1
A STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN SITE-BASED
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Marc David Barrie
California State University, Fresno
2014
2
INTRODUCTION
Today’s higher education organizations have become chiefly concerned
with succession planning, more specifically, the need for sustainable leadership
development strategies that will effectively fulfill the leadership inadequacies of
potential leaders (Collins & Holton, 2004; Conger & Benjamin, 1999). As a result,
many organizations are committing to implementing training and development
strategies that increase mastery of skills, expand perspectives, and ultimately
increase the competencies of their leaders and potential leaders (Collins & Holton,
2004; Conger & Benjamin, 1999).
Despite the widespread implementation of leadership development
programs, research indicates that organizations traditionally spend insufficient
time evaluating the effectiveness of their programs and whether such programs
actually improve the organization’s performance (Sogunro, 1997). According to
Avolio, Avey, and Quisenberry (2010), organizations are typically willing to
invest in leadership development when sufficient funds are available. Even a slow
economy represents an opportune time to invest in leadership development as it
can inspire new strategies for navigating difficult economic times (Avolio et al.,
2010).
However, in a downturn economy, such as the educational landscape of
today, training and development are typically marginalized (Avolio et al., 2010).
With limited resources available to public institutions in higher education, it is
important to identify cost-efficient ways of ensuring that leadership development
programs remain sustainable in spite of diminished funding.
When analyzing the return on investment of on-site, off-site, and online
leadership development programs Avolio et al. (2010) found that when accounting
for cost (fees, travel, loss of work time) and outcomes were factored in, site-based
3
leadership development programs had the highest return on investment. As such,
this study explores the effectiveness of site-based leadership development
programs in publicly-funded higher education.
Purpose of the Study
Newly appointed university leaders recognize that the skills required for
success in their previous non-administrative roles differ from the skills needed in
their new leadership roles (Bray, 2008). According to Hill (2007), lack of proper
leadership training, education and experience presents a gap in the skills necessary
to transition into these new roles. According to Bolman and Gallos (2011), new
leaders report having no time to cultivate their leadership skills on their own,
which subsequently perpetuates the problems exposed from inadequate
preparation.
The California State University (CSU) system currently rests in the shadow
of a poor economic climate. In its present state of fiscal uncertainty and declining
resources, it is important to plan for leadership succession and to foster new
insights that may promote innovative ways for navigating current challenges.
Leadership development efforts should be verified to be both effective and
cost efficient (Avolio et al., 2010). Without a relevant method for assessing the
effectiveness of a leadership program, leaders will continue to undervalue the
importance of such programs and fail to see their value (Avolio et al., 2010).
As universities look to the future of organizational development, it is
imperative that they take steps to ensure the continuance of succession planning
through leadership development. Before such measures are adopted, it is important
to implement strategies for assessing the effectiveness of such programs.
Employing over 43,000 employees, the California State University System
is the largest state university system in the country. This study supports Human
4
Resource Development by identifying tools for assessing leadership development
programs, illustrating the impact that effective leadership development can have
on an organization, and demonstrating that leadership development efforts should
be prioritized as a means of creating sustainable leadership.
Theoretical Framework
In order to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of a leadership
development program, it is important to identify an appropriate model to frame the
study (Collins & Holton, 2004). Kirkpatrick’s (1959) four-level evaluation model
is used to examine: (1) individual reactions of the program; (2) what the
participants learned; (3) how the participant’s behavior changed; and (4) links
changed behavior to organizational performance (Kirkpatrick, 1959, 2004); all of
which have been identified as key variables in demonstrating transfer of
knowledge (Collins & Holton, 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1959, 2004).
The Kirkpatrick Model recognizes four distinct behavioral variables that are
identified with transfer and learning. However, Kirkpatrick’s model does not
include a component for identifying organizational performance -the effectiveness
of an organization in achieving outcomes as identified by its strategic goals, or the
realization of a return on investments (Holton, 1996).
Building off the framework of Kirkpatrick’s model, Guskey (2000)
suggested that effective professional development models should include analysis
of five critical levels of information: (1) Participant Reaction; (2) Participant
Learning; (3) Organizational Support; (4) Application of New Skills; and (5)
Learning Outcomes. It is through this approach that the Guskey model has
incorporated a component for organizational support, reflecting the integration of
development within the context of the institution. As on-site leadership
development programs have been shown to positively impact the transference of
5
training, measuring organizational support, context, and the impact of using a
cohort model is relevant in establishing the effectiveness of leadership
development programs (Avolio et al., 2010).
Definitions
Leadership Development
For the purposes of this study, Leadership Development is defined as
“Every form of growth or stage of development in the life cycle that promotes,
encourages, and assists the expansion of knowledge and expertise required to
optimize individual leadership potential and performance” (Brungardt, 1996, p.
83).
Senior Leadership
For the purposes of this study, senior leadership refers to executive level
leadership (Chancellor, President, Vice President, Provost, Vice Chancellor).
6
METHODS
Context of Study
The study was conducted with the California State University (CSU)
system, the largest state college system in the country. According to the
California State University Office of the Chancellor (2011), the CSU serves
over 420,000 students and stretches across California with 8 campuses
located in northern California (Chico, East Bay, Humboldt, Maritime
Academy, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Sonoma); 4 in central
California (Fresno, Monterey Bay, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus); and
11 in the southern California area (Bakersfield, Channel Islands,
Dominguez Hills, Fullerton, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Northridge,
Pomona, San Bernardino, San Diego, and San Marcos).
Though each campus has its own character, all campuses offer
undergraduate and graduate education for professional and occupational
goals in addition to broad liberal education (California State University
Office of the Chancellor, 2011). The CSU provides more than 1,800
bachelors, masters and doctoral degree programs as well as a variety of
teaching and school service credential programs (California State
University Office of the Chancellor, 2011).
The CSU system employs over 43,000 faculty and staff. It is the
responsibility of each campus to develop, fund, and maintain its own
professional development and leadership development programs. Presently,
eight CSU campuses offer leadership development programs. All of the
eight participating campuses utilize the same Leadership Development
curricula which incorporate five learning outcomes: Challenging the
Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the
7
Way, and Encouraging the Heart. For the purposes of this study, each of
the participating campuses will be referred to using a pseudonym.
Alpha State University
With over 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Alpha State
employs over 850 faculty, staff and administrators. With the inception of its
leadership development program 2 years ago, Alpha has partnered with
Kappa State and Gamma State for a collaborative leadership development
program. As part of the collaborative, the Presidential Cabinet of Alpha
nominates 10 administrators to join a combined cohort of 30 participants.
The program spans 7 months and contains six different sessions in the
following content areas: developing the leader within, leadership
perspectives, leading and motivating teams, thinking holistically, leadership
communication, and managing power and organizational politics. In
addition to its course content, participants also complete a group project
designed to address a campus need. Each project is selected by the
President’s Cabinet (California State University Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Human Resources, 2012).
Beta State University
With over 14,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Beta State
employs over 1,200 faculty, staff and administrators. Beta has partnered
with Epsilon State and Delta State to form a leadership development
collaborative. The Presidential Cabinet from Beta State nominates eight
administrators each year to form a combined cohort (three campuses) of 24
participants. The program spans 6 months and contains different sessions
whose content includes leadership principles, interpersonal and people
management skills, internal and external customer service, effective
8
planning and communication. Also covered were labor issues, such as the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), labor
relations and contract administration and resource management according
to CSU funding and budget practices (California State University Office of
the Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, 2012).
Gamma State University
With over 21,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Gamma
State employs over 2,000 faculty, staff and administrators. As part of a
collaborative between the CSU campuses of Kappa State and Alpha State,
the Presidential Cabinet of Gamma nominates 10 administrators to join a
combined cohort of 30 participants. The program spans7 months and
contains six different sessions in the following content areas: developing
the leader within, leadership perspectives, leading and motivating teams,
thinking holistically, leadership communication, and managing power and
organizational politics. In addition to its course content participants also
complete a group project designed to address a campus need. Each project
is selected by the Presidential Cabinet (California State University Office of
the Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, 2012).
Delta State University
With over 35,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Delta State
employs over 3,400 faculty, staff and administrators. Delta has partnered
with Beta State and Epsilon State to form a leadership development
collaborative. The Presidential Cabinet from Delta State nominates eight
administrators each year to form a combined cohort (three campuses) of 24
participants. The program spans 6 months and contains different sessions
whose content includes leadership principles, interpersonal and people
9
management skills, internal and external customer service, effective
planning and communication. Also covered were labor issues, such as the
state’s Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA),
labor relations and contract administration and resource management
according to CSU funding and budget practices (California State University
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, 2012).
Epsilon State University
With over 20,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Epsilon
State employs over 2,000 faculty, staff and administrators. Epsilon has
partnered with CSUs Beta State and Delta State to form a leadership
development collaborative. The Presidential Cabinet from Epsilon State
nominates eight administrators each year to form a combined cohort (three
campuses) of 24 participants. The program spans 6 months and contains
different sessions whose content includes leadership principles,
interpersonal and people management skills, internal and external customer
service, effective planning and communication. Also covered were labor
issues, such as the state’s Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations
Act (HEERA), labor relations and contract administration and resource
management according to CSU funding and budget practices (California
State University Office of the Vice Chancellor for Human Resources,
2012).
Kappa State University
With over 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Kappa State
employs over 750 faculty, staff and administrators. As part of a
collaborative between the CSU campuses of Gamma State and Alpha State,
the Presidential Cabinet of Kappa State nominates 10 administrators to join
10
a combined cohort of 30 participants. The program spans 7 months and
contains six different sessions in the following content areas: developing
the leader within, leadership perspectives, leading and motivating teams,
thinking holistically, leadership communication, and managing power and
organizational politics. In addition to its course content participants also
complete a group project designed to address a campus need. Each project
is selected by the Presidential Cabinet (California State University Office of
the Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, 2012).
Lambda State University
With over 36,000 undergraduate and graduate students, Lambda
State employs over 3,300 faculty, staff and administrators. Lambda
provides a leadership development program that is made up of a series of
eight workshops geared at leadership development. Each session supports a
different need, allowing all campus leaders to self-select individual
workshops relevant to their needs. The number of participants varies as
individuals may choose to attend one or multiple workshops throughout the
year (California State University Office of the Vice Chancellor for Human
Resources, 2012).
Omega State University
With over 9,700 undergraduate and graduate students, Omega State
employs over 1,100 faculty, staff and administrators. Omega has developed
an extensive three track leadership development program designed for
emerging, new, and experienced leaders. It is an extensive program that
combines classroom and experiential learning, tailored to the individual’s
professional development needs. Its courses are designed to support the
core competencies required for an effective leader at Omega State:
11
Managing Yourself, Managing Your Team, Managing the Work, and
Managing Collaboratively. Participants are selected by Executive Council
(California State University Office of the Vice Chancellor for Human
Resources, 2012).
Research Design
This study used a mixed-method research approach employing
survey implementation for quantitative methods of data gathering while
telephone interviews were used to collect qualitative data. The survey was
used to identify leadership practices pre and post leadership development
program participation.
Research questions 1, 2, 3, were answered through interview
questions regarding participant perceptions of the impact of the site-based
program on the development of their leadership skills (see Appendix C).
Research questions 6 and 7 were answered by the survey, which was used
to identify changes in leadership practices following the completion of a
site-based leadership development program (see Appendix A). Research
questions 4 and 5 were answered through both interview questions and the
survey (see Appendix A & C).
Research Questions
This study was intended to answer seven research questions through
surveys and interviews (Table 1).
Table 1
Research Questions, Instruments and Data Analysis
Research Question
Has participation in the site-based CSU
leadership development program resulted
Instrument Questions
Interview
5
Analysis
Content
12
in increased support for and commitment
to their organization?
Analysis
Has participation in the site-based CSU
leadership development program resulted
in increased job satisfaction?
Interview
3
Content
Analysis
Was the site-based CSU leadership
development program meaningful for the
participant?
Interview
2
Content
Analysis
Has the site-based CSU leadership
development program produced
significant learning of leadership skills?
Survey
Interview
Themes
1-5,
1
t-Test
Content
Analysis
Has the site-based CSU leadership
development program resulted in the
application of leadership skills?
Survey
Interview
1-48,
4
t-Test
Content
Analysis
Are there differences among the programs
that produce significant differences in the
learning of leadership skills?
Survey
Themes
1-5
ANOVA
Are there differences among programs that
resulted in the application of newly
acquired leadership skills?
Survey
1-24
ANOVA
Participants/Sample
With the continuing demand for higher education to develop future
leaders in a climate of limited resources, organizations must identify ways
of measuring effectiveness when evaluating leadership development
programs. Research suggested that site-based programs yielded a greater
return on investment than external programs, and that there is a positive
relationship between employer-provided professional development and
intrinsic motivation (Avolio et al., 2010; Dysvik et al., 2010). This study
focused on participants of site-based leadership development programs
currently being offered at California State Universities.
The California State University (CSU) is the largest state college
system in the country with 23 campuses located throughout the state.
Among the CSU campuses, eight offer site-based leadership development
13
programs. This study focused on graduates from the eight CSU campuses
with leadership development programs whose pseudonyms are; Alpha
State, Beta State, Gamma State, Delta State, Epsilon State, Kappa State,
Lambda State, and Omega State.
Participants were comprised of individuals who elected to participate
in this study, had successfully completed a campus-based leadership
development program in the past 2 years (from one of the aforementioned
eight CSU campuses), and maintained employment at the campus from
which they had completed the leadership program.
Instrumentation
The Leadership Practices Inventory-Self (LPI-Self), developed by
Kouzes and Posner (2007) was used to identify leadership skills and
abilities of participating leaders. The LPI is based on five leadership
practices believed to be common among successful leaders. These five
practices include Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision,
Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart
(Leong, 1995). Each response on the instrument was scored on a 10-level
Likert scale, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest. In terms of scoring each
numerical value is represented as follows: 1= almost never, 2=rarely,
3=seldom, 4=once in a while, 5=occasionally, 6=sometimes, 7=fairly often,
8=usually, 9=very frequently, 10=almost always.
In order to identify the effectiveness of leadership development
programs, it was important to capture LPI scores both pre and post program
participation. Although normally pretests are administered prior to an
intervention, time constraints prevented the administration of these tests in
the typical method. In order to capture the data of pre and posttests in the
14
given time constraints, this study employed retrospective pretest (RPT)
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The RPT was administered at the same time
as the posttest, that is, respondents were asked to answer questions about
their leadership practices or skills after participating in the leadership
development program (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). They were then asked
to think back to their understanding prior to participating in the program;
providing a retrospective pretest (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).
The advantage of the RPT was that it was time sensitive for both the
researcher and the participant. The researcher was able to capture data in
one survey alleviating time constraints from multiple tests (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963). This time sensitive nature is also an advantage for
participants as their time commitment is reduced from two tests into one.
The RPT can also present an advantage in that it aids in avoiding a
response-shift effect that occurs when the evaluation standard of the
participant changes significantly during an intervention (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963). According to Lamb (2005) the RPT increases pretest
validity as it eliminates the possibility of a participant misunderstanding the
basic terms, concepts or questions associated with a pretest survey.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to establish the content validity and
internal consistency of the LPI (Polit, Beck, & Hungler, 2001). The
instrument was given to a group of administrators to test the
appropriateness of the survey (on a small scale) in order to address any
logistical issues involved with deploying the online instrument (Polit et al.,
2001). The pilot group reported that the instructions for taking the LPI were
clear and that all questions were understandable.
15
Data Analysis
The quantitative data were collected via online surveys, extracted
from Survey Monkey and placed into the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Each of the leadership development programs
were coded by type to differentiate between program characteristics.
Analysis focused on the relationship between participation in a site-based
leadership development program, leadership skills, and participant
perceptions regarding the site-based leadership development program.
Using 41 managers in two medium-size hospitals, Smith (1991)
found positive and significant correlations between the leadership behaviors
in the LPI and three outcome variables: organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and productivity. Smith also used stepwise regression to
discover that Modeling the Way accounted for the greatest amount of
variance in productivity and Enabling Others to Act explained the greatest
amount of variance around both job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. For this study, similar analysis was used on the quantitative
data.
Content analysis was used for the qualitative data collected via
telephone interviews. The data were coded by theme and analyzed for the
reoccurrence of themes using Pope and Mays’s (2006) five-stage
Framework Analysis. The five-stage method of analysis consisted of (1)
organizing the raw data, (2) identifying thematic framework, (3) indexing
the data, (4) charting the data, and (5) interpreting the data (Pope & Mays,
2006).
16
Limitations
The study was limited to participants who self-selected to complete
the survey, thereby including some bias in the study. Due to the limited
number of campuses involved in site-based leadership development, the N
was small. Among the 59 participants, the majority of responses was
collected from administrators (N = 41; 70.67% of Total Responses).
Additionally, participants that were no longer employed at the campus of
which their leadership development training was completed were not
contacted to participate.
17
RESULTS
Using surveys and semi-structured interviews, data was collected
and analyzed for the purposes of identifying the impact of site-based
leadership development in the CSU. The Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI) was distributed electronically to participants from eight CSU
campuses. The LPI is a 24-item instrument. The eight campuses were
selected for having site-based leadership development programs. Interviews
were also conducted via 15-minute telephone conversations. Interviews
were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded for themes, and analyzed for
reoccurrence of main ideas and themes.
Demographics
In the course of the study, participants from eight CSU campuses
(see Table 2) completed the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) while 11
of the 59 also participated in a 15-minute interview. Although course
content among the eight campuses was consistent, seven of the eight
campuses utilized a cohort model for their program. Among those
participating in the survey, the largest number of respondents were
administrators (N=41), followed by staff (N=15), and faculty (N=2) (see
Table 3). The majority of respondents were female (N=34) (see Table 4)
with the majority of respondents reporting an ethnicity of White (N=33)
(see Table 5).
18
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Responses by Campus
Campus
Frequency
Percent of Total
Alpha State
9
15.25
Beta State
3
5.06
Gamma State
7
11.66
Delta State
4
6.78
Epsilon State
3
5.06
Kappa State
5
8.47
Lambda State
8
13.56
Omega State
20
33.70
Total
59
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Responses by Position
Position
Frequency
Percent of Total
Administrator
41
70.67
Staff
15
25.86
Faculty
2
3.37
Missing
1
1.72
Total
59
19
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Responses by Gender
Gender
Frequency
Percent of Total
Female
34
57.63
Male
25
42.37
Total
59
Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Responses by Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Frequency
Percent of Total
White
33
56.86
Declined to State
7
12.07
African American
5
8.62
Asian
5
8.62
Hispanic
5
8.62
American Indian or Alaskan Native
2
3.45
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
1
1.72
Missing
1
Total
59
Research Questions
Research Question #1: Has participation in the site-based CSU leadership
development program resulted in increased support for and commitment to
their organization?
To determine whether participation in a leadership development
program resulted in increased support for the organization, participants
were interviewed and asked the open-ended question: How has your
20
participation in the leadership development program impacted your
engagement with the university? Among the highest reported responses (by
theme) were: gained a better understanding of senior leadership, gained a
better understanding of university challenges, provided a chance to build a
relationship with senior leaders, and gained a better appreciation for senior
leadership (see Table 6).
Table 6
How Participation Impacted Engagement with the University
Response
Better understanding of senior
leadership
Relationship building with senior
leaders
Better understanding of university
challenges
Better appreciation for senior
leadership
Increased appreciation of my
current role
Clearer understanding of strategic
planning
Better appreciation for planning
efforts
Total
Frequency
6
Percent of Total
18.75
6
18.75
5
15.63
5
15.63
4
12.50
3
9.38
3
9.38
32
100
Research Question #2: Has participation in the site-based CSU leadership
development program resulted in increased job satisfaction?
To determine whether participation in a leadership development
program resulted in increased job satisfaction, participants were
interviewed and asked: How has your participation in the leadership
development program impacted your engagement in your current role?
21
Among the highest reported responses were: more aware of how I
communicate, more comfortable communicating with senior leadership,
improved understanding of university challenges, and more confidence in
abilities (see Table 7).
Table 7
How Participation Impacted Engagement in Current Role
Response
Frequency
Percent of Total
More confidence in abilities
7
18.92
More comfortable communicating with
6
16.22
6
16.22
More aware of how I communicate
5
13.51
New perspective for how I lead others
4
10.81
Better appreciation for role in the
4
10.81
3
8.11
2
5.41
37
100
senior leadership
Improved understanding of university
challenges
university
Learned how to communicate more
effectively
Created communication networks on
campus
Total
Research Question #3: Was the site-based CSU leadership development
program meaningful for the participant?
To analyze whether participation in a leadership development
program was meaningful, participants were interviewed and asked: How
22
would you say that the leadership development program was relevant to
your current role? Among the highest reported responses were: gave me an
opportunity to see how things are done in other work groups, taught me
about leadership challenges, taught me better ways to communicate with
staff, taught me how to communicate with senior leadership, and gave me
new perspectives for dealing with challenges (see Table 8).
Table 8
How the Leadership Development Program was Relevant to Current Role
Response
Frequency
Percent of Total
Taught me how to communicate with
senior leadership
7
20.59
Taught me better ways to communicate
with staff
6
17.65
Taught me about leadership challenges
5
14.71
Gave me new perspectives for dealing
with challenges
5
14.71
Gave me an opportunity to see how
things are done in other work
groups
5
14.71
Taught me about conflict resolution
3
8.82
Showed me ways to improve
relationships
3
8.82
Total
34
100
Research Question #4: Has the site-based CSU leadership development
program produced significant learning of leadership skills?
In order to identify learning of leadership skills, pretest and posttest
responses were aggregated into one of five LPI learning themes and
analyzed using a dependent t-test. The aggregated responses from each of
23
the five learning themes were self-reported measures on a 10-level Likert
scale (see Table 9). Across all five themes, there was a significant
difference in mean responses, which increased from pretest to posttest.
Model the Way (t = -9.176, df = 58, p< .001); Inspire Shared Vision (t = 8.881, df = 57, p< .001); Challenge the Process (t = -7.390, df = 58, p<
.001); Enable others to Act (t = -8.132, df = 58, p< .001); Encourage the
Heart (t = -9.327, df = 58, p< .001).
Table 9
Mean, Number, and Standard Deviation for the LPI Learning Themes
Pretest
and Posttest
Item
Model the Way
Pretest
Posttest
Inspire Shared Vision
Pretest
Posttest
Challenge the Process
Pretest
Posttest
Enable Others to Act
Pretest
Posttest
Encourage the Heart
Pretest
Posttest
Mean
SD
N
8.03
8.81
0.947
0.770
59
59
7.40
8.49
1.371
1.194
58
58
7.42
8.38
1.411
1.214
59
59
8.39
9.06
0.791
0.635
59
59
7.96
8.88
1.089
1.002
59
59
To further analyze learning of leadership skills, participants were
interviewed and asked: How do you believe that the leadership
development program impacted your learning of leadership skills? Among
the highest reported responses were: group discussions allowed for better
24
understanding, hearing leadership perspectives was valued, and hearing
peer perspectives on issues was valuable (see Table 10).
Table 10
How Leadership Development Program Impacted Learning
Theme
Frequency
Percentage
Group discussion allowed for
better understanding
7
19.44
Hearing leadership
perspectives was
valuable to learning
6
16.67
Hearing peer perspectives on
campus challenges
was valuable
6
16.67
Role playing allowed for
better understanding
5
13.89
Presented an opportunity to
ask questions
4
11.11
Problem solving as a group
was helpful
3
8.33
Case studies were relevant
and meaningful
3
8.33
Literature was relevant and
meaningful
2
5.56
Total
32
100
Research Question #5: Has the site-based CSU leadership development
program resulted in the application of leadership skills?
To address this research question, a pretest and posttest was
administered to explore the changes in application of leadership skills. For
25
all skills measured, there was a significant change (p < 0.001). Table 11
displays the change in means from pretest to posttest and Table 12 the test
for significance. While all items showed significance, Figure 1 shows the
skills with the largest change in means between pre and posttest. The items
with the greatest change between pre and posttest were: Talk about trends (t
= -6.041, df = 58, p< .001); Describe a compelling image of the future (t = 7.069, df = 58, p< .001); Appeal to others to share exciting dream of the
future (t = -6.137, df = 58, p< .001); Ask for feedback on how my actions
affect other peoples performance (t = -7.999, df = 58, p< .001); Show others
how long-term interests can be realized with shared vision (t = -8.585, df =
58, p< .001); I experiment and take risks even when there is a chance of
failure (t = -6.870, df = 58, p< .001); and I ensure that people grow in their
jobs by developing themselves (t = -8.221, df = 58, p< .001).
To further analyze application of leadership skills, participants were
interviewed and asked: How do you believe that the leadership
development program impacted your application of leadership skills?
Among the highest reported responses were: increased my understanding of
leadership challenges, challenged how I interact with my employees, and
became more confident in decision making (see Table 13).
Research Question #6: Are there differences among the programs that
produce significant differences in learning of leadership skills?
In order to identify differences in learning of leadership skills among
programs, posttest responses were aggregated into one of five LPI learning
themes
26
Table 11
Mean, Number and Standard Deviation for LPI Items with Largest Change
in Means from Pretest to Posttest
Item
Talk about trends
Pretest
Posttest
Describe a compelling image of the
future
Pretest
Posttest
Appeal to others to share exciting
dream of the future
Pretest
Posttest
Ask for feedback on how my actions
affect other peoples performance
Pretest
Posttest
Show others how long-term interests
can be realized with shared vision
Pretest
Posttest
I experiment and take risks even when
there is a chance of failure
Pretest
Posttest
I ensure that people grow in their jobs
by developing themselves
Pretest
Posttest
Mean
SD
N
7.47
8.49
1.675
1.369
59
59
7.19
8.27
1.624
1.460
59
59
7.12
8.32
1.733
1.345
59
59
6.47
7.90
1.942
1.594
59
59
6.78
8.24
1.743
1.343
59
59
7.02
8.03
1.889
1.671
59
59
7.88
8.95
1.314
0.990
59
59
27
Table 12
Test for Significance of LPI Items with Largest Change in Means from
Pretest to Posttest
Item
t
df
p
6.041
7.069
58
58
.000
.000
6.137
58
.000
Ask for feedback on how my actions
affect other peoples performance
7.999
58
.000
Show others how long-term interests
can be realized with shared vision
8.585
58
.000
I experiment and take risks even when
there is a chance of failure
6.870
58
.000
I ensure that people grow in their jobs
by developing themselves
8.221
58
.000
Mean
Talk about trends
Describe a compelling image of the
future
Appeal to others to share exciting
dream of the future
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pretest
Posttest
2
4
8
10
11
21
22
LPI Item Number
Figure 1. Change in mean score for LPI Items with the greatest change
from pretest to posttest
28
Table 13
How Leadership Development Program Impacted Application of
Leadership Skills
Response
Increased my understanding of
Frequency
Percent of Total
7
20.00
5
14.29
More confident in decision making
5
14.29
Changed my expectations of senior
4
11.43
4
11.43
4
11.43
3
8.57
More confident in resolving conflict
3
8.57
Total
35
leadership challenges
Challenged the way that I interact
with my employees
leadership
Made me open to accepting new
ideas
More confident about speaking
openly
Changed the way that I
communicate with my
employees
100
and analyzed by program type to determine differences in reported
outcomes. Using an ANOVA, program types were divided into two groups;
group 1 (cohort based) and group 2 (non-cohort based). The aggregated
responses from each of the five learning themes were self-reported
measures on a 10-level Likert scale. Across all five themes, there were no
significant differences in mean scores in learning between cohort and non-
29
cohort type programs (see Table 14). Furthermore, there were no
significant differences in learning across all eight campuses (see Table 15).
Table 14
Means, Standard Deviations, Sample Sizes for the LPI Learning Themes by
Program Type
Theme
Mean
SD
N
Cohort
8.82
0.765
51
Non-Cohort
8.73
0.855
8
8.81
0.770
59
Cohort
8.50
1.248
51
Non-Cohort
8.10
1.046
8
8.45
1.222
59
Cohort
8.46
1.18
51
Non-Cohort
7.88
1.37
8
8.38
1.21
59
Cohort
9.07
0.664
51
Non-Cohort
8.98
0.422
8
9.06
0.635
59
Cohort
8.85
1.05
51
Non-Cohort
9.06
0.594
8
8.88
1.003
59
Model the Way
Total
Inspire Shared Vision
Total
Challenge the Process
Total
Enable Others to Act
Total
Encourage the Heart
Total
30
Table 15
Summary Table for ANOVA using the LPI Learning Themes as the
Dependent Variable and Program Type as the Independent Variable
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
df
Square
F
Model the Way
Between Groups
0.062
1
0.062
Within Groups
34.335
57
0.602
Total
34.397
58
Between Groups
1.084
1
1.084
Within Groups
85.497
57
1.500
Total
86.580
58
Between Groups
2.399
1
2.399
Within Groups
83.115
57
1.458
Total
85.514
58
Between Groups
0.055
1
0.055
Within Groups
23.312
57
0.409
Total
23.367
58
0.318
1
p
0.103
0.750
0.722
0.399
1.646
0.205
0.135
0.714
0.313
0.578
Inspire Shared
Vision
Challenge the
Process
Enable Others to
Act
Encourage the
Heart
Between Groups
0.318
31
Within Groups
57.979
57
Total
58.297
58
1.017
Research Question #7: Are there differences among programs that resulted
in the application of newly acquired leadership skills?
To identify any differences in the application of leadership skills,
posttest responses from all 24 LPI items were analyzed by program type to
determine differences in reported outcomes. Using a One-Way ANOVA,
program types were divided into two groups: group 1 (cohort based) and
group 2 (non-cohort based). Across 24 items, there were no statistically
significant differences in application of leadership skills between cohort
and non-cohort type programs (see Appendix D, Tables 16 and 17).
However, there was a notable difference (but not statistically significant)
regarding listening to diverse points of view (F = 3.638, df = 1, 57, p =
.062) between those who participated in a cohort based program (M = 9.16)
and those who participated in a non-cohort based program (M = 8.50).
Other Analysis
During the course of this study, two other areas of interest (not
included in the seven research questions) were found. A One-way ANOVA
of posttest scores by gender and by position were analyzed for significance.
By position, there were no significant differences on any of the items. By
gender, women scored significantly higher in response to LPI Item 1: I set a
personal example of what I expect from others (F = 4.844, df = 1, p =
0.032).
32
DISCUSSION
Summary of Findings
Many of today’s leaders have reported frustration and time lost from
feeling ill-prepared for their new leadership roles. As Collins and Holton
(2004) discovered, administrators who participated in leadership
development differed greatly in leadership ability and content knowledge
from their peers. This study explored the effectiveness of site-based CSU
leadership development programs and was guided by seven research
questions. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze the data
collected. The survey for this study was the LPI Instrument, which
collected data from the leadership development program participants from
eight CSU institutions.
Overall, survey results revealed a significant increase in learning and
application of leadership skills among all groups with no significant
differences in outcomes between program types (cohort vs. non-cohort).
Interview responses showed that senior leadership and peer debriefing
contributed to positive appraisals of leadership development. Additionally,
there were no significant differences between program types (cohort vs.
non-cohort), campus, position, ethnicity or gender that resulted in
differences in the learning or application of leadership skills.
Conclusions
Research Question #1: Has participation in the site-based CSU leadership
development program resulted in increased support for and commitment to
their organization?
33
From the open-ended responses, participants in site-based
leadership development programs indicated that they felt they had increased
organizational support in the following way: gained a better understanding
of senior leadership (18.75% of total responses), were provided a chance to
build a relationship with senior leaders (18.75% of total responses), gained
a better understanding of university challenges (15.63% of total responses)
and gained a better appreciation for senior leadership (15.63% of total
responses).
The three highest responses pertaining to interaction with senior
leadership (53.13% of total responses) indicated that interactions with
senior leadership contributed to increased support and commitment to the
organization on the part of the participants. Essentially, these responses
suggest that engagement with senior leadership positively impacts
engagement with the organization. Current literature underscores these
findings by suggesting that leaders who are considerate of others and spend
time interacting and developing their employees are most likely to increase
engagement throughout their organization (Webb, 2007). Furthermore,
Fuller et al. (2006) identified Perceived Organizational Support (POS) to be
a factor in influencing employee attachment to an organization. According
to Dysvik et al. (2010), when employees perceived employer-provided
training programs to be meaningful and relevant for developing their
professional skills, a positive relationship between employer-provided
professional development and employee work effort emerged. Further,
Dysvik et al. discovered that beyond the impact of training itself,
employees become motivated to reciprocate for professional development
with quality work for the organization.
34
Research Question #2: Has participation in the site-based CSU
leadership development program resulted in increased job satisfaction?
A content analysis of the participant interview responses revealed
that participation in site-based leadership development programs increased
job satisfaction among respondents by supporting program participants to
become: more confident in their ability (18.92% of total responses), more
comfortable communicating with senior leadership (16.22% of total
responses), understanding of university challenges (16.22% of total
responses) and more aware of how they communicate (13.51% of total
responses). In reviewing the four highest responses, 35% of the total
participant responses attributed increased confidence to increased job
satisfaction.
According to McCollum and Kajs (2009), self-efficacy is a construct
tied to success in learning and success in work. The more successful and
dedicated a leader is in the pursuit of their professional development the
more successful they will be in their professional role (McCollum & Kajs,
2009). McCollum and Kajs noted that without a sense of efficacy, leaders
will not pursue challenging goals and will not attempt to surpass obstacles
that get in the way of such goals. The selected site-based leadership
development programs involved in this study all integrated leadership
development into the context of their organizations. The response data
supports the current literature in identifying self-efficacy (gained from
leadership development) as a contributor to job satisfaction. Silver et al.
(2009) contended that with a greater sense of support and confidence, a new
leader is likely to report greater motivation to gain mastery over their
position.
35
Research Question #3: Was the site-based CSU leadership development
program meaningful for the participant?
A content analysis of the interview responses revealed that
participants identified their leadership development experiences to be
meaningful because they: learned how to communicate with senior
leadership (20.59% of total responses), learned better ways to communicate
with their staff (17.65% of total responses), learned about leadership
challenges (14.71% of total responses), had an opportunity to see how
things operate in other work groups (14.71% of total responses), and
learned new perspectives for dealing with challenges (14.71% of total
responses).
El-Ashmawy and Weasenforth (2010) suggested that meaningful
training focused on the more relevant topics in depth and with contextual
implications. This training customized to their contexts provided the
participants with a more rounded view of how business is conducted (ElAshmawy & Weasenforth, 2010). Collins and Holton (2004) found that for
training to be meaningful it should be adapted to participant ability and
learning style (Collins & Holton, 2004). Organizations that foster
managerial leadership development programs with favorable conditions for
transfer, clear training objectives, and address the training within the
context of the organization strategic goals, will produce substantial
outcomes.
As noted earlier, the impact of interacting with senior leadership
increased confidence, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
among participants. Essentially, responses suggested that engagement with
senior leadership positively impacted engagement for and within the
36
organization and was ultimately meaningful for the participants. Webb
(2007) asserted that leaders who become involved in developing their
employees are most likely to increase engagement throughout their
organization. Further, higher levels of motivation and engagement may be
achieved when leaders provide recognition and appreciation for abilities
and contributions to the organization (Webb, 2007).
Research Question #4: Has the site-based CSU leadership development
program produced significant learning of leadership skills?
To analyze learning of leadership skills, the LPI themes were
examined. In this study, all five leadership practice themes showed
significant improvement between pre and posttests after completing
leadership development. According to Leong (1995), the five common
leadership practices (followed by the data analysis results) follow: Model
the Way (t = -9.176, df = 58, p< .001), Inspire Shared Vision (t = -8.881, df
= 57, p< .001), Challenge the Process (t = -7.390, df = 58, p< .001), Enable
Others to Act (t = -8.132, df = 58, p< .001), and Encourage the Heart (t = 9.327, df = 58, p< .001). These results indicate there was an impact on the
learning of leadership skills.
A content analysis was conducted to further identify the impact of
site-based leadership development programs on the learning of leadership
skills. It was reported through the interview scores that learning was
impacted from: group discussions, which allowed for better understanding
(19.44% of total responses), hearing leadership perspectives (16.67% of
total responses), and hearing peer perspectives related to varied issues
(16.67% of total responses).
37
Drew (2010) found that well-contextualized programs provide a
useful forum for sharing new and relevant information while allowing for
the development of problem solving strategies a very important leadership
skill. This developed skill increases organizational capacities to develop
and sustain leaders capable of thriving in uncertain times, handling
complex situations, engaging organizations in common visioning, and
building sustainable leadership (Drew, 2010). When given relevant tools
and training, Dysvik et al. (2010) determined that employee effort
improved to the benefit of the individuals and the organization.
Research Question #5: Has the site-based CSU leadership development
program resulted in the application of leadership skills?
All LPI items showed a significant change (p < 0.001), yet the items
with the greatest change following participation in leadership development
were: Talk about trends (t = -6.041, df = 58, p< .001); Describe a
compelling image of the future (t = -7.069, df = 58, p< .001); Appeal to
others to share exciting dream of the future (t = -6.137, df = 58, p< .001);
Ask for feedback on how my actions affect other peoples performance (t = 7.999, df = 58, p< .001); Show others how long-term interests can be
realized with shared vision (t = -8.585, df = 58, p< .001); I experiment and
take risks even when there is a chance of failure (t = -6.870, df = 58, p<
.001); and I ensure that people grow in their jobs by developing themselves
(t = -8.221, df = 58, p< .001).
The interview responses revealed that participation in site-based
leadership development impacted the participants by: increasing their
understanding of leadership challenges (20% of total responses),
challenging how they interacted with their employees (14.29% of total
38
responses), and providing opportunities to become more confident in
decision making (14.29% of total responses).
The survey responses with the greatest increases in mean were
related to shared vision. Interview responses corroborated the survey
findings as 20% of total responses reflected understanding of leadership
challenges (shared vision with senior leadership) and 14.29 % of total
responses reflected challenging the way they interact with their employees
(shared vision with subordinates). Essentially, individuals may learn about
shared vision when senior leaders model the behavior and practice for
learners. Solansky (2010) found that mentoring and coaching provide
important elements of leadership development and underscore the
importance of evaluating leadership skills. Further, Silver et al. (2009)
identified that with a greater sense of support and confidence, a leader is
likely to report greater motivation to gain mastery in their role.
Research Question #6: Are there differences among the programs that
produce significant learning of leadership skills?
Across all five themes, there were no significant differences in mean
scores in learning between cohort and non-cohort type programs.
Furthermore, there were no significant differences in learning across all
eight campuses. As all participating leadership development programs
offered contextual site-based learning and the integration of senior
leadership perspective, these findings are consistent with the research of
Collins and Holton (2004) who asserted that leadership training
interventions that utilize relevant knowledge and skill-based outcomes
produce positive outcomes.
39
Leader development programs (non-cohort type programs) tend to
focus on individual-level development concepts such as the knowledge,
skills, and abilities necessary to assume leadership roles (Reichard &
Johnson, 2011). In contrast to leader development (cohort-based program),
Reichard and Johnson pointed out that leadership development is largely
centered on building Social Capital for the development of effective
networks. Leadership development focuses on harnessing the collective
capacity of the organization using interpersonal competence (Reichard &
Johnson, 2011). Although leadership development (cohort) and leader
development (non-cohort) programs may achieve similar learning
outcomes, Drew (2010) found that organizational capacities can be
increased when programs provide a useful forum (cohort) for sharing new
and relevant information while concurrently allowing for the development
of problem solving strategies (non-cohort).
Research Question #7: Are there differences among programs that
resulted in the application of newly acquired leadership skills?
Although there were no statistically significant differences in
application of leadership skills between cohort and non-cohort type
programs, there was a notable difference (but not statistically significant)
regarding listening to diverse points of view (F = 3.638, df = 1, 57, p =
.062) between those who participated in a cohort based program (M = 9.16)
and those who participated in a non-cohort based program (M = 8.50).
These findings are supported by the research of Avolio et al. (2010) who
suggested that the ongoing support and reinforcement of training (found in
the cohort model) increased the positive impact of training. As the
cornerstone of leadership development revolves around an ability to listen
40
and assimilate outside perspectives into decision making, the cohort
model aids in the reinforcement of the practice of listening to diverse
perspectives.
Other Research Findings
In the course of this study, two areas of interest (not included in the
research questions) were identified at the time of data analysis and included
differences in gender and position held by the respondent. Posttest scores
were analyzed by gender and by position to detect any significance
differences in posttest scores by group. By position, there were no
significant differences on any of the items. By gender, females scored
significantly higher than males in response to LPI Item 1: I set a personal
example of what I expect from others (F = 4.844, df = 1, p = 0.032).
As 70% of the participants in this study were administrators, 25.86%
were staff and 3.37% were faculty, the sample may have lacked the
diversity, in the category of position, necessary to identify significant
differences in these groups. As Webb (2007) found, leaders can increase
organizational engagement by modeling desirable behaviors. When
attributed charisma was combined with the factors of intellectual
stimulation, individual consideration, and contingent reward, administrative
staff members were motivated toward extra effort (Webb, 2007).
Recommendations
Implications for Practice
As senior leadership interactions constituted a reoccurring theme
throughout all interview responses, future leadership development
programs should consider integrating opportunities to network with senior
41
leaders. The presence of senior leadership increased engagement and
commitment among participants and resulted in a mean improvement of
reported leadership practices. Furthermore, as site-based programs provide
contextual value for learning, programs should explore the adoption of sitebased designs. As the site-based design allows for participants to engage
one-another during and outside of the learning module, it promotes similar
benefits of cohort-based programs in the social-networking context.
This study has identified an effective tool (LPI) in assessing the
leadership development outcomes. As the LPI has successfully captured
leadership practices, it can be used to measure both the application of skills
as well as the incidence. As application and incidence go hand in hand with
opportunity, the LPI may be utilized as a tool for assessing congruency
between training and application.
Implications for Future Research
As this study was limited to one public university system, future
research should be focused on site-based leadership development programs
from both public and private universities. Further, a comparative study
should be explored to identify differences in outcomes from site-based,
externally provided, and online leadership development programs. As this
study identified the impact that senior leadership has on motivation,
engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction, an investigation of organizational
size and leadership development outcomes should be explored. This study
did not account for prior training, leadership experience, or age. As these
variables may impact the outcome of leadership development training each
should be explored.
42
REFERENCES
Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training
criteria:
Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-342.
Amey, M. J., VanDerLinden, K. E., & Brown, D. F. (2002). Perspectives
on community college leadership: twenty years in the making.
Community college journal of research and practice, 26, 573-589.
Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Quisenberry, D. (2010). Estimating return on
leadership development investment. The leadership quarterly, 12, 633644.
Bray, N. J. (2008). Proscriptive norms for academic deans: comparing
faculty expectations across institutional and disciplinary boundaries.
The journal of higher education, 79(6), 692-721
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the literature in
leadership development and education. Journal of leadership studies,
3(3), 81-95.
California State University Office of the Chancellor. (2011). Explore the
system. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/
California State University Office of the Vice Chancellor for Human
Resources. (2012). Success stories. Moving forward 2012: Human
resources strategic vision and goals, 1-27.
California State Budget. (2009). California State Budget 2009-10.
Retrieved from http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/200910/governors/summary/documents/enacted/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
43
Collins, D. B. & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial
leadership development programs: a meta-analysis of studies from
1982 to 2001. Human resource development quarterly, 15(2), 217248.
Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Cook B. & Kim, Y. (2012). The american college president: 2012 edition.
American council on education: center for policy analysis.
Washington, DC.
Dionne, P. (1996). The evaluation of training activities: A complex issue
involving different stakes. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
7(3), 279-286.
Dlabach, G. (2006). There’s more to leadership than motivation and
ability. Academic leader, 22(8), 7
Drew, G. (2010). Issues and challenges in higher education leadership:
engaging for change. The Australian educational researcher, 37(3), 5776.
El-Ashmawy, A. K. & Weasenforth, D. L. (2010). Internal leadership
academy: evaluation of one college’s program. Community college
journal of research and practice, 34, 541-560.
Fuller, B. J., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L. & Relyea, C. (2006).
Perceived organizational support and perceived external prestige:
predicting organizational attachment for university faculty, staff, and
administrators. The journal of social psychology, 146(3), 327-347
Gerhart, P. F. & Maxey, C. (1978). College administrators and collective
bargaining agreement. Journal of industrial relations, 17(1), 43-52
44
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Hasler, M. G. (2005). Leadership development and organizational culture:
which comes first? Academy of human resource management 2005
conference proceedings, Bowling Green, OH: AHRD, 996-1003.
Herling, R. W. (2000). Operational definitions of expertise and
competence. In R. W. Herling & J. Provo (Eds.), Strategic
perspectives of knowledge, competence, and expertise. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Hill, L. A. (2007). Becoming a boss. Harvard business review, January, 2-9
Holton, E. F., III (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21.
Jablonski, A. M. (2001). Doctoral studies as professional development of
educators in the united states. European journal of teacher education,
24(2), 215-221
Joyce, P. & Cowman, S. (2007). Continuing professional development:
investment or expectation? Journal of nursing management, 15, 626633
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs.
Journal of American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2004). A T+D Classic: how to start an objective evaluation
of your training program. T + D, 58(5), 16.
Kressel, K., Bailey, J. R., & Forman, S. G. (1999). Psychological
consultations in higher education: lessons from a university faculty
development center. Journal of educational and psychological
consultation, 10(1), 51-82
45
Krohn, R. A. (2000). Training as a strategic investment. In R. W. Herling
& J. Provo (Eds.), Strategic perspectives on knowledge, competence,
and expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Lamb, T. (2005). The retrospective pretest: an imperfect but useful tool.
The evaluation exchange, 9(2), 18.
Leskiw, S. L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: Learning from
best practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
28(5), 444-464. doi: 10.1108/01437730710761742
Maurer, T. J., Mitchell, D. R. D., & Barbeite, F. G. (2002). Predictors of
attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in
post-feedback management development activity. Journal of
occupational and organizational development, 75, 87-107.
McCollum, D. L. & Kajs, L. T. (2009). Examining the relationship
between school administrators’ efficacy and goal orientations.
Educational research quarterly, 32(2), 29-46
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage
Publications
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of nursing
research: methods, appraisal, and utilization (5th ed). Philidelphia:
Lippincott.
Reichard, R. J. & Johnson, S. K. (2011). Leader self-development as
organizational strategy. The leadership quarterly, 22, 33-42.
Scarlett, K. (2012). What is employee engagement? Scarlett surveys
international. Retrieved from: http://www.scarlettsurveys.com/papersand-studies/white-papers/what-is-employee-engagement
46
Silver, M., Lochmiller, C. R., Copland, M. A., & Tripps, A. M. (2009).
Supporting new school leaders: findings from a university-based
leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring and
tutoring: partnership in learning, 17(3), 215-232
Smith, D. K. (1991). The impact of leadership behaviors upon job
satisfaction productivity and organizational commitment of followers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle University.
Solansky, S. T. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development
program components: leadership skills assessment and leadership
mentoring. The leadership quarterly, 21, 675-681.
Sogunro, O. A. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development:
Lessons from a leadership training program. Evaluation Review,
21(6), 713-737.
Song, W. & Hartley, H. V. (2012). A study of presidents of independent
colleges and universities. The council of independent colleges, 1-48.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (1999). Results: How to assess
performance, learning, and perceptions in organizations. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Taylor, J. & Machado, M. (2006). Higher education leadership and
management from conflict to interdependence through strategic
planning. Tertiary education and management, 12, 137-160.
Torraco, R. J., & Swanson, R. A. (1995). The strategic roles of human
resource development. Human Resource Planning, 18(4), 10-21.
Webb, K. (2007). Motivating peak performance: leadership behaviors that
stimulate employee motivation and performance. Christian higher
education, 6, 53-71