Leadership Programs at Ku: an Analysis of 10 Student Affairs Leadership Programs

LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS AT KU: AN ANALYSIS OF 10 STUDENT AFFAIRS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS

Student Affairs Research Committee

Barbara Ballard Robert Brown Frank DeSalvo Phil Garito Marla Herron Chris Johnson Sandra Reed Diana Robertson Randy Timm John Wade

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem The University of Kansas (KU), Division of Student Affairs clearly recognizes the importance of providing programs that are designed to attract and develop student leaders. Programs conducted by the Department of Student Housing, for example, develop the skills necessary to allow a student to be successful in housing governance. The Office of Multicultural Affairs targets potential minority student leaders. The Emily Taylor Women’s Resource Center provides training for women to be effective leaders. The Organizations and Leadership Office offers leadership programs to members of Greek Organizations, and recently spearheaded the successful effort to establish a leadership minor that is housed in the Department of Communications Studies. However, an overview and analysis of many of the existing leadership programs offered under the auspices of the Division of Student Affairs has not been conducted in some time. There are no data to speak to factors such as coordination across programs, intentional selection of a theory base(s) and promotion of a specified leadership style(s), sequence of progression in levels of training, and comprehensiveness of target populations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature addressing “leadership” is vast and spans many fields and disciplines. Leadership can be studied theoretically or philosophically, from the perspective of traits, skills, and attributes, and in terms of trends and needs on an individual, local, or global level. For the purposes of this study, select articles and documents were chosen to view leadership from the following angles: 1) Leadership and today’s students, (2) Leadership needs in higher education and, (3) Program design and assessment.

Leadership Orientation of Today’s Students Several readings urged leadership training program designers to pay heed to the changing dynamics among America’s youth, and in the American higher education community. Young Americans are motivated to get involved and help others on a personal level (Hart and Associates, 1998). Today’s students are more grass roots oriented; top-down leadership is not a common framework from which these students work. They share a sense of collective responsibility, expect cooperation among diverse individuals, embrace difference, and are generally sensitive toward others. Effective leadership must, therefore, empower and encourage others to act. Inclusiveness is a heralded value.

Nuss (1994) stated that leadership must be geared toward the common good. She called for a shift in focus from the rights of individuals to the needs of the community and a sense of mutual responsibility. This can be accomplished by emphasizing cooperative, not competitive, environments that transcend our administrative boundaries, enhancing conflict resolution skills and role modeling. A community that is focused on the common good must be purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and collaborative.

Kezar (2000) also favored a collaborative environment. Hierarchical structures are no longer effective in higher education. Engaging staff in the leadership process and bringing diverse voices to the table are imperative. Specifically, Kezar states that those in positions of power must reflect on how their position influences their perspective, thus opening themselves to the 3 value of hearing multiple perspectives. The multiple perspectives must be discussed, rather than seen as obstacles. Differences must be embraced, and ultimately leaders need to determine what should be valued in the institutional context. This collaborative approach to decision-making should be modeled and taught to young leaders.

Leadership Needs in Higher Education In a study researching the effects of campus student government involvement, Kuh and Lund (1994) found that students learned important practical competencies related to the skills needed in today’s workplace. The article focused on the personal growth experienced by these leaders while also promoting other leadership opportunities on campus. Kuh and Lund also touted the importance of leadership training to institutional vitality.

Mission statements indicate the role leadership education plays in our college and university environments. Boatman (1999) promotes, defines and describes the use of leadership audits on campuses. In addition to formal programs, Boatman asserts that the college experience provides an informal laboratory for leadership development. Implementing a campus leadership audit, Boatman suggests, provides a descriptive process of the available activities and a diagnostic process to provide for future activities.

Peers consistently viewed effective student leaders as challenging, inspiring, enabling, and encouraging role models, according to Posner and Brodsky (1994). Posner and Brodsky, designers of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), found that effective leaders demonstrated these qualities more frequently than their less effective counterparts. While the LPI originally demonstrated effectiveness on fraternity chapter presidents, in this study the authors used the tool to research its effectiveness with sorority presidents. In doing so, the authors also the found that the practices of effective student leaders did not vary according to gender. The study also suggested that the tool could be used as “pre-work” for student leadership conferences.

Program Design and Assessment The United States Army (1999) published leadership performance indicators to be used in evaluating and counseling officers. These indicators provide a comprehensive view of the leadership role as defined by the Army, including values, attributes, skills, and actions. Each category of indicators lists the behaviors that define or describe these characteristics of a leader. This document can serve as a model for the development of an intentional curriculum or evaluation system. Defining the needs, intended outcomes, or expectations for leadership training assists in the provision of deliberate and purposeful training programs.

In a study of the leadership attributes of vocational educators (Moss, Leske, Jensrud, & Berkas (1994), important suggestions for the design and assessment of leadership training were offered. The investigators used a variety of methods to assess the effectiveness of training programs, including: 1) a standardized instrument; 2) a participant satisfaction survey; 3) a self-report behavior and performance survey; 4) interviews; and 5) focus groups. These efforts provided valuable information regarding program costs, participant satisfaction level, attribute change effects, and behavioral effects. From this information, program designers can evaluate the training programs in a comprehensive fashion.

The results of the vocational educators leadership training study also provided specific suggestions regarding leadership-training methodology. Structured programs with active participant involvement lead to greater improvement in attributes. Team building exercises were 4 recommended to build a safe, supportive environment for learning. Self-assessment activities, in conjunction with self-development planning, were determined to be very useful to participants. Incorporating simulations and activities that allow for guided practice in applying leadership attributes was suggested. Additionally, observations of and interviews with leaders were considered to be effective means of learning about leadership. The authors cautioned training program designers to take into consideration the number of attributes one intends to affect and the difficulty of affecting those attributes when planning leadership programs; seeking balance between the degree of challenge, the length of the program, and the number attributes addressed was suggested.

Woodward (1994) asserted that the perception of self-interest and profit, rather than a goal for the common good, was changing the dynamics of American leadership. Woodard promoted the need for enlightened, altruistic leaders by forecasting the needs of leaders in the year 2002. To better insure the cultural value of improving the human condition, a values oriented development was suggested. He recommended that (as suggested by Roberts and Ullom [1989]) faculty and staff should work collaboratively to create leadership development opportunities, including theory, values clarification, skills development, societal issues, and experience.

Helen Astin (1996) combined the need for personal and group values exploration to create a Social Change Model of leadership development. In doing so, the group developing the model let go of the idea that leaders are defined by the presence of followers. Rather, this program was created to foster a strong sense of civic responsibility and a desire for social change in all participating members. To this end, the Social Change Model emphasizes collective action, shared power, and passionate commitment to social justice. Through the use of a community service project, the model focuses on seven core values divided into three groups. The Personal Values section explores the consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment. The Group Values focused on the need for collaboration as a core value to the entire model; common purpose in shared values between the individuals and group; and controversy with civility, or the aim that differences are handled with respect and courtesy. The Community Values section focused on the creation of citizenship where “the self is responsibly connected to the environment and the community.” (Astin, pg., 7,1996). This model focused on the basic premise that leadership is a process, not a position.

Purpose The fact that many of the leadership programs offered at KU have been in place for a number of years attests to the long-term support the Division of Student Services has lent to the cause of leadership development. The time has come to systematically gather information that will help insure that the substantial investment of personal and financial resources yields the highest possible return.

This project is designed to review the broad range of the leadership programs currently sponsored by the Division of Student Affairs. The purpose of this research is to provide an analysis of the leadership programs included in the survey, in light of recent research in the area of leadership training at the postsecondary level. 5

METHOD

Sample The study sample consists of nine existing leadership programs currently under the auspices of the University of Kansas, Division of Student Affairs. Individuals that directed, developed, or had an understanding of the nature of at least one of these programs were interview for 45 minutes to one hour. Members of the Student Affairs Research Committee (SARC) conducted the interviews. They employed a questionnaire (see Appendix A) to guide their questions and were free to follow-up with additional questions and comments. Table 1 provides a list of the Leadership Programs, their representative and the interviewer.

TABLE 1 Participants PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVE INTERVIEWER 1. Blueprints Danny Kaiser Diana Robertson 2. Greek Endeavors Kelly Jo Karnes Randy Timm 3. Kansas Leaders in Progress (KLIP) Randy Timm Marla Herron 4. LeaderShape Danny Kaiser Frank DeSalvo 5. Training Interpersonal Professional Skills (TIPS) Robert Page Chris Johnson 6. Colors of KU Robert Page Chris Johnson 7. Senate Retreat for New Senators Danny Kaiser Barbara Ballard 8. Student Leadership Institute Rueben Perez Phil Garito 9. Women’s Leadership Conference Kathy Rose-Mockery John Wade 10. Leadership Development Program Jennifer Wamelink John Wade

Employing A Qualitative Assessment Approach Program assessment tools are generally quantitative measures, usually in the form of paper and pencil questionnaires. These instruments typically attempt to capture information regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of specified programs. They accomplish this task by forcing respondents to place a numerical value or rating on various aspects of the program as defined by the developers of the instrument (Rossi, Freeman and Wright, 1979). However the purpose of this project demanded that the respondents be afforded the opportunity to answer questions based on their own perception of reality as shaped by factors such as institutional and divisional culture, traditions, and perspectives. Another factor that weighed heavily on the decision to employ a qualitative approach was the wide range of experience the subjects had directing their respective leadership programs. Finally, the project was designed to explore the nature of existing programs. Therefore, every attempt was made to provide the opportunity for unrestricted responses.

Interviewers used a standardized list of open-ended questions that were designed to elicit information and initiate conversation about the design and implementation of leadership programs at KU. Researchers were particularly interested in obtaining process-oriented information provided from a holistic framework. Interviewers were permitted to ask unscripted follow-up questions and directed to encourage subjects to respond based on their idiosyncratic understanding of the question.

The SARC developed the Student Affairs Research Committee Leadership Survey (Appendix A). It consists of a narrative framework and an interpretive framework (Hodge, 2001). The narrative framework focuses the subject’s attention on three general categories: goals, eligibility requirements, and theory or model of training. These questions were intended to encourage personal reflection and discussion of the respondent’s perception of key concepts involved in providing leadership training.

The interviewer’s primary role was to listen carefully and actively. They were also encouraged to follow-up with open-ended questions designed to prompt further revelation of subjects’ thoughts, perceptions and assumptions. Interviewers were instructed to inform subjects that “there are no right answers” and that “no program can address every leadership issue,” in an effort to convey acceptance and encourage sharing of thoughts and feelings.

The interpretive framework was intended to provide an outlet for the respondents’ subjective reality regarding leadership training. The questions were not ordered in any particular sequence but were presented in the same order across all interviews. The questions were intended to remind interviewers about the various elements that comprise each domain, and to help them discover and elucidate the views of the subjects regarding each element of leadership.

TABLE 2 Framework for Leadership Program Assessment

Narrative Framework 1. What are the goals of your program? 2. Who would most benefit from you program? 3. What is the particular model or theory on which your program is based?

Interpretive Framework 1. Individual Outcomes: What are the ways your program is expected to impact the individual participants? 2. Ecological Outcomes: What are the ways your program is expected to impact the campus as a whole? 3. Effectiveness Assessment: How does your program define effective leaders and effective leadership? 4. Hierarchical Thinking: In what ways do you prepare students to assume individual responsibility for the overall direction and success of the organization? 5. Systemic Thinking: In what ways do you prepare students to share responsibility, information, and decision-making power with the members of the organization? 6. Training levels: What leadership experience do you look for in a candidate? (i.e. Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced.)

RESULTS

The team of investigators used a semi-structured format to interview the directors of the ten leadership programs. Nine broad questions were asked:

1) What are the goals of your program? 2) Who would most benefit from your program? 3) Is there a particular model or theory upon which your leadership program is based? 4) What are the ways your program is expected to impact the individual participants? 5) What are the ways your program is expected to impact the campus as a whole? 6) How does your program define effective leadership and effective leaders? 7) Where in your program do you address these issues? 8) A “yes” or “no” response regarding whether the program addresses several specific leadership components: a) decision-making e) networking b) communication f) morale-building c) motivational techniques g) diversity d) conflict resolution h) other 9) Do you intentionally collaborate with other leadership programs?

The results of these questions are described for each program to provide an understanding of the unique characteristics of the different leadership programs. Following the individual descriptions, two table summaries comparing and contrasting the programs are provided. Table 1 provides a condensed summary of the responses to the interview questions for all ten programs. Table 2 lists other important characteristics of each program as identified by the Student Affairs Research Committee (SARC).

Beginner Level Programs

Blueprints Blueprints is open to all students, but is especially targeted toward freshmen and sophomores. There is a $10 registration fee. Students who attend are self-selected. The program is designed as an “emerging leaders” conference. The program’s goals are to foster the development of teamwork, delegation skills and goal setting. The program leaders did not identify a particular model or theory upon which the program is based, however, it appears to fit the “Trait” model of leadership, which focuses on individual characteristics believed to be associated with successful leadership. This fits with the program leader’s definition of Blueprints as “skill based.” It is expected that individual participants will network with faculty and staff and develop group connections with fellow participants. The program is expected to impact the campus by stimulating participants to get involved in more student groups. A correlated goal is to increase retention rates by fostering connectedness to the university, which has been shown to reduce drop out rates (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Although Blueprints is skill based, fostering campus connections and motivation for involvement are regarded as the program’s primary objectives. Blueprints incorporates both hierarchical and systemic leadership approaches, however, it is generally systemic, focusing on the importance of consensus building and group process. Blueprints address each of the listed program components, either specifically, in the “break-out” sessions, or more generally, throughout the program. There is no formal collaboration with other leadership programs on campus beyond avoiding scheduling conflicts. 8

Colors of KU The Colors of KU is an experientially oriented retreat format leadership program open to all students, but focused on those with an interest in diversity and multicultural awareness. The intention of the program is to foster connections between students and to build a sense of community. The program is open to all students. Students apply by completing an application form, including a short essay. Enrollment is limited to 40 students. There is a $10 registration fee, which can be waived based on financial circumstances. Colors of KU is not theory based. The leadership style combines both systemic and hierarchical concepts, but leans strongly toward the systemic side. The activities and agenda of the Colors of KU are based on a professionally developed structured leadership program. Colors of KU is intended to impact individual participants by creating experiential awareness and fostering insight regarding diversity issues. The various listed components contained in the interview are addressed on an informal basis through the different activities. The program leader is not aware of any collaboration with other KU leadership programs.

Greek Endeavors Greek Endeavors enrolls several new members from each fraternity and sorority chapter who are identified by their chapters as potential student leaders. They go on an overnight retreat that focuses on teambuilding. The program appears to most closely fit the “trait” theory base, which assumes that certain individual characteristics are associated with effective leadership. Individual participants are encouraged to break down stereotypes (of other sororities and fraternities), build confidence, and develop a sense of community. Participants are asked to develop a project to benefit the community. The program does not define effective leadership. The program emphasizes the development of a sense of community and interpersonal connections.

Kansas Leaders in Progress (KLIP) KLIP is designed as a first exposure to leadership at the university. It is a residence hall leadership-training program “created by students for students.” Participants are typically first year, or occasionally transfer students who are in their first year at KU. Residence hall staff chose two students from each hall who want to participate. Participants in the program plan the activities for the next year’s group, and the program is student run. Consequently, there is not a consistent theoretical model upon which it is based, since the students who plan the program change yearly. The goals of KLIP are to involve students in leadership activities, provide exposure to other parts of university leadership, and present the opportunity to network with student and administrative leaders on campus. Broader abilities such as networking and morale building are emphasized. KLIP is intended to benefit participants by fostering continuing involvement in other leadership positions, especially Association of University Residence Hall (AURH) positions. KLIP is expected to benefit the campus community by developing better residence hall leaders. The definition of effective leadership varies from year to year depending upon the presenters. Students are also asked to define effective leadership for themselves. During the first semester students are exposed to various leaders on campus. In the second semester they begin working on self-defined projects. The leadership style promoted by KLIP combines both systemic and hierarchical approaches.

Leadership Development Program (LDP) LDP is a student run leadership program for members of the All Scholarship Hall Council. The program meets weekly for both fall and springs semesters, and is comprised of three first year students from each of the ten scholarship halls. LDP has one staff advisor and has recently added two graduate assistants to help with the on-going organization and planning of the program. The goals of LDP are for participants to get to know each other, to bring together first year students and emerging leaders, encourage participation in scholarship hall life, team building, and the completion of a project that will benefit the scholarship hall system. The format of LDP is for the weekly meetings to alternate between meeting with campus leaders and meeting to develop and work on their projects. Participants are expected to learn both from listening to the guest speakers and from their own experience participating in the project. LDP is expected to impact individual participants by increasing their connection across the scholarship hall system, gaining better knowledge of resources on campus, and the experience of developing and implementing a project. It is expected to benefit the campus by creating stronger leaders, who in turn are expected to utilize their experience and knowledge in various campus organizations. Effective leadership is defined each year by the new planning group, and consequently can be variable.

Student Senate Retreat The Student Senate Retreat is designed to orient new student senators to the student government process and acquaint the senators with each other. Participation is limited to elected student senators. The program is planned and designed by the student body vice-president. The retreat is designed to impact individual participants by building confidence regarding student governance procedures and to encourage future interaction. More effective student senators are expected to positively impact the campus as a whole by facilitating better student government. A primary focus is teaching organizational procedures.

Women’s Leadership Conference The Women’s Leadership Conference is a half-day event, consisting of concurrent workshops, from which participants can choose, and a keynote speaker. The goals of the program are to facilitate networking and meeting people with similar interests, bringing women’s groups together, encouraging involvement, role modeling, and facilitating the development of specific leadership skills. The specific skills vary from year to year depending upon the workshop topics. The program is open to all students. There is a $10 conference fee, which can be waived based on need. The intention of the program is to reach female students who are not part of other programs, who would not become involved otherwise. The conference is not theory-based, and the planning and development of each year’s programs have heavy student involvement. Individual participants generally determine the outcomes for the conference, since they are free to choose the workshops they will attend. This is based on the premise that people need different things and have different goals. It is hoped that the conference will impact the campus community by showing support for women on campus and helping faculty and staff connect with students. Effective leadership is defined as a combination of leadership skills (i.e., good communication, working effectively with groups) and character (i.e., integrity, honesty, professionalism). The program primarily emphasizes systemic leadership concepts. The hierarchical component focuses on the individual leadership skills and inspirational messages from successful women leaders.

Intermediate Level Programs

Training Interpersonal and Professional Skills (TIPS) TIPS is intended to train student leaders from the executive boards (presidents, vice-presidents) of different student organizations sponsored by the Multicultural Resource Center. It is a didactic program aimed at teaching leadership skills, such as parliamentary procedure. TIPS is not based on any specific leadership theory. The program is expected to impact participants through teaching specific leadership skills and the development of leadership abilities. Effective leadership is defined as knowledge and competency in various leadership skills such as conflict resolution and fund management. It is assumed that creating more effective student leaders will positively impact the campus through better-run student organizations. No intentional collaboration occurs with other campus leadership programs.

Student Leadership Institute (SLI) The goals of the SLI are to identify the leadership skills of participants, develop new leadership skills, and community building. Participants must hold or have held leadership positions such as resident assistant (RA) or hall government. Letters of invitation are sent to students occupying leadership positions, and a general announcement is also made. SLI does not operate from within a particular model or theory. It employs workshops to teach specific leadership skills. Individual participants are expected to leave with a better understanding of their leadership skills, some new ideas, and having met new people. It is expected that the interaction among participants will positively impact the campus by establishing better lines of communication and breaking down turf issues.

Advanced Level Program

LeaderShape LeaderShape is an intensive, advanced, five-day leadership retreat for students already involved in leadership or who aspire to leadership positions. Participants must have at least one year remaining at KU. The goals of the program are for participants to acquire a personal vision of what they will attempt to accomplish as student leaders, and to promote a firm sense of integrity as leaders. Applicants must submit an essay describing what they hope to gain from the experience. Strong applicants have some leadership experience, are involved in at least one or two organizations on campus, and typically are sophomores or juniors, although freshmen are eligible. The program combines both didactic and experiential elements; however, given the intensive retreat format, it is strongly experiential. The program is geared toward team development and the appreciation of differences in others. Integrity is a central theme. Although the program leader who was interviewed did not identify a theory or model upon which the program is based, may fit the “trait” model, which asserts that successful leadership is associated with individual characteristics.

It is hoped that participants will realize the impact that one person can have on their environment. The focus of the program is on action. The implementation of ideas developed during the retreat is the expected outcome. Consequently, the campus can be directly impacted by the vision plans created during the program. Each day has specific activities and different goals. Day 1 – identifying personal meaning of leadership, importance of reflection; Day 2 – 11 feedback, active listening, disclosure, communication, team building; Day 3 – developing leadership vision, recognizing behaviors that facilitate and impede effective group process; Day 4 – action planning of vision plans, dynamics of power and influence; Day 5 – ethics and values; Day 6 – graduation, strategies for maintaining motivation and balance.

All of the listed program components are addressed at some point throughout LeaderShape. There is no collaboration with other leadership programs on campus.

Table 3 – Summary of SARC Structured Interviews

Program BluePrints Colors Greek KLIP Leader- Of KU Endeavors Shape Goals teamwork, build commu- team building foster involvement, intensive leadership delegation, nity, foster exposure to student experience, acquire goal-setting awareness leadership personal vision of of diversity leadership

Selection self-selected limited to 40 Greek under- live in residence hall essay application Criteria students, classmen short essay

Recruitment general chosen by 2 students from each multiple methods, Methods advertising, presidents of residence hall by targeted both e-mailing to chapters residence hall staff individually and student groups campus wide

Target Population emerging leaders general student mostly Freshmen first year res hall Sophomores and body students Juniors

Experience/ motivated, interested in demonstrated interested, willing to significant leadership Traits interested diversity interest in do service learning experience leadership project

Model trait none trait None Trait (skill based)

Impact on networking, skill building, team building, foster leadership in realize potential of Individual * motivation increasing confidence, break other organizations an effective leader awareness down stereo-types

Impact on foster involvement fostering active create better implementing vision Campus * campus residence hall plans developed involvement, leaders during retreat projects

Effective developing not defined not defined self-defined, character, vision, Leadership motivation variable competence

Decision- yes yes yes No Yes Making Communi- yes yes yes No Yes cation Motivational yes yes yes yes Yes Techniques Conflict yes yes yes No Yes Resolution Networking yes yes yes yes yes

Morale- yes yes yes yes Yes Building Diversity yes yes yes yes yes

Collaborate coordinate no no No No with other schedules leadership programs?

Table 3 – Summary of SARC Structured Interviews (continued)

Program Leader- LDP TIPS Student SLI Women’s Shape Senate Leader. Retreat Conf. Goals intensive team building, skill building orient officers leadership skills, networking, role leadership gaining to student commun ity modeling, experience, leadership govt. proce- building fostering acquire personal experience dures involvement, vision leadership skills

Selection essay application none current student current or past none Criteria student senators leadership leaders experience

Recruitment multiple advertised, MRC student letters to current general Methods methods, individual executive senators or leaders, general advertising target ed at both halls recruit board SAA announcement through several individuals and members methods organizations

Target Sophomores and first year current same as above current or past students who Population Juniors scholarship student student leaders are not part of hall residents leaders other organizations

Experience/ significant motivated, same as above demonstrated interest Traits leadership interested leadership experience experience

Model trait none none organi- trait none zational

Impact on realize the networking, teaching learn leadership skills, variable – Individual * potential of an experience skills, procedures, new ideas, new depending on effective leader with project developing encourage relationships need of leadership interaction individual abilities participants

Impact on implementing stronger creating better student better networking, Campus * vision plans leaders, greater effective government communication support for developed involvement leaders among student women on during retreat leaders campus

Effective character, vision, self-defined, skills and willing to work leadership skills Leadership competence variable knowledge toward positive and character change

Decision- yes yes yes Yes yes yes Making Communication yes yes yes Yes yes yes

Motivational yes ? yes No yes yes Techniques Conflict yes ? yes No yes yes Resolution Networking yes yes yes Yes yes yes

Morale- yes no ? Yes yes yes Building Diversity yes yes yes Yes no yes

Collaborate No no no No no no with other leadership programs? * These categories reflect the comments of those interviewed. There are no objective data to support the outcomes. 13

Table 4 – Characteristics of KU Leadership Programs

Program Leadership Level of Method of Method of Planning Planning Desired Target Theory Name Style Training Training Program Group Group Outcome(s) Audience Base Planning Consistency Comp- osition BluePrints Systemic Beginner Didactic Internship Variable Students Subjective/ General Trait Year to Broad Student Year Body Colors of KU Pluralistic Beginner Experiential Structured/ Consistent Staff Subjective/ General None (but strongly Professional over Time Broad Student Systemic) Body Greek Combined Beginner Experiential Opportunistic Consistent Staff Objective/ Specific Trait Endeavors over Time Behavioral Group & (Greek Subjective/ Freshmen) Broad Kansas Combined Beginner Experiential Opportunistic Variable Students Subjective/ Specific None Leaders in Year to Broad Group – Progress Year Freshmen (KLIP) in Residence Halls Leadershape Hierarchical Advanced Combination Structured/ Consistent Staff Objective/ Specific Trait Professional over Time Behavioral Group (with & (inter- Human Subjectiv e/ mediate Relations Broad leaders) influence) Leadership Systemic Beginner Combination Opportunistic Variable Students Subjective/ Specific None Development Year to Broad Group Program Year (Schol. (LDP) Halls) Training Hierarchical Intermediate Didactic Opportunistic Consistent Staff Objective/ Specific Undeter- Interpersonal over Time Behavioral Group mined and (board Professional members Skills (TIPS) of MRC sponsored student groups) Student Hierarchical Beginner Didactic Internship Consistent Students Objective/ Specific Organ- Senate over Time Behavioral Group zational Retreat (new student senators) Student Hierarchical Intermediate Didactic Opportunistic Variable Mixed Objective/ Specific Trait Leadership Year to Behavioral Group – Institute Year current or (SLI) past leaders Women’s Combination Beginner Didactic Opportunistic Variable Mixed Subjective/ General Undeter- Leadership (with Year to Broad Student mined Conference Systemic Year Body emphasis)

DISCUSSION

Coordination Across Leadership Programs The planners and organizers of KU’s leadership programs invest an extraordinary amount of time and energy to make these programs possible. This study was conducted so that we could provide these individuals and their supervisors with information that may help them achieve the maximum benefit from their efforts. Although our method and especially the use of an untested research instrument limited our ability to generalize, our data support the position that the current array of Student Affairs sponsored leadership programs have much to offer future participants. Programs generally appear to be conducted without coordination between or among program sponsors.

Recommendation: Sponsors, presenters, and participants could benefit greatly from the adoption of a coordinated and calculated approach to developing and training student leaders.

Sequential Progression of Training Our data suggests that planners should strongly consider the development of a three-year leadership-training curriculum. The three-year model (beginner, intermediate and advanced) would fit well with the number of programs and the range in levels of currently existing programs.

For the purposes of this discussion the term “beginning level” training focuses participants on the development of individual social and leadership skills. “Intermediate level” training draws attention to the development of skills related to interacting with a unit or group in a way that encourages membership participation and inspires collective action toward a common goal. “Advanced level” leadership training teaches participants how to help the group interact productively with similar groups in the larger population. At this level, leaders aspire to engage in activities that will have a positive impact on the common good of a community, state or nation.

Currently, there are seven beginning level, two intermediate level and one advanced level leadership offerings. This pyramid approach makes intuitive sense. A large number of introductory offerings provide the greatest number of opportunities for students to be introduced to the possibility of pursuing more advanced levels of leadership training.

Recommendation: It would probably be appropriate to retain the seven beginning level offerings and increase the number of intermediate programs to at least three or four. Offering LeaderShape as the capstone advanced level course would require no changes. In fact, it is recommended that the lower level training programs use the LeaderShape program as a model for developing their educational structure and method.

Leadership Theories Inherent in the development of such a curriculum is the determination of a philosophy of leadership training that will guide the development of these programs. At issue is whether to select one theory as the primary approach to leadership, or to provide students with a selected number of theoretical frameworks from which to choose or blend into a leadership approach. There are many theoretical leadership models from which to choose. For example, Bensimon, 15

Neumann, and Birnbaum (1989) suggest that there are six major categories of leadership theories: Trait, Organizational, Structural, Human Relations, Political, and Symbolic.

Recommendation: It would be very productive to have a discussion regarding the breadth and depth of the ideal leadership-training program as a prelude to making such an important decision regarding philosophy and subsequent selection of a theory or theories.

Hierarchical vs. Systemic Leadership Style The current thinking in higher education appears to argue for the promotion of participatory models of leadership style. These styles are generally more inclusive in terms of sharing information and decision-making power (Kezar, 2000; Woodward, 1994) than the typical top- down manner of organizational leadership.

Wielkiewicz (2002) dichotomized leadership attitudes and beliefs into two categories: Hierarchical Thinking, and Systemic Thinking. The hierarchical approach is characterized by a highly structured and stable organization with the majority of power and control residing in the upper levels of authority (i.e. U.S. Military). The Systemic approach is based on the idea that all members of the organization should participate in the decision making process, and share in the responsibility for the outcome of decisions. Wielkiewicz presents a somewhat biased point of view in which he promotes systemic thinking. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to each, and each form of thinking and acting can produce positive outcomes if done well.

Recommendation: The important point for those who develop leadership training at KU is to become knowledgeable about both models and make informed and intentional decisions.

Target Populations The data indicate that currently existing leadership programs tend to develop target populations based on year in school and living group. Leadership program participants appear to generally represent all four classes and residence hall, scholarship hall and Greek letter living groups. It appears that first and second year students living off campus are not intentionally targeted for recruitment to leadership programs.

Recommendations: Decisions of strategic importance need to be made about the target populations for various leadership-training programs. It is suggested that decision makers consider leadership training as a vehicle that may help address the “great divide,” especially during the freshman year, between Greek letter organizations and residents living in University organized student housing. Early exposure to each other especially in the context of leadership training could provide the catalyst for changing the stereotyped perceptions that each group has of the other. It could also be the first step in building the foundation for lasting relationships that would bridge the gap between these two groups.

The coordinators of Leadership programs should be mindful of first and second year students living in off-campus housing. Special attempts should be made to recruit representatives of this population into leadership training programs.

Internal Consistency Leadership programs at KU were found to lack internal consistency among the stated program objectives, recruiting process, method of instruction, duration of program, and selection of presenters. One would expect that beginning level training programs would be relatively brief in duration (one to four hours), may employ a variety of training methods and presenters to accomplish their goals, and low order mental processing of information. Beginning level program objectives may focus on behaviors (i.e. social skills) and tasks that could be accomplished within the training session itself. The audience would primarily consist of students with little or no leadership training or experience.

Intermediate level programs would likely be longer in duration (full day to weekend). Student affairs staff or outside experts would likely offer programs focused on a specific topic. Program objectives would be directed at behaviors related to beginning level value development and intermediate level group skills. Teaching methods would likely blend didactic presentations and experiential exercises, possibly followed by structured discussions. Program evaluation would assess the clarity of values and acquisition of mid-level social skills. The majority of the participants would be students who participated in one of the beginning level programs or someone who has already experienced a moderate amount of previous leadership training.

Advanced level programs would be of greatest duration (i.e. three day retreat to week-long camp), and may employ a number of presenters with expertise in specified fields of study. Program objectives would likely focus on the philosophy and ethics of leadership, the introduction of the basic concepts associated with strategic thinking, and group dynamics training. A number of teaching methods, along with time for participants to process new information and experiences, would be appropriate. Program evaluation would track participants over time and assess the nature of their leadership activity and accomplishments. All participants would have the prerequisite intermediate leadership skills and experience.

Recommendation: It appears that internal consistency within and among all leadership-training programs could be improved with a reduction in the rate of turnover among the planning staff. This is especially true in minority affiliated leadership programs. New planners often provide new and creative ideas. However, without some continuing staff, it is difficult to maintain continuity within the program and among the other programs at the other levels.

Program Evaluation The data indicates that none of the leadership programs included in the survey conduct a systematic evaluation of outcomes. Rossi, Freeman and Wright (1979) suggest that without systematic program evaluation program advisors have no way of objectively assessing the impact of their program, providing cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses. They also have no way of assessing whether or not the program is operating in conformity with the intended design. Finally they have no objective data to assist them in future program planning.

Recommendations: It is often stated that program evaluation is a good idea, but the outcomes are sometimes impossible to measure. It would be helpful for program developers to operationally define their expectations by spending some time developing outcome objectives. This can be accomplished by simply asking questions such as the following: (1) “What changes are expected in participants as a result of completing this program?” (2) “What changes are 17 expected in the campus environment as a result of participants completing this program”? Try to answer these questions in terms that are observable and measurable.

Tracking participants from their initial leadership training experience and beyond would provide those responsible for leadership development the ability to access former participants for such purposes as; encouraging future sequential training; providing continuing support of ongoing projects; and assessing the short and long-term effectiveness of various leadership training models and methods.

SUMMARY

A study was conducted to review the current leadership programs offered by the Division of Student Affairs. This was done in order to provide information that may be helpful in planning the sequence, structure, and coordination of present and future leadership programs. Information was obtained concerning ten currently existing leadership programs sponsored though the Division of Student Affairs. Interviews were conducted with individuals that had directed, developed, or had understanding of the nature of the programs. A questionnaire was used to guide questions, with follow-up questions and comments, as appropriate.

The Division of Student Affairs sponsors a wide variety of leadership programs. These programs vary in many aspects, while also sharing some similarities. Some patterns in the similarities seemed to evolve. The vast majority (7) of programs are of a beginning level of training. Two of the remaining programs are at an intermediate and one at the advanced level of training. Leadership training programs were categorized for research purposes and are not mutually exclusive. Many programs contain elements of the three levels of training.

LeaderShape was unique in providing the most advanced training and the most extensive programming. It also seemed unique in being presented in a more hierarchical way, with very structured programming. The other programs seemed to be a combination of hierarchical and systemic elements. In practice, they seem to rely on hierarchical concepts in their approach to training.

Describing the level of each program was complicated by the fact that many of the programs that seemed to be designed for intermediate leaders included instruction in basic leadership skills (for example, Student Senate Retreat). None of the programs served as clear pre-requisites for another. Most of the programs did not have clearly stated measurable outcomes, and did not have a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the program objectively.

The programs were also not based clearly on any set theory of leadership. Some were geared toward teaching skills, and appeared to be most clearly aligned with trait based leadership theory. Others emphasized team building, networking, motivation, increased awareness, and general social interaction.

LIMITATIONS

The study was based on interviews conducted during the 2000-2001 academic year with people that helped plan the programs. Some of the programs had a different planning group from year to year. That staff turnover may result in considerable year-to-year variation in the nature and content of programs with the same title. Some of those interviewed had little direct experience with the programs about which they were commenting. All data are based on the self-report provided by one or two persons remotely or directly connected with the programs in the sample. There was also a lack of consistency among the interviewers. Each interviewer had considerable latitude in how they conducted the interview and in the issues they chose to pursue with follow- up questions. Finally, the results of this research cannot be generalized beyond the leadership programs that comprised the sample population.

IMPLICATIONS

The implication of recent literature (Hart, 1998; Schwartz, 2001, Komives, et al., (2000) is that leadership training programs need to change in order to address the “new” dynamics of leadership and to prepare students to take their place as active citizens in today’s society. A more coordinated, conscious approach to leadership training, both within each program and between programs, will help maximize efficiency, effectiveness, and focus among Student Affairs sponsored leadership programs. The development of “sister programs” to blend various student populations in the training process may help address diversity issues, bridge gaps between student groups and living units, and provide student leaders with insight into real and perceived differences among various student groups. The intentional selection of some leadership theory(s) to guide the overall program should assist in the development of: 1) a sequential curriculum; 2) objective, measurable outcome goals for each program; and 3) an evaluation process that assesses short and long-term program effectiveness.

Development of a sequential plan or training curriculum that includes all Division sponsored programs (beginning, intermediate, and advanced) should yield higher level coordination among programs, provide students with a clear path to achieving excellence in leadership, and help insure that both planners and participants receive maximum benefit from their efforts.

Hopefully the information obtained through this study will help improve effectiveness, increase coordination, enhance the stability and focus the broad range of the leadership programs within the Division of Student Affairs.

REFERENCES

Astin, H. (1996). Leadership for social Change. About Campus, July-August, 4-10.

Bensimon, E., A. Neuman, & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The "L" Word in Higher Education., ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, no. 1, Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Boatman, S. A. (1999). The Leadership Audit: A process to enhance the development of student leadership. NASPA Journal, 37(1), 325-336.

Field Manual 22-100 (1999), Army Leadership: Be, know, do. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C.

Hart, P. D., & Research Associates (1998). New Leadership for A New Century: Key findings from a study on youth, leadership, and community service. A Survey Conducted for Public Allies funded by the Surdna Foundation.

Hodge, D. R. (2001). Spiritual Assessment: A review of major qualitative methods and a new framework for assessing spirituality. Social Work, 46(3), 203-214.

Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic Leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, July/August, 6-11.

Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. (1994). What Students Gain from Participating in Student Government. New Directions For Student Affairs, 66, 5-17.

Komives, K., Meixner, C., Endress, W., & Slack, C. (2000). Citizenship as Socially Responsible Leadership: Assessing the 7 C’s. Presented at the ACPA, Washington D.C..

Moss, Jr., J., Leske, G. W., Jensrud, Q., & Berkas, T. H. (1994). An Evaluation of seventeen Leadership development Programs for Vocational Educators. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 32(1) 26-48.

Nuss, E. M. (1994). Leadership in Higher Education: Confronting the realities of the 1990’s. NASPA Journal, 31(3), 209-216

Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Posner, B. Z., & Brodsky, B. (1994). Leadership Practices of Effective Student Leaders: Gender makes no difference. NASPA Journal, 31 (2), 113-120.

Roberts, D. & Ullom, C. (1989). Student Leadership Program Model. NASPA Journal, 27(1), 67- 74.

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Wright, S.R. (1979). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. London: Sage Publications. 20

Schwartz, S. W. (2001). Leadership For What? About Campus, May-June, 13-19.

Wielkiewicz, R. M. (2000). The Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale: An instrument for evaluating college students’ thinking about leadership and organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 335-347.

Wielkiewicz, R. M. (2002). Validity of the Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale: relationships with personality, Communal orientations, and social desirability. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 108-118.

Woodward, Jr., D. B. (1994). Leadership Challenges, 2002. New Directions For Student Services, 66, 91-99. 21

APPENDIX A

Division of Student Affairs Research Committee

Fall 2000, Research Questionnaire

Leadership Programs at The University of Kansas 22

Division of Student Affairs Research Committee

Fall 2000

Research Questionnaire

Leadership Programs at the University of Kansas 23

“Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. The Student Affairs Research Committee is reviewing various University sponsored leadership programs for the purpose of gaining a greater understanding of the theoretical framework, goals and objectives that guide each program. This interview should take about 45 minutes and you should feel free to discontinue the interview at anytime. There are no right or wrong answers. I am simply interested in gathering descriptive information about the [insert name of leadership program here]. With your permission, I will tape record this session in order to capture your responses completely and accurately.” 24

Student Affairs Research Committee Leadership Survey

1. What are the goals of your program?

2. Who would most benefit from your program?

a. Are there selection criteria?

b. How do you recruit candidates for your leadership program?

c. What is your target population?

i. Anyone who wants to attend?

ii. Anyone who pays?

iii. Anyone who is nominated and selected?

d. What leadership experience or traits do you look for in a candidate?

3. Is there a particular model or theory upon which your leadership program is based?

(1) transactional (brief description)

(2) transformational (brief description)

(3) situational (brief description)

(4) symbolic (brief description)

(5) etc.

4. What are the ways your program is expected to impact the individual participants?

What are the ways your program is expected to impact the campus as a whole? 25

5. How does your program define effective leadership and effective leaders?

Where in your program do you address these issues?

In each category, (s)=Systemic, (h)=Hierarchical

YES NO Comment

a. ability to see a situation from someone else's point of view (s) ability to see a situation from someone else's point of view (h) ability to independently define a situation b. ability to communicate-persuade and listen (s) ability to encourage involvement and participation of others (h) ability to command respect and influence by providing purpose, direction and motivation c. ability to empower and encourage other people to act (s) ability to facilitate productive interaction among participants (h) ability to inspire and motivate people to act d. ability to establish goals and achieve results (s) ability to facilitate the formation of goals and accomplishment of tasks through group process (h) ability to establish goals and encourage the group to achieve the desired results e. ethics/integrity/intellectual honesty

(s) ability to guide the group toward the development and maintenance of mutually agreed upon ethical standards (h) ability to establish and enforce rules of conduct that are consistent with ethical standards

YES NO Comment f. getting along well with other people (s) ability to encourage the development of productive personal relationships among members of the organization (h) ability to use organizationally defined role relationships to accomplish tasks g. ability to make important decisions (s) ability and willingness to share information with all members and meld their reactions and suggestions into a unified response to a particular problem (h) ability to sift through large amounts of information and develop a plan of action that will employ the best option in response to a particular problem h. morale-building, motivation

(s) ability of the group to maintain high levels of spirit and participation (h) ability of the leader to maintain high levels of spirit and participation i. risk-taking/entrepreneurship

(s) ability of the group to take risks and/ or share responsibility for the outcome (h) ability of the leader to take risks and/ or responsibility and encourage the group to look for ways to improve function j. self confidence

(s) ability of the group to inspire confidence and trust within the group (h) ability of the leader to inspire the group's confidence and trust

YES NO Comment k. sense of humor, perspective, flexibility (s) ability of the group to readily adapt to changes occurring outside the organization (h) ability of the leader to be sensitive to the various needs of subordinates and the ever changing environment l. stamina/energy/tenacity/courage/ enthusiasm (s) ability of the group to remain focused on agreed-upon goals and to rely on the group to maintain energy, demonstrate courage, and manifest enthusiasm while working to achieve goals (h) ability of the leader to maintain a high level of energy and enthusiasm, and demonstrate tenacity and courage in decision making m. thirst for ongoing learning

(s) ability of the group to promote individually initiated learning programs and assist the participants in making the best use of those individual goals for the advancement of the unit (h) ability of the leader to direct and promote the organizationally prescribed learning/advancement program n. understanding of the nature of power and authority (s) ability of the group to understand that their power lies within the collective wisdom and responsibility of the members (h) ability of leaders to understand the meaning of their power and their duty to use it responsibly

YES NO Comment o. vision

(s) ability of the group to foster discussions and facilitate the organization to develop a vision and work together to accomplish their goals (h) ability of the leader to envision future goals and focus the organization's energy on accomplishing those goals p. worldmindedness - a sense of history (s) ability of the group to collectively develop awareness of forces beyond the boundaries of their organization and determine their responses (h) ability of the leader to be aware of forces beyond the boundaries of their organization and develop appropriate responses to external influences q. team building

(s) ability of the group to develop cohesion and a sense of shared purpose, resulting in the utilization of collective talents (h) ability of the leader to assign individuals to tasks based on their abilities and talents, and develop cohesion within the group r. other

(s) systemic thinking = process/ formative evaluation (h) hierarchical thinking = outcomes/ summative evaluation

6. This is not an exhaustive list of all possible program components, and we realize that no program can address every issue. As we proceed through the following list, please let us know if your program addresses these components.

Component Yes No How do you do this?

1. Decision-making

2. Communication

3. Motivational Techniques

4. Conflict Resolution

5. Networking

6. Morale-Building

7. Diversity

8. Other

7. Do you intentionally collaborate with other leadership programs?