Search results

In the context of business schools, the word “leadership” is widely used in missions, visions, and marketing materials. However, underlying support and the infrastructure to truly develop leaders may be lacking. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges and issues facing leadership education in the context of business education. More specifically, we highlight some of the structural challenges, foundational issues, and research related problems and identify several opportunities to address some of the areas for development. Throughout this paper, we discuss how the National Leadership Education Research Agenda can spark research that will legitimize our work not only in business, but across disciplines.

Previous literature suggests that exposure to trauma has both positive and negative impacts on leadership and leadership development, although there is a lack of empirical research. This exploratory study compared military leaders’ use of transformational leadership styles (TLS) before and after trauma exposure from the followers’ perspective. This study used a retrospective pretest design to survey veteran and active duty military personnel. Significant differences were found between pre- and post-trauma exposure TLS ratings, with a mean decline in the TLS after trauma exposure. The analysis of the open-ended questions indicated a reduction in the use of the TLS after trauma, but identified positive changes in some cases. There was no evidence that changes in the TLS were concentrated in any of the five styles.

We conducted a national study of the Collegiate Leadership Competition (CLC), which since inception in 2015, has included over 75 higher education institutions. The CLC brings students together in collaborative institution-based teams to compete with other teams in competitions to achieve goals and practice effective leadership skills. Our goal was to assess leadership capacity growth over the course of a four-month team practice period through the daylong inter-team competition and evaluate participant leadership assessed several months later. Results suggested students made significant and sustainable gains in leader-self-efficacy and short-term gains in leadership skill and motivation to lead. Our results also indicated the team’s coach played a significant role in student leadership development.

Leadership development programs for students in educational settings are proliferating in number and design. Curricular programs range from academic minors and certificates to doctoral programs in a variety of academic homes (e.g., education, business, healthcare). Co-curricular programs often take the form of drop-in workshops, day-long experiences, alternative spring breaks, service-learning trips, and other programs housed in student affairs and administrative offices (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018). Moreover, the number of programs has steadily increased over the last 15 years from just under 1,000 in 2006 (Brungardt, et al., 2006) to more than 2,000 (ILA Program Directory, 2021). And while there is some commonality among the approach of these leadership programs in terms of content and delivery (see Harvey & Jenkins, 2014), vast differences exist in the structure and learning goals of student leadership programs compared to other social science disciplines. A potentially fruitful area in which to explore its effectiveness in supporting leadership development is the environment of competitive teams, where individuals work together as a group to compete against other teams. The purpose of our research was to investigate the degree to which such a competitive environment might support or detract from student leadership group, employing a potentially effective example of a formal program that utilizes the innovative approach of team competitions to motivate learning (the CLC).

This research explores the instructional strategies most frequently used by leadership educators who teach academic credit-bearing undergraduate leadership studies courses through a national survey and identifies signature pedagogies within the leadership discipline. Findings from this study suggest that class discussion—whether in the form of true class discussion or a hybrid of interactive lecture and discussion—is the signature pedagogy for undergraduate leadership education. While group and individual projects and presentations, self-assessments and instruments, and reflective journaling were also used frequently, overall, discussion-based pedagogies were used most frequently. These findings offer attributes that a variety of leadership educators have shared as effective for teaching and learning within the discipline and may facilitate the development of new leadership programming policies, provide direction for future research, and contribute to the existing body of literature.

This research assesses the Know, See, Plan, portions of the Know, See, Plan, Do (KSPD) model for curriculum design in leadership education. There were 3 graduate student groups, each taught using 1 of 3 different curriculum designs (KSPD and 2 control groups). Based on apre- test, post-test design, students’ performance was measured to assess their knowledge, and application skills of the course material. Results indicated MBA students taught based on a KSPD curriculum (Group 1) performed significantly better than students in the two control groups on 3 post-test dependent measures designed to capture the effectiveness of the Know, See, Plan curriculum design model, (basic leadership information (K1), recognition of leadership concepts in practice (S1), and developing a plan of action (P1)). Group 1 also performed significantly better on all 3 post-test measures than they performed on the 3 pre-test measures. The non-MBA control group (Group 2) improved significantly from pre-test to post test on P1 but not on S1 or K1. The MBA control group (Group 3) had no significant changes in performance from pre-test to post-test on any of the three dependent measures. These findings are discussed in terms of their support for the KSPD model and in regard to limitations of this study.

Using emotionally intelligent leadership (EIL) as the model, the authors identify behaviors that three levels of leaders engage in based on a self-report inventory (Emotionally Intelligent Leadership for Students-Inventory). Three clusters of students are identified: those that are “Less-involved, Less Others-oriented,” “Self-Improvers,” and “Involved Leaders for Others.” EIL behaviors that most differentiate the highest self-ranking group of involved leaders are the extent to which cluster members work to resolve conflicts in a group situation, work to build a sense of team, and consider the needs of others. The underlying constructs of consciousness of context, self, and others are investigated and discussed. Discriminant analysis is used to validate the cluster solution. Cluster analysis is found to be useful tool for helping leadership educators categorize students and by doing so, program architects have an opportunity to design and develop interventions tailored to better meet the needs of individual students.

Little has been written about the use of skill sheets in leadership education and this paper demonstrates how they have been implemented in one specific context. Used in a number of domains (e.g., karate, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) skill sheets are checklists or rubrics that record skill performance. The use of skill sheets in leadership learning and education is a critical step in our efforts to grow as a discipline. Founded in 2015, the Collegiate Leadership Competition has incorporated the use of skill sheets in skill development, assessment of learning, and curriculum design.