Search results

The purpose of the current innovative practice paper is to introduce a technique to explore leader identity development and meaning-making that builds on the narrative pedagogical tradition. In this paper, we recommend a process for combining turning-point graphing and responsive (semi-structured) interviews to co-explore leadership identity development and meaning-making with college students.

The paper provides student feedback data on the effectiveness of the technique in improving understanding of leader identity and transforming meaning-making.

We hope practitioners can utilize this approach to build leadership identity development and meaning-making capacity in college students.

The current study examined and explained the relationship between generativity and socially responsible leadership using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The first, quantitative phase examined the predictive relationship between generativity and socially responsible leadership among 82 college student leaders who mentor at a four-year, Midwestern, land-grant university using multiple regression. The second, qualitative phase used a phenomenological design to explain the quantitative results by conducting semi- structured interviews among a sub-sample (n=9) of the quantitative phase participants. Results from the current study advance leadership research in social change as well as advance instruction by helping leadership educators demonstrate their outcomes related to generativity and social responsibility.

The current paper is part of a larger scoping review project investigating the intersection of leader(ship) identity development and meaning-making. In this review, we analyzed 100 articles to determine the current extent of literature that covers the intersection of leader(ship) identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

A review of the extant literature is included, and a conceptual model is suggested for further exploration into this critical and under-researched domain.

More research is needed at the intersection of leadership identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

As this area of study has expanded, scholars have noted an absence of research on the effect of multiple social identities, especially marginalized identities, on meaning-making and leadership identity construction.

Leadership is necessary for organizational effectiveness (Kroeck et al., 2004), a finding that applies to student organizations at institutions of higher education (Plante, 2016; Posner, 2012). However, student leaders of campus organizations face nuanced and significant challenges (Foubert & Urbanski, 2006; Plante, 2016). Therefore, we sought to diagnose and analyze the central challenge of a peer leadership position within a collegiate leadership mentoring program. After diagnosing the central challenge of the position, we built a training and development intervention grounded in the leadership theory of consideration versus structure (Halpin & Winer, 1957; Stogdill, 1974). The intervention was administered to two cohorts of seven student leaders and subsequently assessed for effectiveness. The current paper shares the assessment results, along with details on developing and implementing the leadership intervention. We hope practitioners can (a) implement the process we outline to conduct a needs assessment and create a leadership development intervention and (b) utilize the training in their co-curricular organizations.

The purpose of this application manuscript is to address assessing and evaluating the impact of leadership mentoring programs on collegiate mentors. Specifically, this paper addresses the nuanced considerations of creating appropriate program outcomes and associated objectives given the individualized nature of mentoring relationships. Additionally, the current paper discusses assessment and evaluation strategies to demonstrate impact of leadership mentoring on the collegiate mentor via a three-year program evaluation effort. By innovating leadership mentoring program practice, leadership educators can more soundly design and deliver leadership mentoring programs and more precisely measure and demonstrate impact.

Academic advisors are an invaluable and steadfast component of leadership students’ higher education experience (Hunter & White, 2004; Mann, 2020; Museus, 2021; Spratley, 2020). Yet, given the myriad student paths and preferences, advising calls for flexibility, commitment, and personalization. Applying growth mindset and design thinking to the academic advising process in leadership education may help advisors meet the diverse needs of their students, integrating theory and practice. Notably, growth mindset and design thinking are linked to overall motivation, confidence, and problem-solving (Dweck, 2015; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015; Mann, 2020), allowing students to take ownership over and actively engage with their academic advising experience. Therefore, two advising manuals (i.e., a student manual and a faculty manual) were generated to incorporate growth mindset and design thinking-based approaches to the advising experience within leadership education. The manuals were implemented into various advising situations for data collection and feedback. Findings revealed an overall favorable opinion of the manual and guidance for further implementation within the advising process. The two manuals presented in the current paper provide leadership education students, academic advisors, and departments with various tools to enhance and guide their undergraduate student experience.

While there are well-established personal benefits to being a mentor, such as increased life satisfaction and job performance (Ramaswami & Dreher, 2007), how mentors grow and develop requires exploration. We meet this need by presenting six key themes from two recent research studies related to the experiences that mentors perceived as contributing to their development. The growth of two leadership theories in particular were explored: generativity and Psychological Capital. Six themes emerged: (a) curricular training, (b) exposure to leadership outcomes, (c) being mentored by peers, (d) experiences with mentee, (e) reflection, and (f ) observing a ripple effect. These themes offer insights on how curricular and co-curricular experiences might maximize leadership development of students and ground leadership interventions, such as mentoring, in theory and research.

The purpose of the current application paper is to integrate previous literature with recent results from practitioners on effective practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom.

We use these integrated findings to innovate practice on maximizing the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) by matching their tasks to signature pedagogies in leadership education.

The integrated findings revealed three practice themes: (1) match UTAs to pedagogical approach, (2) create small groups by design and (3) providing training and reflection practice for UTAs.

In sum, leadership education can and should challenge historical practices in higher education whereby UTAs are used purely for grading and course logistics management.

Adult agricultural leadership programs (ALP) train people to address the needs of a diversifying society with pressing social, economic, environmental, and political challenges. Additionally, these programs offer transformative learning experiences that lead to a greater capacity of current and prospective leaders to become change agents in their communities. In a profession where vitality, strength, and perseverance are fundamental, the agricultural industry needs leaders who remain aware of the foundational knowledge contributed by their predecessors. At the same time, it also necessitates innovation that may revolutionize the agricultural industry for decades to come. In this mixed-method study, we asked participants of a state-based ALP to complete the Loyola Generativity Scale (N=48) that measures generative concern, with higher scores indicating stronger generative concern. Survey results (N=48) indicated average overall generative concern. However, there was a considerable variation among participants, scores ranging from 45 to 77. To understand the range of attitudes, we conducted interviews (N=11) with ALP participants. Generativity Theory provided the foundation of our qualitative analysis. We identified how participants are acting generatively in their leadership roles by promoting the sustainability of agriculture through social engagement, capitalizing on opportunities for teaching and learning, and expanding social capital through intergenerational professional networks. From this research, scholars and practitioners will gain a more nuanced understanding of how this ALP is facilitating generative leadership among today’s leaders so they may continue transforming their industry by connecting generational cohorts through the transmission of experience, knowledge, and expertise.

Prior research and theory have shown that transformational leadership can be developed through leader development programs (LDPs). To explain how this happens, research suggests a strong connection between an individual’s leader self-concept and their leadership behavior that can be manipulated through LDPs. The purpose of this article is to delve deeper into this phenomenon to understand how development occurs and to better understand how an LDP can improve leadership behaviors by influencing one’s self-concept and ultimately reduce the training transfer gap. As a broader goal, this article contributes to the existing literature on the value proposition of investing in LDPs.

We conducted an explanatory sequential design mixed-methods study to measure the development of participants and the impact of the program. The quantitative phase of the study used self-report surveys to measure the LDP’s impact on participants’ transformational leader behavior (TLB) and concept of themselves regarding leadership, their leader self-views (LSVs). The study also measured the relationship between LSVs and later enactment of leadership behaviors as the second hypothesis. The subsequent qualitative study was designed to understand the mechanisms that might explain the quantitative results.

The study’s empirical findings indicate a positive relationship between LSVs (efficacy, self-awareness and identity) and distal leader development outcomes (TBLs). The study’s findings also provide support for the claim that LDPs convert knowledge and skills into TLB, expanding an individual’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Qualitative results also show LDPs improve leader behavior by influencing their self-efficacy via providing tools and knowledge as well as building experimental mindset.

By showing LDPs' long term impacts, this paper demonstrates why short-term leadership development programs are worth investing.