadership Standards

As any field progresses, professionals seek best practices and normative approaches begin to be codified. One of the early National Leadership Symposiums (sponsored by the NCLP and NACA) resulted in the identification of the need for standards of practice to guide leadership educators. A committee in the NCLP comprised of such leadership educators as Nance Lucas, Alison Breeze Mead, Tracy Tyree, Denny Roberts, and I proposed such a product to the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), and they were subsequently adopted in 1996. It is of note that this standard includes a mandatory affirmation of ethical practices in student leadership programs. This standard is available from CAS (www.cas.edu) and from the NCLP. As ILA developed, the Leadership Educator’s Member Interest Group also saw the need for standards for leadership courses and curricular programs (e.g., majors and minors). In 2006, an ILA working group decided to frame these elements as guidelines and adopted the LID model as a framework to present them (Ritch, 2008).

The learning outcomes movement of the 1990s wove into leadership educators’ work, so that programs typically now include outcomes expectations for students engaging in learning interventions. This movement was supported by professional documents like the specification of leadership as a CAS outcome in 2003, noted in NASPA and ACPA’s Learning Reconsidered (2004), and used as an example in Learning Reconsidered 2 (Komives & Schoper, 2006). Despite the contemporary connection of leadership as a key collegiate outcome to institutions’ historical missions and purposes, many programs still struggle with how to assess those outcomes.

Assessment and Research

Instruments assessing managerial leadership typically use such terms as "supervisors and subordinates" and are difficult to use in the college student context. In 1992, a small study of instruments used in college leadership programs revealed that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was the most widely known and used tool, although it was not regarded as a leadership measure (Komives, 1992). In their early work, Pfeiffer and Jones (1981) provided a set of easily used instruments that assessed task-people relationships, but true student-focused measurement did not begin until the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and the Student LPI (Brodsky, 1988; Posner & Brodsky, 1993) and adaptations of Bass and Avolio’s (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass, 1985) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire, which assessed their version of Burn’s (1978) transforming leadership concepts.

In their Cooperative Institutional Research Program studies, UCLA’s HERI professors Helen and Alexander Astin and their graduate students frequently studied leadership as a composite variable comprised of several items. Data from their studies informed Leadership in the Making (Cress et al., 2001; Zimmerman & Burkhardt, 1999) and other leadership studies (e.g., Antonio, 2001; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Smart, Ethington, Riggs, & Thompson, 2002).

In 1998, Maryland doctoral student Tracy Tyree developed the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) designed to measure the social change model. A revised form of the SRLS became the core of the first national, theoretically based study in the 2006 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Concurrently, the Wabash Study of Liberal Arts Colleges used the SRLS in its 2006 study. Leadership studies, including a national study under way in 2009 using the Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (Wiekiewicz, 2000), are now more frequent.

Current Issues and Needs

As the field of leadership education continues to evolve, there are new topics that must be explored to inform the study of leadership and new dimensions and extend the practice of leadership education. To truly advance leadership education, we must grapple with foundational issues in program mission, focus, design, and implementation. These issues represent logical extensions of the chronological evolution of leadership development in higher education. The sections that follow highlight some of these emerging issues.

College Missions and Accreditation

Leadership educators must continue to work to get leadership outcomes explicitly included in institutional mission statements and in strategic planning processes. There is a growing recognition of the importance of leadership in collegewide outcomes (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators [NASPA] & American College Personnel Association [ACPA], 2004). Regional accrediting bodies creatively have asked institutions to identify a Quality Enhancement Plan to coalesce their strengths into a focused dimension of their mission (see the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools at www.sacs.org/). Some universities like Florida State University have designated leadership to be their emphasis and an outcome for all students. Leadership educators need to share more resources or materials that support the advancement and implementation of such campuswide plans and better justify programs and services by linking program participation to measurable educational gains.

Learning Outcomes and Accountability

Leadership educators still need substantial help to identify learning outcomes, design intentional practices to develop those outcomes, and then assess student growth on those outcomes. Too often educators hold on to longtime programs hoping they will accomplish some outcome instead of starting with the outcomes first and designing programs to accomplish them (Komives & Schoper, 2006). More easily used theoretically based measures of leadership are needed to address diverse contexts and diverse models. Further, complex research designs are needed to examine diverse experiences in the college (and off-campus) experience that contribute to leadership outcomes and how those may vary for diverse student populations (Dugan & Komives, 2007).

Essential Elements in Program Development

Timely research in the MSL study (Owen, 2009) and by others (Eich, 2008, 2009; Reinelt, Sullivan, & Foster, 2003) is helping identify key program elements such as mission, staff, financial resources, and assessments that support leadership outcomes. Sustainability of programs through key resources will be essential for long-term outcome development, but more needs to be known about which of those elements are central to that sustainability. Too many leadership programs exist because of the interest of a single professional who builds a program that fails to become institutionalized and closes when that professional leaves for another position.

High-Impact Programs

Leadership programs seem to be at the nexus of favorite programs that a campus has always offered (e.g., freshman camps, emerging leadership programs) and the design and identification of high-impact programs that enrich learning (e.g., mentoring, discussions of sociocultural issues) (Dugan & Komives, 2007). These concepts are not mutually exclusive, but existing programs must be embedded with the pedagogical approaches known to best leverage student learning (Dugan et al., in press). Identifying such high-impact programs at the local level will be critical to advance leadership outcomes for more students. Findings from the National Study of Student Engagement and the Documenting Effective Educational Practices project demonstrate the value of such high-impact programs in numerous areas of student outcomes (see www.nsse.iub.edu/).

Leadership as a Process in Groups

Educators naturally design programs to develop the individual capacity of students to be more effective in leadership. We think of the student as the unit of development. Little attention is paid to the process of leadership among members of groups or of the influence of group culture on leadership development. LID findings demonstrated that individuals who come to an awareness of the interdependence of members of groups are more developed as relational leaders (Komives et al., 2005), yet little is known about how such commitment to interdependence develops or the practices that make it normative in a group’s dynamic.

Unique Dimensions of Leadership Informed by Social Identity

Perennial problems in the languaging of leadership may distance the concept from some of the very groups of students who could most benefit and/ or contribute to leadership development. To take on the mantel of leader may be to stand out from the group, be co-opted by dominant culture, or seem distant to those with lower leadership efficacy (Arminio et al., 2000; Chin, Lott, Rice, & Sanchez-Hucles, 2007). Educators must design strategies to appeal to those groups of students that make leadership approachable and essential for advocacy and change. Women are currently the most studied in these groups (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2007). Attention is needed to understand how men in the dominant culture learn leadership and how they might develop a more relational approach. Solid foundations also need to be created to better understand the unique developmental experiences and needs of other traditionally marginalized and understudied student populations along with the intersectionalities of social identities.

Exploring these and other topics through policy, research, and practice should continue to advance leadership education. Each campus will have a different profile of what topics need attention that should be included in a campus-specific strategic plan. The editors of this Handbook encourage all leadership educators to understand this national history and the local history of their leadership programs to be able to place their programs in context and chart their futures.

References

Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42, 593–617.

Arminio, J. L., Carter, S., Jones, S. E., Kruger, K., Lucas, N., Washington, J. . . . Scott, A. (2000). Leadership experiences of students of color. NASPA Journal, 37, 496–510.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership development. Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: New approaches to leadership from Latino, Black, and American Indian communities. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Brodsky, B. (1988). Development of a modified version of the Leadership Practices Inventory for use with college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Brown, J. C. (1994). Leadership education through humanistic texts and traditions: The Hartwick Classics. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1, 104–116.

Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 81–95.

Brungardt, C., Greenleaf, J., Brungardt, C., & Arensdorf, J. (2006). Majoring in leadership: A review of undergraduate leadership degree programs. Journal of Leadership Education, 5(1), 4–25.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chin, J. L., Lott, B., Rice J. K., & Sanchez-Hucles, J. (2007). Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Clark, K. E., & Clark, M. B. (1990). (Eds.). Measures of leadership. West Orange, NY: Leadership Library of America.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (1996). CAS standards for leadership programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Couto, R. A. (Ed.). (2010). Political and civic leadership: A reference handbook (Vols. 1 and 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Cress, C. M., Astin, H.S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 15–27.

Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Dryden.

Daft, R. L. (2002). The leadership experience (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Gebhardt, M., Hofert, M., Wilk, E., & Cooney, M. A. (in press). Influences of leadership program participation on students’ capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of Student Affairs Research & Practice.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eich, D. (2008). A grounded theory of high-quality leadership programs: Perspectives from student leadership development programs in higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 176–187.

Eich, D. (2009). Using leadership education research and assessment to positively impact leadership program outcomes. Concepts & Connections, 16(3), 7–10.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda. New York, NY: Crown.

Fluker, W. E. (2009). Ethical leadership and the quest for character, civility and community. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970/1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. V. Day, A. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.). Leadership development for transforming organizations: Growing leadership for tomorrow (pp. 153–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 153–170.

Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

Hoppe, M. H. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velson (Eds.). Handbook of leadership development: Center for creative leadership (pp. 336–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1993). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the L word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report 31(6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 55–68.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 232–255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1983). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach to organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Komives, S. R. (1992). Foreword. In N. Snyder-Nepo, Leadership assessments: A critique of common instruments (Leadership Paper #4). College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

Komives, S. R., Dugan, J., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook for student leadership programs. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F., Osteen, L., Owen, J. E., & Wagner, W. (2009) Leadership identity development: Challenges in applying a developmental model. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(1), 11–47.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998/ 2007). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 593–611.

Komives, S. R., & Schoper, S. (2006). Developing learning outcomes. In R. Keeling (Ed.), Learning Reconsidered 2: Implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience (pp. 17–41). Washington, DC: NASPA & ACPA.

Komives, S. R., Wagner, W., & Associates. (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. A publication of the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. (1987/2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The student leadership challenge: Five practices for exemplary leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591–615.

Marable, M. (1998). Black leadership. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Miles, J. C., & Priest, S. (1999). Adventure programming. State College, PA: Venture.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, & American College Personnel Association. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: