Individuals expected to offer leadership are often chosen based on their power position within the field of interest and specialization in the context area being addressed and not on their leadership style. Leadership education curriculum often focuses on change as a product of leadership and leadership styles but places little emphasis on how the leadership styles of those chosen to lead change can influence the change process. In order to inform the development of
curriculum targeting this aspect of leadership, research needs to be done to determine if leadership style impacts level of engagement in change. This research examined how transformational and transactional leadership styles impacted engagement in a national change process when 39 department chairs of universities across the United States were selected by the National Science Foundation to lead science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational reform at the undergraduate level. The findings revealed transformational leadership style positively predicted engagement in change and transactional leadership style negatively predicted engagement in change. While the small sample size makes the findings exploratory in nature and should be used with caution, they imply leadership education curriculum should include lessons on the impact these two styles have on engagement in change since there were
statistically significant differences.
The present study was designed to examine the measurement of the Emotionally Intelligent Leadership (EIL) construct and to provide evidence of validation for the multidimensional Emotionally Intelligence Leadership for Students: Inventory 2.0 (EILS:I 2.0). The EILS:I 2.0 is a self-report assessment of emotionally intelligent leadership in the context of a student environment. The results of two confirmatory factory analyses of two independent samples of data from students across the United States provide support for a 19-factor model of EIL and the construct validity of the EILS:I 2.0. These results provide leadership educators evidence that use of the EILS:I 2.0 will result in the measurement of 19 capacities of EIL in students. Implications of these findings for leadership educators and directions for future research are discussed.
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 a pretest, 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.
International student enrollment in the U.S. higher education system has recently experienced profound growth. This research examines leadership-oriented differences between international and domestic students and focuses on their growth in capacity associated with participation in co-curricular leadership programs. Similarly-sized gains emerged after participation, suggesting that these leadership programs create equal growth effects across both groups. However, the factors that predicted international students’ increases in leadership skill were different than their domestic peers, suggesting that developing effective leaders among college students across national background is a non-uniform, complex process. Recommendations include the suggestion for partnerships between international student scholar units and leadership educators, specialized workshops for international students, and creating nuanced curricula based on the various pathways that students take to becoming an effective leader.
This pilot is a pre/post comparative assessment of a leadership course developed and delivered using an innovative, ontological/phenomenological model of education. Participants in the course delivered in Singapore in July of 2014 provided measures of the effectiveness of their leadership before and after the course, using a scale from 1 (least effective) to 10 (most effective). The difference in scores from pre- to post-course was the unit of measure. Of 167 participants, 72% provided pre- and post-course measures. Average scores for participants’ effectiveness as leaders in the domains of Relationships, Vocation, Avocation, and Self increased from pre- to post-course by 1.9, 1.86, 1.64, and 1.85 respectively (p < 0.0001). Future research of this innovative model of leadership education will include long-term follow-up.
Students enrolled in a Corps of Cadets program at Texas A&M University [N = 336] were surveyed to examine their leadership mindsets and whether their participation in a formal academic leadership program simultaneously influenced their hierarchical and systemic-thinking preferences. No significant differences were found between students involved in the Corps of Cadets program only and those enrolled in a formal academic leadership program. Significant differences did exist for gender and classification of students; women scored higher in systemic thinking and juniors and seniors not enrolled in a formal academic leadership program scored lower in hierarchical-thinking than freshman and sophomore not enrolled in a formal academic leadership program. Students within the formal academic leadership programs have lower hierarchical scores and higher systemic scores than those who are not in a formal academic leadership program.
Leadership, organizational, and institutional theories provide competing explanations on the nature of leadership and role of leaders. Part of the problem is that each theory is often studied in isolation, leading to incomplete perspectives on the essence of leadership in value driven contexts. A holistic paradigm that blends the three dominant models for understanding the work of the collective is warranted and necessary to optimize organizational outcomes. This article briefly highlights the contributions and limitations of each frame and provides an overview of complexity theory as a model for reconciling major differences. The paper provides specific perspectives, practices, and metaphors for navigating the collective to bring about desired outcomes.
New educators may feel overwhelmed by the options available for engaging students through classroom participation. However, it may be helpful to recognize that participatory pedagogical systems often have constructivist roots. Adopting a constructivist perspective, our paper considers three meta-practices that encourage student participation: designing activities, leading others, and assessing peers. We explored the consequences of these meta-practices for
important student outcomes, including content knowledge, engagement, self-efficacy, sense of community, and self-awareness. We found that different meta-practices were associated with different combinations of outcomes. This discovery demonstrates the benefit of studying metapractices so as to reveal the nuanced effects that may arise from pedagogical choices. In addition, an understanding of meta-practices can help leadership educators to be more discerning and intentional in their course designs.
The quality of organizational leadership can have a significant impact on organizational success and employee well-being. Some research has shown that leaders with secure attachment styles are more effective leaders, but the connection between different attachment styles and different leadership styles is unclear. Relationships between attachment styles and leadership styles were examined in this study. University personnel completed the Relationship Questionnaire and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses revealed positive correlations between transformational leadership and secure attachment and negative relationships between transformational leadership and insecure attachment styles. Results of this study may help leaders recognize the relationship between their attachment style and their ability to increase organizational effectiveness and to decrease turnover.
© 2015 Association of Leadership Educators