University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

(USC Thesis Other)

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

1

BUILDING LEADERS:
THE ROLE OF CORE FACULTY IN STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
IN AN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL

by

Johanna Brockelman Tolan

______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Submitted to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

Copyright 2018 Johanna Brockelman Tolan

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family, friends and faculty colleagues whose love,
patience and support sustained me through this exhilarating educational experience. I would
especially like to thank my parents, Judith Dempsey Brockelman and Philip Stoddard
Brockelman, who nurtured my love of learning from Day One and have never stopped. My
siblings kept me in good humor along this journey. I could not have continued without the
inspiration of my son, Peter John Tolan, who has taught me more about myself and keeps me
grounded in the real world. Here’s to all of us! Who better!?

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to my most generous advisor, Dr. Melora Sundt, for sticking with me longer
than she might have expected and providing the guidance and feedback throughout the journey.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Thomas G. Cummings for the constant encouragement and
keeping the flame alive. Thank you to Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia who inspires me with her own
leadership story. I am humbled by the gifts shared by my classmates that made our Cohort 1
experience one of incredible personal growth and achievement.
I am also grateful for my colleague, Dr. Kim D. West, who was instrumental in getting
me into Cohort 1 and whose friendship and joie de vivre is truly missed. And I must thank My
Two Bobs who prodded me along before I even knew I would be here — Dr. Robert C. Myrtle
and Dr. Robert B. Turrill are my honorary godfathers.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 8
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice 12
Organizational Context and Mission 15
Organizational Performance Goal 17
Importance of Evaluation 18
Description of the Stakeholders 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions 23
Methodological Framework 23
Definitions 24
Organization of the Dissertation 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Central Themes from the General Literature 26
Knowledge 35
Motivation 41
Organizational Factors 50
Conclusion 56
Chapter Three: Methodology 59
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 59
Methodological and Conceptual Framework 59
Assessment of Performance Influences 62
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 64
Data Collection and Instrumentation 69
Data Analysis 78
The Role of the Researcher 83
Summary 85
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 86
Results and Findings 87
Summary 160

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

5
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluation 162
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 163
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 189
Chapter Summary 212
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 217
Limitations and Delimitations 217
Future Research 219
Conclusion 219
References 222
Appendices 240
Appendix A: List of Undergraduate Core Courses 240
Appendix B: Quantitative Survey Email Invitation 241
Appendix C: Interview Request Email 242
Appendix D: Quantitative Survey Questionnaire 243
Appendix E: Interview Protocol 249
Appendix F: Syllabus Checklist 253
Appendix G: Informed Consent/Information Sheet 254
Appendix H: Immediate Program Evaluation 256
Appendix I: Post Program Blended Evaluation 259

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mission and Goals of the West Business School 22
Table 2. Summary of the Knowledge Factors 40
Table 3. Summary of Motivation Factors 49
Table 4. Summary of Organizational Factors 55
Table 5. Assumed Influences and Assessment Approaches 65
Table 6. Distribution of Survey Responses 73
Table 7. Distribution of Faculty Interviewed 76
Table 8. Demographic Distribution of Faculty Interviews 76
Table 9. Number of Core Course Syllabi Reviewed 78
Table 10. Response to Survey Question 12 by Core Course Responses 118
Table 11. Metacognitive Knowledge Gaps 124
Table 12. Relationship Between Experience Level of Instructor and Agreement with 132
Survey Q14 to Include Leadership Skills in Their Core Course
Table 13. Core Courses where Instructors Include Leadership Skills and/or Topics 140
Table 14. Instructor Comments on the Success of the Core Curriculum in Developing 143
Student Leaders
Table 15. Responses to Survey Question 11: The Undergraduate Core Curriculum is 153
Responsible for Developing Students’ Leadership Skills and Abilities, by
Core Course
Table 16. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 164
Table 17. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 175
Table 18. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 182
Table 19. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 192
Table 20. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 196
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

7
Table 21. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 198
Table 22. Components of Learning for the Program 203
Table 23. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 206

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Clark & Estes gap analysis framework 60
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of an integrated student leadership development 61
program in the undergraduate core business program
Figure 3. Responses to question 14 by academic departments 89
Figure 4. Results of survey question 45: Frequency of core instructor engagement 96
with students in a typical semester
Figure 5. Results of survey question 45: Frequency of topics core instructors discuss 97
with students in a typical semester
Figure 6. Results of survey question 33: How instructors assign students to teams 98
Figure 7. Results of survey question 35: Faculty support during team projects 98
Figure 8. Results of survey question 40: Instructors are unsure that students 100
understand the value of peer evaluations
Figure 9. Results of survey questions 41–43: Core faculty use of different types of 105
learning techniques
Figure 10. Results of survey question 44: Core faculty confidence levels in using 105
different types of learning techniques
Figure 11. Results of survey question 13: Top ten leadership skills, abilities and 109
characteristics selected by core instructors
Figure 12. Results of survey question 47: How often faculty communicate with core 112
course instructors in other academic departments
Figure 13. Results of survey question 12: The learning objectives in my core course 116
align with the Undergraduate Program learning goal to develop
students’ leadership skills
Figure 14. Results of survey question 18: Faculty who identify themselves as Leader 122
Educators
Figure 15. Responses to survey question 21: Finding resources to learn more about 123
student leadership development
Figure 16. Results of survey question 7 126
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

9
Figure 17. Results of survey question 9 127
Figure 18. Results of survey question 16 129
Figure 19. Results of survey question 14: Leadership skill building is included in 130
the concepts I teach in my core course
Figure 20. Results of question 14: Leadership skill building is included in the 131
concepts I teach in my course, by academic discipline
Figure 21. Results of survey question 15: Leadership skills are necessary for 133
students to succeed in my field or discipline
Figure 22. Results of survey question 15 by academic discipline 133
Figure 23. Results of survey question 24 on the frequency of leadership topics 137
discussed
Figure 24. Responses to question 45 141
Figure 25. Results of survey question 48 149
Figure 26. Responses to survey question 49 150
Figure 27. Responses to survey question 46 156
Figure 28. Results of survey question 47: “How often, if at all do you communicate 157
with core course instructors in other academic departments about
course-related matters”
Figure 29. Responses to Q47 158
Figure 30. Distribution of core faculty teaching leadership by course 211
Figure 31. Core course dashboard: Change in faculty involvement in student 211
leadership development
Figure 32. Distribution of core courses across components of Social Change 212
Model of Leadership

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

10
ABSTRACT
Leadership skills are required to address the complex challenges facing organizations in the 21st
century. Colleges and universities have played a central role in preparing our nation’s leaders
since their inception. However, a recent report from the National Association of Colleges and
Employers (2018) cited that only 33% of employers agreed college graduates were proficient in
leadership skills. Building global leadership is an urgent issue for organizations to remain
competitive. Since leadership skills are required in all organizations across all levels of
employees, colleges and universities have reason to evaluate their efforts to develop a student’s
leadership identity and leadership capacity that can serve both organizations and the broader
communities in which they reside. It is the educator’s role to fully understand how they
contribute to the student’s development to meet the needs of employers and society. This
evaluative study explores the role of core faculty in an undergraduate business program that has
as one of its goals developing student leadership skills. Key knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors that contribute to effective student leadership programs were identified
and evaluated using the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework. Findings from survey and
interview data of a representative sample of core course instructors revealed several gaps in
knowledge of leadership development yet instructors believed in the school’s mission to develop
future leaders, albeit to different degrees depending on academic discipline. In order to become
more effective leader educators, instructors need organizational support in the form of resources,
incentives and benefit from the culture, adaptability and collaboration of a learning organization.
Based on these findings, recommendations were proposed that enable instructors to create
integrated learning environments in the core undergraduate program that help students
understand that leadership development is a cross-disciplinary, on-going process to prepare them
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

11
to lead effectively at all levels in organizations and in their communities. A detailed
implementation and evaluation plan is presented that leverages current assets and addresses
weaknesses. Undergraduate programs interested in integrating and strengthening their student
leadership development efforts can benchmark these key factors and practices, and employ the
recommendations and implementation to fit their institutional contexts.
Keywords: student leadership development, leader educator, faculty, leadership,
integrated leadership program

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

12
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
To manage in a complex and rapidly changing world, future leaders — college students
— need to develop the capacity to adapt and learn continuously (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).
Indeed, the time a student spends in college can be transformative as well as educational
(Glisczinski, 2007). In particular, business schools purport to transform their students into global
leaders who will be able to lead in the 21st century (New York University Stern Undergraduate
College, 2014; University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, n.d.; West Business School,
n.d.). By understanding the efficacy of leadership programs, colleges and universities can more
effectively design, deliver and evaluate educational offerings that purport to produce capable
organizational leaders.
Peter Northouse (2015) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). The elemental skills recognized by
most leadership scholars include communication and interpersonal skills, team building and
motivation, decision making and problem solving, change management as well as self-awareness
and emotional intelligence (Bass, 1991; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Goleman, 2006; Komives,
Dugan, Owen, Slack, & Wagner, 2011; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs & Fleishman, 2000;
Northouse, 2015; Owen, 2012; Rost, 1993).
Leadership skills are required in all organizations across all levels of employees. Nearly
82% of employers rate leadership as “very important” for those coming out of four-year college
programs (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Thirty-eight percent of respondents in a recent
Deloitte survey on global human capital rated building global leadership as an urgent issue to
address to remain competitive (Deloitte, 2014). Yet according to The Conference Board report
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

13
(Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006), college graduates do not possess the applied skills and
leadership skills to be successful in the 21st century workplace. Young people often lack the
social and emotional skills identified with emotional intelligence and have difficulty managing in
team-based environments and influencing others to achieve organizational goals (Ananiadou &
Claro, 2015).
Educational institutions have had a central role in preparing our nation’s leaders since
their inception (Gomez, 2007). In a recent report for the National Clearinghouse for Leadership
Programs, Dugan and Komives (2007) identify key trends that demand a focus on the need for
critical leadership skills to develop socially responsible leaders. These include the changing
nature of labor towards collaborative and team-based work, the focus on measuring student
learning and developmental outcomes, and the more formal role of student leadership educator
(Association of American Colleges and Universities [AAC&U], 2015; Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB], 2018; Dugan & Komives, 2007). However, the
research on undergraduate leadership programs has not kept pace with the changes in labor
needs, student assessment, and the educator’s role to fully understand how institutions of higher
education contribute to the student’s development to meet the needs of employers and society
and whether there are appropriate measures of success of the increasing number of practices and
programs (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Pfeffer, 2009). Colleges and universities have reason to
evaluate their efforts to develop a student’s leadership identity and leadership capacity that can
serve both organizations and the broader communities in which they reside.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate how well the West Business School is meeting its
program learning goal to develop student leadership skills. While the West Business School has
always focused on developing the next generation of business leaders, it is unclear how well the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

14
school is meeting this objective. Employers have stated that recent West graduates are not
prepared to manage themselves and others effectively when they enter the modern organization
that is more team-based and more adaptive to the ever-changing dynamics in the marketplace (K.
Vail, personal communication, July 1, 2014). Results from recent Student Engagement in
Research Universities (SERU) Surveys show there is room to better prepare students with soft
skills that encompass leadership knowledge, skills and abilities (West Business School SERU
Report, 2013, 2014). The undergraduate business curriculum is designed to teach students the
knowledge and skills demanded of employers in the fundamental core courses taken by every
undergraduate business student and further developed in course electives. The core business
curriculum is aligned with the program learning goals with direct in-class assessments used to
measure assurance of learning in the undergraduate program along with other indirect assessment
of performance from employers, alumni, students and the Undergraduate Program Advisory
Board. The core curriculum is emphasized because all students take these 12 courses therefore
providing a more comprehensive assessment of coverage of the program learning goals. Faculty
teaching these core courses are responsible for designing and delivering the core courses where
concepts and skills are introduced, applied and practiced. They are responsible for making sure
the course learning objectives and activities map on to the program learning goals and measuring
student performance. Currently, there are no formal evaluation processes that measure the
change or gains in a student’s leadership capacity, including knowledge and performance, over a
student’s career at the business school.
This chapter will look at the organizational context and mission of the West Business
School, the organizational performance goal, related literature, the importance of the evaluation,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

15
the stakeholder group, the purpose of the project, the methodology that was used in this study
and the overall organization of the dissertation.
Organizational Context and Mission
The site for this study is West Business School, a pseudonym for the business school at a
large top-tier four-year private research university in a major metropolitan area. It is one of the
largest professional schools on its campus with a diverse faculty and student population. The
University is a private institution with a total undergraduate enrollment of nearly 20,000 and is
located on a large urban campus in the western United States (U.S. News & World Report,
2015). The West Business School was one of the first business schools established in the west
and currently confers undergraduate, masters and doctoral degrees (AACSB, 2015; The
Economist, 2012; U.S. News & World Report, 2015). The school is accredited by the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 2015). The focus of this study
is on the undergraduate program.
At present, the West Business School student body is 42% female and 57% male and
consists of 3800 undergraduate business administration and accounting majors, and 1000
undergraduate students who minor in business (Bloomberg Business, 2014). International
students comprise 23% of the undergraduate student population (Bloomberg Business, 2014).
The West Business School employs approximately 230 full-time faculty and has an average
student/faculty ratio of 16:1 (AACSB, 2015). Faculty are associated with one of seven academic
units that include accounting, finance and economics, business analytics and operations,
marketing, management, business communication, and entrepreneurship (U.S. News & World
Report, 2015; West Business School, 2015). West Business School has several Centers of
Excellence representing a wide array of issues, including global business, innovation,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

16
entrepreneurship, finance, real estate, branding, organizational effectiveness, social
entrepreneurship, digital industries, and sports business. The organization’s vision is stated in its
2011 Strategic Plan:
[The West Business School] aims to be a leader in educating tomorrow’s global business
leaders, creating knowledge of management and the business environment, and
addressing critical problems facing business and society, both locally and across the
world. We will build on our strategic foundations in educational programs and thought
leadership and fully activate our distinctive assets so that [West Business School]
becomes a global hot spot for education, study, and advancement of business and society.
The 2011 West Business School Strategic Plan also identifies a number of unique assets
that contribute to its reputation, its ability to attract the right students, faculty and staff and its
relevance to other outside stakeholders. Most of these assets are simple statements of fact such
as the extensive alumni base and a globally diverse group of students, faculty and staff.
However, the first asset listed may come closest to the “why” an organization does what it does
that inspires commitment to pursue its goals as described by Simon Sinek (2009). It recognizes
the connection to the University values of “imagination, entrepreneurial thinking, collaboration,
adaptation, and ethical and social perspectives” (West Business School Strategic Plan, 2011). As
noted on in its website, the University and the West Business School seek to apply their
collective efforts to make significant contributions to find effective solutions for the wicked
problems that plague today’s society.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

17
Organizational Performance Goal
The West Business School has responded to the leadership challenge facing business and
society by establishing a specific learning goal for its undergraduate program that states its
graduates will have the requisite leadership skills to be effective business managers and leaders
(West Business School website, n.d.). This learning goal operationalizes one of several
initiatives in the School’s 2011–2017 strategic plan for its undergraduate business program that
states that the School will “Emphasize the development of critical thinking, communication, and
team-building skills among West students” (West Business School Strategic Plan, 2011,
Initiative #3). These skills are consistent with general leadership skills expected of recent
college graduates, and the initiative aligns with the objectives of student leadership development,
the topic of this study. The Dean of Undergraduate Programs was responsible for this initiative
and implemented the recommendations in the 2013–2014 academic year. The Dean’s January
2015 Strategic Plan Implementation interim report gave Initiative #3 a grade of A primarily
based on the activities around critical thinking skill development.
The Undergraduate Program goals reside within the broader context of the West Business
School’s strategic plan. West Business School has six specific strategic initiatives in its 2011–
2017 Strategic Plan that serve as performance goals. The initiatives were established during a
one-year strategic planning process that engaged both internal and external stakeholders from
2010–2011. Two senior professors in the School led the process with the senior executive team
that included the Dean, Vice Deans, Department Chairs and Center Directors. The strategic plan
was circulated to all West stakeholders in March 2011 for review and contributions prior to its
final adoption in August 2011. Subsequently, subcommittees submitted implementation memos
in early 2012 for each initiative that identified more specific objectives and recommendations.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

18
Importance of Evaluation
In several studies, employers identify the lack of leadership skills of recent college
graduates as an urgent and important issue (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Deloitte, 2014).
These organizations demand that workers be able to manage collaborative and team-based work,
manage conflict, and solve complex problems in a rapidly changing global environment
(Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Dugan & Komives, 2007). In this dynamic environment,
educational institutions, many of whom claim they are developing the next generation of global
leaders, need to identify the essential skills of leadership necessary to manage continuous change
(Dess & Picken, 2000). Additionally, it is important to understand the essential elements of
design, delivery and assessment, and the institutional factors that contribute to leadership
development programs and the school’s mission (Owen, 2012; Pfeffer, 2009; Zimmerman-Oster
& Burkhardt, 2000).
It is important to ensure that students gain the necessary knowledge, skills and
proficiency while in college to be an effective leader across a diverse array of organizations
where they will be employed. Leadership is essential to solving current problems and
identifying future opportunities (Kouzes & Posner, 2014). Several leadership scholars assert
leadership can be learned and is within the reach of everyone (Bennis, 2009; Komives, Lucas, &
McMahon, 2013; Kouzes & Posner, 2014). Knowing more about the most effective methods of
developing student leadership skills will assist colleges and universities to be successful in their
mission of developing global leaders. Evaluating the growth of a student’s leadership capacity
will provide evidence that the methods are effective in the school’s unique context. By explicitly
coordinating efforts, undergraduate program administrators and core faculty can create a
practical framework to serve students and support faculty and other stakeholders (Dugan &
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

19
Komives, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Researchers assert that failing to do so
leaves higher education doing little more than producing obedient citizens who are no wiser than
when they started and not able to tackle the challenges of a complex society (Cranton & King,
2003; Glisczinski, 2007). Additionally, it is important to be able to measure if and how well
students develop these leadership skills during their college experience to know if these methods
are truly working.
Schools who do not pay attention to developing their students into global leaders risk
becoming marginalized as relevant institutions of learning which is especially true for business
schools that identify developing leaders as part of their mission. Their graduates who are not
developing the skill set to manage in a global and diverse workplace will not be prime candidates
for employers who rely on schools and colleges to prepare students to enter the workforce
(Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Leadership and management responsibilities are being
pushed down to lower levels in the organization where recent graduates begin their careers
(Mumford et al., 2000). Furthermore, those graduates may not have the necessary leadership
skills to identify and solve the complex problems in the workplace and as a result may negatively
impact the organization’s performance (Mumford et al., 2000). Successful employment rates
and the performance of recent graduates (student and alumni outcomes) influence a school’s
reputation and ability to attract students and funding (McDonough, Antonio, Walpole, & Pérez,
1998; Pascarella, 2001).
Students who invest the time and effort in leadership development may benefit from self-
awareness and self-improvement as a result of new knowledge and reflection (Azdell, 2010;
Goleman, 1998). Subsequently, students can be more self-directed in their career and personal
development (Azdell, 2010). Faculty play a significant role in designing learning activities and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

20
guiding students in their leadership journey (Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education [CAS], 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives, Owen, Longerbeam,
Mainella, & Osteen, 2005; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Therefore, a coordinated,
integrated approach to student leadership development should involve core faculty as well as
program administrators and students to develop successful future leaders in business and society.
Overall, this study may help administrators, faculty and program directors understand the
necessary features of effective student leadership development, recognize important institutional
factors, and provide recommendations to accomplish the school’s mission of “educating
tomorrow’s global business leaders” (West Business School Strategic Plan, 2011). By
identifying the key components of an effective leadership program, the role of faculty teaching
the core curriculum, and accurate measures of success, the West Business School and other
institutions can determine the extent to which they develop student leaders. This research aims
to identify the most effective and appropriate way to coordinate and leverage a school’s assets
within the core curriculum with the core faculty to deliver on the promise of developing leaders.
The results of this research would not only benefit students and the organizations that employee
them, it would enhance the reputation of the school, its programs, and its faculty.
Description of the Stakeholders
Developing undergraduate students’ leadership skills at the West Business School
requires the joint efforts of a broad array of West Business School administrators and staff,
faculty, current and prospective students and their parents, future employers, alumni and
financial supporters. Other stakeholders include directors and staff in student affairs,
undergraduate programs, student advising, career services and admissions offices. The Dean of
Undergraduate Programs is in charge of administering the undergraduate business program
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

21
through development, planning and coordination primarily with faculty, staff and the Dean of the
business school. The Undergraduate Dean works closely with the Undergraduate Program
Curriculum and the Core Curriculum Committees to set and review program learning goals in
support of the University’s overall performance goals.
The primary stakeholder group in this study will be the faculty who teach in the
undergraduate core curriculum. Faculty members play a significant role as subject matter
experts, teachers, coaches and mentors who can directly influence students’ progress developing
the leadership skills to be effective in the organizations they join upon graduation (Astin, 1993;
CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt,
2000). The faculty members who teach the core curriculum in which every student is enrolled
are responsible for ensuring the learning activities and assessments meet the undergraduate
program learning goals and sub-goals including the specific goal that states graduates will
develop the leadership skills to be effective business managers and leaders (West Business
School Program Report, 2014). By focusing on the related knowledge and skill, motivation and
organizational factors, the study aims to understand how well the core curriculum and the faculty
teaching the core courses contribute to a student’s leadership development in a measurable and
meaningful way. Table 1 summarizes the mission and goals of the stakeholders.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

22

Table 1
Mission and Goals of the West Business School
Organizational Mission
The West Business School aims to be a leader in educating tomorrow’s global business
leaders, creating knowledge of management and the business environment, and addressing
critical problems facing business and society, both locally and across the world (West
Business School Strategic Plan, 2011).
Organizational Global Goal
By 2017, the school will have implemented critical thinking, communication, and
teambuilding skills into 100% of core (mandatory) curricular instruction to meet
Undergraduate Program Initiative #3.
Undergraduate Program Goal
Learning Goal 4: Our graduates will develop people and leadership skills to promote their
effectiveness as business managers and leaders.
• Students will recognize, understand, and analyze the motivations and behaviors of
stakeholders inside and outside organizations (e.g., teams, departments, consumers,
investors, auditors)
• Students will recognize, understand and analyze the roles, responsibilities and
behaviors of effective managers and leaders in diverse business contexts (e.g.,
marketing, finance, accounting)
• Students will understand factors that contribute to effective teamwork
Core Faculty Stakeholder Goal
Faculty teaching in the undergraduate core (required) courses will incorporate at least one
leadership development activity or assignment in their course by Fall 2019.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

23
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate how well the Undergraduate Program is
meeting its performance goals around student leadership skill development. Considering the
most recent research literature and best practices on student leadership development, the analysis
focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements and resources necessary to
effectively design, implement and manage learning activities and experiences to prepare students
with relevant and applicable leadership skills. While a complete performance evaluation would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder group of focus in this analysis is
the faculty teaching in the undergraduate core business courses who are on the front line
enabling students to develop essential leadership knowledge, skills and abilities in order to meet
the School’s overall performance goal to build future global leaders.
As such, the questions that guided this evaluation study were the following:
1. To what extent is the Undergraduate Program meeting its learning goals related to
student leadership development within the core curriculum?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements necessary for core
faculty to successfully integrate student leadership development into the
undergraduate core curriculum to meet program goals?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that facilitate the achievement of this goal?
Methodological Framework
A mixed methods approach was used to gather and analyze data to identify and evaluate
the key stakeholder group’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs in relation to
meeting the performance goals of the West Business School Undergraduate Program. These
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

24
needs were validated using surveys, interviews, observation, document analysis and literature
review. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization, was adapted for evaluation analysis.
Research-based solutions are recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Integrated leadership program — bringing together individual parts such as content,
experiences and opportunities across disciplines and may include curricular and co-curricular
elements. The strength of the connections to create a whole educational experience fosters
deeper learning and understanding (Komives et al., 2011).
Leadership development program — an intentional collection of experiences (curricular
and/or co-curricular) designed to develop or improve leadership knowledge, skills and capacity
(Komives et al., 2011).
Student leadership capacity — a student’s competence and ability to apply skills and
knowledge in order to lead or influence others (Dugan & Komives, 2007).
Student leadership identity — how students develop a self-awareness of who they are as
leaders that integrates their social identity, values and expertise over time in a dynamic process
that involves a progression from novice to expert capability (Komives et al., 2005; Lord & Hall,
2005; O’Connor & Day, 2007).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters are used to organize this dissertation. This chapter provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about undergraduate student
leadership development. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

25
concepts of gap analysis adapted to needs analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a
review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of leadership skills, the
role of educational institutions in leadership development, essential program components and the
role of core faculty are addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influence factors to be examined as well as methodology related to the choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

26
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
In a dynamic, diverse and competitive global environment, institutions of higher
education play a vital role in educating future leaders who can solve complex problems facing
organizations and society (Astin & Astin, 2000; Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Dugan &
Komives, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2014; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). The West
Business School has as part of their vision the development of global leaders and expects its
undergraduates to learn the leadership skills necessary to be effective business managers and
leaders (West Business School Strategic Plan, 2011; West Business School Undergraduate
Program Report, 2014).
This chapter will explore the current research on student leadership development, the
essential components of effective leadership programs, and the knowledge, motivational factors
and organizational resources needed by faculty to prepare and deliver a curriculum that
facilitates the development of the student leadership skills that employers need and currently see
lacking. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model serves as the framework for this
discussion. The model focuses on identifying and evaluating the knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors that are essential to improve performance and achieve organizational
goals.
Central Themes from the General Literature
Undergraduate student leadership development is still an emerging field of study but
there is consensus among researchers that effective leadership development programs share the
following key hallmarks including: (1) an alignment with the school’s mission; (2) a common
theoretical framework and definition of leadership based on leadership research; (3) a
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

27
commitment to student leadership development by faculty, program administrators and school
leaders; (4) faculty who are knowledgeable of leadership theory and practice as well as student
leadership identity development; and (5) a clearly defined evaluation plan to assess progress
toward program learning goals (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005;
Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). These are discussed further below in
relation to the role of undergraduate faculty as leader educators.
Alignment with School Mission
Successful leadership development programs operate within the context of the institution
by aligning the leadership program to the mission of the school (CAS, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster
& Burkhardt, 2000). Curricular and co-curricular components are integrated around the mission,
such as developing future leaders, and should ideally be coordinated in an academic home
beyond the departmental level, involving both academic and student affairs (CAS, 2012; Haber,
2011; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Faculty need to keep the institution’s mission in
mind as they develop learning goals and outcomes for their core courses that contribute to a
coordinated and comprehensive educational strategy to fulfill the program and organizational
goals.
Knowledge of Current Leadership Theories, Models and Frameworks
Several researchers and professional associations acknowledge the importance of
grounding programs and learning activities in relevant and current leadership theories, models
and frameworks to make them most effective (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen,
2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Eich (2008) and other researchers recommend that leader educators should be
knowledgeable of leadership theories and models as well as the requisite leadership skills (i.e.,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

28
interpersonal skills) and be willing to bring their own leadership experiences into the classroom
to motivate students (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt,
2000). According to Day (2001), leadership development involves activities that build the
individual skills, knowledge, and abilities related to leadership roles, organizational processes
and goal attainment. Leadership researchers and scholars declare college students are best
served by the post-industrial view of leadership as a dynamic process which recognizes
collaboration, ethical action, moral purpose and the ability to develop others’ leadership capacity
as central to being an effective leader (Burns, 1978; Covey, 1992; Northouse, 2015; Rost, 1993;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
While there is no definitive list of leadership skills to be a successful leader, there are
core factors that should be addressed in an effective leadership program. Leaders need to be able
to communicate effectively, work collaboratively, influence others, understand the hierarchical
nature of group dynamics as well as understand leadership in shared, non-positional roles, and
possess a purpose and a passion to challenge themselves and others to meet clear goals (CAS,
2012; Komives et al., 2009; Komives et al., 2005; Northouse, 2015; Watt, 2003). Employers do
not feel that recent college graduates possess the necessary skills for workplace success
including several aspects of leadership capacity such as working in teams, communication skills,
critical thinking and problem solving, and ethical judgment and decision making (AAC&U,
2015). While learning is a process shared between teacher and learner, one might conclude that
faculty may not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to teach these skills effectively to
students. Faculty teaching the core business curriculum need to determine the common
theoretical framework and definition of leadership as well as the core leadership skills to teach
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

29
that align with current leadership research and with the institution’s mission in order to provide
impactful and integrated leadership development opportunities.
Committed and Knowledgeable Faculty
Since committed and knowledgeable faculty are a key component of exemplary
leadership programs, they have a significant role to play in designing and delivering effective
leadership learning thus shaping the specific learning activities and outcomes for students to
increase their leadership capacity (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Yet in a recent study, Owen (2012) found that only 43%
of leadership educators had any post-baccalaureate work in leadership studies.
Leadership takes on different appearances at different stages of an individual’s
development. Some students come to college seeing themselves as leaders and others do not
(Komives et al., 2005; Roberts, 2007). Komives and her colleagues (2005) have developed a
model of student leadership development that represents a student’s progression from viewing
leadership as a position or role-based authority to a more collaborative and relational process of
influence. Students build self-confidence and self-efficacy as leaders by applying new
leadership knowledge and skills in challenging new situations while getting feedback from others
and in the form of self-reflection (Komives et al., 2005; Lord & Hall, 2005). Various self and
group influences such as interactions with peers and adults, meaningful involvement and
reflective practice shape a student’s view of leadership and their leader identity (Komives et al.,
2005). Programs that provide students with leadership theories and frameworks give students a
new language that when combined with meaningful experiences, furthers their development as
leaders (CAS, 2012; Komives et al., 2005; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). When faculty
understand the process of student leader identity development they can create engaging and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

30
supportive learning environments and experiences to guide and challenge students as teachers
and mentors through the progression from novice to experienced leader.
Experienced and committed leader educators intentionally build learning communities to
cultivate faculty-student relationships to support the development of a student’s leadership
identity and capacity (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Eich, 2008). In establishing powerful
relationships with faculty as leader educators through discussion and dialogue, students gain the
self-confidence that is critical to effective leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007;
Eich, 2008). In his research study, Thompson (2006) states one of the strongest contributing
factors to students’ leadership learning and growth is interactions and experiences with faculty.
Therefore, faculty who serve as leader educators need to create learning environments that
integrate leadership knowledge, skills and experiences in meaningful ways. In his seminal study
of undergraduate student experience, Astin (1993) shows that faculty commitment to students
produces substantial positive effects on academic achievement and self-reported leadership
abilities. High quality leadership development programs should ensure high levels of interaction
by faculty as leader educators as an integral component of the program.
Faculty members need to be aware of their own identities, learning styles and
experiences, and biases that can affect their work as leader educators. However, educators have
many responsibilities and may not have the time or opportunity to become informed of the
leadership lexicon much less find the time to mentor students outside the classroom (Astin, 1993;
Owen, 2015b). Being isolated within their academic departments is a barrier to the education
and socialization process to become effective leader educators (Austin, 1990). Yet, it is
important to recognize the quality of the faculty directly impacts the reputation and credibility of
the institution or program (Astin, 1993; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). As Austin
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

31
(1990) asserts faculty generally value their role providing service to society as knowledge
generators and educators and thus as business and society are actively seeking leaders for the
future, faculty members may be more inclined to take on the role of leader educator.
Knowledge of Active Learning Strategies
Comprehensive, integrated leadership programs are more successful when active learning
is situated in students’ experiences and context of identity development that occurs during the
undergraduate years (CAS, 2012; Komives et al., 2009; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
College provides a learning laboratory where leadership identity can develop as students clarify
values and interests, practice collaborative teamwork and become more self-aware (Astin, 1993;
Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005). Additionally, it is important to note that
leadership development occurs both inside and outside the classroom where students can develop
their self-awareness and self-confidence, acquire interpersonal skills, and develop commitment
and passion that motivates them to become agents for change (Astin, 1993; Astin & Astin, 2000;
Dugan & Komives, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2014; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Within their courses, faculty can engage students in providing and connecting the learning
experiences that promote leadership competence and confidence and move beyond the traditional
transactional lecture-based classroom environment (Haber, 2011; Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh,
2013).
Research-based practices and attributes are critical to support effective student learning
and development of leadership knowledge and skills. These critical components are
characterized by active learning, high engagement, and learner-focused approaches that are a
focus of faculty members committed to positive student outcomes (Astin, 1993; Eich, 2008;
Fink, 2013; Owen, 2012; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

32
Faculty need to know how to engage students in experiential and reflective learning
activities that leverage these experiences to build their leadership capacity (Brungardt, 1996;
Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996; Komives et al., 2011; Zimmerman-Oster &
Burkhardt, 2000). Action learning strategies should focus on application and integration as well
as conceptual understanding in order for students to create meaningful experiences from which
the student can learn (Conger, 1992; Doh, 2003; Komives et al., 2009; Owen, 2015a). Strategies
should be carefully created in order to enable students to translate learning about leadership into
practice. Instructional practices such as discussion groups and collaborative learning,
simulations or experiential exercises (i.e., role plays), journal or reflection assignments, team and
community projects allow students to learn, experiment and challenge themselves further
developing their leadership identity as well as leadership knowledge and skills (Kuh, 2008;
Komives et al., 2005; Owen, 2011). Faculty as leader educators should create learning
environments that are supportive and more structured for students newer to leadership education
and provide more complex, vicarious and autonomous opportunities for students with higher
levels of familiarity and experience (Kuh, 2008; Owen, 2011). Owen (2011) and others assert
that leader educators need to include effective reflection practices linked to specific learning
outcomes regularly throughout the program to transform experience into deeper, transformative
learning (Dewey, 1938). Faculty need to know how to facilitate students’ reflective practice as
they consider their leadership development and experiences in relation to their own thoughts,
knowledge and questions to move toward transformational learning around leadership.
Ultimately, the leader educator should be using innovative and interactive instructional methods
that contributes to a “Knowing, Doing, Being” model of leadership development that is adaptive
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

33
to students’ different learning styles (Hesselbein & Shinseki, 2004; Owen, 2011; Rainey & Kolb,
1995).
Assessment and Evaluation of Leadership Programs
There is an increased focus on measuring learning and developmental outcomes in
colleges and universities (AACSB, 2018; Astin, 1993; U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
High quality leadership development programs engage in regular assessment of program learning
objectives and goals to ensure accountability (Goertzen, 2009; Owen, 2011, 2012; Zimmerman-
Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). In order to know if students are in fact gaining leadership knowledge,
skill and ability, researchers propose there should be direct and indirect formal assessment of
students’ abilities as authentic and credible measures (Ewell, 2002; Goertzen, 2009; Palomba &
Banta, 1999). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence of leadership program quality and
curriculum activities that impact student leadership development (Eich, 2008). Further
complicating assessment is when instruments not designed to measure gains in leadership
knowledge, skill and ability — such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Emotional
Intelligent Leadership For Students Inventory (EILS) and Gallup’s StrengthsFinder 2.0 — are
misused as proxies for outcome measures when the leadership traits, styles and attributes they
measure theoretically do not change (Owen, 2011).
Alternatively, Owen (2011) presents a variety of different assessment tools to assess and
evaluate leadership programs on different attributes. It is important for faculty to understand the
importance and methods of assessing student outcomes and program effectiveness to ensure
program sustainability as well as its impact on student leadership development (CAS, 2012;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

34
Attendance and participation is often overlooked as a simple method of data collection
that can reflect student interest and engagement in classroom sessions and program activities
(Owen, 2011). Faculty can develop their own survey to measure changes in student needs,
expectations, perceptions and practices or rely on national multi-institution surveys such as the
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) or the College Student Experience
Questionnaire (CSEQ) to form a leadership practices construct from existing data (Owen, 2011;
Zimmerman-Oster, 2000; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Changes in leadership
behaviors and learning outcomes have been measured by common web-based instruments that
are linked to particular leadership models such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for
individuals and teams primarily focused on transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995),
Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI) based on Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership
Challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 2013; Posner, 2004) or the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale
(SRLS) associated with the social change model of leadership created by the Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI, 1996). Faculty can also assess student’s leadership capacity and
growth by reviewing leadership portfolios, journals, general tests and quizzes on knowledge
during the program (Owen, 2011; Roberts, 2007).
Additionally, national studies and reports such as the Multi-Institution Study of
Leadership (MSL), the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS)
and the National Clearinghouse of Leadership Programs (NCLP) have attempted to identify
factors and methods to assess changes in student leadership capacity. These measures can be
adopted or incorporated into institutional-specific measures of program effectiveness. Faculty
who are engaged in leadership programs should be aware of and adopt relevant and meaningful
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

35
measures in order to meet the learning goals and outcomes for students as well as for the
institution (Komives & Schoper, 2005; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
To summarize, the central tenets of successful leadership programs stress how the
leadership program aligns with the institution’s mission, a reliance on leadership theories and
frameworks as well as effective pedagogical techniques such as active learning, and how faculty
need to be committed to their role as leader educators and mentors in fostering learning
communities where students acquire the knowledge, skills and abilities to enhance their
leadership identity and capacity. Different aspects of these principles are discussed as they relate
to the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that support faculty engagement in an
integrated leadership development program using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework.
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework is used to identify and evaluate the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences on faculty who teach the core curriculum and the
impact on the Undergraduate Program and the Business School meeting the performance goals
of developing future leaders. Using gap analysis, the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors are validated and analyzed in order to identify opportunities and solutions to improve
faculty knowledge, motivation and competencies to effectively meet the learning goals of
developing an undergraduate student’s leadership knowledge, skills and abilities to meet future
employers’ needs.
Knowledge
Knowledge is useful to undergraduate program administrators and core curriculum
faculty who can work collaboratively to intentionally engage every student in leadership
development grounded in the core undergraduate curriculum. In order to achieve the goal to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

36
instill the requisite leadership knowledge and skills in undergraduate students, faculty and
administrators need four types of knowledge, described next.
Knowledge Types
There are four different types of knowledge that contribute to performance improvement
to meet organizational goals as explained by Krathwohl (2002) in a revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of learning. Factual knowledge includes the basic facts and elements of leadership
and leadership development in undergraduate business students. Conceptual knowledge includes
generalizations, principles, theories and frameworks that help organize information to be more
useful. Factual and conceptual knowledge are elements of declarative knowledge. How to do
something, such as create a leadership exercise or design an integrated leadership program, relies
on procedural knowledge. In the process of learning, self-awareness and self-knowledge are
critical forms of metacognitive knowledge that permit adaptive behaviors and new strategies to
improve performance and meet personal as well as organizational goals (Baker, 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty members involved in developing students’ knowledge and skills
should have declarative and procedural knowledge of leadership and student development as
well as gain metacognitive knowledge of their role and abilities that can contribute to students
becoming effective business managers and leaders.
Declarative knowledge influences. Faculty play an important role as models and
mentors affirming and supporting a student’s leadership identity development (Chickering &
Gamson, 1987; Komives et al., 2005; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Knowledge of leadership theories and relevant leadership skills. Faculty should
understand the factual and conceptual knowledge involving different leadership theories and
models in order to provide a framework for students to think about their experiences, classes and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

37
coursework to clearly understand and enact effective leadership skills (Haber, 2011; Haber-
Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Faculty
should be aware of the core leadership skills that employers seek in students for internships and
future employment, such as collaboration, critical thinking, systemic thinking and cultural
dexterity to meet student learning outcomes (Roberts, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt,
2000).
Knowledge of student leadership identity. Faculty benefit from understanding how a
student’s leadership identity is formed in order to create relevant and appropriate learning
experiences to guide students from novice to more knowledgeable of the collaborative and
relational process of influence expected of future leaders (CAS, 2012; Komives et al., 2005;
Northouse, 2015; Rost, 1993).
Knowledge of student-centered, active learning instructional techniques. Faculty need
to have a knowledge of active learning instructional techniques that are essential to create
effective learning environments (Brungardt, 1996; CAS, 2012; Doh, 2003; Komives et al., 2011;
Kuh, 2008; Owen, 2011; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Faculty need to know how to
create student-centered learning environments that connect student conceptual learning to
practical application outside the classroom (Astin, 1993; Astin & Astin, 2000; Haber, 2011;
Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013).
Agreement on a common framework of leadership. Faculty and students benefit from a
common framework of leadership that provides structure and consistency in a formal leadership
program (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). With
a common framework (i.e., definition or core model), faculty are better able to create specific
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

38
learning activities and assess student learning outcomes using a common language (Boatman,
2000; CAS, 2012; Komives & Schoper, 2005; Posner, 2012).
Procedural knowledge influences. Procedural knowledge informs faculty how to
promote and develop leadership knowledge and skills relevant to their discipline or course, and
assess the effectiveness of specific learning activities or pedagogical approaches.
How to integrate effective leadership program practices and diverse teaching strategies.
Ideal programs provide a variety of contexts, strategies and delivery formats to meet the diverse
needs of the student population coupled with active learning (CAS, 2012). There are a number
of different interactive formats including workshops, seminars, conferences, courses, internships,
panel discussions and mentor programs among others that can promote leadership learning
(Komives et al., 2011; Kuh, 2008). Faculty who understand the foundational processes and
procedural recommendations of effective leadership programs can create a sustainable integrated
program that begins in the core curriculum and includes other curricular and co-curricular
experiences that will meet the undergraduate program and school’s performance goals.
How to identify specific and measurable learning outcomes. Although many
institutions claim developing leaders as a key outcome, few leadership programs engage in
regular assessment of student learning and program evaluation (Komives et al., 2011; Owen,
2012). Even fewer engage in strategic planning that incorporates assessment data and the use of
national standards such as those developed by CAS (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Eich,
2008; Owen, 2012). To create and sustain leadership learning for all undergraduates, core
faculty should possess the procedural knowledge of well-established programmatic guidelines as
well as discipline-specific learning outcomes that can be accurately assessed and adjusted to
meet the school’s performance goals.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

39
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Faculty members serve as leadership educators
as well as observable role models of leadership for students that may influence their own
conceptions of leadership in the classroom (Astin, 1993; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et
al., 2011). In a recent study of 96 college leadership programs, Owen (2012) recommended that
faculty and program administrators evaluate their own roles in developing student leadership
capacity on a regular basis in order to develop and adapt their teaching strategies to meet
leadership development program goals and student outcomes. Formal processes of collaborating
on design and delivery as well as assessing program success provides the opportunity for
everyone involved to review their own role, knowledge and skills and adapt in order to improve
student outcomes going forward (Astin & Astin, 2000; Owen, 2012; Zhang, LeSavoy,
Lieberman, & Barrett, 2014; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). More broadly, faculty
should be aware of how the leadership development program aligns with the values of the school
and institution to provide context for learning activities (Osteen & Coburn, 2012; Owen, 2012;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Recognizing the importance of metacognitive
knowledge of self-awareness and contextual strategies reinforces the need for continuous
improvement that can support faculty with ongoing personal and professional development
around leadership (Owen, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Metacognition by faculty can also be
achieved through dialogue with fellow core faculty and can result in a broader knowledge base
of adaptive strategies to developing learning activities within their own discipline or course
(Baker, 2006; Zhang et al., 2014). Therefore, core faculty need to understand their role,
knowledge and skills as leader educators and role models.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

40
Table 2
Summary of the Knowledge Factors
Factor Research Literature
Social Science
Equivalents
Declarative Knowledge
Core faculty need knowledge of
leadership theories and relevant
leadership skills (factual)
CAS (2012), Doh (2003), Dugan and
Komives (2007), Komives et al. (2005),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Schraw and
McCrudden,
(2006)
Core faculty need to know how
student leadership identity develops
(conceptual)
CAS (2012), Day and Harrison (2007),
Dugan and Komives (2007), Komives et
al. (2005), Lord and Hall (2005),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Schraw and
McCrudden,
(2006)
Core faculty need to know student-
centered, active learning instructional
techniques (conceptual)
CAS (2012), Komives et al. (2009),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Schraw and
McCrudden,
(2006)
Core faculty understand and share a
common framework of leadership
theories and models in order to
provide a structure for student
leadership development (conceptual)
CAS (2012), Doh (2003), Dugan and
Komives (2007), Komives et al. (2005),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Schraw and
McCrudden,
(2006)
Procedural Knowledge
Core faculty need to know how to
integrate relevant leadership
knowledge and skills using active
learning methods (procedural)
CAS (2012), Dugan and Komives
(2007), Komives et al. (2011), Komives
et al. (2005), Owen (2012), Zimmerman-
Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Van
Merrienboer,
Kester and Paas
(2006)
Core faculty need to know how to
identify specific and measurable
learning outcomes to access student
learning and program objectives
AACSB (2018), Astin (1993), CAS
(2012), Eich (2008), Goertzen (2009),
Komives and Schoper (2005), Owen
(2011, 2012), Palomba and Banta (1999),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Van Merrienboer
et al. (2006)
Metacognitive Knowledge
Core faculty understand their role,
knowledge and skills as leader
educators and as role models to
students (metacognition)
Astin and Astin (2000), Dugan and
Komives (2007), Komives et al. (2011),
Owen (2012), Zimmerman-Oster and
Burkhardt (2000)
Grossman and
Salas (2011),
Pajares (2006)

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

41
Summary
Building on the critical knowledge of student leadership development, adaptive experts
understand why their knowledge and skills are effective and are able to invent new methods or
approaches in order to adapt to new contexts or environments (Rueda, 2011). With practical and
sustained effort and support, West core faculty can become adaptive experts who are aware of
leadership theories and concepts (factual knowledge), knowledgeable of the opportunity to
develop students’ leadership identity in the core curriculum (conceptual knowledge), and who
have the procedural knowledge to create and nurture integrated learning environments to meet
the school’s mission to develop global leaders. Table 2 summarizes the knowledge factors
discussed in this section.
Motivation
For a student leadership program to be effective, leadership educators do not only need to
know current leadership theories and how to apply best practices, they should be motivated
toward meeting the program goals (Astin & Astin, 2000; CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007,
2011; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Motivation is an internal psychological process
that initiates action to engage in a task, maintains focus and persistence, and determines how
much mental effort is committed to meet both individual and organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Specifically, faculty can be motivated by a variety of factors such
specific goals, interest in the task, self-efficacy as well as the value of the task (Pintrich, 2003).
This section discusses the motivational factors of goal orientation, expectancy value and interest
that are most relevant to motivating core faculty to integrate leadership knowledge and skill
building into the courses they teach to meet the goal of developing student leadership capacity at
the West Business School.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

42
Goal Orientation Theory
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework acknowledges that identifying the
organization’s performance goal as well as related program and individual goals are the essential
first step to understand the human causes behind performance gaps. The existence of goals
affects an individual’s motivation to engage in specific behaviors or activities (Anderman,
Anderman, Yough, & Gimbert, 2010). Goal theory focuses on mastery, individual improvement,
learning and understanding, and the environments that promote learning and achievement
(Anderman et al., 2010; Pintrich, 2003). Performance-oriented goals, specifically performance-
approach goals, promote adaptability and achievement although other studies have found
mastery-oriented goals more motivating (Anderman et al., 2010). When performance-oriented
goals are specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic and time-bound, they are more effective
and motivating to individuals (Latham, 2009). Mastery goals encourage learning and specific
behaviors to gain deeper understanding of a subject or task to excel in one’s field or endeavors
(Anderman et al., 2010).
Core faculty view developing student leadership capacity as a valuable goal for the
School and society. Faculty can be motivated by both mastery and performance goals to
commit to an integrated leadership development program for undergraduate students. Faculty
are highly motivated to seek knowledge, question the status quo and develop novel ways to look
at the issues in their discipline in order to become masters in their field and teach others (Astin &
Astin, 2000; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Focusing on improving the core faculty member’s
ability to design and deliver leadership learning activities in their course contributes to their
mastery and promotes positive motivation (Anderman et al., 2010). Additionally,
communicating the meaningful aspects that contribute to a student’s readiness to be a leader in
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

43
that discipline may also focus faculty members’ efforts to promote the importance of leadership
in their field to students in their course (Anderman et al., 2010; Chickering & Gamson, 1987;
Steinert, Cruess, Cruess, & Snell, 2005). Developing their own recognition and mastery of
leadership learning, faculty may better support an integrated student leadership development
within the core curriculum experience.
Additionally, performance goals can also shape behavior and learning to promote student
leadership development in the undergraduate core curriculum. The West Business School has
committed to developing future leaders who possess the leadership skills to solve critical
problems and successfully manage organizations in the future, a performance goal that includes
students mastering the knowledge and skills of leadership (West Business School Strategic Plan,
2011). The undergraduate core curriculum is responsible for meeting the specific learning goals
aligned with this mission that includes Learning Goal 4 that states students will possess the
requisite leadership skills to manage and lead businesses (West Business School Report, 2014;
see Appendix A). Faculty engaged in teaching the undergraduate core curriculum courses are
focused on meeting these program goals and learning outcomes but they are often focused on
their own individual course learning objectives and have only been motivated to report on
meeting program learning outcomes during accreditation activities that occur every five to ten
years. Several leadership program researchers have noted that aligning specific, clear and
measurable leadership program goals with the school’s mission and academic program
objectives are essential components of exceptional program design (CAS, 2012; Dugan &
Komives, 2007; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Faculty may be motivated
to incorporate leadership learning in their core courses if they recognized the connection to both
undergraduate program objectives and the school’s mission to develop effective business leaders
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

44
with the discipline knowledge and skills coupled with leadership abilities gained throughout an
integrated core curriculum experience (Haber, 2011; Lucas, 2009). In addition, there are a
variety of pedagogies that can be employed to promote leadership knowledge and skill
development in a course (Krathwohl, 2002; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Meixner & Rosch, 2011).
To effectively motivate faculty to incorporate some leadership learning activities, peer and
organizational support can be effective to teach and encourage use of new pedagogies as well as
identify how existing assignments or activities can meet the program objective to develop the
knowledge and skills necessary for students to graduate with the capacity to become effective
global leaders (Anderman et al., 2010; Brawner, Felder, Allen, & Brent, 2002; Meece,
Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). In order to keep faculty members attention focused on
developing leadership capacity, it would be important to assess course learning outcomes against
program learning goals more regularly such as by establishing an annual process in the core
curriculum committee. Since core faculty recently completed the process of measuring course
outcomes to learning goals during the 2014 accreditation process, the process is already in place
where the administration can maintain accountability and support (Anderman et al., 2010; Meece
et al., 2006). With faculty focusing on mastery and performance goals and their assessment, they
are more likely to put forth the attention, effort and persistence to meet the needs of students’
leadership development and the mission of the school to develop future leaders.
Expectancy Value Theory
Individuals can be motivated by the expectation that they can perform a task well, which
strongly influences how much mental effort, and persistence they bring to a task. Additionally,
the perceived value of the task can influence whether the individual chooses to engage in the task
(Eccles, 2005). Pintrich (2003) explains that expectancy-value theory is comprised of four
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

45
components: (1) the intrinsic value to the individual; (2) the extrinsic value or utility the task
provides in meeting different needs; (3) the importance of the task to self-schema and to
instrumental and terminal values; and, (4) the costs or potential negative consequences of
engaging in the task.
Faculty value their role as leader educator and see a positive impact on students’
leadership capacity. Faculty matter to student learning and engagement and are an important
contributor to the process of developing student leadership skills as instructors and role models
(Dugan & Komives, 2011; Owen, 2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Faculty engaging in an
integrated approach to student leadership development need to value their role which would
motivate them to incorporate existing and new approaches to teaching that would impact student
leadership learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Dugan & Komives, 2011; Eccles, 2005).
Student-centered, committed faculty are essential to the successful implementation of leadership
development programs (Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Faculty members who perceive
the utility or usefulness of teaching leadership as it relates to their discipline and students’ needs,
the importance of their role in student development as well as the school’s mission, and the
connection between engagement and their personal interests are more likely to be motivated to
commit to the program (Komives et al., 2009; Komives et al., 2005; Pintrich, 2003). Therefore,
core curriculum faculty should be informed of current, relevant leadership theories and research
as it relates to student leadership identity development while stressing the importance of the role
faculty members value as experts, teachers and mentors who influence student’s personal and
professional development (Astin, 1993; Austin, 1990; Komives et al., 2005; Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2005). Understanding the importance of this window of opportunity during the
undergraduate years to develop critical leadership skills and knowledge in students may motivate
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

46
faculty to include leadership learning activities in their core course (Doh, 2003; Komives et al.,
2009). Recognizing the intrinsic value of teaching students and being a positive leadership role
model coupled with the positive feedback from students who benefit from the faculty member’s
expertise and support, faculty members teaching in the core may be more motivated to include
activities that promote the students’ leadership learning in their courses.
Interest Theory
Appealing to an individual’s interests and intrinsic needs can increase motivation and
influence engagement, persistence as well as how much time and effort is committed to the task
(Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Recognizing and leveraging personal interest can increase
motivation (Pintrich, 2003; Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Situational interest can be employed to
motivate individuals when personal interest is not present but may not last beyond the short term
without significant investment (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). On the other hand, initially focusing
on environmental factors that appeal to an individual needs such as mastery, autonomy and
relatedness can lead to more enduring personal interest (Pintrich, 2003). Slow starting yet long
lasting, interest can also influence the activation of prior knowledge that can contribute to richer
and deeper learning that contributes to goal attainment (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Aligning
goals with personal interest and motives in this manner can lead to higher levels of motivation
aimed at achieving organizational goals.
Core faculty show interest and intrinsic motivation to prepare students to be leaders
and are willing to include leadership development in their course. Leadership learning is a
principal purpose of higher education and calls for institutions to assume responsibility to meet
this student outcome (Astin, 1993; Astin & Astin, 2000; Roberts, 2007). Successful leadership
programs are aligned with the purpose of higher education in society and the institutional
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

47
mission around a shared purpose (Astin & Astin, 2000; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2012;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Generating higher levels of interest and intrinsic
motivation based on this higher purpose of education can motivate faculty to engage, persist and
apply appropriate mental effort to student leadership program goals.
Faculty often see their role as preparing students to be successful in their profession as
well as contributing to their development as a global citizen (Astin, 1993; Doh, 2003; Dugan &
Komives, 2007). Traditionally, the academic community values its obligation to raise questions
and challenge ideas and when supported by interested faculty it can serve as an asset to produce
creative, novel and relevant leadership development activities and programs that prepare
graduates to tackle the complex problems associated with leading organizations (Astin & Astin,
2000; Austin, 1990; Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Faculty interest,
enthusiasm and commitment can provide the situational factors that may trigger students’
motivation to develop their leadership skills. This interest and commitment to students may
intrinsically motivate faculty to engage with undergraduate administrators and student affairs
staff in the planning, design and teaching components of an integrated leadership development
program as well as include relevant leadership skill development within their courses.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy is the confidence one holds in his or her ability to accomplish a certain task
and provides the foundation for motivation to engage in future tasks (Rueda & Dembo, 1995).
Clark and Estes (2008) noted that the primary motive for all human behavior is a desire to be
effective. The evaluation of one’s self-efficacy in a particular domain influences how one
functions in that domain and can impact motivation and learning through the expectation of
success (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

48
Core faculty are confident in their ability as leader educators and the program’s
effectiveness. CAS Standards (2012) for effective student leadership programs state that faculty
teaching leadership possess the knowledge of the history and current trends in leadership
theories, models and approaches and leadership experiences of their own. As faculty members
become more skilled in a particular field, their professional identity guides their actions and
decisions with regard to how they teach (Austin, 1990; Brownell & Tanner, 2012). A study by
Dr. Julie Owen (2012) for the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership found that less than half of
the institutions’ leadership educators had completed graduate studies in leadership or leadership
development. When considering teaching new subject matter such as leadership, faculty
members may feel ill-equipped to change the content as well as the manner of what they teach
(Brownell & Tanner, 2012). As educators and students participate in leadership development
processes together, faculty members may feel an inherent tension between subject matter expert
in their discipline and leadership educator (Seemiller & Priest, 2015).
Focusing on the leadership skills and abilities necessary to succeed in his or her specific
discipline (i.e., accounting, marketing) can contribute to a faculty member’s confidence in
teaching leadership in their core course (Austin, 1990; Chickering & Gamson, 1987).
Additionally, effective student leadership programs promoted collaboration with community
agencies, businesses and other educators that can also contribute to efficacy of faculty instructors
as well as program efficacy (Zimmerman-Oster & Burkardt, 2000). As Owen (2012)
recommended in her study of the design and delivery of student leadership programs, a
leadership educator can engage in reflection about his or her personal leadership beliefs, attitudes
and experiences and take advantage of professional development to build their competence and
self-efficacy as leadership educators. When a leadership program is organized around a common
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

49
framework and definition of leadership with a comprehensive educational strategy as the
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkardt (2000) study recommends, core faculty can feel more confident
in the effectiveness of the program. In gaining this confidence in their own abilities with
organizational structures in place to support their role as leadership educators, faculty members
gain self-efficacy to positively impact the development of a student’s leadership capacity.

Table 3
Summary of Motivation Factors
Factor Research Literature
Social Science
Literature
Core faculty view developing
student leadership capacity as a
valuable goal for the School and
society (goal orientation; interest)
Astin and Astin (2000), CAS (2012),
Chickering and Gamson (1987),
Dugan and Komives (2007),
Komives et al. (2011), Owen (2012),
Steinert et al. (2005), Zimmerman-
Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Anderman et al.
(2010), Schraw and
Lehman (2001)
Core faculty value their role as
mentor and leader educator as it
relates to their own discipline and
that their efforts will produce a
positive impact on students’
leadership capacity (goal
orientation; expectancy)
CAS (2012), Chickering and Gamson
(1987), Dugan and Komives (2007),
Komives et al. (2005), Komives et al.
(2011), Owen (2012), Zimmerman-
Oster and Burkhardt (2000)
Anderman et al.
(2010), Eccles
(2005), Pintrich
(2003)
Core faculty are confident in their
ability as leader educators and in
the program’s effectiveness (self-
efficacy, interest)
CAS (2012), Chickering and Gamson
(1987), Dugan and Komives (2007),
Komives et al. (2005), Owen (2012),
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt
(2000)
Bandura (2000),
Pajares (2006),
Rueda and Dembo
(1995), Schraw and
Lehman (2001)
Core faculty show interest and
intrinsic motivation to prepare
students to be leaders and are
willing to include leadership
development in their course
(interest)
Astin (1993), Astin and Astin (2000),
Austin (1990), Doh (2003), Dugan
and Komives (2007), Owen (2012),
Roberts (2007), Zimmerman-Oster
and Burkhardt (2000)
Pintrich (2003),
Schraw and
Lehman (2001)

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

50
Summary
It is expected that all business schools have courses, programs and activities to educate
future leaders (Doh, 2003; Osteen & Coburn, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Motivated and engaged faculty can be an important asset in the process of developing student
leadership capacity to meet the West Business School’s mission of creating global leaders who
are better able to tackle the complex problems and challenges facing business and society in the
21st century. Table 3 summarizes the motivation factors discussed above.
Organizational Factors
Organizational factors support and affect successful performance achievement and
improvement in a number of key ways. In order to achieve performance goals and objectives,
organizational processes and sufficient resources need to be applied efficiently and effectively
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This may include adjusting or changing how people in the organization
think about their roles and how they do their jobs and requires attention to both culture and
context (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This section will discuss these
critical organizational factors of processes and resources, culture and leadership that contribute
to goal attainment that can be achieved by adopting elements of a learning organization.
Creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge to accomplish organizational change is
best accomplished by a learning organization that promotes open discussion and different
perspectives coupled with systematic or holistic thinking (Kezar, 2000, 2005; Senge, 1990). The
learning organization supports change and adaptability because of its supportive learning
environment, reinforcing processes and practices, and leadership that provides vision and
direction (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008; Senge, 1990).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

51
Processes
Efficient work processes within an organization inform individuals how to accomplish
their tasks as well as how to collaborate with others to meet goals and objectives (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Work policies and institutional practices that support effective student leadership
development need to be well defined and rooted in the school’s mission with a guiding
theoretical framework based in the leadership literature (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Zimmerman-
Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Additionally, Owen (2012) notes that 52% of leadership educators
have little to no formal coursework in leadership studies which signals that professional
development in this area is needed to place credentialed and experienced instructors in student
programs. According to several studies on student leadership development, successful
leadership development programs require systems of collaboration and coordination across
curricular and co-curricular components of a student’s educational program (Boatman, 1997;
Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Core faculty have the resources needed to create and/or participate in leadership
development programs. Process changes such as these can reshape an organization’s culture in
support of the organization’s performance goals (Kezar, 2001). Allocating the necessary
resources to create effective processes and policies that encourage and reward faculty
professional development, collaboration and coordination of leadership development activities
across the undergraduate program will contribute to the School’s mission.
Core faculty receive incentives in the form of rewards and/or recognition of their
efforts in student leadership development. With processes and policies aligned with the goal
of developing leader capacity in the undergraduate students, explicit methods must be
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

52
established to reward and recognize employee engagement and drive collaborative behaviors and
innovative thinking by appealing to both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Hansen, Smith, &
Hansen, 2002).
Culture
Socio-cultural theory helps us understand that learning is influenced by a broader social
context and attending to that culture can contribute to more effective learning and performance
often mediated by organizational change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Culture is a system
of shared assumptions, values, beliefs and norms that dictates how people behave within
organizations (Schein, 2004). Organizational change efforts can be deeply influenced by the
culture and subcultures within an institution and need to pay attention to stakeholders’ mental
maps or schema (Kezar, 2001).
Core faculty benefit from the alignment of the school’s mission and culture with
undergraduate program goals, academic and student affairs activities, and student
outcomes. Considering embedding leadership development activities in the core curriculum, it
is important to create an environment of interaction, coordination and collaboration consistent
with the norms and practices of its cultural community. Undergraduate Program performance
goals must be communicated throughout the institution and used to generate cascading goals for
faculty and program staff that will clarify their contribution to the effectiveness of the program in
meeting learning goals, especially those related to developing student leadership knowledge,
skills and abilities (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001).
The Business School is comprised of many different subcultures that may act in concert
or at cross purposes which can create conflict and ambiguity around program goals. There are
different academic departments organized around disciplines such as accounting, marketing,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

53
organizational behavior among others that rarely interact formally or informally. Within
academic departments are different classifications of faculty such as research-focused tenure-
track faculty, teaching-focused clinical faculty as well as part-time or adjunct faculty members.
Each faculty member’s interests and influence can be reflected in both cultural and subcultures to
different degrees (Austin, 1990; Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004). In many institutions of
higher education, tenure-track faculty are perceived and treated as more important or valued than
teaching faculty which impacts power and influence within academic programs (Lee, Cheslock,
Maldonado-Maldonado, & Rhoades, 2005). Additionally, the Committee on the Undergraduate
Program and the Undergraduate Core Curriculum Committee are two distinct committees that do
not coordinate except through the Vice Dean of Undergraduate Programs that prevents goal
alignment and collaboration. Pedagogical innovation is difficult to implement and sustain as
faculty members question familiar ways of teaching and resist efforts to examine their work
(Hurtado, Eagan, Pryor, Whang, & Tran, 2012; Tagg, 2012). The achievement of performance
goals depends on the alignment of different cultures and subcultures behind shared norms,
beliefs and values (Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004). To achieve the goal of developing leaders
capable of tackling the challenges facing business and society in the 21st century, it is necessary
to determine how the culture and subcultures within the School support or resist this initiative.
Leadership and the Learning Organization
Learning in an organization is a form of socialization that can influence culture as well as
practice (Hendry, 1996). Engaging members of organizations in the process of action research
exercised in learning organizations increases the capacity for innovation and adaptation and
builds buy-in to subsequent changes (Hendry, 1996; Moran & Brightman, 2000; Senge, 1990).
Learning organizations foster systems thinking that assumes that organizations have
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

54
interdependent and interrelated structures or elements that may operate in an open environment
influenced by both internal and external environments (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001, 2005;
Senge, 1990).
Core faculty benefit from the culture, adaptability and collaboration of a learning
organization to support and facilitate change. In light of the pressure to meet learning
objectives to satisfy the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
accreditation and remain competitive in the educational marketplace, the undergraduate business
program requires adaptability and learning new ways of doing things. Following the status quo
and traditional approaches prevents the type of innovation required to achieve the goals and
objectives of building leaders to manage the challenges of the 21st century (Perrow, 1973;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Leaders set vision and create the structures necessary to
align individuals’ purpose, identity and mastery with the desired results for the organization
(Moran & Brightman, 2000). Effective leaders serve not only as role models but need to
constantly and consistently communicate a compelling case for change (Moran & Brightman,
2000; Northouse, 2015). The vision and mission of the undergraduate business program must be
clear and connect to the role of faculty in the core curriculum and the importance of developing
students’ leadership identity.
Currently, the School operates in an evolutionary manner reacting to external
environmental changes such as accreditation requirements, employers’ preferences and the
competitive forces exerted within the field of business education. Within the evolutionary
model, faculty members stay proactive and aware of the leadership needs of their discipline
within the business environment and enact changes in an anticipatory manner (Kezar, 2001). As
described by Kezar (2001), the social cognitive model of change is consistent with the learning
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

55
organization and enables single-loop learning to improve performance within the existing culture
and double-loop learning where innovative solutions come from re-conceptualizing the culture
(Senge, 1990). To be effective, the organizational values and norms (a.k.a. culture) need to align
with the change initiatives and employees’ theories of action (Kezar, 2001). Introducing an
integrated leadership development program in the undergraduate business curriculum would
need to align the core faculty around common values of collaboration instead of competition and
commitment to developing future leaders which would best be achieved by striving to become a
learning organization.

Table 4
Summary of Organizational Factors
Organizational Factor Research Literature Social Science Literature
Core faculty have the resources
needed to create and/or
participate in leadership
development programs
CAS (2012), Doh (2003), Dugan
and Komives (2007), Komives
et al. (2005), Zimmerman-Oster
and Burkhardt (2000)
Clark and Estes (2008),
Kezar (2001), Schein
(2004)
Core faculty receive incentives
in the form of rewards and/or
recognition of their efforts in
student leadership development
Austin (1990), CAS (2012),
Hansen et al. (2002)
Hansen et al. (2002),
Kezar (2001)
The school’s undergraduate
program goals, academic and
student affairs activities, and
student outcomes align with the
school’s mission
CAS (2012), Clark and Estes
(2008), Doh (2003), Dugan and
Komives (2007), Komives et al.
(2005), Schein (2004),
Zimmerman-Oster and
Burkhardt (2000)
Locke and Latham (1990),
Pintrich (2003)
The organization supports a
culture of adaptability and
collaboration to support and
facilitate change
CAS (2012), Dugan and
Komives (2007), Dugan and
Owen (2007), Northouse (2015),
Zimmerman-Oster and
Burkhardt (2000)
Clark and Estes (2008),
Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001), Hendry (1996),
Kezar (2001, 2005),
Schein (2004)

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

56
Conclusion
This literature review has discussed the knowledge, motivation and organizational
components that influence effective leadership development for undergraduate students and the
central role the core faculty play in preparing them for current and future responsibilities as
leaders as they progress through their lives promoting positive change. Several studies found
that successful programs are more likely to include an academic component that connects
curricular and co-curricular activities resulting in growth in leadership knowledge, skills and
abilities (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Within the Business
School, core faculty are in a unique position to serve as facilitators, educators, role models and
mentors in an integrated leadership development program that successfully achieves the School’s
organizational objectives with a focused and measurable approach.
Leadership curriculum is more effective when it integrates academic coursework and
experiential exercises with a common theoretical framework (CAS, 2012; Osteen & Coburn,
2012; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Regarding knowledge influences,
the literature revealed the need for core faculty to be informed of current leadership theories and
the requisite leadership skills in order to provide a structure for an effective student leadership
development program. Additionally, the literature asserts that programs are more impactful
when faculty members understand how undergraduate students create a leadership identity
during their academic career. With this knowledge, faculty can create and promote both formal
and informal learning opportunities to advance and assess undergraduates’ leadership capacity to
address the challenges facing organizations and society in the 21st century.
In considering the motivational factors, the literature supports that core faculty need to
understand how engaging students in leadership development activities in their class fits into the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

57
broader undergraduate program’s objectives and School’s mission to develop global leaders.
Understanding the positive impact a faculty member can have on the students’ learning
experience as well as the School’s mission and responsibility to develop future leaders can be a
motivating factor to involve them in delivering a successful program.
At the organizational level, recent research has shown that resources need to be
effectively coordinated to provide the time, education and coordination, feedback and
meaningful assessment process for faculty to devote their time and effort to a new leadership
initiative. Long term sustainability relies on faculty being supported, recognized and rewarded
in establishing new or revised leadership program as well as tangible and intangible symbols of
support across campus (Osteen & Coburn, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000).
Building the leadership capacity of students effectively is a collaborative endeavor that requires
commitment across the institution.
Leadership development for undergraduate students is still an emerging field of research
since much of the leadership literature remains focused on MBAs and executives (Day &
Harrison, 2007; Snook, Nohria, & Khurana, 2012). During this time, there has been less
investigation into the role of the faculty in the process of developing students’ leadership
capacity with a formal program of study such as the core business curriculum. Additionally, the
process of leadership development often resides in the student affairs office which while
important misses the opportunity to engage students in an integrated program that can provide
both academic knowledge and co-curricular experiences to differentiate the program from other
business schools.
Considering these gaps and opportunities, the study explored the status of faculty levels
of knowledge, experience and motivation in an effort to determine appropriate levels of
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

58
education, communication and support to engage core faculty in the development and delivery of
an integrated leadership development program in a business school. The study identified both
barriers as well as organizational assets that can be addressed to further an integrated leadership
development program to promote the type of leadership that is needed to address the concerns of
business and societal organizations today.
Chapter Three will discuss the conceptual framework, assessment of influence factors
and the process of data collection. Survey and interview protocols as well as document
evaluation will be discussed and the data analysis process will be explained.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

59
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to determine to what degree the Undergraduate Program
is meeting its performance goals around student leadership skill development. In its mission
statement, the Business School asserts that it develops future global leaders and has specified
learning goals in its Undergraduate Program to achieve this objective. The Undergraduate
Program learning goals are embedded in the learning objectives of each course in the core
curriculum. The core faculty teaching these courses are on the front line, responsible for meeting
the learning goal of developing student leadership skills and so it is important to understand their
perspectives. The questions that guided this evaluation study were the following:
1. To what extent is the Undergraduate Program meeting its learning goals related to
student leadership development within the core curriculum?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements necessary for core
faculty to successfully integrate student leadership development into the
undergraduate core curriculum to meet program goals?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that facilitate the achievement of this goal?
Methodological and Conceptual Framework
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized to identify and close
performance gaps that prevent faculty from engaging in an integrated student leadership
development program in the Undergraduate Program core curriculum. The process is depicted in
Figure 1.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

60

Figure 1. Clark & Estes gap analysis framework

The organizational goal within the context of this study included the Undergraduate
Program learning goal that contributes to the School’s mission to develop future leaders who will
be able to address the complex problems and challenges facing organizations and society in the
21st century. Faculty leadership knowledge and engagement are essential components of an
effective student leadership development program. The presence or absence of these
components impact the extent to which the School can meet its performance goal to develop
future leaders. The conceptual framework for this study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework to identify and evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors that influence a core instructor’s ability, interest and participation in developing student
leadership capacity. Through analyzing and validating these factors, potential solutions were
identified to improve faculty engagement, participation and commitment, and thus more
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

61
effectively and measurably meet the Undergraduate Program’s learning goals and the School’s
mission of developing future leaders.
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework that shows how a core faculty member’s
leadership knowledge and motivation to actively engage in and deliver an effective and
successful integrated student leadership program interact with the organizational factors that
influence his/her ability and commitment to this effort and meet the School’s goal of developing
future leaders.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of an integrated student leadership development program in the
undergraduate core business program

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

62
Assessment of Performance Influences
As described in Chapter Two, there are a number of knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors that bear on the positive engagement of core faculty in teaching students
about leadership and developing their leadership capacity within the context of an integrated
student leadership development program. Faculty members’ perspectives on these assumed
influences were captured using a combination of survey, interview and document analyses. The
survey items were intended to reveal ordinal ratings of the knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and
behaviors of core faculty members. Interview questions allowed the researcher to obtain a
deeper understanding of the thinking behind the meanings and thoughts of faculty. The
document analyses of core course syllabi was an unobtrusive way used to gauge a faculty
instructor’s leadership knowledge and teaching practices.
Knowledge Assessment
From the literature review, seven knowledge influence factors were identified, as noted in
Table 2. The first four of these factors refers to declarative knowledge, two factors refer to
procedural knowledge, and one refers to metacognitive knowledge. These seven factors were
assessed with the survey to measure faculty members’ perceived level of knowledge, and
through interview questions in order to better understand their knowledge types and how core
faculty might be activating that knowledge around leadership development activities in their
specific course as part of the core curriculum. Additionally, review of course documents (i.e.,
syllabi) was also used to evaluate the instructor’s level of knowledge.
Motivation Assessment
There are five motivation influences that emerged from the literature review as noted in
Table 3. These influences relate to expectancy-value, interest, self-efficacy and goal orientation.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

63
The survey assessed these influence factors to understand instructors’ beliefs of how important
or valuable student leadership development is (or should be) in the Undergraduate Program, their
own abilities to teach or develop leadership, as well as their interest in engaging in an integrated
leadership development program in the core curriculum. Interview questions probed beyond the
survey responses to better understand the faculty member’s reasoning and rationale to engage or
not engage in an integrated program.
Organization Resources/Culture Assessment
Through the literature review, four potential organizational influences were identified and
are summarized in Table 4. The first factor relates to resource support (i.e., professional
development, learning communities), the second relates to incentives and recognition, the third
addresses organizational alignment of program goals, activities and student outcomes, and the
last includes the elements of a learning organization. All of these influence the organizational
culture of the Undergraduate Program and the Business School. Resource support was assessed
in survey questions to determine core faculty members’ knowledge and use of organizational
resources and through interview questions that revealed in greater depth core faculty members’
feelings, attitudes and use of support programs or organizational resources. Faculty perception
of organizational incentives (i.e., rewards, recognition, monetary or non-monetary support) was
assessed in survey questions and through interview questions that explored how faculty see and
interpret incentives as enablers or barriers to engaging in student leadership development
practices in their core course or curriculum. Organizational alignment of goals, activities and
outcomes were assessed in survey questions regarding the clarity of program and school
performance goals and objectives and interview questions that probed further to understand the
core faculty member’s perception of the expectations, the alignment of program goals and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

64
objectives with core course objectives, and how they influenced (or not) his/her choice of
learning activities to meet the goals and expectations. Document analysis was also used to reveal
how aligned core course content was with program goals and expectations. The culture,
adaptability and collaboration of a learning organization was evaluated using survey and
interview questions. A recent school climate survey was also referenced.
In exploring these knowledge, motivation and organizational factors and their interaction
within the conceptual framework of this study, the results provided a greater understanding of
how best to inform and motivate core faculty to engage — or continue to engage — in an
integrated student leadership development program as described in Chapter Five. The goal of
such a program is to develop students’ leadership identity and capacity to be effective leaders in
their academic as well as their professional careers thus meeting the School’s mission and the
Undergraduate Program’s performance goal of creating global leaders.
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The participating stakeholders included faculty members who have been teaching in the
undergraduate core business curriculum during the semesters between Fall 2012 and Summer
2016. The undergraduate core business curriculum was significantly revised and launched in
Fall 2012 and subsequently course syllabi included explicit links to the Undergraduate Program
Goals. Since faculty assignments can differ from semester-to-semester within each academic
department responsible for delivering the core courses, this time period also provided a broad
and representative sample pool of faculty instructors from whom the most could be learned about
their knowledge and interest in developing students’ leadership knowledge, skills and abilities
within the core business program.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

65
Table 5
Assumed Influences and Assessment Approaches
Category Assumed Influence Assessment Approach
Knowledge Core faculty need knowledge of leadership theories and
relevant leadership skills
Survey item #14
Interview item #2, 4, 7
Syllabi review
Core faculty need to know how student leadership identity
develops
Survey item #33, 35, 40, 45
Interview item #1, 2, 3
Syllabi review
Core faculty need to know student-centered, active learning
instructional techniques
Survey items #41-44
Interview items #2, 6
Syllabi review
Core faculty understand and share a common framework of
leadership theories and models in order to provide a structure
for student leadership development
Survey item #13
Interview items #1, 3, 4
Core faculty need to know how to integrate relevant
leadership knowledge and skills using active learning
methods
Survey item #47
Interview item #6
Core faculty need to know how to identify specific and
measurable learning outcomes to access student learning and
program objectives
Survey item #12
Interview items #1, 5
Syllabi review
Core faculty understand their role, knowledge and skills as
leader educators and as role models to students
Survey items #18, 21
Interview items #5, 6
Motivation Core faculty view developing student leadership capacity as a
valuable goal for the School and society
Survey items #7, 9
Interview items #1, 2, 5
Core faculty value their role as mentor and leader educator as
it relates to their own discipline and that their efforts will
produce a positive impact on students’ leadership capacity
Survey items #14, 15, 16, 18
Interview item #5
Core faculty show interest and intrinsic motivation to prepare
students to be leaders and are willing to include leadership
development in their course
Survey items #7-12, 14, 18-
20, 24
Interview items #4, 5
Core faculty are confident in their ability as leader educators
and in the program’s effectiveness
Survey items #14, 18, 24, 45
Interview item #5
Organizational Core faculty have the resources needed to create and/or
participate in leadership development programs
Survey item #21
Interview items #5, 6, 11

Core faculty receive incentives in the form of rewards and/or
recognition of their efforts in student leadership development
Survey items #48, 49
Interview items #6, 11

Core faculty benefit from the alignment of the school’s
mission and culture with undergraduate program goals,
academic and student affairs activities, and student outcomes
Survey items #9-12
Interview items #1, 5, 6, 11

Core faculty benefit from the culture, adaptability and
collaboration of a learning organization to support and
facilitate change
Survey items #13, 46, 47
Interview item #8-11
Document analysis —
Climate survey
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

66
Survey Criteria
Survey criterion 1. Participants were identified from the list of business core courses
(see Appendix A for list) for the 14 semesters between Fall 2012 and Spring 2017 on the
University Class Registration Schedule website that notes the instructor of record for each
course. Each academic department’s administrative coordinator was contacted to confirm the list
was accurate. This assured that the instructors had taught the revised courses that should
explicitly link learning objectives to the Undergraduate Program learning goals.
Survey criterion 2. Each participant had at least two semesters’ experience teaching a
core course from Fall 2012 to Spring 2017. Faculty with more than one semester’s experience
were expected to have more concrete experiences and examples to share with the researcher and
a greater commitment to that core course than a faculty member who had only taught one
semester.
Survey criterion 3. Participants were full-time and “permanent” part-time (adjunct)
instructors at the School. Part-time faculty participants had consistently taught the same course
for at least four consistent semesters implying they are more knowledgeable of the
Undergraduate core program and the West Business School.
Survey Recruitment
Convenience sampling was utilized through recruitment of participants who were readily
accessible and available (Creswell, 2014). Because of the changing nature of faculty course
assignments, the survey was sent to all faculty members to reach as many potentially qualified
participants as possible. An email invitation with a link to the Qualtrics survey of 41 questions
was sent to all 237 full-time and 105 part-faculty in order to reach the pool of 120 faculty
instructors who had taught a core course at least twice since Fall 2012 when the core curriculum
was revised. The initial email was sent on March 9, 2017, with two follow up reminders sent on
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

67
March 16 and March 23. The survey was conducted at the beginning of the data collection
period of the study so as to inform the subsequent qualitative phase that included participant
selection decisions and interview question design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Research on average response rates for online surveys revealed an average rate of 30%
when conducted internally within an organization, with a noted range from 20% to 47% (Baruch
& Holtom, 2008; Nulty, 2008). Multiple strategies were used to reach a target response rate of
30%. Two follow up reminders sent on March 16 and March 23. The survey was anonymous to
protect a participant’s identity (Anseel, Lievens, Schollaert, & Choragwicka, 2010).
Interview Criteria
Interview criterion 1. Aligning with the survey sampling criteria and rationale,
interview participants were full-time clinical or tenure-track faculty who had at least two
semesters of experience teaching a core course in the undergraduate business program and long-
term or more permanent adjunct faculty with at least four semesters of experience teaching a
core course. This approach attempted to capture the detail and diversity of perspectives that core
faculty hold with regard to the knowledge of leadership theory and student leadership identity
development, motivation to incorporate leadership development learning activities in their core
course, and knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of organizational support factors related to the
integration of student leadership development in the undergraduate core business curriculum to
meet the Undergraduate Program’s learning goals.
Interview criterion 2. Faculty were purposefully selected from each of the 12 core
business courses to provide representation across academic departments in order to contribute
richness, breadth with depth, and contribute to reliability and validity. Two faculty instructors
from each course were sought to provide in-depth information and sufficient representation to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

68
address the research question. Names were drawn randomly for each specific course
continuously until two interviews were completed and included the 14 faculty members who
responded they would be willing to participate in an interview at the end of the survey.
Interview criterion 3. Faculty represented different levels of experience, from teaching
two semesters to ten semesters during the 2012–2017 time period. Veteran faculty members
have more tangible experiences and are able to provide a unique perspective than less
experienced faculty. More recent hires have a different way of understanding and experiencing
teaching the core course as well as how it relates to the Undergraduate Program goals. Diversity
was important because understanding these two sub-groups better informs the analysis and
subsequent recommendations that will require the commitment of all faculty teaching in the core.
Interview Recruitment
Through interviewing, participants can share more deeply and in more detail their own
experiences, perceptions, thoughts and feelings, and the meanings they construct of a particular
phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1995). According to Maxwell (2012), it is
generally acceptable to conveniently select participants from the setting or site of a case study.
During the survey phase, 14 faculty instructors who completed the survey indicated that they
were willing to be interviewed. A maximum variation sampling approach (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) was taken to gain broad representative insights from faculty members across academic
departments from each of the 12 core courses. The goal was to interview 24 faculty members,
two from each core course. Email invitations (see Appendix C) were sent to randomly selected
instructors to achieve the representative sample. Because the researcher was familiar with many
core faculty members, every attempt was made to include instructors who were less familiar in
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

69
the sample to reduce any social desirability bias to agree or say something to please the
researcher.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study used an explanatory sequential mixed methods to identify the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that influence faculty in relation to meeting the
Undergraduate Program learning goals related to developing students’ leadership skills.
According to Creswell (2014), an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach permits the
researcher to further explain the initial analysis from the quantitative survey in a more in-depth
and detailed manner using qualitative interviews and document review. A quantitative survey
was utilized to identify knowledge, perceptual and motivation factors discussed and identified
earlier in this chapter that influence how well the School can meet its learning goal to develop
future leaders. In order to explore factors that could facilitate or impede implementing any
recommendations to improve student leadership development at the school, qualitative
interviews were conducted to better understand faculty motivation to change in more depth and
understand if there is sufficient motivation to more effectively meet program learning goals.
Document analysis was conducted to reveal relevant information in the course syllabi that
signaled a faculty instructor’s knowledge or interest in student leadership development as well as
a review of internal documents regarding organizational climate.
This mixed methods research approach allowed for triangulation from multiple data
sources and methods aimed at deepening our understanding of student leadership development at
the Business School as well as core faculty’s knowledge, interest, experience and motivation in
teaching leadership. It helped the researcher to confirm emerging findings by cross-checking
and comparing data collected thus increasing credibility and consistency of the research study
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

70
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Greene (2007), employing multiple methods
incorporates complementarity and expansion that provides a more comprehensive understanding
of the phenomenon under study rather than seeking a narrow view to confirm expectations.
Survey
According to Fink (2015), surveys are appropriate tools to evaluate the effectiveness of a
program as well as a way to obtain information to guide decisions on the future direction of a
program.
Instrumentation. The survey questions reflected the knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors identified and discussed earlier in the chapter and contained 41 items and
eight background questions (see Appendix D). The first set of survey questions asked about a
participant’s views on the mission of the Business School and the Undergraduate Program and
the importance of developing students’ leadership capacity to assess goal alignment. Next, the
participant was asked about their knowledge of specific leadership theories and qualities plus
their experience and expertise in teaching leadership, which is identified as core element of
effective student leadership programs. Since active learning is a recommended pedagogical
approach to teaching leadership, the next set of questions inquired about the experience and
frequency of use of the core course instructor in these methods. These questions were also
designed to reveal interest levels and the value of leadership education that can influence faculty
members’ levels of motivation to engage in meeting the leadership learning goals of the
Undergraduate Program.
The final set of questions assessed organizational factors that contribute to faculty
knowledge, motivation and engagement such as professional development, communication and
collaboration, and recognition and incentives. Demographic information was also collected that
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

71
identify characteristics of the participants and the setting affecting transferability or external
validity as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The results of the survey identified
knowledge, attitudes, and feelings that informed the design of interview questions during the
qualitative phase of this mixed methods study.
Background questions included three descriptive questions that asked what course was
taught and the frequency of teaching the core course since Fall 2012. The additional five
questions asked about age, gender, the number of years teaching, faculty classification and
highest degree achieved for data comparison by group. At the end of survey, faculty were asked
if they would be willing to participate in an interview and provided their contact information
without linking to their survey responses.
Data collection. The self-administered survey instrument was distributed to all full- and
part-time faculty at the West Business School (n=342) in order to efficiently reach those
instructors who met the selection criteria. With a small sample size, it is important to achieve an
adequate response rate by making it easy and convenient for the respondent. An email invitation
was sent to each faculty member’s school email address with an embedded link to an anonymous
Qualtrics online survey. Faculty were asked to respond within two weeks. Qualtrics estimated
that the online survey should take 15 minutes to complete, making it manageable for busy faculty
members. A reminder email was sent one week and two weeks after the invitation was sent. The
data was secured on a password-protected computer not related to the researcher’s organization
to maintain confidentiality.
The survey instrument was purposefully constructed and so it is important to conduct
pilot-tests to strengthen the reliability and validity of the survey instrument prior to being
employed in this study (Fink, 2015). The survey was pilot tested with 3 undergraduate faculty
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

72
members who were not currently teaching core courses but have in the past to ensure the
questions were understandable, useable and would provide information relevant to the constructs
under investigation (Fink, 2015). Their feedback was used to improve the instrument before it
was distributed to the sample population. Reliability as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
is enhanced when results make sense and are consistent.
A total of 34 useable survey responses were received, representing a response rate of
28%, or 34 out of the potential group of 120 faculty who met the selection criteria. Of the 34
useable responses, 8 (23%) were from Business Communications, 3 (9%) were from Business
Analytics and Operations, 6 (18%) were from Finance and Economics, 14 (41%) were from
Management, and 3 (9%) were from Marketing. The high representation from Management and
Organization is likely due to being the researcher’s own department. It would have been
preferred to have the faculty response rates be more closely aligned to the percentage each
academic discipline represents in the Core Curriculum as noted below. Table 6 summarizes the
distribution of responses according to academic department.
The respondents ranged in age from 30 to 72 years. Among the 33 who answered the
demographic questions, 33% were between 30–39 years, 51% were between 40–60 years, and
15% were 60 years or older. The number of years teaching ranges from 48% with 1 to 4 years
experience, 21% with 5 to 10 years experience, and 30% teaching for more than 10 years. Forty-
two percent of the respondents were female. Representation of faculty rank is 15% tenured, 30%
tenure-track, 42% non-tenure track, and 12% part-time/adjunct faculty.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

73
Table 6
Distribution of Survey Responses
Academic Department
Number of core
courses in Core
Curriculum
Percentage of
Core Curriculum
each course
represents
Number of
faculty
responses
Percentage
of total
faculty
responses
Accounting 2 17 0 0
Business
Communications
1 8 8 23
Business Analytics and
Operations
3 25 3 9
Finance and Economics 3 25 6 18
Management 2 17 14 41
Marketing 1 8 3 9
TOTAL 12 100 34 100

Interviews
In the explanatory phase of the study, interviews allowed the researcher to clarify the
findings from the survey in more detail and depth in order to discover the meanings and
perspectives of the participants through their own words and experiences to gain deeper
understanding of their role in developing students’ leadership skills. Insights gained from the
interviews influenced the creation of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the
Undergraduate Program learning goals of building leadership capacity in undergraduate students
(Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2005).
Instrumentation. Leadership development programs are more effective when the
faculty involved are knowledgeable of leadership concepts and theories and motivated to develop
student’s leadership capacity (Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). The
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

74
interview questions were designed to inquire in more depth the faculty member’s knowledge and
perceptions of effective leadership and the process of leadership development. The interview
permitted the researcher to better understand how a core faculty member sees his/her role as
leader educator and explore their motivation and interest in developing student leadership
capacity. Additionally, gaining insight of a faculty member’s perception of organizational
barriers and resources related to leadership development furthered understanding of their
experience of teaching in the core curriculum and the level of knowledge and commitment to
student leadership development.
In this study, formal semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposefully
selected faculty members to elicit a fuller understanding of knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and
experiences of the participants (Weiss, 1995). Interviews were preferred over focus groups since
faculty can be sensitive to discussing their experiences with other faculty because of potential
misunderstanding or judgment. Semi-structured interviews are more flexible to allow the
participant to express their views in their own words and still provide reliable, comparable data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). An interview protocol was used to guide the interviews that
consisted of 12 questions with several probing questions associated with each question (see
Appendix E). The questions were designed to elicit and explore more fluidly participants’
perceptions and experiences around the Undergraduate Program goals, teaching in the core
program, and interest in student leadership development overall at the School. Two pilot
interviews were conducted to ensure questions and probes were clear and understandable and
elicited the information intended to answer the research questions (Maxwell, 2012). The faculty
who engaged in the pilot interviews provided feedback that was used to refine the interview
protocol regarding clarity and suitability of the questions. During the process of interviewing,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

75
the results of the initial individual interviews were used to modify the interview guide in
subsequent sessions to better develop detailed descriptions of the meanings, processes and
actions of the core faculty (Weiss, 1995).
Data collection. Through survey participation or direct email solicitation by the
researcher, faculty members were invited to participate in a phone or in-person 45-minute, semi-
structured interview. Fourteen faculty members volunteered for interviews at the end of the
survey. They were contacted immediately by the researcher to arrange an interview and seven
completed the interview process. In addition, email invitations were sent to randomly selected
core instructors who had taught a core course in the past three years. A number of emails were
sent during the period April 10 – June 10, 2017 in order to interview at least two faculty
instructors from each of the 12 core courses. A total of 17 faculty members agreed to a
telephone or in-person, 45 minute, semi-structured interview. Of these 17 instructors, six
instructors taught more than one of the core courses in their academic department, which enabled
a broader representation across the core courses. Interviews ranged from 50 minutes to two
hours long. With the interviewee’s permission, each interview was recorded and notes were
taken by the researcher during the interview. Upon completion of the interview, each recording
was transcribed, coded and analyzed according to the identified knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Faculty instructors are referred to using
pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality. Table 7 summarizes the distribution of faculty who
were interviewed. The demographic summary for the 17 faculty interviewed is summarized in
Table 8.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

76
Table 7
Distribution of Faculty Interviewed
Core Course Academic Department
Number of faculty
interviewed
Financial Accounting Accounting 3
Managerial Accounting Accounting 3
Business Communication Business Communications 2
Organizational Behavior Management 2
Corporate Finance Finance and Economics 2
Marketing Marketing 2
Statistics Business Analytics and Operations 2
Operations Management Business Analytics and Operations 0
Business Analytics Business Analytics and Operations 1
Strategy Management 2
Microeconomics Finance and Economics 2
Macroeconomics Finance and Economics 2

Table 8
Demographic Distribution of Faculty Interviews
Gender Number of respondents
Female 8
Male 9
Years of teaching experience Number of respondents
More than 10 years 11
5-10 years 3
1-4 years 3
Faculty classification Number of respondents
Tenured 1
Tenure-track 2
Non-tenure track 13
Part-time/adjunct 1
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

77
Documents
As a readily available source of data, public documents are easily obtained and provide
additional evidence in data collection that may reflect a particular point of view, position or
choice of the creator (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A course syllabus is a public
record that includes the course description, course objectives, required texts and readings, course
content and assignments, and methods of assessment (Grunert O’Brien, Millis, Cohen, &
Diamond, 2008). Addtionally, organizational reports were reviewed for data relevant to the
factors under review in this study.
Data collection. A representative sample of course syllabi from Spring 2017 semester
was downloaded from the university website or the West Business School online course
repository site ensuring accuracy and authenticity. During interviews, faculty members
confirmed that the most current version of the syllabus was being reviewed. In total, 53 syllabi
were reviewed. Table 9 reflects the core course and number of syllabi included in this study.
Syllabi were reviewed using a checklist form to reveal any pedagogical approaches,
learning activities and readings that may support the development of leadership knowledge,
skills and abilities or practice of such skills (see Appendix F). The information from the syllabus
provided descriptive information that added to the understanding of the course context, and the
expectations and role of the instructor in student leadership development. Additionally, since the
faculty member teaching the course is knowledgeable of the content in the syllabus, the
researcher used the syllabus as another way to evaluate the level of leadership knowledge the
faculty member possesses. Collecting data from various perspectives promotes validity and
reliability through triangulation (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña, 2014).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

78
Table 9
Number of Core Course Syllabi Reviewed
Course Number of syllabi
Accounting I 6
Accounting II 5
Business Communications 9
Organizational Behavior 1*
Corporate Finance 4
Marketing 4
Statistics 3
Operations 3
Business Analytics 5
Strategy 6
Microeconomics 3
Macroeconomics 4
TOTAL 53
*All sections of the Organizational Behavior course follow the same syllabus

Data Analysis
Upon closing the survey, the response data were downloaded from Qualtrics to a
spreadsheet data file. The data were cleaned to eliminate partial completions and data entry
errors to improve data quality (Rahm & Do, 2000). Descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted on the cleaned survey data. Frequency counts were calculated for ordinal survey
responses. The percentage of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed were presented in
relation to those who strongly disagreed or disagreed. Further analysis was conducted to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

79
compare the frequency counts and averages across core courses, academic departments, and
faculty rank and experience to examine if there were differences across stratified groups.
For interviews and collected documents, data analysis began during data collection
through written analytic memos after each interview to document the researcher’s thoughts,
concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation to the study’s conceptual framework
and research questions. Upon leaving the field, the audio recordings of the interviews were
transcribed through an online third party transcription service and further reviewed for accuracy
by the researcher against notes taken during the interview. In the first phase of analysis, open
coding was completed by looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the
conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori
codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, pattern
codes were identified and emergent themes were constructed in relation to the conceptual
framework and study questions.
Document analysis was completed on the core course syllabi downloaded from the
University or School websites using the checklist described above. Each course syllabus was
reviewed to identify to what degree (high, moderate, low) the course objectives align with the
Undergraduate Program learning goal associated with student leadership skills. Additionally,
leadership-related class session topics, course readings and different learning activities were
tracked using the checklist. Frequencies were calculated and reported to identify differences
between courses and academic departments.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness of a study relies on the researcher maintaining rigor in
research methods as well as interpretation of the data that accurately relate the reality as
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

80
experienced by the participant making the data more authentic and believable (Miles et al.,
2014). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert that researchers maintain credibility by conducting
studies ethically, providing detailed descriptions to show how they arrived at the conclusions,
adopting rigorous and careful design of instruments, and explicitly noting potential biases that
could threaten the validity of the findings. These strategies were followed to increase the
credibility and validity of this study.
As described above, both the survey and interview instruments were pilot tested with
faculty experts in order to increase validity and reliability of the responses. Feedback from the
faculty experts was used to refine the instruments so the questions were clear and generated
accurate responses that were relevant to the study. The quantitative survey was sent to the full
faculty population in order to reach all core instructors to obtain representativeness and a good
response rate. Specific interview selection criteria and a purposive sample aimed to achieve
representativeness from the sample. These strategies contribute to both validity and credibility
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In this study, multiple methods of data collection including quantitative surveys,
qualitative interviews and document review were employed to provide for triangulation of the
data and to provide rich data to ensure validity of the study (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Miles et al., 2014). Additionally, interviews were conducted with faculty from different
disciplines and with different experiences that provided a variety of perspectives related to the
study. Member checking was conducted to assure the participant’s views were clear and
accurate to ensure credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As recommended by Boglan and Biklen (2007), analytic memos were written throughout
the study period to reflect on the data collection process as well as what the data were initially
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

81
revealing. These memos identified and summarized emerging issues, making sure the data being
collected were descriptive, rich data, and if not sufficient, identified what additional data was
needed to answer the research questions. Additionally, a research journal was used for reflective
notes to identify any biases the researcher may have had and note the steps taken to alleviate
them.
Throughout the research process, these strategies of triangulation, adequate engagement
in the data collection, member checks and reflexivity were employed to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness. Results from a qualitative study may not be replicable due to the small sample
size and the organizational context, but a detailed audit trail was used to describe the data
collection process, the various decisions that were made and record issues, ideas or questions that
emerged during the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
An important component of validity and reliability involves the transferability of the
study to guide others in the future and requires the use of a variety of approaches that will
provide a significant amount of detail when discussing the research methods and results
(Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Descriptions of the Business School, the general
profiles of the study participants and the core program are included in the study results in detail
but avoid identifiable characteristics that might risk identification and potential loss of
confidentiality. Direct quotes were utilized to provide rich, thick description to provide evidence
of validity and reliability in terms of transferability. The study included participants who
represented different faculty groups (i.e., clinical/teaching, tenure-track, and tenured) that may
provide a level of diversity and typicality a reader will find useful. As a result, parts of this study
might be extrapolated to help understand how a process or the significant factors might motivate
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

82
and support faculty to adopt any new curricular component into the core curriculum, not only
leadership.
Ethical Considerations
Where there is direct interaction with research study participants, accepted protocols and
ethical principles must be followed to protect human subjects, which contributes further to the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher for this
study received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval through her host institution (UP-17-
00080). The required IRB review and approval process involved an independent committee of
experts who evaluated the proposed study, the benefits and risks to participants, and then
approved the study without alternation contributing to trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The researcher complied with all rules and guidelines regarding the protection of the
rights and welfare of the participants in this study.
Individual informed consent was sought, in writing or orally, to ensure participants were
aware of the following: (1) participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time
without penalty; (2) data and discussions would be kept confidential; (3) benefits and any risks
of participation; and (4) contact information of the researcher in case of questions or concerns
(Glesne, 2011). A statement of consent was placed at the beginning of the online survey with a
button to click agreement. Informed consent forms were given to all participants at the
beginning of each in-person interview that explained their participation and specifically
requested their permission to record these conversations (see Appendix G). In phone interviews,
the researcher read both consent and permission to record statements and the participant was
asked to agree verbally. All transcripts and records of interviews and surveys were securely
stored in a locked file cabinet or password protected computer file. Participants were informed
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

83
that pseudonyms would be used for the University, the Business School as well as with any
quotes used in the findings and recommendations shared with the Undergraduate Program
administrators or published as a dissertation to protect their confidentiality and prevent any harm
from their participation.
The Role of the Researcher
The researcher is the instrument for data collection in a qualitative study and therefore
his/her role, relationship with participants, and biases and assumptions must be made clear
(Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is a full-time member of the
teaching faculty at the Business School. She has been the course coordinator and an instructor
for the core Organizational Behavior course for the past 9 years as well as has previous
experience in other strategic initiatives and executive programs. As such, she has different levels
of relationships with many of the faculty members teaching a core course in their department. It
was made clear to the participants that this research was being conducted as part of the
researcher’s doctoral studies and was not related to her work as an employee of the University, a
core course instructor or coordinator, or as a member of the Undergraduate Core Curriculum
Committee.
The researcher teaches a leadership lesson in the core OB course as well as other courses
on leadership development. This knowledge and experience allowed the researcher, through
comparison as described by Maxwell (2012), to identify leadership concepts and skills that were
not explicitly understood or stated by the participant to clarify explanations or descriptions.
Study participants were selected based on the interview criteria and not influenced by any
relationship with the researcher. Interviews were conducted either in the participant’s office or
on the phone, both neutral locations. During the course of the study, the researcher did her
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

84
utmost to maintain neutrality and assure participants that she was approaching the study first as a
doctoral student but also as a member of the Business School community who is exploring
opportunities for improvement in the Undergraduate Program and not punishment or reprimand
of faculty teaching a core course. The researcher was diligent to make sure the results and
findings of the study represented the authentic voices of the participants by recording interviews
and using a transcription service and checking the results against handwritten interview notes to
assure descriptions were specific, detailed and in their own words.
The researcher has no influence on the evaluation or placement of faculty teaching the
core courses reducing any potential risk or harm perceived by the participant. The researcher
sought to create an open and collegial relationship to promote authentic and truthful engagement
in the interview process in pursuit of honest and truthful responses in interviews. Yet as
Maxwell suggests (2012), the researcher did her best to remain neutral, non-judgmental,
respectful, and aware of reflexivity in this situation in order to uncover and explore valid
perceptions, feelings, beliefs and values of core faculty members.
As a student and instructor of leadership and a core course instructor, the researcher has
developed her own preferences for teaching and learning. She believes faculty do care for their
students’ development of knowledge and experience and most likely do include some level of
leadership in their course but may not make it explicit to the student or to assessment. The
researcher also believes it is important in the core curriculum to instruct students in more general
skills such as critical thinking, research and writing as well as management and leadership skills
that will help students succeed in college and in the workplace. She did her best to stay
conscious of confirmation bias and open-minded to alternative views of a faculty member
teaching a core course. She remained mindful of selection bias in identifying and choosing
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

85
interview participants since she knows a number of faculty members who teach in the core
program. The use of interview selection criteria was designed to address this bias. The
researcher wrote reflective notes after each interview reflecting on her own behavior specifically
seeking where there may have been bias in her comments or behavior. In conducting this study,
the researcher was committed to maintaining the neutrality, open-mindedness and
acknowledging any potential biases in the findings to ensure the reliability, validity and
trustworthiness of the results.
Summary
Chapter Three described the methodology and approach for identifying and assessing the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that influence core faculty members to engage
in student leadership development activities in the undergraduate core curriculum. As described
in Chapter Two, these elements are indicators as to how well the Undergraduate Program is
meeting its learning goal to develop student leadership capacity. In Chapter Four, results and
findings from the survey, interviews and document analysis are shared. Research-based
recommendations drawing on the findings and research literature are discussed in Chapter Five.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

86
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors that influence how faculty teaching the undergraduate core business curriculum engage in
relevant student leadership development activities to meet the West Business School’s learning
goal to develop future leaders. The research questions that have guided this study are the
following:
1. To what extent is the Undergraduate Program meeting its learning goals related to
student leadership development within the core curriculum?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements necessary for core
faculty to successfully integrate student leadership development into the
undergraduate core curriculum to meet program goals?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that facilitate the achievement of this goal?
Based on a thorough review of current literature on undergraduate student leadership
development coupled with learning and motivation theories and contextual knowledge, several
assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences were identified as part of the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework used in this study. This framework allows for
the assessment and potential validation of the influence factors based on quantitative and
qualitative data collected and analyzed in this study (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Miles et al., 2014). This chapter will first discuss the instrumentation used in data collection and
a description of the population sample. The findings and results will then be presented as they
align with the knowledge, motivation and organizational influence factors.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

87
Results and Findings
The data presented below are organized by the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influence type identified in Chapters 2 and 3 and categorized as gap validated, no gap, or unable
to validate. This is supported by data from each instrument — survey, interview and data
analysis. In the data analysis, influence factors were considered validated if over 50% of the data
confirmed the gap and it was confirmed by more than one instrument or if it was confirmed by
80% of the data from one instrument. A validated gap indicates that there is a gap between
necessary knowledge, motivation and/or organizational factors that needs to be addressed in
order for the West Business School Undergraduate Business Program to better meet the learning
goal of developing future leaders. No gap indicates that the influence factor is sufficiently
present to support that the learning goal is being met or that there do exist knowledge, motivation
or organizational assets to meet the learning goal. Unable to validate indicates that there wasn’t
enough data to validate or invalidate a gap and that further study is needed.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Three primary types of knowledge — declarative, procedural and metacognitive —
contribute to performance improvement in order to meet organizational goals (Krathwohl, 2002).
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, faculty members involved in developing students’ leadership
capacity need declarative and procedural knowledge of leadership and student development as
well as metacognitive knowledge of their role and abilities in order to be effective in achieving
the Undergraduate Program goal to develop students as effective business managers and leaders.
Performance goals are unattainable when there is a gap in knowledge and skills (Clark & Estes,
2008). The gap analysis framework offers a format to analyze the stated knowledge influence
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

88
factors, identify gaps and build evidence-based interventions essential to improve performance
and achieve organizational goals.
The assumed knowledge influence factors identified in Chapter Three were assessed
using survey, interview and document analysis data which allowed for triangulation in order to
evaluate the results with more confidence (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The findings and results
are presented below according to each knowledge influence factor by knowledge type —
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive — and by data collection method.
Declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge includes facts and information as well
as principles, theories and frameworks that help organize information into useful application
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Assumed influence #1: Knowledge of leadership theories and relevant leadership skills.
Faculty teaching in the core curriculum need to understand different leadership theories and
models that provide a framework for students to integrate their coursework and experiences to
gain and enact effective leadership skills (Haber, 2011; Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013;
Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Additionally, they should be aware of the
essential leadership skills that employers seek in students (Roberts, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster &
Burkhardt, 2000). This knowledge gap was validated. This factor was assessed using survey,
interview and document review data. While the survey data were inconclusive, interview and
document review data validated that there was a gap in the factual knowledge of leadership
theories and relevant leadership skills necessary to effectively meet the Undergraduate Program
leadership learning goal and meet employers’ needs.
Survey results. Question 14, “Leadership skill building is included in the concepts I teach
in my core course” assumes an instructor would have knowledge of leadership theories and skills
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

89
to teach them to students. Of the 33 responses to this question, 70% agreed that they build
leadership skills among the concepts they teach in their core course. However, those instructors
(23) represent less than half of the core courses. Twenty-one of the respondents teach Business
Communications, Organizational Behavior and Leadership, Marketing Fundamentals, and
Strategy which are more qualitative courses that typically include leadership topics regardless of
the stated program learning goal (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Responses to question 14 by academic departments

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

90
However, two instructors teaching Strategy responded “Neither Agree nor Disagree.”
The other two instructors who agreed with this statement are teaching Macroeconomics and have
more experience interacting with students. Each one is tenured with a PhD and has been
teaching for more than 10 years. As one Finance professor noted, “It is not my field.” A
Microeconomics instructor shared, “My course is about learning basic economic principles and
is more technical in nature. It’s not about working with others or leading.” The difference
between how instructors of qualitative courses and quantitative courses may be explained by
different levels of knowledge of the leadership skills required for business undergraduates to
succeed in the workplace.
When analyzed at the course level, of the 12 core courses, it can be said that 42%
included leadership skill building, 33% did not include leadership skills and the remaining 25%
courses were not represented in the survey data. The courses including leadership were Business
Communications, Organizational Behavior, Marketing Fundamentals, Strategic Management and
Macroeconomics. The core courses not including leadership skills were Statistics, Business
Analytics and Microeconomics. Core courses in accounting and operations management are not
represented in the survey data. Although in an email from an instructor of BUAD 311
Operations Management, the instructor stated, “objectives of the course do not include anything
remotely related to leadership” (Morris, personal communication, May 24, 2017). While
leadership skill building is evident in the qualitative core courses, these courses represent less
than 50% of core courses. However, if a hallmark of an effective student leadership program is
the integration of leadership knowledge and skill building across the curriculum by
knowledgeable faculty then this assumed influence is lacking among faculty teaching in the
Undergraduate Core Curriculum. The gap is validated.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

91
In the survey when asked if “Employers seek graduates who possess strong leadership
skills” (Question 16), 85% agreed with this statement. As discussed below in the interview data,
not all faculty members had current or firsthand knowledge of what leadership skills employers
seek.
Interview. Interview data validated the gap in knowledge of leadership frameworks and
skills. Of the 17 instructors interviewed, 76% admitted that they are not familiar with any
specific leadership theories or concepts. Nearly half (47%) admitted they don’t think about it
because it’s “not my field” or “it’s not really the focus of our thing.” An Economics instructor
remarked, “I’m very aware of how people deal with others and stuff. But I don’t know the
theory behind things but . . . I mean actually maybe I should learn.” The four instructors who
responded that they are familiar with specific leadership theories or specific leadership scholars
were members of the Management department where this knowledge is part of their training,
academic discipline and what they teach in their core course.
Several instructors (9 of 17) acknowledged that they should be more aware noting that
they have read some articles on leadership but not specifically student leadership development.
As one respondent who teaches Microeconomics put it, “Quite frankly, honestly no. Even
though I have read some leadership books here and there.”
Of those interviewed, only 35% had direct knowledge of what skills employers seek in
undergraduates. Of those, instructors in the Accounting department referred to communicating
directly with accounting firms, young alumni and corporate advisory boards that keep them
informed of key skills needed in the accounting field. As one of the ACCT 280 instructors put it,
“They [students] need to get up to speed on technology. There hasn’t been as much from them
[employers] on terms of leadership or interpersonal skills.” Several instructors referred to their
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

92
own previous professional work experience or outside speakers when discussing the type of
leadership skills students should have. A Business Communications instructor described how he
brings in guest speakers from the business world but remarked, “I think I have some anecdotal
findings or at least personal conclusions about what they [employers] value and what they might
not or what they would want to see our students accomplish as from here.” However, this
information is anecdotal, some of it dated and may not be relevant today. A long-term ECON
352 instructor remarked, “Only through what my other colleagues tell me. And usually what the
Deans tell me so so [sic] not personally. It’s almost hearsay.” Another characteristic comment
was made by a BUAD 310 Statistics: “I don’t hear as much now about undergrads.” With 65%
of instructors interviewed not having current knowledge of what leadership skills employers
need in undergraduates, the interview data validates the gap in knowledge of specific leadership
theories and of the leadership skills employers look for in recent graduates.
It is important to note that while there is a lack of factual knowledge of leadership
theories and accurate information about employers’ needs described in the interviews, when
provided with a list of leadership skills in the survey, faculty responses showed a consensus
around three key leadership abilities — critical thinking, communication, and collaboration —
that are frequently noted in recent surveys of employers (AAC&U, 2015; Ananiadou & Claro,
2009). There may be prior knowledge that may just need updating to leverage as an asset in an
integrated leadership development program.
Document review. A document review was conducted to identify if leadership skills
and/or theories were noted in the most recent syllabi in each of the core courses acknowledging
that the instructors would have knowledge of leadership theories and skills in order to teach the
topics. Specific areas of review included first identifying the rating of low, medium or high on
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

93
the Undergraduate Program Goal #4 (developing student leaders) and then reviewing the course
learning objectives, assigned readings and student assignments that explicitly mention leadership
or leadership skills.
Among the 12 core courses, only 2 courses or 16% rated High as to meeting the Core
Program Learning Goal #4 and included Organizational Behavior and Operations Management.
It should be noted that Operations Management explicitly linked specific course learning goals
on teamwork, understanding other functional areas, decision-making and the role of operations
managers to the sub-goals of Program Goal #4. Student assignments included several team
activities but there was no mention of how these activities are supported by the instructor or by
readings about teamwork or leading in teams. Nor is there any description in the syllabus of how
the team skills are assessed which would require some knowledge of team skills, which are a
component of leadership capacity (Bass, 1991; Northouse, 2015). In Organizational Behavior,
the first course learning objective stated students will be “developing the behavioral skills you
need to be a successful leader of yourself and others, including working in teams” (CORE 4
Syllabus, Spring 2017). Team skills and leading effective teams were concepts taught in a
separate learning module and assessed using a formal peer evaluation process and instructor
observation in the classroom with quantitative and qualitative feedback provided back to the
student. Fundamental leadership theories were presented in class and students take personal
leadership skill assessments as homework assignments. The syllabus noted specific readings
related to team and leadership skills. The organizational behavior instructors were
knowledgeable in these theories and facilitate student discussions to develop personal leadership
plans.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

94
Three courses, Macroeconomics, Marketing Fundamentals and Strategic Management,
rated their coverage of the leadership program goal as Medium. Macroeconomics core course
included presentations by small teams on a current event topic relevant to the course concepts.
Both Marketing Fundamentals and Strategic Management courses included a larger team project
that includes confidential peer evaluation and instructor observation of team dynamics of the
group. As one instructor of Strategic Management noted in his syllabus, “Participation on a team
provides you with an opportunity to lead.” But none of the course syllabi included any specific
readings related to team and/or leadership skills.
Six other courses in accounting (2 courses), economics, finance, statistics and business
analytics (50%) rated their coverage as Low. The Business Communications course varied in
their coverage depending on the instructor. The majority of Business Communications syllabi
rated coverage as low but two instructors rated it as high and included specific leadership skill
building activities in their course syllabi. Again, no specific readings on leadership appeared in
any of the syllabi for these six courses.
Only Organizational Behavior had a clear learning objective the development of
leadership knowledge and skills. But it is evident from reading the syllabi more carefully that
there was some leadership skill building going on in nearly half of the core courses even if it is
not explicitly noted as such in the course learning goals. For example, nearly every West core
course had some type of team assignment as described above. Topics such as communication
skills and influence were components of Business Communications courses. Team
collaboration, communication and influence skills are identified as leadership skills by
employers (AAC&U, 2015). However, given that the majority of the courses did not explicitly
mention leadership development as a primary objective of the course and faculty did not include
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

95
specific learning activities or readings, it is unlikely that the instructors possess the level of
knowledge to teach leadership skills effectively.
Summary. Triangulating the data results of the survey questions, interviews and
document review a gap in faculty knowledge of leadership theories and relevant leadership skills
exists. From the survey data and document review, it is evident that less than half of the required
core courses included leadership topics or skill building indicating that faculty instructors likely
do not have the knowledge to teach these topics. Interview data confirms that the majority of
core instructors (76%) are not knowledgeable of leadership theories or concepts.
Assumed influence #2: Knowledge of student leadership identity. A student’s leader
identity and view of leadership assumes leadership development can be taught and learned, and
is influenced by interactions with peers, faculty members and other adults (Komives et al., 2005).
When core instructors understand the process of leader identity development, they are more
likely to know how to create engaging and supportive learning environments and experiences
that are effective in guiding students through the progression from novice to experienced leader.
Instructors would be more likely to serve as mentors and role models to further an undergraduate
student’s confidence and self-awareness. Additionally, a core instructor knowledgeable of leader
identity development would understand the importance of experiences such as well-structured
teamwork and effective feedback and explicitly guide students’ development. The data suggests
that respondents engage with students less often rather than more reducing opportunities to
mentor students. Respondents also assume a more laissez-faire approach and lack the knowledge
to create learning environments that effectively support and guide leader identity development in
team projects. Survey and interview data were used to validate this knowledge gap.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

96
Survey results. When asked if leadership can be learned and developed, 97% of faculty
who responded agreed and only one instructor neither agreed nor disagreed. Instructors were
also asked how often they engaged in discussions with undergraduate students outside the
classroom in a typical semester. Only 37% of faculty engaged with students on topics typically
associated with mentoring selecting often or very often. Far fewer engaged in discussions on
leadership challenges with 12% of respondents selecting often or very often. This data is
represented in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Results of survey question 45: Frequency of core instructor engagement with students
in a typical semester

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

97

Figure 5. Results of survey question 45: Frequency of topics core instructors discuss with
students in a typical semester

Teamwork is an active learning activity that fits within the leader identity development
framework. Successful learning from teamwork requires structure and guidance from the
instructor and without support student learning is impeded (Ettington & Camp, 2002; Hughes &
Jones, 2011; Michaelson & Black, 1994). Of faculty respondents, 85% assigned a team project
in their course. The way that teams were assigned illustrates a more laissez-faire role that faculty
assume during group work. Only 31% of respondents assigned teams using specific criteria.
The remaining 69% did not assign teams with any apparent formal intent. Nineteen percent
assigned teams randomly and 50% allowed students to form their own teams. Additionally, there
was little support or follow-up after students are formed into teams. Only 43% of respondents,
which was fairly evenly distributed across courses, required teams to meet with them during the
project. Thus, 57% of instructors did not require students to check in with them regarding their
progress or any other team issues. This data is represented in Figures 6 and 7.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

98

Figure 6. Results of survey question 33: How instructors assign students to teams

Figure 7. Results of survey question 35: Faculty support during team projects

Randomly assign
students
19%
Assign using
specific criteria
31%
Students form
their own teams
50%
Q33. How do you assign students to teams?
(n=26)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

99
Learning identity development requires students to grow in self-awareness (Komives et
al., 2005). Team projects provide the opportunity for self-assessment and peer evaluation that
can contribute to self-awareness and leadership growth. Core instructors were asked if they
conducted student self-assessment and peer evaluations in the team projects that are assigned
(Survey Questions 36–39). The majority of respondents, 75%, indicated that students were
required to complete a self-assessment of their team experience. The data also showed that 75%
of core instructors assigned peer evaluations for student teamwork. These were not all the same
faculty who required self-assessments since, of the 75%, one instructor assigned a self-
assessment without requiring peer evaluations and one does the opposite, assigned peer
evaluations without self-assessments. What is most interesting is that 63% of the faculty using
self-assessments and peer evaluations were unsure that students understand the value of these
assignments in developing their leadership skills (Question 40). Yet, if instructors designed and
managed the self-assessment and peer evaluation process more intentionally and actively, one
might expect these activities to clearly and unequivocally contribute to a student’s leader identity
development.
While core instructors believe leadership can be taught and learned, they did not
demonstrate the knowledge or behavior that would contribute to a student’s leader identity and
leadership development. There appeared to be little consideration of how the formation of teams
can contribute to effective learning and development. Once teams are formed, the majority of
respondents did not require meetings with teams that would engage them in review and reflection
of their team experience. The majority of respondents were unable to state that students
understand the value of experiences such as self-assessments and peer evaluations that contribute
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

100
to student leader identity development. The survey data revealed a knowledge gap that was
further explored in the interviews.

Figure 8. Results of survey question 40: Instructors are unsure that students understand the value
of peer evaluations

Interviews. Faculty instructors were asked directly in Interview Question 2 to identify
experiences, knowledge and skills to prepare students as leaders to discern their knowledge of
the principles of student leader identity development such as engaging in groups and developing
self awareness through formal and informal feedback (Komives et al., 2005).
Competency in the discipline was cited by nearly all instructors (14 of 17) as important to
preparing student leaders. Students “need competency before one can lead” stated a tenured
Economics professor. An instructor teaching accounting noted there has to be a certain level of
competence in accounting and other business functions in order to be an effective leader,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

101
remarking, “You get A’s in every class, you gain the respect of every single person in that field
and they make you the leader and they look up to you.” Competency is an important element of
effective leadership, but leader identity development relies on reflection, feedback and support of
mentors and role models such as core faculty members, peers and other adults to further one’s
view as a leader.
Structured activities such as group projects, self and peer evaluations, and journaling can
provide opportunities for critical reflection and feedback. Fifteen of seventeen instructors
identified team experiences as important to leadership development. Student clubs (12 of 17)
and internships (6 of 17) were also mentioned. Only one Organizational Behavior instructor
discussed the potential to integrate all of these learning experiences in the classroom: “I see a lot
of overlap where there’s potential there.” About a third (5 of 17) of those interviewed provided
explicit guidance to facilitate a student’s self-awareness and leader identity growth from the team
or group experiences in their courses. These five instructors teach Strategy (1), Organizational
Behavior (1), Business Communications (2) and Macroeconomics (1) and all have professional
experience outside of academia. As noted in the survey results, group projects or presentations
are assigned but interviews confirmed there is little or no time allotted for formative reflection,
self-evaluation and feedback, and evaluations are due almost always after the project has ended.
One marketing professor stated, “in my class the team activities are mostly ad hoc,” an opinion
shared by eight instructors interviewed who did not supervise or provide feedback to student
working on team projects. When used, peer evaluations were treated primarily as summative
evaluation leaving students to interpret the impact on their leadership development on their own
without guidance or feedback. Only three faculty members, all part of the Management
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

102
department, discussed supporting students in their self-awareness through reflection and
feedback, primarily focusing on developing emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence is distinct from personality and intelligence (i.e., competency) in
leadership effectiveness. Competency or IQ serves as a threshold or floor effect, something
required to achieve and maintain a position in the workplace, but emotional intelligence “matters
greatly in selecting, promoting and developing leaders” (Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, &
Weissberg, 2006). Self-awareness is a central tenet of emotional intelligence. In three instances,
faculty members discussed developing emotional intelligence, a central element to effective
leadership that has self-awareness as its first tenet (Goleman, 2006). One strategy professor
noted “if we can create some framework or concrete way of helping students evaluate their own
progress of their demonstrated leadership capabilities [self-awareness], if that makes sense I
think it actually helps reinforce ‘hey I’m getting better at this’.” A highly experienced strategy
professor with extensive business experience invests time during the class for students to develop
emotional intelligence by incorporating feedback and reflection into assignments. More faculty
reflected the sentiment made by an operations instructor, “There are so many goals you are
trying to achieve that I’m not sure that actually learning about themselves or group dynamics
comes out ahead.”
Document review. Fifty-three syllabi from the Spring 2017 semester were reviewed
representing all twelve core courses. As part of an Undergraduate program goal to develop team
skills, there were team projects or assignments in nearly every core course. Eleven of twelve
courses included some type of group or team project but only two courses, Organizational
Behavior and Strategy, included activities that would demonstrate knowledge of leader identity
development such as peer evaluations and student feedback on leadership or teaming skills.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

103
According to the syllabus, the Strategy course used peer evaluations to adjust the student’s grade
on the team project based on their contribution and/or behavior which is a more summative
approach than the formative approach LID suggests. Although one strategy course taught by a
senior faculty member who identified strongly with being a leader educator included specific
language with regard to peer evaluation:
A careful reflection of each team member’s quality and quantity of contribution is
important. This is also a learning opportunity and I encourage you to share your
feedback with group members in a positive way to assist learning about working in
groups. We will provide some time in class to have these feedback conversations as well.
Thoughtful peer evaluations form an important part of your grade . . . all students should
include specific comments on strengths and areas for improvement.
Organizational Behavior had students use the feedback to engage in several specific
learning activities with their teammates to discuss how to improve their teaming and leadership
skills which demonstrated knowledge of how leadership identity develops.
Summary. Student leader identity development relies on a construct of developmental
influences that include adult and peer influences, meaningful involvement and reflective learning
that promote growth in self-awareness and confidence required of a leader (Komives et al.,
2005). The survey, interview and document analysis data revealed that core faculty did not have
the knowledge to effectively structure course activities such as team work and self and peer
evaluations to promote and assess individual leadership development. Instructors were not
engaging students in mentoring conversations that have positive impact on leader identity
development. They also had a limited view of what type of experiences students should have to
develop their leader identity. Thus, the gap is validated.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

104
Assumed influence #3. Core faculty need to know student-center, active learning
instructional techniques. To effectively promote student leadership capacity, core instructors
need to be familiar with a variety of teaching and learning techniques in order to create an
engaging learning environment for student leadership development (Haber, 2011; Haber-Curran
& Tillapaugh, 2013). The data confirm there is no gap in this knowledge factor.
Survey results. The data show that of the 33 respondents who completed this question,
97% used active learning techniques in their course. Collaborative and cooperating learning
techniques are also used by a majority of faculty respondents, 91% and 64% respectively. Each
of these instructional methods is an effective tool to integrate experiential and reflective learning
activities to develop or reinforce a student’s leadership skill development (Brungardt, 1996;
HERI, 1996; Komives et al., 2009; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Additionally,
respondents were confident in applying active, collaborative and cooperative learning
techniques. This was not surprising since the West Business School has sponsored several
faculty workshops on this topic and has an on-staff instructional designer to assist faculty as
needed.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

105

Figure 9. Results of survey questions 41–43: Core faculty use of different types of learning
techniques

Figure 10. Results of survey question 44: Core faculty confidence levels in using different types
of learning techniques

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

106
Interviews. The Undergraduate Program has focused on instilling active learning
components into each of the core classes for the past several years. There have been workshops,
expert guest speakers and individual coaching sessions with the School’s instructional designer
to support this initiative. It is no surprise that all of the instructors interviewed used active
learning techniques in their core course that ranged from in-class problem sets and group work,
team projects and presentations, to role plays and simulations. The more quantitative courses
such as Accounting, Business Finance, Economics, Statistics, Data Analysis and Operations
Management had fewer active learning activities and focused primarily on a team project and/or
presentation. An Economics professor remarks are representative of other quantitative
instructors’ when she said,
Well I think that’s how we got to the presentations thing. I mean Evelyn [instructional
designer] came and gave me a lot of feedback. So that was more like bringing in real
world events that came through the presentations. Every year you would pick a topic.
Statistics and Operations Management instructors were also assisted by the instructional designer
in developing problem sets for students to complete in pairs or small groups in class.
Instructors in Communication Strategy, Organizational Behavior, Marketing and
Strategic Management courses utilized active learning more frequently and had a broader variety
of assignments including interactive exercises conducted in a separate experiential learning lab.
An Organizational Behavior instructor explained one of several in-class active learning activities
he uses:
In one module, we have to do some sort of acting out of a persuasion skit. The prompt I
ended up using was getting people to adopt more shelter animals. They would come up
in front of the class and prepare for 5 or 10 minutes beforehand and have a pitch. And
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

107
then we vote. They can be kind of silly. But we’re also interested in which one of these
is the most persuasive pitch and see the class concepts come to life more than just being
on the slides or in the case or telling them or them reading about it.
Interview data validated that there is no gap in this factor.
Document review. Review of representative syllabi from each of the 12 core courses
confirmed that the majority of West Business School undergraduate core instructors were
familiar with active learning techniques, including them in their course. However, not all
instructors of a particular course included active learning exercises. Business Finance had only 1
of 4 instructors who listed a group presentation as an active learning assignment in the syllabus.
Microeconomics also had only 1 faculty instructor who specified a group presentation, a
common active learning exercise. The other instructors of Corporate Finance and
Microeconomics did not include any discussion of specific active learning activities and mention
only lecture, quizzes, homework and exam scores in their syllabus. The other quantitative
courses (Statistics, Operations, Accounting, Business Analytics) all included application
exercises, team projects and/or presentations demonstrating their adoption of active learning in
their courses. All of the other courses also included group projects, group exercises, simulations,
interactive exercises and/or presentations. Ten of the 12 core courses or 83% had all the
instructors using active learning teaching methods. This data confirm there is no gap in active
learning knowledge.
Summary. Based on survey results, interview results and document review there was no
gap in knowledge of active learning instructional techniques.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

108
Assumed influence #4. Core faculty understand and share a common framework of
leadership theories and models in order to provide a structure for student leadership
development. Effective leadership programs are grounded in a common framework and clearly
defined organizational values and assumptions (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen,
2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). A common framework provides knowledge,
structure and consistency in a formal leadership program allowing instructors to create and
coordinate relevant activities, and assess learning outcomes more efficiently. This contributes to
more specificity in the evaluation of program effectiveness. Survey and interview data was used
to validate this influence factor. There was no common framework or model shared across core
courses, such as the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, Five Practices of
Exemplary Leadership, Strengths-based Leadership, the Relational Model of Leadership.
However, given the broad agreement on leadership skills related to teamwork which was present
in a number of existing leadership development frameworks, the opportunity exists to identify
common framework that builds on these shared skills.
Survey results. Question 13 asked instructors to select the top five personal leadership
skills, abilities or characteristics they believe are most necessary for college graduates to be
effective leaders. The level of agreement on a core set of skills would indicate the level of
agreement or commonality among skills that could then be associated with a specific model or
framework.
A large majority of 82% selected critical thinking as the top skill for effective leaders.
This was not unexpected since the Undergraduate Program has been emphasizing critical
thinking development for the past three years and was likely front of mind with faculty
instructors. Within the context of leadership, critical thinking is associated with effective
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

109
decision making and understanding the impact as it relates to organizational goals and
accountability for results.
It is noteworthy that among the top ten skills and abilities selected by respondents, many
were associated with effective teamwork that requires communication (62%), collaboration
(56%), influence others (47%), resolve conflict (26%), and accountability (24%). Ethical
behavior, selected by 21% of respondents rounded out the top ten list of leadership skills.
Agreement of over 50% on the top three leadership skills provides a reasonable foundation for an
effective leadership development program. Data from the interviews contributes further the
validation of this factor. This data is presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Results of survey question 13: Top ten leadership skills, abilities and characteristics
selected by core instructors

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

110
Interview. Interview data revealed that there was little knowledge of specific leadership
models or shared frameworks to provide a structure for student leadership development. The
majority (13 of 17) were not aware of any formal leadership concepts or theories. A view
expressed by an economics instructor is representative: “Not really. But I don’t think its
application is very large in what I teach.” Of the 17 instructors interviewed, only those teaching
Organizational Behavior and Strategy described specific leadership models taught in their course
which is not surprising given it is central in that discipline.
Faculty instructors come to their knowledge of leadership primarily from their personal
experiences and not formal education. An economics professor shared that she got “bits and
pieces” from her husband who tells her about motivational and leadership books he is reading.
She admits that she is more of an observer of human behavior and has developed her knowledge
of leadership from this experience. As one management instructor put it, “I could list the
literature but it’s a compilation of practical experience, years steeped in this [teaching and
consulting] and literature . . . it’s a cumulative compilation.”
Summary. Based of survey results and interview findings, a gap is validated given that
there is no common or shared framework of leadership models or theories. While there is no
common leadership framework or model, survey and interview findings confirmed there was a
consensus around some key teamwork skills that appear in many if not all of the common
leadership frameworks used with college students (i.e., Five Exemplary Practices of Leadership,
Relational Leadership Model, Social Change Model of Leadership). These included critical
thinking, communication, collaboration, conflict management, influence/persuasion, and
delivering results. The knowledge gap is validated but data suggest there is a foundation for
closing this gap.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

111
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge, the knowledge of how to do something,
is necessary for faculty to teach or promote leadership knowledge and skills, and assess the
effectiveness of specific learning activities or pedagogical approaches to meet the school’s
mission to develop global leaders (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; CAS, 2012).
Assumed influence #5. Core faculty need to know to integrate relevant leadership
knowledge and skills using active learning methods across the core curriculum. Integrated and
interactive formats are effective methods of promoting leadership learning in an undergraduate
program (Komives et al., 2011; Kuh, 2008; Owen, 2012). In the results described above, it was
clear that respondents were knowledgeable of different active learning methods that create
interactive and potentially engaging learning environments. In order to integrate leadership
knowledge and skills effectively across the core curriculum, faculty need to have relationships
and contact with other core faculty where they can coordinate different type of activities that
create a sustainable and successful integrated program that begins in the core curriculum and can
then expand to include co-curricular experiences. This influence was evaluated using survey and
interview data.
Survey results. Survey question 47 asked how often s/he communicates with core course
instructors in other academic departments about course-related matters. Of the 33 respondents,
39% replied they never communicate with other core instructors outside their department.
Fifteen (15%) percent replied once a year, which means that 58% of respondents did not have
regular contact with other core faculty members. Of the remaining 42%, contact was 21% once a
semester, 12% a few times a semester and only 9% indicated they communicated once a month
or more. Faculty instructors did not have the experience or opportunity to learn how to integrate
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

112
leadership learning activities across the core curriculum. The survey results are represented in
Figure 12 and illustrate a gap in this knowledge.

Figure 12. Results of survey question 47: How often faculty communicate with core course
instructors in other academic departments

Interview. Faculty were asked to describe their role as a core instructor in their
department and their connection to other core instructors in other departments to determine how
able they are at integrating relevant leadership knowledge into active learning activities across
the core curriculum (Interview Question 6). All faculty remarked that they had very collegial
relationship with their peer core instructors teaching the same course. They shared resources
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

113
such as slides, cases and teaching notes and will reach out to a colleague with a question
regarding content as well as student issues. As a Business Communications instructor stated,
There is some attempt though to collaborate on assignments and to share presentation
assignments that work well save for one of us. Or we might want to make our colleagues
aware of it if it’s new or different or something they may not be familiar with.
Core instructors relied on the core course coordinator (i.e., lead instructor) for the
common syllabus and appreciate their support. A marketing instructor remarked about her core
coordinator, “He’s just absolutely vital and invaluable to how I teach the core.” It was at the
intra-departmental level where core instructors collaborate and integrate topics and assignments
to make sure that there is consistency across sections taught by different faculty.
The majority of faculty (13 of 17) interviewed did not have relationships with other core
instructors outside their departments that would illustrate integration across core courses
interdepartmentally. As one Organizational Behavior professor with 10 years experience
teaching in the core stated, “I’ve never talked to anyone else teaching other core classes.” An
economics professor noted,
I don’t think naturally there is a way for us to interact. I mean we have our own courses
and stuff. I mean I think those are good to share experiences but they’re also good to get
them connect as a community.
It is important to note that there was no animosity among faculty when discussing this
topic. As a whole, instructors felt collegial toward their colleagues in different departments but
had little opportunity to interact or collaborate. This was summed up by a comment from an
accounting professor: “I think we all work and play well together.”
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

114
Instructors were asked about their previous efforts to integrate specific topics or themes
into the Undergraduate core curriculum. Overall, more than half (10 of 17) felt that the effort
was less than successful primarily due to a lack of support and follow-through. Instructors
acknowledged that it was sometimes easier to integrate themes when there were more explicit
connections. “It fits really easily in my discipline,” said an economic professor with regard to
the Undergraduate program goal to promote global perspectives. About half of the 17 instructors
also noted it would be easier if there was a toolkit and/or specific examples of how to integrate
topics into their course but felt this was lacking in previous curriculum changes.
Few instructors interviewed interacted with student services professionals to integrate
leadership learning across curricular and co-curricular domains. An accounting professor
worked directly with firms and not the student career office when discussing what skills are
needed for a student to be a good job candidate. Of the 17 interviewed, only 7 have been
involved with co-curricular activities such as student lunches, student clubs or study abroad
programs. As one business analytics instructor remarked about expectations for a core
instructor, “They do not include doing things for the undergraduate curriculum. They only
include things for teaching that core class.” A senior faculty member discussed the need for
coordination between curricular and co-curricular activities suggesting that “leadership building
blocks” might be helpful but “it’s one more thing that faculty have to think about.”
An interesting finding emerged from the interviews. Nearly all instructors interviewed
mentioned team projects and presentations in their courses and subsequently complained about
the conflicts and issues that arise that they would like to avoid. Only 3 instructors mentioned
referring to the effective teaming skills that are taught in the Organizational Behavior core course
or the presentation skills taught in the Business Communications core course. The others
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

115
assumed students remember or will apply what they learned from previous courses. Instructors
in the management department who teach Strategy were most familiar with the teaming skills
taught in Organizational Behavior. This may be one area where integrating leadership skills
would be of benefit to core instructors and students to reduce the conflicts in team situations.
Summary. Core instructions know how to integrate topics and assignments in their own
core course but need support to do so with themes or topics that are not familiar. Previous
efforts to integrate common themes in the Undergraduate core curriculum lacked the support and
follow through to provide instructors with the procedural knowledge to do so successfully.
Based on survey results and interview findings, there was a lack of coordination and integration
across core courses that impedes effective student leadership development. The gap is validated.
Assumed influence #6. Core faculty need to know how to identify specific and
measurable learning outcomes to access student learning and program objectives. Successful
leadership development programs or initiatives have clear learning goals aligned with the
mission of the school, or in this case the Undergraduate Program Learning Goals. The
assessment of student learning and program outcomes are essential to effective leadership
programs as well as contributing to the strategic planning required to meet institutional mission
and goals (AACSB, 2018; CAS, 2012; Eich, 2008; Ewell, 2002; Owen, 2012). West Business
School faculty have been provided with a number resources, from workshops to web links to
individual consultations, on how to create appropriate learning goals for their individual courses.
However, there was less discussion and support in how to align learning goals and learning
assessments to Undergraduate Program Learning Goals. This process was begun in 2014 and
continues to develop. With regard to the procedural knowledge influence, instructors knew how
to identify and specify specific course-related learning outcomes. However based on the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

116
interview results and document review of course syllabi, there was inconsistency in how
instructors relate course learning outcomes to student leadership program learning outcomes
among the different courses in the undergraduate core curriculum. The gap is validated.
Survey results. Of the 34 respondents, 67% agree with Question 12, “The learning
objectives in my core course align with the Undergraduate Program learning goal to develop
students’ leadership skills.” Of the remaining respondents, 15% disagreed and 18% selected
Neither Agree nor Disagree, which may indicate that the instructor did not know the answer or
did not care about the topic. These results are illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Results of survey question 12: The learning objectives in my core course align with
the Undergraduate Program learning goal to develop students’ leadership skills

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

117
Faculty knew how to identify learning outcomes in their core course. However, the
course representation of this result showed an unbalanced and inconsistent picture. The 67% (23
of 34) who agreed or strongly agreed include instructors from 6 of the 12 core courses —
Business Communications (7), Organizational Behavior (7), Marketing (2), Strategic
Management (5) and 1 instructor each from Business Analytics and Macroeconomics —
primarily representing more qualitative courses. Respondents who disagreed and did not have
learning objectives that align with Program Learning Goal #4 teach the following courses:
Macroeconomics (1), Microeconomics (2), Business Analytics (1) and one instructor from
Business Communications — mainly representing more quantitative courses. Of the remaining
who neither agreed nor disagreed, these instructors taught Strategic Management (2), Finance
(1), Statistics (1), Microeconomics (1) and Marketing (1). One would expect instructors teaching
the same core course would respond similarly to this question since consistency in learning
experience is valued by accreditors and learning experts (AACSB, 2018; Ewell, 2002).
Evaluating this data further by averaging responses by course, 33% of the core courses
represented in this survey included learning outcomes related to student leadership development
at the program level (Program Goal #4). Based on the survey results, 42% of the core courses
represented did not support Program Learning Goal #4 to develop student leadership. Of the 12
core courses, 3 or 25% were not represented in this data but were evaluated in the document
review. Based on this analysis, 67% of the core courses did not align their learning outcomes
with Program Learning Goal #4 to develop students as future business leaders. This may
indicate that instructors are not certain of how to identify or clarify meaningful student
leadership learning outcomes in their courses. This data is shown in Table 10.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

118
Table 10
Response to Survey Question 12 by Core Course Responses
Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree Disagree
Not Represented
in the survey data
Business Communications
Marketing
Organizational Behavior
Strategy
Corporate Finance
Macroeconomics
Statistics
Business Analytics
Microeconomics
Accounting I
Accounting II
Operations

Interview findings. As mentioned above, the West Business School provides a variety of
resources to train faculty on how to create effective learning objectives for their courses. It was
evident from the interview data that the educational specialist had worked with the instructor or
their core coordinator to develop clear and measurable learning outcomes for all of the core
courses. All instructors were familiar with how to create learning objectives for their specific
course. But there was less consensus around how to align Undergraduate Program learning goals
with the course learning outcomes.
Within the context of the core curriculum, instructors are required to include a description
of how the course learning objectives align with the Undergraduate Program Learning Goals by
level — low, medium or high — in the form of a chart in the syllabus. In the course of the
interviews, it was clear that all instructors understood they needed to include the Undergraduate
Project learning goals chart in their syllabi. Yet, there was no consistent way that instructors
approached this task represented by the comments below. A strategy professor with 2 years
experience stated,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

119
I asked a couple questions around what am I responsible to make sure the students walk
out of my classroom with, from a West Business School standpoint and from a university
standpoint . . . . Our course core coordinator showed me a kind of a matrix chart . . . it’s
clear cut. Here are some specific pillars that you know your students need to walk out
with relative to other faculty in their respective departments.
Some faculty reviewed the program learning goals as they were considering what
learning activities to include in their course. A statistics professor sounded frustrated when he
remarked,
You are expected as an instructor to look at the goals and say, OK I think this is how
we’re going to put into practice . . . So the onus is on the instructor to think through like
you know what are the materials I should have, how do I balance that.
A marketing professor said, “When I’m designing or editing or tweaking a syllabus, I
keep them kind of off on the side to make sure I’m hitting a few of them.” It appears that core
instructors took an ad hoc approach to how to relate student outcomes to program goals.
In exploring the instructors’ procedural knowledge, an interesting theme emerged.
Several faculty members remarked that they felt no connection to the program learning goals and
do not consider them seriously when teaching their course. Based on interview data, relating
course outcomes to undergraduate program learning goals was viewed by most core instructors
as an act of compliance and not as guidance for how to design and assess learning activities to
effectively meet different program goals. The Undergraduate Program assesses program
learning goals in a portfolio approach, not expecting every course to address every learning goal
but collectively it meets the same objective. It may be that in its approach to be more
accommodating to the demands on faculty that it has diluted the impact and ability for the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

120
program to achieve the goals for all of its students. The assessment of program learning goals is
still a work in progress in the Undergraduate Program. In Spring 2017, the program began a
formal process of measuring program goal outcomes.
Document review. Representative syllabi were reviewed from Spring 2017 semester. Of
the twelve core courses, eleven included the basic chart that identified the Undergraduate
Program Learning Goals and listed to what degree they were being met by the course: low,
medium or high. The syllabus for Corporate Finance course did not include the chart. The
syllabi of five courses were very detailed, specifying which core course objective aligned with
each program learning goal. Two data science instructors did not include the chart (Statistics,
Operations). One strategy professor did not include as much detail as the other five of his peers.
Further inconsistencies are evident in the Macroeconomics syllabi reviewed. Two of the
four syllabi reviewed include the following course objective: “Understand and control the factors
that lead to effective teamwork,” but there are no team or group learning activities described in
the syllabus as it is in the other two Macroeconomics syllabi reviewed.
Summary. Survey results, interview data and document review show that instructors
know how to establish learning outcomes for their course. But this was less evident in
connecting learning outcomes to program goals. The gap is validated although there is
foundational knowledge that can be accessed to close the gap.
Metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge includes cognitive self-awareness
and self-knowledge that allows faculty instructors to recognize and understand their role in the
process of educating students to become effective business managers and leaders (Krathwohl,
2002).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

121
Assumed influence #7. Core faculty need to understand their role, knowledge and
skills as leader educators and role models to students. Faculty instructors should be aware of
their influence as role models and leader educators for their students (Astin, 1993; Dugan &
Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2011). As such, they should also periodically evaluate their own
knowledge and experiences in order to meet leadership development program goals and student
outcomes (Owen, 2012). Faculty instructors should be able to identify resources in order to
adapt and improve their teaching strategies. Survey and interview data validate a gap in
metacognitive knowledge.
Survey results. Two questions assessed metacognitive knowledge. Question 18 asked, “I
consider myself a Leader Educator,” which was defined as someone “for whom the teaching of
leadership is integral or of interest, and who are committed to the development of leadership
capacity at educational institutions and organizations” (Seemiller & Priest, 2015). Question 21
assessed whether core instructors “know where to go to learn more about how students develop
leadership capacity” since they must be able recognize if and when their own skills and
knowledge need updating. These results are graphically represented in Figures 14 and 15.
Only 23% of faculty teaching the core curriculum strongly identified as Leader
Educators. The majority of the respondents (44%) only agreed somewhat as Leader Educators,
indicating that they may not be as aware of their influence as a leadership role model, perhaps
not possessing as strong metacognitive knowledge. When reviewed by course distribution,
respondents who agreed with the statement were more likely to be teaching qualitative courses
(Business Communications, Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Strategy Management).
While not as strong, it is interesting to note that there was a weak positive correlation between
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

122
number of years teaching and the how strongly a respondent identified as a leader educator
(r=.33).
Program and course success relies on faculty seeking continuous improvement to meet
the changing needs of students and their future employers. With regard to developing the
requisite leadership skills for students, core instructors need to know how students develop
leadership capacity (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2011; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-
Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). The majority of faculty (82%) do not know where to seek additional
resources or support to learn more about how students develop their leadership abilities. A gap
in metacognitive knowledge is validated by the survey data.

Figure 14. Results of survey question 18: Faculty who identify themselves as Leader Educators

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

123

Figure 15. Responses to survey question 21: Finding resources to learn more about student
leadership development

Interview findings. Seventeen interviews were conducted and eleven instructors
responded yes when asked directly if they considered themselves a leader educator. Four said no
and two were unsure. Of the eleven, only five discussed their role as leader educator as primary
in relation to their experience as a core instructor. An experienced strategy professor
enthusiastically responded, “Yes! I think that’s one of our main roles.” A business
communications instructor stated, “I would find it immensely challenging to divorce myself or to
separate myself from that construct honestly because I know more than the students.” An
accounting professor who had been teaching for 28 years made clear his approach as leader
educator:
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

124
My expectation is each one of you [students] at some point in time will reach the pinnacle
of your profession and be either a C level leader or at minimum a division head or a head
of something where you’re managing groups of people on important tasks. That’s a
statement I make to every class on day one.
All five of these instructors had several years of professional managerial experience outside of
academia and had been teaching an average of 11 years ranging between two and 28 years at the
West Business School.
The majority (12) of those interviewed identified their primary role as discipline-specific
content expert rather than leader educators or role models. Table 11 includes representative
comments that reveal a gap in metacognitive knowledge as a leader educator.

Table 11
Metacognitive Knowledge Gaps
Instructor and Years at
West Business School Comments with regard to a core instructor’s primary role
Marketing instructor
(8 years)
It “is to convey foundational information to the undergraduates.”
Economics instructor
(6 years)
“I don’t think I really thought of it [leader educator] as being
part of my responsibility as part of the course.”
Organizational Behavior
instructor (2 years)
“Newer faculty don’t see themselves as leader educators.”
Accounting instructor
(over 30 years)
“The core is meant to provide knowledge in core subjects.
There’s no room for other material . . . they [students] get leader
development in their jobs.”

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

125
Summary of Knowledge Findings
Declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge factors identified in the literature
review provided a framework to evaluate knowledge assets and gaps that core faculty possess
that influences how well the Undergraduate Program meets its performance goal to develop
students’ leadership skills. Inconsistencies exist between academic disciplines with regard to
their knowledge levels of student leadership development, leadership frameworks and their role
as leader educators and role models. The results also identified knowledge assets that might be
leveraged to more effectively meet the Undergraduate Program goals and meet the demands of
students’ future employers.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
The literature review in Chapter Three revealed five influences that can impact core
instructors’ motivation to meet Undergraduate Program goals to develop future leaders. These
factors were validated using survey, interview data and document review.
Goal orientation. Survey data strongly suggests that there is no gap with regard to
faculty instructors’ belief in the goal of the Undergraduate Business Program to develop student
leadership knowledge, skills and abilities (i.e., leadership capacity). However, interview
findings were not as clear.
Assumed influence #8. Core faculty view developing student leadership capacity as a
valuable goal for the School and society.
Survey results. More than 90% of faculty respondents agreed that developing future
leaders to address the challenges faced by business and society in the 21st century is a central
mission of colleges and universities (Question 7). No one strongly disagreed with this statement.
Question 9 in the survey asked specifically about the West Business School’s mission to develop
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

126
future leaders. There was some shift from 62% strongly agreeing it is the mission of colleges
and universities to develop future leaders to 47% agreeing strongly it is the mission of the West
Business School. Forty-four percent (44%) agreed somewhat that this is the School’s mission.
There is no gap in goal orientation as the vast majority of respondents (91%) agreed that this is
an important mission of the School. Results are illustrated in Figures 16 and 17.

Figure 16. Results of survey question 7

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

127

Figure 17. Results of survey question 9

Interview findings. Seventeen instructors were interviewed. Interview findings were not
as clear as survey results suggesting that there are inconsistencies in how instructors view the
School mission and Undergraduate Program Goals as motivation to develop student leaders.
When explicit goals such as program goals and implicit motives to pursue those goals are
congruent, instructors would be more motivated and perform better (Pintrich, 2003). Only two
of those interviewed were able to clearly state the Undergraduate Program Goals, an economics
instructor and business communications instructor. Nearly all instructors were aware of them
since they were introduced three years ago through meetings and memos. But the four
instructors with less than three years at the School were less aware and viewed them only as a
required part of the syllabus.
Eight of the instructors interviewed viewed the program goals as a checklist to satisfy,
primarily for accreditation purposes. A marketing instructor stated, “I use them is as kind of a
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

128
list of guiding principles for you know how I hit all the ones that I think my class should hit.” A
statistics instructor remarked, “Every four or five years we see the same discussion like
accreditation so how are we measuring this.”
None of the core instructors interviewed articulated the connection between their course,
the program learning goals and School mission. All instructors were more focused on the
discipline-specific content than the program goals. As one business communications instructor
stated, “In the first class we’ll go over them. But you know I will say, this is the last time you’re
going to hear about these learning objectives in this class.” Nearly half of the instructors (8)
expressed frustration explaining the importance of their course and program goals to students
who may or may not want to be in a particular required course.
The core course coordinator appeared to keep the instructor team focused on the relevant
program learning goals for their course from semester to semester. Six of those interviewed are
or were recently core course coordinators and discussed how they work with their faculty team to
assure compliance with a common syllabus including the Undergraduate program goal chart. Of
the seventeen interviewed, there was less support and communication expressed by instructors in
six of the twelve courses including economics, finance, statistics, operations, business analytics
and strategy.
Expectancy. Instructors teaching in the core can be motivated by the expectation that
they can perform a task well, and that they value this task and the rewards that follow (Pintrich,
2003).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

129
Assumed influence #9. Faculty value their role as leader educator and see a positive
impact on students’ leadership capacity.
Survey results. The results of four survey questions (14, 15, 16 and 18) point to the
respondents’ motivation to engage and or support student leadership development in their core
course. Results discussed above noted that 67% of respondents to survey question 18 identified
themselves as leader educators indicating that they likely value this role as instructor and mentor.
Instructors will spend time on those activities that they value (Eccles, 2005).

Figure 18. Results of survey question 16

Question 16 asked instructors how much they agreed with the statement “Employers seek
graduates who possess strong leadership skills,” to understand how they perceived the usefulness
or utility of teaching leadership. As Figure 18 illustrates, the majority of instructors (85%)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

130
agreed that leadership skills are important for students to be competitive with employers. Those
that neither agreed nor disagreed (12%) may not have had all the information about what
employers value in undergraduate applicants or what the Undergraduate Program knows about
what employers desire in the West Business School graduates to make them more attractive
candidates.
When asked if they include leadership skill building in their course in question 14, 70%
replied they did include these activities, as shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Results of survey question 14: Leadership skill building is included in the concepts I
teach in my core course

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

131
These results tell a different story when viewed by academic discipline, as shown in
Figure 20. Those teaching in Marketing, Economics & Finance and Operations departments
were less likely to include leadership skill building activities in their core courses possibly
indicating less interest in this topic area. Accounting was absent from the results as instructors
did not respond to the survey perhaps showing how much or little they value including
leadership development in their courses. Interview results discussed later helped clarify these
results.

Figure 20. Results of question 14: Leadership skill building is included in the concepts I teach in
my course, by academic discipline

Additionally, respondents who had more experience teaching the same core course were
more likely to include leadership activities in their course (see Table 12).
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

132
Table 12
Relationship Between Experience Level of Instructor and Agreement with Survey Q14 to Include
Leadership Skills in Their Core Course
Level of Experience
(# of semesters teaching the same
course)
Number of
respondents
Mean
(5 Strongly Agree
to 1 Strongly
Disagree)
R value
Correlation between
teaching experience in
course and including
leadership activities
Less experienced (0-4 semesters) 19 3.73 -.03
Average experience (5-8
semesters)
9 3.77 -.28
More experienced (9-12
semesters)
3 4.33 1
Most experienced (13 or more
semesters)
2 5 .66

More experienced faculty may be more aware of the Undergraduate Program goal to
develop student leadership skills and value its importance to students. Alternatively, they may
have more first-hand experience seeing the value of leadership activities to students’ professional
success. These results were explored further in the interviews.
Faculty were asked in survey question 15 if leadership skills are necessary for students to
succeed in their field or discipline, signaling the importance and value of including such skills in
their course. Nearly 80% of respondents indicated that it was important for students to have
leadership skills to succeed in their discipline. No one strongly disagreed and those who replied
somewhat disagree taught economics and finance. Those who agreed were more likely to be in
Management, Business Communications and Strategy. Figures 21 and 22 show the results
graphically.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

133

Figure 21. Results of survey question 15: Leadership skills are necessary for students to succeed
in my field or discipline

Figure 22. Results of survey question 15 by academic discipline

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

134
Survey results suggest that student leadership development was valued by and important
to core faculty, but it was most likely to appear in only half of the core courses. A gap is
validated for this expectancy motivation factor.
Interview findings. All of the faculty interviewed spoke enthusiastically about supporting
students academically, professionally and/or personally to help them succeed. But they felt more
capable discussing topics related to their discipline or professional experience. Instructors
outside the management and business communications departments would refer to leadership as
something that they didn’t know much about: “I don’t know much about that [being a leader],”
said an economics professor. A marketing instructor remarked, “I would probably assume that
the specifics of leadership are more the responsibility of management to know that.” Capturing
the delight instructors have in helping students, an accounting instructor lit up as she stated,
I actually had a really sweet note from a student this year who said that because of the
stuff she learned in two of my classes, like she was in both. She says she was able to get
a job that pays more than her parents have made per hour. Yeah it sounds like a pretty
cool you know.
There was a difference between those instructors who have professional or managerial
experience and those who only have academic experience. Eleven of the seventeen interviewed
valued their role as mentor, coach and instructor and the positive influence they had on student
development as future leaders. All had current or former professional or managerial experience
and discussed their experiences with students in and outside of class. A strategy professor noted,
“Yes, that’s part of the education,” when discussing her role as core instructor. None of the three
tenured or tenure-track research faculty interviewed discussed their role as mentor or coach in
relation to their role as core instructor. This is likely due to the different expectations of research
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

135
faculty than teaching faculty. As one tenure-track Business Analytics instructor noted, “I’m
getting pressure not to spend so much time on this instead of my research,” referring to the time
he spends with students in the core. “Younger faculty don’t see themselves as leader educators,”
stated a research faculty member teaching Organizational Behavior.
Interview findings show that core instructors valued their role as mentor and role model
and were motivated to have a positive impact on students’ growth in the undergraduate program,
but not as it relates to leadership development specifically. Survey results and interview findings
confirm the gap is validated.
Interest. Engaging interest and intrinsic needs can lead to the motivation and
engagement of core instructors to actively prepare students to become more effective leaders in
the core curriculum.
Assumed influence #10. Core faculty show interest and intrinsic motivation to prepare
students to be leaders and are willing to include leadership development in their course.
Findings from survey results and interviews did not validate a gap in this influence factor.
Survey results. Several questions discussed in the knowledge section revealed
instructors’ interest and intrinsic motivation to engage in student leadership development in their
core course. Nearly all of the respondents (91%) agreed that it was the mission of the West
Business School to develop future leaders. As noted in the knowledge section, 68% of core
instructors who responded identified themselves as Leader Educators. Interest can be measured
by whether an instructor included leadership topics in their core course and the frequency of
leadership discussions in the classroom. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents included
leadership topics in their core course, albeit more qualitative courses were represented than
quantitative courses in this result. Survey question 24 asked “how frequently, if at all, do you
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

136
discuss leadership topics in your core course?” Only 9% of respondents indicated they never
discussed leadership and another 24% discuss leadership in a specific unit in the course. There
was inconsistency with regard to the specific courses that have limited discussions. Half of the
economics instructors never discussed leadership topics while the other half selected only in a
specific unit. However, when asked to list the specific topics in the survey, respondents
indicated that there was no explicit discussion or only brought up “when the opportunities
present themselves.” One wrote in response, “We don’t discuss them explicitly. They have team
projects that help them develop cooperation skills, discussions that promote critical thinking.”
Respondents teaching core courses in Operations were not consistent — spread among Never, In
a Specific Unit and Weekly.
Nearly 70% of respondents discussed leadership topics at least weekly. Among the
responses where there was discussion every class or weekly, the most frequently mentioned topic
was around teams and team coordination (13%). Other popular topics included leadership skills
such as decision-making (12%), critical thinking (10%), influence (10%) and ethical leadership
(8%). These align with the top leadership skills identified in the survey (Q13) and discussed in
the knowledge section. Only half of the courses, 6 of 12 were represented among the 70% who
discuss leadership topics at least weekly. These instructors teach Organizational Behavior (7),
Strategy (6), Business Communications (5), Marketing (2), Finance (1) and Business Analytics
(1). However, there was inconsistency within Business Analytics as one instructor responded
“Weekly” and the other instructor responded “Never.”

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

137

Figure 23. Results of survey question 24 on the frequency of leadership topics discussed

Interview findings. Interview findings reveal that core instructors were interested in
developing student leadership capacity but had reservations as to how to include leadership
development in their course. Eleven of seventeen core instructors interviewed expressed interest
in learning how to integrate leadership development into the core curriculum and their course,
but the execution was central to its success. “Being a mentor . . . is what I think is fun about the
job and I try to participate in this journey that the students are on,” noted a Corporate Finance
instructor. A Strategy instructor shared, “I think the problem is how you coordinate that and how
you effectuate that. I think that if it’s another layer, that we have to do this other thing, that
would be annoying.” Most instructors (15) mentioned that students gain leadership skills from
their involvement in co-curricular activities such as clubs and athletics perhaps deferring the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

138
responsibility for leadership development away from curricular activities. Still research shows
that effective leadership programs provide a framework to integrate curricular and co-curricular
activities (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). As a Statistics
instructor with 26 years of teaching and professional research experience stated with regard to
achieving Undergraduate program learning goals,
I think if you say the students should do it on their own, then you’re not making it a
requirement. You’re saying that this is not one of the core things about our program. But
if we are trying to get those five or seven learning goals, and it goes back to this part and
my point of view, is that the thing that the most effective takeaway for our students is not
the content because the content at the end of the day is not going to be applied to the jobs
that they are working . . . it’s the framework, it’s the approach of how to solve a
[business] problem and how to work in a team.
A Business Communications instructor concurred: “We have to communicate how relevant this
is not just for the sake of curriculum but for the sake of everything they’ll be doing when
curriculum is no longer an issue for them.” It may be possible to appeal to instructors’ interest to
more effectively develop students’ leadership skills to be successful leading teams and ultimately
organizations in an increasingly dynamic workplace after business school.
Two other themes related to interest emerged in the interviews. First, there isn’t a lot of
room or time in the core course to add more content which may dampen interest in including
leadership skill building. An Organizational Behavior instructor was very direct when he stated,
“The barrier is that I’m taking away from my own content and inserting someone else’s content.”
Secondly, the assessment of leadership skills was another issue that was raised by nine of the 17
instructors interviewed. An Accounting instructor remarked when discussing how to apply and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

139
measure leadership skills, “I don’t know how I would measure that in a classroom. I would
leave it to the smarter people than me like you. But I would certainly encourage and support it.”
Based on survey results and interview findings, interest in integrating leadership
development into the core curriculum was present. But this interest may wane if the approach is
not mindful of the potential challenges of implementation and doesn’t provide support.
Self efficacy. Self-efficacy is the confidence that one can be effective in achieving a
particular task and thus provides strong motivation to engage in that task (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda & Dembo, 1995). Instructors who viewed themselves as leader educators and spend time
on leadership topics and/or skills in their courses were more likely to exhibit the confidence to
meet the Undergraduate Program goal to build future leaders. Survey and interview data
suggested a gap in this motivation factor.
Assumed influence #11. Core faculty are confident in their ability as leader educators
and the program’s effectiveness.
Survey results. Three questions revealed core instructors’ confidence levels based on
their identity as a leader educator (Question 18) and how frequently they engage in leadership
discussions in and out of class (Questions 14, 24 and 45). As previously mentioned, question 18
asked instructors how strongly they identified themselves as leader educators. Less than a
quarter of respondents (23%) identified themselves as “Leader Educators” (Question 18). A
third of the respondents did not identify themselves as “Leader Educators” and the remaining
45% agreed somewhat. These results did not show strong self-efficacy or confidence.
Question 14 revealed that 70% of those surveyed included leadership skill building in
their course but these results only represented 5 of the 12 courses in the core curriculum (41%).
Question 24 asked instructors to indicate how frequently they engaged students in leadership
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

140
discussions in their courses. As discussed above, 70% of respondents discussed leadership
topics weekly or in every class but only represented 50% of the courses taught in the business
core curriculum. Faculty instructors who included leadership topics and skills may be more
confident in their abilities to be effective. The courses are listed in Table 13.

Table 13
Core Courses where Instructors Include Leadership Skills and/or Topics
Survey Question 14: Leadership skill building
is included in the concepts I teach in my core
course
Survey Question 24: Leadership topics are
discussed every class or weekly in your core
course
Organizational Behavior
Strategy
Business Communications
Marketing
Macroeconomics
Organizational Behavior
Strategy
Business Communications
Marketing
Finance
Macroeconomics

Faculty who are confident in their ability to teach and support students in their leadership
development would likely spend time speaking with students about the leadership challenges
they faced. When presented with six choices in Question 45, only 12% indicated that they did so
often or very often. In the course of a typical semester, 36% never spoke with students about the
leadership challenges they faced and 52% of respondents selected “Sometimes.” Results are
presented in Figure 24. Survey data suggests a gap in self-efficacy. Fewer core instructors by
course and by time spent were engaging in teaching or discussing leadership topics suggests they
may experience lower self-efficacy.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

141

Figure 24. Responses to question 45

Interview findings. Interview findings show there is a gap in personal self-efficacy as
leader educators, primarily divided by academic discipline and expertise. It may not be
surprising to learn that management faculty (4) expressed more confidence in their ability to help
students develop leadership skills in and outside the classroom. A tenure-track management
instructor stated, “I study team dynamics a lot of social hierarchy within teams just kind of
different forms of leadership so I would say it’s a big emphasis of my research.” Instructors
from accounting, data sciences, operations and economics expressed less confidence as leader
educators. “I am more comfortable as a role model based on my academic discipline and
business career than a leader educator,” said an instructor who has taught Accounting I and II. A
Business Analytics instructor remarked, “I don’t know enough about how to teach leadership.”
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

142
Instructors with professional managerial experience (5) spoke with more confidence
about integrating leadership activities and discussions in their core classes. “I have more life
experience and more professional career experience and so the benefit of my experience can be
passed on to them,” a Business Communications instructor with 10 years consulting experience
stated when describing herself as a leader educator.
To judge confidence in the Undergraduate Program’s core curriculum in its ability to
develop student leaders, instructors were asked to rate the Program’s effectiveness in developing
leadership skills in undergraduates. The findings reveal that performance was lacking but
confidence was strong in the Program’s potential. Using a 4-point grading scale, the average
grade was a B (2.93) with a range from A- to C given by the fifteen instructors who responded
directly to the question. More noteworthy were two themes that emerged from the comments.
First, all instructors stated that the Program could be doing a better job at developing student
leaders. Secondly, instructors saw room for a more consistent effort from senior administrators
to provide a steady focus and continuous engagement to move the Undergraduate Program
forward to better achieve its goals. But instructors were clear that any effort would need to
integrate with their existing course and not be burdensome.
Representative comments are shown in Table 14.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

143
Table 14
Instructor Comments on the Success of the Core Curriculum in Developing Student Leaders
Instructor and Teaching Experience Instructor Comments
Corporate Finance instructor
• 13 years teaching
• 4 years teaching core course
“We’re not functioning at our true potential.”
Statistics instructor
• 10 years teaching
• 6 years teaching core course
“I’m sure we can do very well if we made a
concerted effort. I just don’t see that there is a
concerted effort in the sense that it’s left to the
departments. You know I don’t see the
connection.”
Business Communications instructor
• 2 years teaching
• 2 years teaching core course
“We’re not anywhere kind of where we could be
in terms of fleshing all of this out and then
actually integrating it as either part of the
curriculum or in addition to the curriculum as part
of faculty development and so forth.”
Accounting I & II instructor
• 19 years teaching
• 10 years teaching core course
“I think we do OK. I think we could do more. I
think it would take a mindset change . . . So I
think we’d have to change our way of thinking
about it to move past the B and become truly
excellent. But I think it’s there. But again I think
we do a fine job out there and I think that’s part of
our curse is that we do a fine job of it. And so
people aren’t necessarily always motivated to
more.”

Summary of Motivation Findings
No gap was validated for goal orientation as the majority of respondents believe
developing future leaders is an important mission of the West Business School. Instructors also
expressed interest and intrinsic motivation to support students’ leadership development
indicating no gap in this influence factor. Instructor expectancy and self-efficacy are not
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

144
supported by survey results since leadership development activities only appear in half of the
core courses thus indicating a gap in these motivation factors. There was an inconsistency in
results that was explored further in the interviews to validate these two specific motivation gaps.
Results and Findings for Organizational Factors
As discussed in Chapter Three, program goals and course objectives need to be aligned,
faculty instructors need the resources and support to meet program goals, and the School needs
to provide incentives and rewards to achieve the Undergraduate Program goal to develop
students as effective business managers and leaders. All three of these factors influence the
organizational culture of the Undergraduate Program and the Business School that is essential to
effective performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Kezar, 2001, 2006; Schein, 2004).
Performance goals are unattainable when there is a gap in organizational factors (Clark & Estes,
2008). The organizational factors were evaluated using survey results, interview findings and
document analysis data to identify gaps that would prevent achieving performance goals and
identify assets that might contribute to goal attainment.
Assumed influence #12. Core faculty have the resources needed to create and/or
participate in leadership development programs. In order to achieve its mission and goals,
organizations require tools and materials to support its activities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Within
the context of student leadership development, instructors should know how to access resources
to create learning activities around a common framework of leadership and have the support of
the administrators, department chairs, and core course coordinator in their academic department
(CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005). This gap was validated by survey
and interview data.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

145
Survey results. As discussed in relation to self-efficacy and motivation (motivation
influence #11), few instructors (18%) knew where to access additional resources to learn more
about student leadership topics that would contribute to creating relevant learning activities.
Many more, 45%, did not know where to access materials to support their work in this area.
Resources and support were further explored in interviews.
Interview findings. Instructors discussed support at the organization, department and
course levels within the Undergraduate Program. Core instructors interviewed did not feel they
have organizational or department support to implement program goals such as student
leadership development. Support from core coordinators was focused more on addressing course
logistics and teaching challenges than on the successful implementation of program goals.
To date, there has been no formal implementation of the program goal to build students’
leadership knowledge, skills and abilities by program administrators. To reveal core instructors
perceptions of organizational support for implementing program goals in their courses,
instructors were asked about the level of support they experienced during the recent
implementation of the critical thinking program goal in the undergraduate curriculum after
several studies reported college graduates lack these essential skills (Arum & Roksa, 2011;
Flores, Matkin, Burbach, Quinn, & Harding, 2012). All of the instructors acknowledged that the
education workshops on critical thinking skills were helpful to some extent to implement the
goal. As a Strategy instructor noted, “They trained us, they gave us materials, they raised the
issue.” More instructors felt the workshops were of limited use. They wanted the organization
to design and provide practical applications specific to their course and discipline. A
microeconomics instructor noted, “It’s not that I wouldn’t have the time. It’s I don’t have the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

146
time to research from scratch.” Follow-up support after the workshops was limited as noted by
an Accounting II instructor,
I believe we started moving people. I don’t think we ever finished moving people . . . I
don’t think we’ve ever really refroze it back into the curriculum. And so I think it was
great as a start. But I’m not sure we ever followed through enough and long enough to
make it a permanent part of the culture.
Additionally, instructors wanted more support from the administration with repeated
messaging to students to explain why instructors were spending time on critical thinking learning
exercises. Several instructors (10) mentioned the challenge of motivating students who do not
want to be in a particular core class and don’t see the overall value of the set of core courses.
Organizational messaging on the purpose of an integrated core business curriculum (i.e., why the
program goals are important to students, faculty and future employers) could alleviate some of
the students’ negative attitudes and provide support for faculty to spend more time thinking
about and applying the program learning goals in their core course. Representing the majority
view of how consistent and regular messaging can provide organizational support, a Statistics
instructor said,
It helps me as a faculty member to understand how to mold the product within a
production . . . . It is not going to come and if you don’t tell faculty how to achieve those
goals and then let them do that . . . Right now I just kind of say ‘oh yeah we use that now
to develop your critical thinking skills.’ But I don’t necessarily take the time to explain
to students why that’s important.
At the department level, support of core instructors from the department chairs was
inconsistent. In the economics and finance department and the data sciences/operations
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

147
department, it was more likely that the department chair does not communicate or reinforce
Undergraduate Program learning goals to core instructors. As a Corporate Finance instructor
said, “Listen, I think it is the role of the core instructor to pay close attention to those learning
goals. Does my Department Chair think that? No.” Department Chairs were not part of this
study but it may be they aren’t getting support and communication from the Undergraduate
Program and School administrators to promote the learning goals among core faculty.
Most instructors interviewed relied more on the core course coordinator, a faculty
colleague teaching the same course, for information and support. Representative of the opinions
held by most instructors (70%), a relatively new Strategy instructor stated,
Our core coordinator has been instrumental in helping me develop my teaching skills
over the past three semesters. He also manages the class across all the sections. He tries
to bring us together for discussions on the class. And you know what textbooks we use
and things of this nature. And you know any time I have any questions related to the
course or in general, he’s my go to person.
It is interesting to note that 6 of the 17 interviewed are current or past core coordinators.
Each one mentioned the challenge and lack of support to manage what usually is a large and
diverse faculty team of full-time and part-time faculty, tenure-track and teaching faculty. An
Accounting I instructor and core coordinator stated,
I have like six part timers that I was having to bring on board and get up to speed. And
they would turn over and all kinds of stuff. Even just [addressing] how you deliver a
class; where do you go. And many of them have never taught before so there isn’t really
much support for that. It’s just you just go do it.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

148
An Accounting II core coordinator interviewed said,
I find it’s been a little bit of a struggle because I think as coordinator, the role is not as
well defined. So I’m not really the manager, right. It’s kind of like I have a lot of
responsibility but no power.
Faculty felt they could approach the educational specialist for support. An economics
instructor said, “I think if there were any problems there were resources like if there were a
teaching problem we had resources. The business school people [educational specialist] would
come and listen to my class and give me feedback.” There is only one educational specialist to
support over 200 faculty at the School.
Time is a significant resource and instructors remarked on the challenge of tackling
something new like implementing new learning goals or content in their core course. There are
many demands placed on faculty time. When asked about the challenges faced by core
instructors, a Marketing instructor stated, “I think faculty are already overwhelmed with all the
work that we have to do and serving on committees. Just everything that’s already on our plate.”
The organization could get creative in how best to support faculty to give them the time to revise
course curriculum, create new learning activities, and meet with other faculty to effectively
achieve the program learning goals.
An interesting and important finding emerged from the interviews. None of the core
instructors interviewed were able to name or describe all of the six Undergraduate Program
learning goals that were implemented in 2014. The average number of goals mentioned was
three and were described in very broad terms. “Global and critical thinking, I think,” a
macroeconomics instructor replied when asked to describe the program learning goals. The
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

149
finding may further support that there is little organizational support, or at least regular
communication or reinforcement, about the program goals and how best to achieve them.
Assumed influence #13. Core faculty receive incentives in the form of rewards
and/or recognition of their efforts in student leadership development. Organizational
processes need to be established to align with performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). To
ensure that program goals are pursued and achieved by core faculty, reward and incentive
process should be aligned with how core faculty pursue learning objectives and program goals.
Survey and interview data were used to validate a gap in this organizational influence.

Figure 25. Results of survey question 48

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

150
Survey results. Two survey questions address this organizational influence. Question 48
asked directly “The School effectively recognizes faculty who spend time on developing
students’ leadership capacity.” No respondents agreed with this statement and only 22% agreed
somewhat. Of the remainder, 32% disagreed and 44% neither agreed nor disagree. Results are
displayed in Figure 25.

Figure 26. Responses to survey question 49

Question 49 asked if the School had funded an instructor’s activities that contribute to
student leadership development, essentially investing in the School mission to develop future
leaders and/or achieve the Undergraduate Program goal to develop student leadership skills.
Thirty instructors responded to this question. A strong majority of 90% responded no. Of the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

151
10% who responded yes (3), School funds supported a club that through its activities provided
opportunities for students to develop leadership skills and a proposed faculty workshop on
student leadership development. The other instructor received a grant from a University Center,
not the West Business School or Undergraduate Program, to create an experiential exercise. It is
clear from the survey results illustrated below that core instructors do not receive incentives to
support their efforts to develop student leadership skills. Interview results further confirmed this
gap.
Interview. Interview findings were inconclusive with regard to this influence factor as
the interview questions did not result in sufficient data. However, four instructors explicitly
stated that they are not rewarded or incentivized to meet any of the Undergraduate Program
Goals. An instructor teaching Business Analytics remarked, “All the incentives are set up for
tenure-track professors is not to invest serious time into the core. So a lot of the things that I do
are sort of mistakes.” This instructor, a tenure-track professor, has been serving as core
coordinator for the past two years. A management instructor was most direct,
There was an e-mail from the Dean . . . I have not been supported, reinforced or rewarded
for doing so. Ever. So why should I spend time being told that this is really important?
Where no one double checks, no one cares and it doesn’t affect what I am trying to do in
the classroom.
Assumed influence #14. Core faculty benefit from the alignment of the school’s
mission and culture with undergraduate program goals, academic and student affairs
activities, and student outcomes.
Survey. Creating an environment of interaction, coordination and collaboration promotes
a culture of engagement and commitment to the School’s mission and the Undergraduate
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

152
Program Goals. As discussed in the knowledge section above, more than 90% of respondents
agreed that the mission of the West Business School is building future leaders. Yet only 68%
agreed educating students about being a leader should be an important learning goal of the
Undergraduate Program (Question 10). Results from survey questions 11 and 12 further
identified an inconsistency or gap that may weaken an alignment between mission and culture.
Question 11 asked “The Undergraduate Core Curriculum is responsible for developing students’
leadership skills and abilities.” Only 18% of respondents agreed strongly with this statement.
Half of the respondents (50%) agreed somewhat perhaps not feeling as convinced that the core
curriculum — and by extension its instructors — are strongly aligned with the program goal of
developing student leadership skills and the School’s mission to develop future leaders. Fifteen
percent (15%) were neutral and 18% disagreed.
At the course level, once again we see a difference expressed between qualitative courses
and quantitative courses. Of the courses represented in this survey, five of nine courses
represented in the survey results (56%) agreed the core curriculum is responsible for developing
student leadership capacity. These are nearly all qualitative courses, including Business
Communications (8), Organizational Behavior (7), Marketing (3) and Strategy (7) with one
Statistics instructor agreeing somewhat. Twenty-two percent (22%) of courses in this survey
were neutral (Finance and Macroeconomics) and 22% disagreed (Microeconomics and Business
Analytics). The results are illustrated in Table 15.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

153
Table 15
Responses to Survey Question 11: The Undergraduate Core Curriculum is Responsible for
Developing Students’ Leadership Skills and Abilities, by Core Course
Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree Disagree
Not Represented
in the survey data
Business
Communications
Marketing
Organizational Behavior
Statistics
Strategy
Corporate Finance
Macroeconomics
Business Analytics
Microeconomics
Accounting I
Accounting II
Operations

Aligning mission and culture is also represented by an instructor’s choice of which
program learning goals to include in their core course. Including program goals and learning
activities across and within the core curriculum creates more integration that promotes a
cohesive environment or culture to more effectively develop student leadership capacity to meet
the School’s mission (Dugan & Owen, 2007; Schein, 2004). Question 12 was discussed above
revealing that only 33% of the core courses represented in this survey included learning
outcomes related to student leadership development at the program level (Program Goal #4).
Forty-two percent (42%) of the core courses represented in this survey did not support Program
Learning Goal #4 to develop student leadership. Three of the 12 courses (25%) were not
represented in this data (i.e., accounting and operations courses) but were evaluated in the
document review. The disparity suggests that there is not a strong alignment between mission
and culture indicating a gap in this organization influence.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

154
Interview. Effective alignment would need instructors to understand the mission and
program goals, be familiar with the full core curriculum across departments as well as co-
curricular activities in order to align their core course learning objectives with desired program
level student outcomes. One might expect to hear about cascading goals that align along School,
Undergraduate Program, department and course levels. Core instructors did not feel strongly
connected to the School’s mission nor the Undergraduate Program learning goals. None of
seventeen instructors interviewed were able to accurately describe the School’s mission as it
appears in public documents and on the School website. Although an Accounting instructor
remarked about his role as core instructor, “It’s also helping to start to develop a well-rounded
business person that the university will be proud of once they graduate.” The Undergraduate
Program does not have a separate mission statement but relies on the six learning goals to
provide direction for faculty and staff. About a third of instructors interviewed (29%) were able
to identify four of the program goals in general terms. Seventy-one percent knew two or fewer
with 24% unable to describe any of the six program goals. When asked about the school’s
mission, a Marketing instructor noted that there was a lack of strategic identity in the
Undergraduate Program saying “No, I think we’re getting there but I think that there are still
things to define and things to polish.” A Business Analytics instructor’s remarks reflected the
opinion of the faculty with less tenure in the Undergraduate Program,
I played no role in picking the seven that constitute the undergraduate curricula. In fact, I
played no role in mapping my five [course learning goals] to some subset of the seven, so
that so they don’t feel like they’re part of something I’m doing. And many of them I
think are really strange and should not be on there. So I’d just question them.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

155
With regard to awareness of student affairs activities that might align or support course
student outcomes, few instructors interviewed were engaged in or very knowledgeable about
how co-curricular activities support program learning goals. Student outcomes were measured
solely by the activities in the core course. Only the Organizational Behavior instructors
discussed how the leadership skills and concepts from that course could be applied to a student’s
role in a club, athletic team or internship. As one of them commented,
We’ve talked about just that, they could you know not just have this isolated learning
experience in the class . . . but really be given the OB tools and the opportunities in the
other classes and clubs or Greek life and . . . having to apply them because then that’s
going to just reinforce them [leadership skills] . . . . So it has got to be owned and
reinforced at the organizational level. Because I think the program emphasizing it at the
school level is one thing that would be a good first step. But then what would that look
like in the finance, in the accounting classes.
Interview results support a gap in the alignment of mission, culture, curricular and co-
curricular activities and student outcomes. The knowledge and relevance of the School’s
mission and the Undergraduate Program goals are not evident in the experiences of the core
instructors interviewed. Nor was their evidence of integration with student affairs activities.
Faculty often view the program goals as a compliance checklist rather than a driver or
opportunity for collaboration and integrated alignment. This organizational gap was validated by
survey and interview data.
Assumed influence #15. Core faculty benefit from the culture, adaptability and
collaboration of a learning organization to support and facilitate change. Survey and
interview questions were used to assess if the characteristics and cultural aspects of a learning
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

156
organization (i.e., leadership vision and direction, supportive learning environment, and
reinforcing processes and practices) were present in the West Business School, specifically
among those teaching the undergraduate core curriculum (Garvin et al., 2008; Senge, 1990). A
gap was validated by survey and interview results, and document review.
Survey results. As discussed in a previous organizational influence (#13), there was a
lack of reinforcing practices such as recognition and rewards that would contribute to a learning
organization. A supportive learning environment encourages open discussion, reflection and
collaboration among its employees. Question 46 assessed how often instructors communicated
about course-related matters with others teaching the same course in a semester. Ninety-one
percent (91%) communicated with their peers at least once in the semester with 45% touching
base every week or two. The average was 2.39, falling between 2 (once a month) and 3 (two to
three times a month).

Figure 27. Responses to survey question 46
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

157
When asked how often they communicated with core instructors in other academic
departments about course-related matters, the results were far different. The average across all
respondents was 4.67, falling between 4 (once a semester) and 5 (once a year). The results were
consistent when viewed by core course. No single course averaged greater than 3.42, between 3
(two to three times a semester) and 4 (once a semester). In sum, 75% of respondents
communicate no more than once a semester of which 54% communicate with colleagues
teaching other core courses once a year or less (see Figure 28). The infrequent communications
between core faculty across the curriculum do not support the integration and collaboration
needed for a learning organization.

Figure 28. Results of survey question 47: “How often, if at all do you communicate with core
course instructors in other academic departments about course-related matters”

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

158

Figure 29. Responses to Q47 (Frequency scale is 0 = Every week or two; 6 = Never)

Interview. Similar themes emerged in the interview data. Core course instructors did not
have a structure to meet as a group that would promote the supportive learning environment of a
learning organization. As noted previously, instructors rely heavily on their course coordinator
for direction and reinforcement. Although one Accounting instructor with over 10 years at the
West Business School mentioned how the previous Undergraduate Dean held more frequent
meetings to promote more communication and collaboration. He said,
Of course I think when we met regularly even just to chat about stuff like what [the
Undergraduate Dean] would do and stuff like that. I thought that was very helpful. I
think when those meetings got sort of disbanded I thought that was a mistake.
Other faculty mentioned how difficult it is to coordinate courses. Several instructors (9)
felt there wasn’t enough time to pursue additional activities that could promote more connection
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

159
and collaboration. Nor were there expectations to collaborate or integrate at the department
level. In most departments, core courses are taught by new tenure-track faculty who are
provided with the syllabus, slides and teaching notes and are not expected to invest much time to
collaborate with other core instructors. As one finance professor put it with regard to a goal in
the department, “How can we make sure that they [core instructors] have to spend as little time
possible prepping?”
Document analysis. An abridged report on the faculty climate survey conducted in 2014
at the West Business School was reviewed for qualitative data relating to characteristics of a
learning organization. Findings from that report supported the themes that emerged from the
interview data and survey results. Evaluating the content theme of the comments in the survey
results, 58% of the comments in the survey related to school climate, 22% related to research,
12% mentioned teaching and 8% of the comments discussed faculty service (p. 19). The report
concluded that insufficient attention was being directed toward creating a positive, inclusive
organizational culture and climate that would characterize a learning organization. The current
culture and structure at the School does not promote communication, collaboration and creativity
in an interdisciplinary or integrated manner. Specifically, one faculty comment was telling, “I
think that there needs to be a better understanding of the strategic goals so that we can better
align ourselves and our work. Without a clear vision, we cannot work towards a common
purpose.” A management faculty member’s comment recognized the importance of aligning
vision, shared values and activities as in a learning organization, “I think we need to foster a
greater sense of collective community around a key set of shared values and goals . . . We need
one strong visionary leader to clarify the direction and put collective energy behind achieving
those goals.”
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

160
Evidence from the survey results, interview findings and document review validate a gap
in this organizational factor.
Summary of Organizational Findings
Performance goals cannot be realized when there is a gap in organizational factors (Clark
& Estes, 2008). As described above, survey results, interview findings and document analysis
identified gaps in the four organizational factors that could promote the effective achievement of
Undergraduate Program learning goals, specifically learning goal #4 related to student leadership
development evaluated in this study. However, there is a collegiality and hopeful aspiration
among faculty expressed in the interviews that, if provided with adequate resources, structure
and information, can be leveraged to develop the characteristics of a learning organization to
achieve program goals more effectively. Nearly all faculty respondents (91%) agreed that it is
the mission of the School to develop future leaders and based on interview findings many felt the
Undergraduate Program was capable of achieving more.
Summary
As discussed in Chapter Two, effective leadership programs are distinguished by five key
characteristics: (1) an alignment with the school’s mission; (2) a common theoretical framework
and definition of leadership based on leadership research; (3) a commitment to student leadership
development by faculty, program administrators and school leaders; (4) faculty who are
knowledgeable of leadership theory and practice as well as student leadership identity
development; and (5) a clearly defined evaluation plan to assess progress toward program
learning goals (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005; Owen, 2012;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). The findings in Chapter Four addressed Research
Question 1 and illustrated the absence of several of these characteristics thus making it unlikely
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

161
that the West School is meeting Learning Goal #4 to develop students’ leadership skills and
capacity.
The data evaluated in Chapter Four also showed to what level the West School core
faculty integrate student leadership development into the undergraduate core curriculum to meet
the Undergraduate Program goal to develop future leaders as asked in Research Question 2. A
combination of quantitative and qualitative data from surveys, interviews and document analysis
were used to validate the gaps in the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
identified through the literature review (Clark & Estes, 2008). Declarative and metacognitive
knowledge gaps were validated while there were fewer gaps in procedural knowledge due to
foundational knowledge in active learning techniques and establishing measurable learning
outcomes at the course level. This foundational knowledge might serve as assets to achieve
leadership learning outcomes at the program level. Motivation gaps were validated with regard
to expectancy and self-efficacy. Goal orientation and interest motivation factors are present
indicating no gap since faculty agree fairly strongly that developing future leaders is an
important goal of the Undergraduate Program. More significantly, gaps were identified in all
four organizational factors relating to supportive resources, incentives and recognition, mission
and cultural alignment, and characteristics of a learning organization.
Chapter Five will present recommendations to address these gaps and leverage the
existing knowledge and motivational assets to achieve the Undergraduate Program goal to more
effectively develop students’ leadership identity, skills and abilities.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

162
CHAPTER FIVE
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
In Chapter Four, through the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in
surveys, interviews and document analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), a set of knowledge,
motivation, and organization influence factors were validated that indicate there are several gaps
in the West Business School’s ability to meet its learning goal related to student leadership
development within the core curriculum. These findings addressed Research Question 1, to what
extent is the Undergraduate Program meeting its learning goals related to student leadership
development within the core curriculum, showing that the key hallmarks of effective student
leadership programs are lacking thus preventing the School to effectively reach Learning Goal
#4 aimed at developing the leadership skills requisite of future leaders in business and society.
Research Question 2 asked what are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements
necessary for core faculty to successfully integrate student leadership development into the
undergraduate core curriculum to meet program goals. Gaps were validated and assets identified
to indicate where there is significant room to improve the knowledge and motivation of core
instructors to better integrate leadership learning to meet the program goal. This chapter will
address Research Question 3, what are the recommendations for organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that facilitate the achievement of
this learning goal?
As in previous chapters, recommendations are organized by knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). These recommendations will help the West School
develop its resources and capabilities to move closer to achieving its program goal to develop
student leadership capacity and may also prove helpful with regard to attaining other program
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

163
goals. The chapter is organized in three sections. The first section discusses recommendations
based on empirical evidence and insights from the literature review. The second section applies
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) as a framework for an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the
recommendations intended to address the performance gaps. The third section addresses the
limitations of the study and recommendations for future research. The final section summarizes
the overall findings and implications of the study.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 16 represent the complete list of
assumed knowledge factors and the validation supported by the literature review and by the
analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Factors were drawn from current research on the
key elements of effective student leadership development programs that suggest core faculty
should have declarative knowledge of relevant leadership theories and college student leadership
development and the procedural knowledge to identify learning outcomes and how to create and
deliver a leadership exercise or module using active learning methods (Haber, 2011; Haber-
Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Krathwohl, 2002; Owen, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt,
2000). Metacognitive knowledge in the form of self-awareness and self-knowledge allow
stakeholders to adopt new behaviors and strategies to meet their personal goals as well as
organizational goals (Baker, 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). Table 16 summarizes the factors that have
a high probability for achieving the stakeholder and organizational performance goals. The table
also presents recommendations to provide core faculty with the factual, conceptual, procedural
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

164
and metacognitive knowledge to achieve the goal of building future leaders at the School based
on theoretical principles.

Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty need
knowledge of
leadership theories
and relevant
leadership skills
(D/factual)
Y Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw,
Flowerday, & Lehman,
2001).
Provide facilitated
interactive training
sessions to learn leadership
theories and skills that
relate to core faculty
member’s own discipline,
course and personal
experience.
Core faculty need to
know how student
leadership identity
develops
(D/conceptual)
Y Y Procedural knowledge
increases when
declarative knowledge
required to perform the
skill is known (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
Provide workshops to
faculty to learn student
leadership identity
development (LID) model
and how it relates to the
undergraduate core
curriculum and faculty
member’s course.
Core faculty need to
know student-
centered, active
learning
instructional
techniques
(D/conceptual)
N Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw et al.,
2001).
Post examples of learning
activities on FDC.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

165
Table 16, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or
No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty
understand and
share a common
framework of
leadership theories
and models in order
to provide a
structure for
student leadership
development
(D/conceptual)
Y Y How individuals
organize knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw
et al., 2001).
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw et
al., 2001).
Create a common definition of
leadership and list of required
leadership skills that serves as
a basis for core faculty to
create learning outcomes and
develop learning activities that
promotes knowledge and skill-
building for student’s
leadership development.
Integrate this framework into
training, reference materials
and resources.
Post the framework, reference
materials and resources on
FDC.
Core faculty need
to know how to
integrate relevant
leadership
knowledge and
skills using active
learning methods
(P)
Y Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw et
al., 2001).
Continued practice
promotes
automaticity and
takes less capacity in
working memory
(Schraw et al., 2001).
Facilitating transfer
promotes learning
(Mayer, 2011).
Provide facilitated interactive
training sessions to learn,
create, apply and practice
active learning techniques
specific to the stakeholders’
core course that promote
students’ leadership knowledge
and skill development.
Additional follow-up study
groups (learning community
meetings) to provide guidance,
peer support and coaching
facilitated by Educational
Program Designer/Coach
(current staff member).
Post examples of learning
activities on FDC.
One-on-one and core course
team support to integrate
leadership learning into core
course from Educational
Program Designer/Coach.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

166

Table 16, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or
No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty need
to know how to
identify specific
and measurable
learning outcomes
to assess student
learning and
program objectives
(P)
Y Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it
is elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw et al., 2001).
Facilitating transfer
promotes learning
(Mayer, 2011).
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw et
al., 2001).
In facilitated interactive
training sessions, faculty
member would demonstrate,
practice and receive feedback
to align course learning
outcomes to program learning
objectives. In the session,
faculty will demonstrate ability
by creating learning activities
that promote students’
leadership knowledge and skill
development and can be
measured against the
leadership development
learning outcome (program
perf. goal).
Post core course syllabi and
examples of learning activities
on FDC.
Additional follow-up study
groups (learning community
meetings) to provide guidance,
peer support and coaching
facilitated by Educational
Program Designer/Coach
(current staff member).
One-on-one and core course
team support to integrate
leadership learning into core
course from Educational
Program Designer/Coach.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

167
Table 16, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty
understand their
role, knowledge and
skills as leader
educators and as
role models to
students (M)
Y Y The use of
metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw et al., 2001).
Facilitating transfer
promotes learning
(Mayer, 2011).
Create and conduct a faculty
development seminar on
what is a leader educator
that promotes leader
educator identity
development among core
faculty (I am a leader
educator) that leverages the
faculty member’s current
identity and interactions
with students in and outside
the classroom.
Promote faculty roundtable
discussions of leader
educator role to provide
guidance, peer support and
peer coaching. Could be
integrated into learning
community meetings.
*Knowledge types: (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Core faculty
outside the management and organization department have little explicit knowledge of leadership
theories, skills and abilities that students need to meet the needs of their future employers. There
is some general consensus on a general meaning of leadership but there appears to be no shared
understanding or framework that is a vital component to effective leadership programs identified
by Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000). Schraw et al. (2001) have found that information
learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and
remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning. To develop mastery,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

168
individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply
what they have learned (Schraw et al., 2001). A recommendation is to offer facilitated
interactive training workshops that will educate core faculty in fundamental leadership theories,
skills and abilities that relate to the core faculty member’s own discipline, course and personal
experience. The workshop would utilize a common definition of leadership and a research-based
framework (i.e., Social Change Model of Leadership Development) that would serve as a basis
for faculty to promote student leadership development. The Social Change Model aligns with
many of the School’s values and student outcomes, which also connects the new knowledge to
prior knowledge further increasing the likelihood that faculty will adapt their courses to include
leadership development activities.
Komives et al. (2005) argue that teachers are particularly influential as models and
mentors in the development of a student’s leader identity and thus would benefit from
understanding the process that shapes this development. Since this is a relatively new theory, it
is not surprising that core faculty instructors are not aware or knowledgeable of how a student
develops their leadership identity. Clark and Estes (2008) state that procedural knowledge (i.e.,
the “how”) increases when declarative knowledge (i.e., the “what”) to perform the skill is
known. Core faculty committed to helping students develop their leadership identity would
benefit from learning the leadership identity development (LID) model and how it could be
referenced when planning the learning activities in their course.
Active learning approaches that provide experiential learning, meaningful discussions,
team-based activities and opportunity for reflection and processing provide the environmental
context in which leadership identity develops (Komives et al., 2005). Over the past several
years, the West Business School has focused on providing training and support to faculty to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

169
assist them in revising existing exercises as well as designing new impactful learning activities to
use in their courses. More experienced core faculty members are more comfortable with active
learning instructional techniques and incorporating them into their courses. Less experienced
core faculty are not as knowledgeable of active learning techniques. Schraw et al. (2001)
suggest that connecting new information to prior experience and knowledge allows the learner to
store the new information more rapidly and remember it more accurately for future use. In the
workshops, learning activities could be co-created by experienced and less experienced faculty in
the same discipline leveraging their common knowledge. These examples would be posted to
the online Faculty Resource Center (FRC) and faculty would be invited to post new examples as
they are developed for all faculty to adapt for their use. To summarize, faculty workshops to
enhance faculty instructors’ declarative knowledge would be framed around a common
definition of leadership, a shared leadership framework, and the model of student leadership
identity development (LID). Workshops would include active learning and modeling by faculty
peers who will be able to connect participants’ prior knowledge and experience to the process of
student leadership development. Examples and models of effective learning activities from a
variety of core courses will be posted on the Faculty Resource Center.
Henderson (2008) evaluated a long-running workshop designed to introduce new faculty
to innovative and active instructional ideas and materials. Based on survey results of 527
participants, the study found that faculty participants reported greater levels of self-reported
discipline-related and teaching knowledge as well as greater use of new instructional techniques.
Ninety-four percent of participants credited the workshop for at least some of their changes in
teaching methods. Department chairs reported that the changes in faculty teaching methods
contributed to improved student learning. An additional benefit of the workshop is the potential
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

170
of shifting faculty culture as participants discuss the workshop experience and content with their
colleagues influencing others’ interest in trying teaching new techniques. Henderson (2008)
cited several keys to success that may be relevant to the West Business School faculty workshop
such as including a wide variety of instructional strategies and materials, and presentations made
by credible experts and peers familiar with the discipline and faculty experience. The positive
outcomes of this study suggest that faculty development workshops would be effective to
increase knowledge and instructional changes among faculty participants.
McShannon et al. (2006) studied a faculty development program to change faculty
teaching behaviors to increase student retention and achievement in a large public university.
The program identified faculty as critical agents that influence student retention and achievement
similar to how business faculty have a strong influence on student leadership development. The
faculty development program utilized an individual approach where program staff worked with
faculty one-on-one discussing active learning techniques, conducting class observations and
providing feedback in weekly meetings over the course of the semester to ensure consistent
implementation of new strategies. Student achievement in these courses went up by 6% on
average and student retention increased an average of 10.5%. The results of this study suggest
that one-on-one support with practice, observation and feedback may be an effective component
of faculty development programs. As a contributing asset to close the faculty knowledge gap,
the West Business School has a learning specialist who already works with faculty with regard to
teaching and learning skill development.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) found that individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating
them, and know when to apply what they have learned in order to develop mastery in particular
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

171
task. Once core faculty are familiar with the foundations of student leadership development
including leadership theories and skills, how student leadership identity develops, and the
recommended methods (i.e., action learning) of teaching leadership, they need to know how to
apply and integrate this new knowledge to adapt learning activities in their own courses to meet
the learning outcomes of the course as well as the Undergraduate Program. When new
information and processes are learned in a meaningful way and connected with prior knowledge,
these methods are stored more quickly and recalled more accurately because it is connected with
prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Schraw et al., 2001). Additionally, facilitating the
transfer of knowledge promotes effective learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Therefore, it
is recommended to provide opportunities during and after the facilitated training workshops that
were described in the section above. Faculty participants would learn, create, apply and practice
active learning techniques specific to their core course to promote students’ leadership
knowledge and skill development. In the workshop, participants would demonstrate, practice
and receive feedback to effectively align learning activities to course learning outcomes,
program learning goals, and the applicable individual, group and community critical principles of
the Social Change Model of Leadership. As mentioned in the prior section, core course syllabi
and a variety of examples of learning activities created in the workshop can be posted on the
School’s Faculty Resource Center to serve as resources after the workshop to facilitate learning
transfer. At periodic intervals after the workshop, there are several different options to provide
ongoing support and practice such as learning community meetings, core course team meetings,
department meetings and retreats, and one-on-one coaching from the School’s educational
program designer.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

172
In a study of 511 engineering faculty on the impact of faculty development activities on
teaching practices, Brawner et al. (2002) found that over half of the respondents credited
teaching workshops and seminars as the reason they were able to more successfully adopt new
teaching methods. The workshops were held to instruct faculty on how to effectively write
instructional learning objectives and incorporate learner-centered instructional techniques (i.e.,
action learning) in their teaching. The more seminars and workshops that faculty attended, the
more likely they were to adapt new approaches to their teaching use (Brawner et al., 2002).
Sixty percent of faculty responded that they began or increased their use of new teaching
approaches. Additionally, an increase in student learning was reported by 69% of faculty
respondents. Other research has shown that participation in faculty development activities are
related to instructor creativity (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997); persistence and enthusiasm in the face of
challenges (Ashton, 1985); and student achievement (Shahid & Thompson, 2001). Thus we
might conclude that the faculty development workshops where core faculty can learn, practice,
demonstrate and receive feedback on teaching or enhancing leadership skills for undergraduate
students will result in the creation and adoption of new approaches that may positively impact
student leadership development. The additional learning community meetings and follow-up
sessions with the instructional coach may further enhance the effectiveness of the faculty
development workshops.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Metacognitive
knowledge, such as self-awareness and self-knowledge, allows learners to become more adaptive
and create new strategies to improve performance and meet personal as well as organizational
goals (Baker, 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). Based on the survey of core faculty, the majority of
respondents consider themselves leader educators with some stating that they see it is their
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

173
responsibility to “operationalize” leadership skills in the classroom. Faculty also reported that
they often communicate with students on a variety of topics including career plans, course topics,
and other topics including leadership challenges. In subsequent interviews, faculty members
understood that they serve as role models to undergraduate students. However, the majority of
faculty do not know where to find resources on how students develop leadership capacity which
might constrain their ability to see themselves as effective leader educators and role models. The
faculty development workshop, follow-up meetings, and online resources can provide not only
the declarative and procedural knowledge to develop or adapt learning activities to promote
student leadership development, but also the space for discussion, reflection and feedback on
their role as leader educator and role model promoting self-awareness and self-knowledge.
Faculty roundtable discussions, as part of the workshop or as separate events, can provide
guidance, peer support and peer coaching that can strengthen core faculty’s perception and
conduct as leader educators.
In a study of 96 college leadership programs, Owen (2012) noted that effective programs
provide the opportunity for faculty to evaluate their own roles in developing student leadership
capacity on a regular basis in order to develop and adapt their teaching strategies to meet
leadership development program goals and student outcomes. Furthermore, Burton, Bamberry
and Harris-Boundy (2005) found that peer teaching and discussions with faculty peers,
experienced and less experienced, in a teaching seminar contributed to participants increased
self-efficacy as qualified and effective college instructors. It follows consequently that the
suggested faculty workshop and learning community meetings would strengthen the role of West
Business School’s core faculty as leader educators and role models as students develop their
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

174
leadership capacity in the Undergraduate Core Program contributing to their metacognitive
knowledge.
Through a variety of well-designed and targeted training, job aids or examples, and
subsequent practice and support, faculty can acquire the declarative, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge to become more effective leader educators in the undergraduate core
program. This will lead to West students acquiring, practicing and applying the requisite
leadership knowledge and skills to succeed as future business managers and leaders.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. In the KMO framework, Clark and Estes (2008) described an individual’s
motivation as a critical element of achieving organizational goals and objectives. A faculty
member’s motivation is demonstrated by their active choice to engage in a task, persistence to
continue a task, and the level of mental effort they devote to achieve performance goals
supported by the task (Clark & Estes, 2008). More specifically, when faculty understand how
their efforts at student leadership development contribute to the goal of the School developing
future leaders they are more likely to choose to adopt credible learning activities to meet that
goal (Pintrich, 2003). Additionally, faculty members need to believe they have the ability to be
successful in this effort and have the support and recognition of the School’s leadership (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006). The motivation influences in Table 17 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation factors and the validation of each factor as supported by the literature review
in Chapter Two and the analysis of the survey, interview and document data as presented in
Chapter Four. The table also includes context-specific recommendations that will enhance a
faculty member’s motivation and engagement in developing student leadership capacity to meet
the School’s mission of creating global leaders.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

175
Table 17
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty view
developing student
leadership capacity
as a valuable goal
for the School and
society (goal
orientation; interest)
N Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2005)
Training session includes
credible and respected
faculty and/or research
experts who can
demonstrate the value to
faculty and the School to
undertake a formal
leadership development
program so that students are
successful in meeting future
employers’ needs
Core faculty show
interest and intrinsic
motivation to
prepare students to
be leaders and are
willing to include
leadership
development in
their course
(interest)
N Y Activating and
building upon
personal interest can
increase learning and
motivation (Schraw
& Lehman, 2001)
In facilitated interactive
training sessions, faculty
would have options (i.e.,
choice) to create their own
customized leadership
development activity or
adapt an existing activity
that fits best in their core
course based on their own
interest and prior
knowledge and/or
experience
Core faculty are
confident in their
ability as leader
educators and in the
program’s
effectiveness (self-
efficacy, interest)
Y Y Individuals with
higher self-efficacy,
greater belief in their
own competence,
and higher
expectancies for
positive outcomes
will be more
motivated to engage
in, persist at, and
work hard at a task
or activity (Rueda,
2011)
Provide public recognition
of faculty who are adopting
leadership development
activities in their core
course by the Dean at
faculty meetings and annual
faculty awards function that
will encourage and reward
faculty choice, persistence
and effort to incorporate
leadership development
learning in their courses

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

176
Table 17, continued
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty value
their role as mentor
and leader educator
as it relates to their
own discipline and
that their efforts will
produce a positive
impact on students’
leadership capacity
(goal orientation;
expectancy)
Y Y Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2005; Pintrich,
2003)
Training session includes
credible and respected
faculty and/or research
experts who can
demonstrate the value to
faculty and the School to
undertake a formal
leadership development
program so that students
are successful in meeting
future employers’ needs
Core faculty believe
they are able to
access applicable
resources to design
and deliver effective
leadership learning
for students to
develop their
leadership identity
and leadership
capacity
(expectancy)
Y Y When individuals
believe they have the
skill and resources to
complete a task there is
a higher expectation
for success and
perceptions of
confidence that can
positively influence
learning and
motivation (Eccles,
2005)
Alignment of work
processes and
procedures promotes
goal achievement
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Training sessions will
include a common
framework and definition
of leadership within a
comprehensive
educational strategy that
aligns with the learning
goals of the
Undergraduate Business
Program

Motivation Recommendations. Core faculty instructors are less than confident in their
ability as leader educators and are uncertain on how to contribute to the effectiveness of a student
leadership program. Yet, core faculty value their role as mentor and leader educator as it relates
to their own discipline, but not all were confident that their efforts will produce a positive impact
on student success as future employees, managers and leaders in meeting employers’ and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

177
society’s needs. Individuals who possess higher self-efficacy, stronger belief in their own
competence and higher confidence in successful outcomes are more likely to engage, persist and
put forth effort in future tasks (Rueda, 2011; Rueda & Dembo, 1995). Additionally, Eccles
(2005) and Pintrich (2003) assert that individuals who understand the importance and utility
value of the work they do will be more intrinsically motivated to pursue that work. Pajares
(2006) determined that self-efficacy could be improved with instructional support from credible
models or peers that included goal-oriented practice and feedback. Therefore the
recommendation is to provide training that includes two primary components. First, sessions
would be led by credible and respected faculty and/or research experts who can demonstrate the
value to faculty to engage in a formal leadership development program for students to be
successful in meeting future employers’ needs. Employers and alumni would be valuable
presenters as well to help core faculty make the connection between their discipline and the
leadership needs of students entering the workforce. Second, the Dean and Vice Dean would
kick off the training sessions recognizing the faculty participants and encouraging their
continued commitment. At faculty meetings and the annual faculty award luncheon, the Dean
would also provide public recognition of faculty who are promoting student leadership
development in their core courses to reinforce the importance and value of their commitment.
A critical component of exemplary leadership programs is knowledgeable and committed
faculty are who can create safe learning spaces and serve as role models and meaning makers as
students develop their own leader identity (CAS, 2012; Komives et al., 2005; Zimmerman-Oster
& Burkhardt, 2000). Haddad and Taleb (2016) in their study of 246 Jordanian business faculty
found that self-efficacy has a positive impact on the teaching performance of faculty members.
In their study of thirty-one leadership development projects focused on college students,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

178
Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (2000) found that leadership development programs with
committed faculty and administrators who share a common intellectual and theoretical
framework and knowledge of leadership and student development are more successful.
Furthermore, Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt noted that support, encouragement and
recognition from the school’s leadership team contribute to a program’s sustainability. The
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2012) states that faculty
instructors who are able to identify and create specific learning activities and outcomes
associated with leadership development can intentionally create strategies for teaching students
that enhances their leadership knowledge, skills and competencies. Therefore, it would appear
that increasing faculty self-efficacy as well as recognizing committed faculty would enhance the
success and sustainability of a student leadership development program.
Core faculty have mixed feelings about developing student leadership capacity as a
valuable goal for the School and society. Faculty who see themselves as mentors and leader
educators are more likely to agree that developing students as future leaders who contribute to
solving society’s challenges is a valuable goal for the School. However, there are others who see
themselves as subject-matter experts responsible for teaching no more than the required course
content to meet the stated learning outcomes of the core course and program learning goals and
objectives. They believe that students develop leadership skills in other activities and courses
than their own and so while they may believe building leaders is a goal for the School and
Undergraduate Program they do not have interest in engaging in teaching leadership to students
in their core course. There is still a leadership skills gap between employers’ needs and students’
ability (AAC&U, 2015). The School and specifically the Undergraduate Core Program can
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

179
elevate their efforts to develop a student’s leadership identity and capacity to serve future
employers and the broader community in which they reside.
Core faculty are a critical component of this effort. Schraw and Lehman (2001)
determined that activating and building up on personal interest can increase motivation and
learning in situations where individuals are asked to take on new roles and tasks. Additionally,
learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner, the core instructor in this case, values the
task (Eccles, 2005). Therefore, in order to motivate faculty instructors to integrate leadership
development learning activities into their core course it is essential to communicate and
demonstrate the value to them to serve not only students’ needs when they graduate but the needs
of other stakeholders such as future employers and the communities students will be joining
professionally and personally. Training sessions would include credible and respected faculty as
well as a diverse group of employers and who can share their experiences and knowledge of the
benefits to the faculty member themselves, student success in the core program and meeting the
School’s mission of building leaders. Benefits might include a more engaged classroom climate,
meeting the needs of students and future employers who may also be supporters of the Program
and School, and the potential for higher course evaluations when faculty address issues that are
seen as practical and relevant to students’ needs. Another important component of the training
sessions is the flexibility faculty instructors would have to create their own customized
leadership development activity or adapt an existing activity that best fits their core course based
on their own interest, prior knowledge and experience.
Designing training workshops that acknowledge and leverage the faculty member’s
interest, experience and values will be more effective in promoting their participation in an
integrated student leadership program in the core program (Eccles, 2005; Schraw & Lehman,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

180
2001). In a study of 511 undergraduate engineering instructors, Brawner et al. (2002) found that
facilitated workshops led by credible faculty from disciplines represented in the participant pool
were effective in the adoption of new instructional approaches in their courses in order to better
meet program student learning goals. Brawner et al. (2002) noted that 69% of study respondents
reported improvements in students’ learning. As such, business faculty would benefit from
professional development workshops led by their peers who are best able to offer credibility and
discipline-specific examples to connect with participants’ interest, experience and knowledge.
Core faculty are uncertain about accessible, relevant and applicable resources to design
and deliver effective leadership learning for students to develop their leadership identity and
capacity. When individuals believe they have the skill and resources to complete a task there is a
higher expectation for success and perceptions of confidence that can positively influence
learning and motivation (Eccles, 2005). Clark and Estes (2008) recommend the alignment of
work processes and procedures to promote goal achievement. This suggests that providing core
instructors with the resources they need to feel more confident in their teaching ability of
leadership topics or activities in their core course would be effective. Faculty would benefit
from a common definition and framework of leadership that is relevant to business and their
academic discipline. The framework would include different educational strategies that align
with the learning goals of the Undergraduate Program as well as with the key concepts or
learning objectives in the core class.
In a seminal report on college leadership programs, Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt
(2000) studied 31 projects funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. A best practice identified
in the study found that programs with a working definition of leadership and a clear theoretical
framework were more effective in increasing students’ abilities on measured leadership
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

181
outcomes. Additionally, academic courses that included theoretical leadership knowledge
positively impacted students’ leadership knowledge and their willingness to develop leadership
in others. Dugan and Owen (2007) argued that a guiding theoretical framework of leadership
and a definition of leadership that aligns with the institution’s values and mission — essentially
creating a shared purpose — leads to more effective programs. Involving faculty in the creation
and delivery of the framework and definition creates buy-in and equally important, instills
confidence in using these resources in their course. Employing this approach would likely
increase core faculty instructors’ expectancy that they can make a difference in helping students
develop their leadership identity and capacity.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 18 represent the complete list of
assumed organization influences and their validation based on the literature review and the
quantitative and qualitative analysis of survey and interview data. Clark and Estes (2008) assert
that organizational processes and sufficient resources need to be both efficiently and effectively
applied to achieve performance goals. This may include adjusting or changing how people in the
organization think about their roles and how they do their jobs and requires attention to both
culture and context (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The organizational
factors of processes and resources, culture and leadership contribute to goal attainment that can
be achieved by adopting elements of a learning organization. A learning organization supports
change and adaptability because of its supportive learning environment, reinforcing processes
and practices, and leadership that provides vision and direction (Garvin et al., 2008; Kezar, 2000,
2005; Senge, 1990).

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

182
Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or No
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty have
the resources
needed to create
and/or participate
in leadership
development
programs
Y Y Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources needed to
do their job, and that if
there are resource
shortages, then resources
are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Work to establish, from
the beginning, the key
priorities that will provide
guidance around resource
decision-making (i.e.,
making the tough choices
to provide resources to key
priorities, goals, and
objectives)
Core faculty
receive incentives
in the form of
rewards and/or
recognition of their
efforts in student
leadership
development
Y Y Effective organizations
insure that
organizational messages,
rewards, policies and
procedures that govern
the work of the
organization are aligned
with or are supportive of
organizational goals and
values (Clark & Estes,
2008)
Explicit methods of
rewards and recognition
for employee
engagement drive
collaborative behavior
and innovative thinking
(Hansen et al., 2002)
Create messages and
identify communication
methods that reinforce the
commitment to developing
future leaders; this
includes providing time,
resources and financial
incentives to help faculty
build their capacity for
teaching leadership by
attending conferences,
CoPs in house, purchasing
learning materials
Establish policies that
reward and publicly
recognize engagement in
student leadership
development efforts
Core faculty benefit
from the alignment
of the school’s
mission and culture
with undergraduate
program goals,
academic and
student affairs
activities, and
student outcomes
Y Y Effective organizations
insure that
organizational messages,
rewards, policies and
procedures that govern
the work of the
organization are aligned
with or are supportive of
organizational goals and
values (Clark & Estes,
2008)
Conduct an informal audit
of policies, procedures and
messages to check for
alignment or interference
with the organizational
goals to identify conflicts
with the Undergraduate
Program strategy

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

183
Table 18, continued
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Gap
Validated
Yes or
No
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Core faculty benefit
from the culture,
adaptability and
collaboration of a
learning
organization to
support and
facilitate change
Y Y Effective change efforts
use evidence-based
solutions and adapt them,
where necessary, to the
organization’s culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Creating, acquiring and
transferring knowledge to
accomplish organizational
change is best
accomplished by a
learning organization
(Kezar, 2001, 2005;
Senge, 1990)
Clearly conceptualizing
cultural models and
settings can help focus
thinking and acting in
collaborative ways that
can facilitate change to
achieve the organization’s
goals (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001)
Ensure that planning
processes are able to
identify key elements of
the organization’s culture
that need to be considered
in the change process.
Promote open discussions
and holistic/systems
thinking that include
differing perspectives to
promote a learning
organization where
collaboration, innovative
problem-solving and buy-
in enables effective change
and long-term adaptability
Establish cultural settings
where a shared cultural
model of collaboration and
adaptability promotes the
development of a learning
organization. The settings
are characterized by shared
goals, indicators that
measure success, help from
experts or experienced
others, and supportive and
compelling leadership.

Faculty members teaching the undergraduate core courses believe that the School makes
available different types of resources in support of developing new learning activities or learning
about new innovations in teaching undergraduates but they are not linked to any strategic effort
to build student leadership skills through the core courses. Clark and Estes (2008) state that
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

184
effective change efforts, such as developing a more formal leadership development program for
undergraduates, requires that resources are available and aligned with organizational priorities.
The West Business School and the University have had a focus over the past few years to
improve teaching effectiveness. There is an educational program designer within the School
who consults with faculty who wish to create or revise learning activities in support of a specific
learning outcome or program goal. There have been outside foundation grant awards to support
faculty who wish to attend conferences or workshops to learn something new that will improve
their teaching ability or add to their course content. The University has a center to support
teaching and learning that provides workshops as well as individual consulting for faculty
creating new courses or programs. The perceived gap by core faculty between resource
allocation and strategic priorities suggests that there needs to be greater clarity and
communication about resource allocation to support the specific learning goals of the
undergraduate program, such as developing student leadership and management skills
(Undergraduate Learning Goal #4). Before resources are set aside, first a clear and compelling
strategy and purpose needs to be conveyed to faculty and other stakeholders that communicates
the Undergraduate Program learning goals within a broader strategic direction (Kotter, 1995).
Once the strategy and purpose are explained, time and resources should be provided to build
faculty capacity to create relevant and appropriate learning activities to achieve the learning
goals in their core course, specifically developing students’ leadership knowledge, skills and
abilities. Similar resources were employed recently to integrate more critical thinking skill-
building across the undergraduate curriculum in support of a strategic initiative under the
previous Vice Dean of Undergraduate Program. But with the change in leadership with a new
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

185
Vice Dean and the reduction in attention and resources, the effort has stalled demonstrating how
critical these reinforcement efforts can be.
Allocating the required resources to establish effective processes and policies that are
well-defined and rooted in the school’s mission are essential to effective student leadership
development programs (Dugan & Owen, 2007; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Process
and policy changes can be employed to change an organization’s culture to support the
organization’s performance goals (Kezar, 2001). One process of increasing faculty capacity in
student leadership development is to establish learning communities or communities of practice
(CoP). A CoP is a group of people who share a common interest (i.e., developing student
leadership capacity) and come together voluntarily to learn and improve their knowledge or
practice (Wenger, 2004). In a study of 454 teachers, Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and
Gallagher (2007) found that the most effective activities for continuing professional learning
(CPL) provided interactive, practice-focused and reflective practices in a context of trust and
exploratory cultures open to experimentation. Additionally, the study found that when the
organization provided the teachers with the time and support to plan for implementation, the
overall change in curriculum was implemented more successfully (Penuel et al., 2007). This
study reinforced the findings from a large-scale study of over 1,000 teachers using data from the
Eisenhower Professional Development Program by Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon
(2001) that identified core elements that supported changes in teaching practice through
improved the knowledge and skills such as focusing on content knowledge, active-learning
approaches, and a significant level of coherence or alignment with other strategic initiatives in
the schools. Choosing to provide the time, support and resources for faculty to engage in CoPs
to enable them to adapt or change their teaching practices is likely to ensure the effective
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

186
implementation and sustainability of a student leadership development program in the core
curriculum.
Core faculty reported that efforts toward building student leadership capacity is not
recognized or rewarded in the School. Rewards, incentives and recognition are known to drive
collaborative behavior, innovative thinking and change within organizations (Clark & Estes,
2008; Hansen et al., 2002). In a study of faculty norms to improve undergraduate education,
Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer (1996) found that faculty saw their role as disciplinary experts who
contribute to student cognitive growth and success rather than as developmental mentors or
instructors. The findings from this study align with these results. Thus, core faculty instructors
are unlikely to adapt their teaching strategies to enhance student leadership capacity without
some extrinsic and/or intrinsic reward to do so.
When methods of reward and recognition are explicit, faculty are more likely to adopt
collaborative and innovative behaviors to support the School’s or Program’s performance goals
(Hansen et al., 2002; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). In one of the most replicated
studies in the field of job attitudes, Herzberg (1968) concluded that rewards such as achievement,
recognition, growth or advancement (motivating factors) would lead to greater job satisfaction
assuming there was already a positive work environment (hygiene factors). Improving job
satisfaction increases the likelihood of a faculty member to exhibit more innovative and creative
thinking and greater commitment in taking on extra-role behavior outside their job description,
such as learning new knowledge outside their discipline or revising learning activities to promote
student leadership development that requires additional time (Bowling, 2010). Faculty
incentives can take many forms such as lower teaching loads, financial benefits, recognition in
performance reviews, teaching awards as well as simple acknowledgement from colleagues,
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

187
supervisors or administrators of their efforts both publicly and privately (Brownell & Tanner,
2012). Explicit policies, processes and communication methods to reward and publicly
recognize faculty members’ efforts are more likely to engage and support more faculty in
meeting the goal of developing future leaders.
Core faculty report that they are not fully aware of how the undergraduate program goals,
academic and student affairs activities, and student outcomes align with the School’s mission.
Additionally, they question how effective the current organizational culture is to promote the
adaptability and collaboration to facilitate changes in curricular and co-curricular activities to
support student outcomes around leadership development. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that
effective change efforts use evidence-based solutions and adapt them as necessary to the
organization’s culture. Organizational messages, rewards, policies and procedures that govern
the work of the organization need to be aligned with or supportive of organizational goals and
values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore it is important to conduct an audit of policies,
procedures and messaging to check for alignment or interference with the organizational goals in
order to resolve incongruities. Creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge to accomplish
organizational change is best accomplished by a learning organization (Kezar, 2001, 2005;
Senge, 1990). Additionally, clearly conceptualizing cultural models and settings can help focus
thinking and acting in collaborative ways to facilitate change to achieve the organization’s goals
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To achieve the level of integration and coordination an
effective leadership development program demands, it is important to establish cultural settings
(i.e., policies, plans, resource allocation) where a shared cultural model of collaboration and
adaptability promotes the development of a learning organization. The settings are characterized
by shared goals, indicators that measure success, help from experts or experienced others, and
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

188
supportive and compelling leadership. The learning organization promotes open discussion and
holistic systems thinking that includes diverse perspectives in order to align goals, activities and
outcomes around the School’s mission and Program’s objectives. At the same time, it
establishes a shared culture of collaboration, innovative problem-solving and buy-in that enables
effective change and long-term adaptability.
Change efforts are more effective when evidence-based solutions are adapted to the
organization’s culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) assert that
cultural models (invisible shared ways of thinking, doing) and settings (adapting in a dynamic
environment and visible procedures or processes) can facilitate change when they are aligned
with desired outcomes. Durant (2002) discussed how employing the principles of learning
organizations facilitated the successful implementation of a new program element in the Masters
of Public Administration program at the University of Baltimore. The change process took a
holistic view of purpose, saw the mission as evolving to meet student, faculty and other
stakeholder needs, measured whole and component parts for continuous process improvement,
employed public reporting of strengths, weaknesses and needs in general faculty meetings, and
fostered experimentation to learn what worked in program development (Durant, 2002). The
constant evaluation and public feedback appear to be elements of the cultural setting that
reinforced the cultural model that now values the principles of a learning organization and
continuous process improvement involving faculty, staff and students in the program. Kezar
(2001) theorized that changes that result from continual learning remain more aligned with the
organizational mission thus avoiding more discrete changes that alter organizational direction
that only create more problems in the long term. Establishing an open environment that values
and reinforces open collaboration, systems thinking, continuous improvement and public
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

189
reporting among undergraduate faculty, student advisors and administrators creates a learning
organization that enables effective change and long-term adaptability to meet the program goals
aligned with the School’s mission of building leaders.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model encourages
integrating the stages of planning, implementation and evaluation of recommended solutions in
order to ensure solutions achieve the desired organizational goals. By identifying the Level 4
Results first, it is easier to identify leading indicators that are used to measure positive impact on
the desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By working backwards from Level 4
Results, the New World Kirkpatrick Model sequences through naming and evaluating the critical
behaviors, drivers and on-the-job learning needed to achieve the goals at Level 3 Behavior.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define Level 3 drivers as processes and systems that
“reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors on the job” (p. 53).
Level 2 Learning and Level 1 Reaction measure the acquisition of the knowledge, skills,
confidence and commitment of participants and their satisfaction with the relevance and delivery
of the learning, respectively. Levels 1 and 2 focus on the quality of the training or intervention
while Levels 3 and 4 provide data on the effectiveness of the training or intervention in achieving
the desired outcomes of the organization or business unit. All four levels are essential to make
sure the recommended solutions are aligned with and successfully achieve the organization’s
purpose and mission.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

190
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Student leadership development on college campuses is a fairly recent trend in response
to leadership scholars, educational associations as well as business professionals arguing that
there is leadership crisis that requires more effective leadership education (AAC&U, 2006, 2007;
Burns, 1978). Employers report they cannot find “360 degree people” (AAC&U, 2006, p. 1)
who are both technically knowledgeable and have the interpersonal skills, communication and
collaboration skills to influence others (i.e., leadership skills) to be personally successful and
contribute effectively to their organizations. “Toothpick graduates” (p. 16) who possess narrow
and deep technical skills are consigned to the sidelines early in their careers because they are
unable to break out of their functional mindsets (AAC&U, 2007). The West Business School
Undergraduate Program developed specific learning outcomes in 2014 that address the need for
graduates to possess the requisite management and leadership skills as well as the technical and
functional skills to meet their future employers needs. The goal of an Integrated Student
Leadership Development Program in the Undergraduate Core Program is to more effectively
meet the West Business School Undergraduate Program learning goal to develop effective
managers and leaders. The core curriculum is required of all West Business School
undergraduate students and therefore can set the foundation for the broader leadership
development that occurs over the course a student’s curricular and co-curricular experiences.
The primary stakeholder group included the faculty who teach the core curriculum because they
are on the front lines of educating all West Business School students and whose courses are
collectively designed to meet all six of the learning goals established in 2014. The survey and
interviews with core faculty members explored knowledge, motivation and organizational factors
related to the effective design and implementation of learning activities and experiences to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

191
prepare students with relevant and applicable leadership skills. The proposed solutions are
intended to build faculty identity and capacity as leader educators with knowledge of leadership
theory and practice, learner-centered teaching techniques and provide the organizational support
to achieve this goal. In doing so, the portfolio of workshops, community of practice meetings
(CoP), online resources and coaching will enable and empower core faculty to meet the learning
goals of the Undergraduate Program, the leadership education needs of the students and the
future demands of society and business enterprises.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Within the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Program Evaluation (2016),
results are measured by specific outcomes and leading indicators and their effect on meeting the
performance goal for the organization. In the Undergraduate Program, external leading
indicators include feedback from employers, recognition by the West Business School’s
accrediting body AACSB, as well as increased reputation in the press and greater satisfaction
among students. The internal outcomes and leading indicators provide evidence of changed
behaviors among faculty and administrators that contribute to the integration of student
leadership development learning activities into the Undergraduate Core Curriculum. These
outcomes include regular training workshops for core faculty, frequent recognition and
reinforcement of faculty who are actively engaged in leadership development, in addition to
more explicit inclusion of leadership development in the School’s and Undergraduate Program’s
strategic plans. Specific measures of these factors provide evidence of changed behavior that an
integrated student leadership development program is effective in meeting the goals of the
Undergraduate Program. Table 19 summarizes the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading
Indicators for both external and internal outcomes.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

192
Table 19
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase employers’
positive feedback/perception
that West School
undergraduates possess the
leadership skills to succeed
on the job in their
organization. (Ratings)
1a. The number of new
employers coming to West
School to recruit new hires and
the number of repeating
employers who recruit our
graduates.
1b. Satisfaction ratings by
employers.
1c. Satisfaction ratings by
members of the West School
Corporate Advisory Board.
1a. Solicit data from
Undergraduate Program career
office on number of employer
visits, presentations, job
postings, and hiring data.
1b. Survey of employers
recruiting at the West School.
1c. Survey of West School
Corporate Advisory Board.
2. Greater hire rate of
undergraduates by employers
Hiring data by the
Undergraduate Program career
office
Solicit data from Undergraduate
Program career office
3. Recognition by AACSB
accreditation team for
meeting or exceeding
assurance of learning
standards with novel
curriculum for student
leadership development.
Explicit findings in accreditation
review document that commend
assurance of learning and
pedagogical innovations.
3a. Evaluate AACSB
accreditation report.
3b. Invitation(s) from AACSB to
present West School best
practices at workshops and
seminars.
4. Increase West School
Undergraduate Program
brand reputation as building
future leaders.
4a. More media coverage of
West School (buzz).
4b. Increase number and quality
of undergraduate applications.
4c. Student satisfaction ratings
(drive external rankings and
ratings).
4a. Monitor and analyze media
coverage bi-annually through the
West School media relations
department.
4b. Review annual data from
Undergraduate Program
admissions office.
4c. Evaluate annual student
satisfaction survey data.
4c. Course evaluations that
include specific question(s) on
leadership development.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

193
Table 19, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
1. Assure that all students meet
or exceed the criteria of
Undergraduate Program
Learning Goals #4-6 which
include critical leadership
skills (#4: Graduates will
develop people and leadership
skills to promote their
effectiveness as business
managers and leaders;
#5: Graduates will demonstrate
ethical reasoning skills,
understand social, civic, and
professional responsibilities
and aspire to add value to
society;
#6: Graduates will be effective
communicators to facilitate
information flow in
organizational, social, and
intercultural contexts.)
1a. In program assurance of
learning process, students
performance measured by
percentage Below
Expectations, At Expectations,
and Exceeds Expectations for
each learning goal as reported
by the Core Instructor based
on a specific graded learning
assessment (i.e., exam
question, homework
assignment, learning activity,
paper).
1b. Change in student
assessment scores on the
Socially Responsible
Leadership Scale (SRLS)
related to the Social Change
Model of Leadership.
1a. Gather data annually and
compare to previous measure
outcomes.
1b. SRLS administered as a pre-
test in freshman year then
annually each year to compare
longitudinal changes in
leadership skill development.
2. Create a common definition
of leadership and a shared
framework of what leadership
means to our West School
undergraduates (i.e., Social
Change Model).
Number of core faculty
utilizing all or part of the
Social Change Model in their
course.
Evaluate content of core course
syllabi every semester in the first
two years then annually
thereafter.
3. Increase recognition of
faculty efforts at leadership
development activities.
2a. Undergraduate Program
Vice Dean’s report at Fall and
Spring faculty meetings.
2b. Number of grants to
support curriculum/teaching
innovations.
2c. Department chairs
recognize faculty who are
trying new instructional
techniques.
2a. Evaluate content of Vice
Dean’s remarks from faculty
meetings.
2b. Collect data from Vice Dean
of Faculty office who maintains
grant information.
2c. Solicit information from
Department chairs and/or
Department coordinators (staff).

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

194
Table 19, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
4. A series of faculty workshops
to train faculty in student
leadership development (i.e.,
leadership identity development,
leadership theories/models,
leadership skills & abilities) AND
in action learning instructional
strategies relevant to teaching
leadership in their academic
discipline led by subject matter
experts and faculty peers.
Number of workshops
Number of attendees
Workshop evaluations
completed by
participants
Collect data at first by semester in
first 2 years then annually after that
and compare to previous years.
Evaluate effectiveness of workshops
to revise content and delivery
methods as needed.
Faculty satisfaction survey results.
5. Explicit mention of student
leadership development in West
School strategic plan and
Undergraduate Program strategic
initiatives.
West School strategic
plan
Undergraduate
Program strategic
initiatives
Evaluate strategic plan and strategic
initiatives that are currently under
review.
Monitor West School website for
inclusion on different pages in the
website.
Request for program-related
information and data by strategic
planning committee and program
administrators (they are asking for
more information and integrating into
planning & operations)

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. To achieve the specified outcomes described above, there needs to
be a measure of the specific critical behaviors by the primary stakeholder group that ensure that
new expectations, processes, procedures and policies are being executed after training and
learning has occurred (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For example, Level 3 metrics inform
the Undergraduate Program that core faculty are applying what they learned in workshops and
learning communities back in the classroom in a sustainable manner. The first and most
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

195
important critical behavior is that a core faculty instructor integrates at least one learning activity
that is related to student leadership development into their course. This could be a specific
lecture, short lesson/lecturette, discussion, homework assignment or interactive exercise that
teaches how leadership applies to those working in fields related to the academic discipline or
general business topics. The activity would align with the specific definition or concept of
leadership and fit within the framework of leadership that the Undergraduate Program has
adopted. Additionally, core faculty should be held accountable for sharing their experiences and
assisting other faculty in their department and in other departments in formal workshops,
learning communities, department meetings and in informal conversations and settings. The
practice of shared learning and reinforcement contributes to developing a learning organization
that can provide the foundation for sustainable change (Kezar, 2005, 2006; Senge, 1990). Table
20 summarizes three measurable critical behaviors by core faculty and the metrics, methods and
timing to be utilized in the implementation and evaluation of an integrated student leadership
development initiative.
Required drivers. Support tools and accountability methods are necessary to ensure that
core faculty engage in the critical behaviors that will make an integrated student leadership
program successful. In order for core faculty members to adopt new behaviors, they need
support and resources from the Undergraduate Program. These resources and interventions
provide methods and systems that reinforce, encourage and reward the changes in faculty
behavior necessary to serve the leadership development needs of students and employers. When
combined with clear monitoring processes, these integrated elements of implementation and
evaluation provide a comprehensive process of continuous improvement. Table 21 presents the
recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of core faculty.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

196
Table 20
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Core faculty integrate
at least one learning
activity to teach or
discuss what leadership
knowledge, skills and/or
abilities are needed in
their discipline using the
common leadership
framework (i.e. Social
Change Model of
Leadership - 7 Cs).
Learning activity or
activities used in the
course.
Inclusion in learning
objectives and/or
outcomes in syllabus.
Inclusion in
Undergraduate
Program assurance of
learning spreadsheet.
a. Review syllabus for activity
and specific and measurable
learning outcomes by
Educational Specialist and
Core Curriculum Committee.
b. Faculty report learning
activities in annual core team
meeting. [Note: faculty
member answers yes I am
doing x or y; if no, explore the
reason why not adopted
because of K, M or O factors.]
c. Review student performance
rates (below, at or exceeds
expectations) of learning goals
#4-6 during internal assurance
of learning process.
d. Add an additional question
to student core course
evaluation form that asks
student to rate on a 5-point
Likert Scale (strongly agree to
strongly disagree) “This course
has contributed to the
development of my leadership
knowledge, skills and/or
abilities.” Or “I feel more
confident in my ability to lead
as a result of this course.”
Every semester for the
first two years and
then annually.
Also as new faculty
come in to teach the
course who may have
revised elements of
the syllabus.
2. Core faculty attend
follow up workshop or
CoP meeting to share
their experience and
lessons learned with
other core faculty.
Attendance at follow-
up workshop and/or
CoP meetings.
RSVP list and Sign In Sheet
by the educational specialist or
the Core Course Coordinator.
At least once a
semester for the first
two years, then at
least once a year.
3. More experienced
core faculty teach new
core faculty how to
integrate leadership
learning activity into the
core course.
Feedback from core
faculty survey on
reinforcement and
learning activities in
the core teaching team
for each class such as
number of
presentations in
department meetings or
in core team meetings.
Survey of core faculty
Report by the Core Course
Coordinator at the
Undergraduate Core
Curriculum Committee
meetings.
Every semester for
first two years and
then annually.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

197
The Dean and Vice Dean could lead a kick-off workshop to encourage faculty to
participate in the training as well as adapt their course syllabus to meet the leadership learning
goals. In conversations, presentations and meetings with faculty, the Vice Dean and Core
Coordinators on the Core Curriculum Committee can reinforce the importance of the learning
goals to student success and meeting the needs of future employers while monitoring the
progress toward the learning goals. Department Chairs will be encouraged to recognize and
reinforce the efforts of core faculty in department meetings. The new faculty orientation
program will include an explanation of the student leadership development framework and share
resources for faculty to include leadership development learning activities in their courses.
Annual meetings of all core faculty will highlight success stories and communicate the
importance of meeting the Undergraduate Program learning goals, especially building effective
leaders. These meetings may also encourage creative and innovative partnerships between
faculty to create new, relevant and engaging leadership learning activities. Job aids such as
sample syllabi, examples of effective learning activities and links to helpful websites provided by
other core faculty will be posted in the online Faculty Resource Center (FRC) and referenced in
training workshops. In order to be most effective, these recommendations require a clear and
consistent strategy for the Undergraduate Program that serves as the superordinate purpose for
all faculty, staff and administrators to achieve the organizational goal of building future leaders
for business and society. Table 21 details the specific drivers to reinforce, encourage, and
reward desired critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

198
Table 21
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Community of practice meetings (by department or all core faculty) where faculty
model and share effective teaching methods and address challenges of change.
At least
once a
semester
1, 2, 3
Dean and Vice Dean attend workshops and reinforce the importance of the
learning goal and faculty engagement.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Using West School internal eNewsletter to feature core faculty, student success
and employer stories that highlight leadership development efforts with notice of
upcoming workshops and links to online resources.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Core Faculty meeting of all core faculty to review key goals and objectives of the
West School undergraduate core curriculum and how it fits into the school’s
mission (to build future leaders).
Annually 1, 2, 3
Job aids such as sample syllabi and learning activity examples posted on the FRC. Ongoing 1
Presentation and discussion of Social Change Model in the new faculty
orientation.
Annually 1, 3
Encouraging
Kick off lunch meeting/workshop with all core faculty. Fall
semester
1, 2
Email from educational specialist to faculty offering support and tips. Can send to
alternate departments (i.e., marketing one month, accounting the next month).
Monthly 1, 2
Vice Dean attends workshops and reinforces the importance of the learning goal
and faculty engagement to encourage and sustain faculty engagement.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Core Faculty meeting of all core instructors used to share success stories to
encourage faculty to stay engaged in student leadership development efforts.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public recognition at faculty meetings. Fall and
Spring
semesters
1, 2, 3
Grants to develop new learning activities. Annually 1
Core Faculty meeting of all core faculty also acknowledges and celebrates faculty
efforts.
Annually 1, 3

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

199
Monitoring. An effective system of accountability is essential to avoid the backslide to
old routines evident before any change intervention is introduced (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Measuring what matters will build in accountability a number of different ways to ensure
that the learning from the faculty workshops and other activities are being applied in the
classroom. Additionally, more frequent measures that are easily completed or combined with
existing processes or protocols allow the organization to monitor progress during the
implementation process so that any necessary adjustments are made in a timely manner before
new (bad) behaviors set in (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2006).
Several strategies will be utilized to ensure that the required drivers and behaviors are
enacted. Progress reports and success stories can be shared with the Vice Deans of the
Undergraduate Program and of Faculty, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Core
Curriculum Committee, and Department Chairs to maintain commitment and support at the
organizational level. Faculty discussions in core team meetings will provide feedback and
positive reinforcement as well as monitoring the level of faculty engagement in new behaviors of
teaching leadership. Core coordinators can report progress back to the Core Curriculum
Committee and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. The instructional coach can provide
feedback on the number and content of follow-up activities or resources core faculty request or
engage in following the workshop. Furthermore, the Undergraduate Program learning goals and
the leadership framework such as the Social Change Model of Leadership can be introduced in
the new faculty orientation program. Student course evaluations can include a question that asks
students to rate how well the course contributed to their leadership development by providing
new knowledge, skills and abilities and/or the opportunity to practice them.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

200
Periodic surveys and informal interviews are also effective forms of accountability. The
West Business School Corporate Board of Advisors can be surveyed or interviewed annually to
provide feedback on the anticipated changes in recent graduates’ effective application of strong
leadership skills on the job. This information would also be shared with the various school
committees mentioned above. Faculty, student and alumni surveys can be conducted annually to
determine how well the core program is meeting its learning goals, specifically those around
leadership capacity. Surveying alumni is important since leadership development is a long term
process and the core curriculum merely lays the foundation. These monitoring activities will
help maintain momentum, measure progress and make adjustments to sustain effective change.
Organizational support. The critical behaviors and required drivers that are monitored
for performance in the above sections assume that the recommendations at the organizational
level have been implemented. In this case, for the stakeholder to achieve their goals, the
organization would need to provide both financial and non-financial support and resources. The
Business School would need to provide meeting space within the business school buildings, a
moderate amount of financial resources to compensate external student leadership content
experts, and food and drink during workshops. The program would be coordinated by a faculty
director appointed and compensated by the Vice Dean of Undergraduate Programs who would
partner with the educational specialist. The Vice Dean and Department Chairs could sponsor
meetings where faculty of all types and tenure can get together to share and brainstorm practical
steps to change or adapt the core course curriculum. The proposed program is similar to a series
of workshops and faculty events that were held to implement a critical thinking strategic
initiative aligned with Program learning goals and sponsored by the Vice Dean of Undergraduate
Programs. With similar support from the Vice Dean, it is likely that these organizational
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

201
supports would be provided to promote and create an integrated student leadership program to
meet the Undergraduate Program’s learning goals and serve the needs of employers who recruit
West undergraduates.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. After participating in the recommended solutions (i.e., workshops) to
integrate student leadership development into core courses, core faculty instructors will be able
to:
1. Value the importance of including student leadership development activities in their
core course. (Value)
2. Recognize the process of student leadership identity development. (D)
3. Recognize and exemplify leadership theories and relevant leadership skills within the
context of the West Business School’s definition of leadership. (D, P)
4. Recognize and exemplify the Social Change Model of Leadership. (D)
5. Classify and interpret the components of the Social Change Model of Leadership
within the context of their course. (D)
6. Recognize student-centered, active learning instructional techniques. (D)
7. Implement action learning methods in teaching relevant leadership knowledge and
skills. (P)
8. Exemplify and generate specific and measurable learning outcomes to assess
leadership knowledge, skills and abilities that align with the Business School
leadership definition and the Social Change Model of Leadership. (P)
9. Exemplify the connection between course learning outcomes and Undergraduate Core
Program learning goals. (P)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

202
10. Demonstrate confidence in their knowledge and ability to develop student leadership
skills and abilities in their core course. (Confidence)
11. Value their role as leader educators and role models. (M)
Program. The program to promote the integration of leadership development into the
Undergraduate Core Program consists of a series of workshops and community of practice (CoP)
meetings to train core faculty to integrate student centered and action learning activities into their
core course to develop or reinforce student leadership knowledge, skills and abilities.
Workshops will be 3 hours in length. The first half of the workshop will introduce the Social
Change Model of Leadership that will serve as the common framework for developing learning
activities to build leadership capacity. The Social Change Model aligns well with a current
working definition of student leadership at the West Business School — competence, courage
and character — utilized in a first year leadership program. Additionally, core instructors shared
agreement of team skills as essential to leadership which aligns with the group elements of the
Social Change Model. In the second half of the workshop, faculty will work with colleagues to
identify where the Social Change Model and/or more general leadership topics apply in their
core course. The final activity of the workshop is to create one learning activity based on action
learning techniques that will introduce or reinforce a specific leadership skill or ability within the
context of the course (i.e., marketing, finance, accounting, management, strategy, economics).
Throughout the workshop, participants will work collaboratively with a colleague in their
discipline. The facilitator will engage in class discussion to check their understanding and
review interactive activities to assure learning by providing feedback. Following the workshop,
CoP meetings will be scheduled periodically, usually monthly, to provide support and feedback
to faculty engaged in new behaviors in the classroom using the Social Change Model or applying
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

203
other leadership concepts and skills. Additionally, the workshop can be videotaped and short
videos by faculty on their activities and how they worked can be posted on FDC.
Components of learning. Understanding declarative knowledge is necessary in order to
effectively apply the knowledge and skills to solve problems or create opportunities (Krathwohl,
2002). Therefore, it is important to evaluate what declarative and procedural knowledge is
acquired during the course of learning. Additionally, learners need to value the training and its
function in performing their jobs now and in the future and are assisted by developing a positive
attitude toward using the new knowledge and skills (Eccles, 2005; Pintrich, 2003). Core faculty
need to feel confident that they can successfully transfer and apply the knowledge and skills they
acquire through training workshops, CoP meetings, and coaching so they are more likely to
commit to using them in their teaching in the future. Table 22 lists the methods and timing to
evaluate declarative and procedural knowledge, attitude and confidence related to the essential
components of learning and transfer.

Table 22
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussion, interactive class
quizzes, pair/share.
Periodically during the workshop and documented
via observation notes.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey
asking core faculty about their level of proficiency
developing active learning around leadership topics
before and after workshops.
Pre-workshop survey one week before workshop,
workshop evaluation at end of workshop session, and
post-workshop survey conducted 2 weeks after
workshop.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

204
Table 22, continued
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Creation of a specific learning activity in peer
pairs.
During the workshop and observed by the facilitator and
dedicated observer.
Report out to demonstrate the learning activity. During the workshop.
Quality of feedback and questions from
participants.
During the workshop documented by dedicated observer.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey asking core faculty about their level of
proficiency developing active learning around
leadership topics before and after workshops.
Pre-workshop survey one week before workshop, workshop
evaluation at end of workshop session, and post-workshop
survey conducted 2 weeks after workshop.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of
participants’statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshop and observed by the facilitator and
dedicated observer and during monthly learning community
sessions.
Quality of feedback and questions from
participants on the value of what they are being
asked to do in their core course.
During the workshop and at monthly learning community
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey item.
Pre-workshop survey one week before workshop, workshop
evaluation at end of workshop session, and post-workshop
survey conducted 2 weeks after workshop.
Feedback from Department Chairs After the workshop
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop documented by dedicated observer and
at monthly learning community sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey item.
Pre-workshop survey one week before workshop, workshop
evaluation at end of workshop session, and post-workshop
survey conducted 2 weeks after workshop.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a specific and individual action plan to
share with peer partner.
During the workshop and at monthly learning community
sessions.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop and at monthly learning community
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey item.
Workshop evaluation at end of workshop session, and post-
workshop survey conducted 2 weeks after workshop.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

205
Level 1: Reaction
Within the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), Level 1
Reaction measures how participants experienced the training addressing issues of logistics,
relevance and engagement. Evaluation is carried out during, immediately following and again a
few week out from the training. During the workshop, the facilitator conducts periodic formative
pulse checks to make sure the physical environment is comfortable and materials are clear and
relevant so that adjustments can be made to ensure a positive learning experience. Summative
evaluation is conducted at the conclusion of the workshop asking participants to provide
assessment and feedback on the relevance and quality of content, presenters and facilitators.
Separate focus group meetings with a small group of champions and a group of challengers will
be conducted shortly following the workshop to gain further data on the effectiveness of the
workshops and identify opportunities to provide support to core faculty instructors after they
have attempted to apply what they have learned. Table 23 presents the methods to assess
engagement, relevance and the participants’ overall satisfaction with the faculty workshops on
student leadership development.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

206
Table 23
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by facilitator and dedicated observer During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Number of questions and level of discussion
during the workshop
During the workshop; After every module in the
workshop
Retrospective engagement related pre- and post-
test assessment items
Pre-workshop survey one week before workshop,
workshop evaluation at end of workshop session,
and post-workshop survey conducted 2 weeks
after workshop and at the end of the semester
Course evaluation After the session and two weeks after the
workshop
Post-program focus group meeting One week after the workshop meet with
identified champions and challengers
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants during
discussions
After every module in the workshop and at
learning community meetings
Workshop content and format evaluation After the workshop
Post-program focus group meeting One week after the workshop meet with
identified champions and challengers
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants during
discussions
After every module in the workshop
Course evaluation After the workshop
Retrospective satisfaction related post-test
assessment item
Post-workshop survey conducted 2 weeks after
workshop and at the end of the semester
Post-program focus group meeting One week after the workshop meet with
identified champions and challengers

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

207
Evaluation Tools
During and immediately following the program implementation. During the in-
person workshop, the facilitator will seek Level 1 and Level 2 feedback to measure engagement,
relevance and customer satisfaction with the physical environment, course materials and course
content. By conducting periodic brief pulse-checks, the facilitator will ask participants how the
course content is relevant to their teaching and the learning outcomes for students. The results of
practice exercises will be reported out to the class to serve as another form of formative
evaluation. This allows the facilitator to adjust the program content and/or the learning
environment immediately to better meet the learner’s needs. A designated observer will be
asked to collect attendance, observe the facilitator and class dynamics, and provide objective
feedback to the facilitator during class breaks as well as at the end of the workshop. Evaluation
during the program aims to assess how well participants understand the knowledge and skills
being presented and how likely they are to apply what they are learning on the job as well as
their level of physical comfort in the learning environment.
At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will be asked to complete a retrospective
pre post self-assessment survey (Appendix H) that will measure the level of learning, attitude,
confidence, and intent to incorporate the new approaches in their teaching as well as the
likelihood of them seeking additional support or resources following the program.
Level 2 evaluation provides information on how much and how well participants learned
in the program and feel confident and committed to applying it on the job. Criteria for the Level
2 evaluation on four levels include the following measures of:
1. Knowledge — leadership theories & concepts, Social Change Model, future
employers’ needs, action learning design for student-centered activities.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

208
2. Skill — ability to create a learning activity, relate/adapt course learning outcomes to
the Social Change Model, reinforce Undergraduate learning outcomes.
3. Attitude — do core faculty instructors value this program and its goals, and are they
willing to do it, how excited they are about it, are they ready to collaborate and
engage with other core and non-core faculty with a collaboration/engagement mindset
instead of simply compliance.
4. Confidence & Commitment — observing participants in discussion and practice,
evaluating types of questions asked and if expectations are clear, observing
subsequent CoP meetings and informal exchanges.
Results of the evaluation can identify the knowledge, motivation and the organizational
factors that either enhance or interfere with the effectiveness of the workshop and CoP meetings.
The CoP meetings, regular and consistent communication and other department and committee
meetings can address the potentiality of the erosion of knowledge, skill, attitude, and confidence
and commitment over time. Subsequently, the issues at the reaction, learning, behavior or results
level can be resolved so that the Undergraduate Core Program contributes to the learning goal of
building effective leaders.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. A follow-up evaluation
survey will be sent to workshop participants at 4-6 weeks following the workshop and after the
first CoP meeting. The evaluation (Appendix I) aims to measure the stickiness of the training by
assessing how and by how much the faculty participant’s knowledge, skills, attitudes and
confidence have changed since the workshop. The data will be used to identify areas of the
training that need revision as well as identify faculty members who might need additional
assistance or support from the educational specialist or peers in the development or
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

209
implementation of a leadership learning activity. Focusing on Level 3 and Level 4 evaluation,
faculty members report back on what they have done differently in teaching the core course (i.e.,
from the action plan created in the workshop) and any differences or benefits they have seen as a
result. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stress the importance of connecting training to
performance to results for the organization to achieve its mission. With the delayed evaluation,
the data will reveal how close or how far the Undergraduate Program to integrating leadership
development activities across all core courses in order to build better leaders.
Data Analysis and Reporting
It is critical to measure progress when implementing change in organizations (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Once a change intervention is designed and
introduced, it is essential to collect and evaluate data to make necessary adjustments to meet the
established objectives (Cummings, 1995; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Transfer of
learning, change in behaviors as well as stakeholders reactions are measured using evaluation
tools similar to those discussed in the previous section. Evaluation will be conducted during the
faculty workshop through observation and assessment using class activities. Additionally, using
the Program Evaluation form (Appendix H), participants will be asked to complete a program
evaluation survey at the conclusion of the workshop before departing. These Level 1 and Level
2 evaluation approaches will assess the impact of the workshop on the participant’s change in
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment as well as how engaging and relevant
the workshop was for faculty participants. In this way, the program expectations can be
measured against results to determine the level of success as well as any issues that should be
addressed to assure that core faculty are able and willing to adjust their teaching to include
leadership development topics and/or activities.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

210
In the weeks that follow the workshop, a follow-up survey will be sent to participants to
assess if and how critical behaviors are being performed by the core faculty instructors. This
process will also identify how effective organizational factors are on providing support for core
faculty changing the way they are teaching their courses.
The results of the evaluation will be shared with key stakeholders that include the Vice
Dean of Undergraduate Programs, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and the
Undergraduate Core Curriculum Committee as well as the core faculty instructors themselves.
The committees and Vice Dean can provide additional support to the initiative as well as to core
faculty. The core faculty may view the results as confirmation of the importance of the
successful integration of leadership into the core program in order to meet the Undergraduate
Program learning goals. Additionally, a variety of examples of how faculty are addressing
leadership development topics in their courses will be shared to provide motivation and
additional knowledge for all faculty involved.
Below are examples of reporting graphics that will be shared with the stakeholders at
meetings held mid-semester after the post-program integrated evaluation is completed. They
show the distribution of core faculty teaching leadership (Figure 30), the adoption rate by the
change in faculty by academic department (Figure 31), and then how each core course relates to
the components of the Social Change Model of Leadership (Figure 32). Once longitudinal data
is collected using the SRLS assessment, another chart can be created to show the growth of
leadership skills over time.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

211

Figure 30. Distribution of core faculty teaching leadership by course

Course
Teaching Leadership
Before Workshop
Teaching Leadership
After Workshop Progress
Accounting I & II 0 1 +
Business Communications 4 6 +
Organizational Behavior 8 8 =
Corporate Finance 0 3 ++
Marketing 2 5 ++
Statistics 0 4 ++
Operations 0 3 ++
Business Analytics 1 2 +
Strategy 6 8 +
Economics 1 2 +
Note: Slight Change + Significant Change ++ No Change =

Figure 31. Core course dashboard: Change in faculty involvement in student leadership
development
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

212

Figure 32. Distribution of core courses across components of Social Change Model of
Leadership

Chapter Summary
Colleges and universities have had a central role in preparing our nation’s leaders since
their inception (Gomez, 2007). The changing nature of labor towards collaborative and team-
based work, the focus on measuring student learning and developmental outcomes, and the more
formal role of student leadership educator are key trends that call for more formal and integrated
student leadership development programs to build future global leaders (AAC&U, 2007;
AACSB, 2018; Dugan & Komives, 2007). By understanding the efficacy of leadership
programs, educational institutions such as the Business School can more effectively design,
deliver and evaluate educational offerings that purport to produce capable organizational leaders.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

213
Research was initially conducted to evaluate how well the Undergraduate Program is
meeting its performance goals around student leadership skill development by focusing on the
key stakeholder group, undergraduate core faculty. Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework, a gap analysis was conducted that identified and assessed the key knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that enhance or encumber learning, behavioral and
cultural change to more effectively meet the Undergraduate Program learning goals at the West
Business School. Additional research was conducted that revealed the key hallmarks of effective
student leadership development among college students.
Committed and knowledgeable faculty are a key component of exemplary leadership
programs. Faculty have a significant role to play in designing and delivering effective leadership
learning thus shaping the specific learning activities and outcomes for students to increase their
leadership capacity (CAS, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Komives et al., 2005; Zimmerman-
Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). Additionally, comprehensive, integrated leadership programs are
more successful when active learning is situated in students’ experiences and context of identity
development that occurs during the undergraduate years (CAS, 2012; Komives et al., 2009;
Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). These key factors are incorporated into the proposed
faculty development program.
Experienced and committed leader educators intentionally build learning communities to
cultivate faculty-student relationships to support the development of a student’s leadership
identity and capacity (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Eich, 2008). In establishing powerful
relationships with faculty as leader educators through discussion and dialogue, students gain the
self-confidence that is critical to effective leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007;
Eich, 2008). By engaging in their own learning communities of practice during and after the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

214
faculty workshops, leader educators (i.e., core faculty) may feel more capable and confident
developing strong relationships both in and out of the classroom and contribute more effectively
to students’ developing their leadership capacity.
With West Business School core faculty, interviews revealed that core faculty instructors
do value their role as leader educator but not all explicitly design learning objectives or active
learning activities to develop student leadership skills. Also there is little interaction among core
faculty across disciplines to coordinate common leadership themes or skills that will contribute
to meeting the Undergraduate Program learning goals in the most effective and impactful
manner. The proposed faculty development program of workshops and other supporting
activities intends to motivate, equip and support core faculty to create leadership learning
experiences — in and out of the classroom — in a shared environment that promotes a
collaborative and adaptive culture of a learning organization.
Another key factor in high quality leadership development programs is the regular
assessment of program learning objectives and goals to ensure accountability (Goertzen, 2009;
Owen, 2011, 2012; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 2000). The first step in creating an
integrated student leadership development program in the Undergraduate Core Curriculum is to
prepare the faculty to be knowledgeable and motivated leader educators and make leadership
learning explicit in their course learning objectives and activities. The proposed workshops,
learning communities and other resources are intended to provide faculty with the information
and tools to achieve this objective. Assessment and evaluation processes were incorporated in
the program design to measure the effectiveness and provide the opportunity of continuous
process improvement.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

215
The framework presented in the New World Kirkpatrick Model was employed and
applied to create and implement a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed program to educate
and support core faculty in their role as leader educators. In the Kirkpatrick model, planning,
implementation and evaluation phases are integrated to assure the goals and objectives of the
recommended program are achieved. Beginning with a clear vision of the desired direction and
destination, it is possible to design a program or intervention to more effectively and efficiently
achieve the organization’s goals. This process begins with establishing and evaluating Level 4
results.
Level 4 outcomes and leading indicators were identified that would indicate the faculty
workshops and other activities were making a difference in building future business leaders.
External outcomes such as employer feedback, increased hire rates, as well as recognition by
accrediting bodies and peer institutions would signal the program is effective. Internal outcomes
such as effective faculty professional development programs, positive student assessment against
learning outcomes, a shared framework of leadership development, and public recognition of
leadership development efforts would point toward desired organizational results.
In order to achieve the Level 4 results, Level 3 critical behaviors were identified. An
important and fundamental critical behavior is for core faculty to integrate at least one learning
activity that promotes a student’s leadership identity or capacity. Required drivers that reinforce,
encourage, reward and monitor the adoption of critical behaviors were specified. For example,
establishing regular communities of practice meetings where faculty model and share effective
teaching methods and can discuss the challenges of change provides a support system that
reinforces the learning from the workshops. Active engagement by the Vice Dean at workshop
meetings, publicly promoting the initiative through recognition and organization wide
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

216
communications further encourages and rewards the key faculty stakeholders. Regular meetings
and discussions with core faculty, department chairs and Undergraduate faculty committee
members — both formally and informally — are systems of accountability essential to the
program’s success. These activities will encourage and enhance an organizational culture of
accountability, adaptability and commitment as the Undergraduate Program supports its core
faculty as they prepare students to make a difference as leaders at all levels.
Other levels of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) framework measure learning at
Level 2 along with the increase in confidence and commitment of the core faculty. At Level 1,
levels of engagement, relevance and satisfaction with the initial training workshops are evaluated
both during and after the workshop so that adjustments can be made. The learning goals
identified at Level 2 are aligned with the behaviors and drivers determined in Level 3 that will
make meeting the desired results and outcomes at Level 4 possible and more likely.
There are six specific learning goals of the Undergraduate Program, of which building
students’ leadership knowledge, skills and abilities is only one. By applying the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, the method approach taken in this program may serve as a model to evaluate
how well the Undergraduate Program is meeting all of its learning goals. And while it’s beyond
the scope of this study, it may prove to be a valuable method to create an innovative approach to
truly integrate all of the learning goals across the Undergraduate Core Program.
Organizational problems and challenges cannot be solved by training alone. By
integrating the desired organizational outcomes, stakeholder behaviors and drivers, learning
goals and workshop design, it is more likely that the School will achieve its learning goals and
develop a culture of a learning organization. The West Business School will become able to
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

217
identify and adapt to the challenges and demands of educating future leaders to solve the
problems facing business and society in the 21st century.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework provided a useful approach to
analyze the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact how well the West
Business School was meeting its program goal related to student leadership development. The
framework allowed for a systematic evaluation of the role of core faculty that identified
performance gaps that could be addressed to better meet the program goal. The Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) was a strong complement to the Clark and Estes analytical
process to define an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to close the performance
gaps. The model provides a methodical and comprehensive approach that promotes alignment
across performance goals, training methods, implementation and evaluation. A weakness of the
model is its focus on training to remedy performance issues. The proposed recommendations in
this study entail an organizational change effort that may be influenced by other factors outside
of the model such as intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment that are unrelated to
training.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations in all research studies. The sample size was small and limited by an
imbalance among the academic disciplines represented in the study. For example, the
researcher’s own department was over-represented in the survey data but efforts were made to
address this by reporting the data by course rather than by department and interviews were
sought with a broader group of core faculty. Teaching is only one aspect of a faculty member’s
responsibility and may not be the primary reason a faculty member is working in a business
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

218
school situated within a research university. Because of limited time and resources, this study
did not address all of the motivation factors that influence a faculty member’s behavior.
Additionally, responses were self-reported and may be subjective and influenced by social
desirability bias, especially when speaking with a colleague in the same organization.
The study was also limited by the design of the novel survey and interview questions and
the assumption that their intent would be clearly understood by the participants. Over the course
of the interviews and data analysis, it was clear that questions could have been more clearly
worded to focus more directly on the factors of interest. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and
Maxwell (2012) discuss the importance of conducting qualitative research over time. Because of
the nature of the EdD program, the researcher was limited in the amount of time she was able to
spend with the stakeholders.
Leadership education involves a myriad of experiences. This study focused on faculty
teaching the core curriculum in the undergraduate business program yet students gain leadership
capacity through a variety of experiences outside the classroom that are not evaluated in this
study. Future studies might include different stakeholders and different learning experiences in
the process of developing student leadership capacity.
This study was conducted in a single institution and the results are limited in their
generalizability. The delimitation of the study is that it may be context specific as it is focused
on the specific learning goals of the undergraduate business program. A larger study that
includes several institutions may provide more general conclusions.
Finally, the Clark and Estes KMO Framework is a specific gap analysis framework that
may be considered a limitation. There are other frameworks emerging in the area of leadership
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

219
education research that could further the understanding of the faculty experience and impact on
students’ leadership development.
Future Research
Student leadership development is a broad and emerging field of study. This study
focused on one stakeholder group, the role of core faculty in an undergraduate business school.
Future studies could include other stakeholder groups that include not only faculty and faculty
administrators but also student affairs professionals who may also influence how students
develop the leadership knowledge and skills to impact society and business. Students themselves
can also be the focus of a study that measures knowledge and skill development while they are
enrolled in the program using the tools that are currently available in the field such as the Student
Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 2013), observed and self-reported
competencies (Seemiller, 2013), or the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale associated with
the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (Komives & Wagner, 2016).
Future studies that include the role of core faculty at other business schools would offer
more generalizability to other institutions that are interested in engaging faculty in student
leadership development initiatives. Evaluation studies of the recommendations made in this
study may help school administrators more successfully implement change initiatives involving
program faculty and other stakeholders in their institutions.
Conclusion
Business schools assert to transform their students into global leaders who will be able to
lead in the 21st century. Yet, employers report significant gaps in the leadership skills they seek
(AAC&U, 2015). Business schools as well as other colleges and universities benefit from
learning how to better meet employers’ needs by evaluating their student leadership programs.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

220
Understanding the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that influence business
school core faculty enables school administrators to more effectively design, deliver and evaluate
the efficacy of the educational programs they offer that aim to produce capable organizational
leaders. The problem of practice explored in this study looked at the role of core faculty in
meeting one of the specific learning goals of the undergraduate program at the West Business
School, to develop the leadership skills to become effective business managers and future
leaders.
Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, a gap analysis was conducted that
identified and assessed the key knowledge, motivation and organizational influences among core
faculty that enhance or encumber learning, behavioral and cultural change to more effectively
meet the West Business School Undergraduate Program learning goal to build future leaders.
The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World Model was employed to design an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan to ensure the necessary knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors are enacted to more effectively develop student leadership knowledge and
skills in the core curriculum.
The findings of this study, not surprisingly found that instructors teaching the core
curriculum vary in their perspectives, interests and abilities when it comes to student leadership
development. Undergraduate faculty are a diverse group reflecting different types of academic
expertise, types of motivation and interest in teaching, and different levels of commitment to
students, their peers and the institution in which they work. However, to achieve the goals set
forth for the Undergraduate Program at the West Business School, it is essential that core faculty,
teaching classes that all West Business School students take, incorporate learning experiences
that enable students to achieve the learning goals related to leadership development as well as the
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

221
other learning goals related to knowledge of business, critical thinking and professional ethics.
The recommendations in this study advocate explicitly coordinating efforts to create a practical
framework to serve students and support faculty and other stakeholders to produce graduates that
are more capable of tackling the complex problems in an increasingly dynamic and global world.
This study adds to the growing pool of research on the role of leader educators and the factors
that impact their success in developing undergraduate students to be more effective in meeting
the needs of future employers and the broader need for leadership in society.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

222
REFERENCES
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium
learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41). Paris, France:
OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/218525261154
Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Yough, M. S., & Gimbert, B. G. (2010). Value-added
models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational
Psychologist, 45(2), 123–137.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete Edition). New
York, NY: Longman.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in
organizational science, 1995-2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey
researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 335–349.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ashton, P. T. (1985). Motivation and the teacher’s sense of efficacy. Research on Motivation in
Education, 2, 141–174.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). How should colleges prepare
students to succeed in today’s global economy? Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2007_full_report_leap.pdf
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

223
Association of American Colleges and Universities and National Leadership Council. (2007).
College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership
Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015). Falling short? College learning and
career success. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2015). Business school data guide.
Tampa, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/datareports/data-
guide
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2018). Eligibility procedures and
accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/docs/accreditation/business/standards-and-
tables/2018-business-standards.ashx?la=en
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in
social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research,
1990(68), 61–74.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199–218.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

224
Azdell, G. L. (2010). College student leader development: A study of perceptions of leadership
skills and abilities of senior students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, Assessment,
Instruction, and Professional Development (pp. 83-102). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.
Bennis, W. G. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bloomberg Business. (2014). Undergraduate business schools rankings & profiles 2014.
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/business-schools
Boatman, S. A. (1997). Student leadership development: Approaches, methods and models.
Columbia, SC: National Association for Campus Activities Educational Foundation.
Boatman, S. A. (2000). The leadership audit: A process to enhance the development of student
leadership. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 37(1), 60–71.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

225
Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role behaviors.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 119–130.
Brawner, C. E., Felder, R. M., Allen, R., & Brent, R. (2002). A survey of faculty teaching
practices and involvement in faculty development activities. Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(4), 393–396.
Braxton, J. M., Eimers, M. T., & Bayer, A. E. (1996). The implications of teaching norms for the
improvement of undergraduate education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(6), 603–
625.
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of
training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences
Education, 11(4), 339–346.
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research on leadership
development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 81–95.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Burton, J. P., Bamberry, N. J., & Harris-Boundy, J. (2005). Developing personal teaching
efficacy in new teachers in university settings. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 160–173.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’
perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century
US workforce. Washington, D.C.: The Conference Board and Partnership for 21st
Century Skills.
Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What
does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239–245.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

226
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Conger, J. A. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2012). CAS professional
standards for higher education (8th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Cranton, P., & King, K. P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development goal.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(98), 31–38.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummings, T. (1995). From programmed change to self design: Learning how to transform
organizations. Organization Development Journal, 13, 20–31.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11,
581–613.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373.
Deloitte. (2014). Global human capital trends 2014. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/human-capital-trends/2014.html
Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century.
Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 18–34.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

227
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 54–67.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:
Findings from a national study. A report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership.
College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2011). Influences on college students’ capacities for socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 52(2), 525–549.
Dugan, J. P., & Owen, J. E. (2007). Practicing what we preach: An institutional approach to
student leadership development. NASPA Leadership Exchange, 5(2), 20–22.
Durant, R. R. (2002). Toward becoming a learning organization: Outcomes assessment,
NASPAA accreditation, and mission-based capstone courses. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 8(3), 193–208.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford.
The Economist. (2012). Which MBA? Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/whichmba/
Eich, D. (2008). A grounded theory of high-quality leadership programs perspectives from
student leadership development programs in higher education. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15(2), 176–187.
Ettington, D. R., & Camp, R. R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and
work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26(4), 356–379.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

228
Ewell, P. T. (2002). A delicate balance: The role of evaluation in management. Quality in Higher
Education, 8(2), 159–171.
Fink, A. (2015). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient
critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212–230.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes
toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
13(4), 451–458.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Glisczinski, D. J. (2007). Transformative higher education: A meaningful degree of
understanding. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(4), 317–328.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

229
Goertzen, B. J. (2009). Assessment in academic based leadership education programs. Journal of
Leadership Education, 8(1), 148–162.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Gomez, D. (2007). Practitioner’s corner: The leader as learner. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 2(3), 280–284.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Grunert O’Brien, J., Millis, B. J., Cohen, M. W., & Diamond, R. M. (2008). The course syllabus:
A learning-centered approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Haber, P. (2011). Formal leadership program models. In S. R. Komives, J. P. Dugan, J. E. Owen,
C. Slack, & W. Wagner (Eds.), The handbook for student leadership development (pp.
231–258). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Haber-Curran, P., & Tillapaugh, D. (2013). Leadership learning through student-centered and
inquiry-focused approaches to teaching adaptive leadership. Journal of Leadership
Education, 12(1), 92–116.
Haddad, S. I., & Taleb, R. A. (2016). The impact of self-efficacy on performance (An empirical
study on business faculty members in Jordanian universities). Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 877–887.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. B. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), 64–72.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

230
Henderson, C. (2008). Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the
physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. American Journal of Physics, 76(2), 179–
187.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621–641. doi:10.1177/001872679604900505
Herzberg, F. (1968, January/February). One more time: How do you motivate employees?
Harvard Business Review.
Hesselbein, F., & Shinseki, G. E. K. (2004). Be, know, do: Leadership the Army way (Adapted
from the Official Army Leadership Manual). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Leader to
Leader Institute.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (1996). A social change model of leadership
development (Guidebook version III). College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs.
Hughes, R. L., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 53–64.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching
faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kezar, A. J. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(6), 722–743.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4),
25–58.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

231
Kezar, A. J. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning
organization. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 7–22.
Kezar, A. J. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination of four
highly collaborative campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 804–838.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (2011). The handbook for
student leadership development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F., Osteen, L., Owen, J. E., & Wagner, W. (2009).
Leadership identity development: Challenges in applying a developmental model.
Journal of Leadership Education, 8(1), 11–47. doi:10.12806/V8/I1/TF2
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring leadership: For college
students who want to make a difference (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005).
Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(6), 593–611.
Komives, S. R., & Schoper, S. (2005). Scholarship and research: Leadership learning outcomes.
Concepts and Connections, 13(3), 11–13.
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. E. (2016). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the
social change model of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73(2), 59–67.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

232
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). Leadership practices inventory: LPI. Weinheim,
Germany: Wiley-VCH.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2014). The student leadership challenge: Five practices for
becoming an exemplary leader. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Latham, E. A. (2009). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, J. J., Cheslock, J., Maldonado-Maldonado, A., & Rhoades, G. (2005). Professors as
knowledge workers in the new, global economy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (pp. 55–132). Netherlands: Springer.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership
skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591–615.
Lucas, N. (2009). The influence of integrative and interdisciplinary learning on civic
engagement. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and
practices (pp. 99–116). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

233
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., Walpole, M., & Pérez, L. X. (1998). College rankings:
Democratized college knowledge for whom? Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 513–
537. doi:10.1023/A:1018797521946
McShannon, J., Hynes, P., Nirmalakhandan, N., Venkataramana, G., Ricketts, C., Ulery, A., &
Steiner, R. (2006). Gaining retention and achievement for students program: A faculty
development program. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, 132(3), 204–208.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.
Meixner, C., & Rosch, D. (2011). Powerful pedagogies. In S. R. Komives, J. P. Dugan, J. E.
Owen, C. Slack, & W. Wagner (Eds.), The handbook for student leadership development
(pp. 307–338). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Michaelson, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the
power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel & J. Keehner (Eds.),
Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (Vol. 2). State College, PA:
National Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 12(2), 66–74.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

234
Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000).
Leadership skills for a changing world solving complex social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
New York University Stern Undergraduate College. (2014). Why Stern? Top 10 reasons. New
York, NY: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_047198.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be
done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
O’Connor, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2007). A case for shifting the emphasis of leadership
development from me to all of us. In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of
leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 64–86). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Osteen, L., & Coburn, M. B. (2012). Considering context: Developing students’ leadership
capacity. New Directions for Student Services, 2012(140), 5–15.
Owen, J. (2011). Program design: Assessment and evaluation. In S. R. Komives, J. P. Dugan,
J. E. Owen, C. Slack, & W. Wagner (Eds.), The handbook for student leadership
development (pp. 177–202). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Owen, J. (2012). Examining the design and delivery of collegiate student leadership development
programs: Findings from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL-IS): A
national report. Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

235
Owen, J. E. (2015a). Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches to leadership development.
New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(145), 49–58.
Owen, J. E. (2015b). Transforming leadership development for significant learning. New
Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(145), 7–17.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and
parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–
367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and
improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we even close?
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 18–23.
doi:10.1080/00091380109601796
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2: A third decade
of research). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organization
Dynamics, 2(1), 2–15.
Pfeffer, J. (2009). Leadership development in business schools: An agenda for change (Research
Paper). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

236
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Posner, B. Z. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(4), 443–456.
Posner, B. Z. (2012). Effectively measuring student leadership. Administrative Sciences, 2(4),
221–234.
Rahm, E., & Do, H. H. (2000). Data cleaning: Problems and current approaches. IEEE Data
Engineering Bulletin, 23(4), 3–13.
Rainey, M. A., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Using experiential learning theory and learning styles in
diversity education. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles:
Understanding the implications for learning, course design and education (pp. 129–46).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Roberts, D. C. (2007). Deeper learning in leadership: Helping college students find the potential
within. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative analysis of
cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement: Culture, motivation, and achievement (Vol. 9, pp. 255–
289). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

237
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions
for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Seemiller, C. (2013). The student leadership competencies guidebook: Designing intentional
leadership learning and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Seemiller, C., & Priest, K. L. (2015). The hidden “who” in leadership education:
Conceptualizing leadership educator professional identity development. Journal of
Leadership Education, 14(3), 132–151.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–33.
Shahid, J., & Thompson, D. (2001). Teacher efficacy: A research synthesis. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA,
April 10–14.
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2006, October). The hard side of change management.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2005/10/the-hard-side-of-
change-management
Snook, S. A., Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (2011). The handbook for teaching leadership:
Knowing, doing, and being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

238
Steinert, Y., Cruess, S., Cruess, R., & Snell, L. (2005). Faculty development for teaching and
evaluating professionalism: From programme design to curriculum change. Medical
Education, 39(2), 127–136.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
44(1), 6–15.
Thompson, M. D. (2006). Student leadership process development: An assessment of
contributing college resources. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 343–350.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.
University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. (n.d.). Programs: Bachelor of Business
Administration. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Retrieved from
https://michiganross.umich.edu/bba
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher
education. Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. News & World Report. (2015). Best graduate schools — education. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-education-schools
Van Merrienboer, J. J., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks:
Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive
Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 20(3), 343–352.
Watt, W. M. (2003). Effective leadership education: Developing a core curriculum for leadership
studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), 13–26.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

239
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy
through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3), 1–8.
Zhang, J., LeSavoy, B., Lieberman, L. J., & Barrett, L. (2014). Faculty Learning Community
(FLC) on student leadership: Applying student voices to leadership development.
Mountain Rise: The International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
8(2), 1–18.
Zimmerman-Oster, K. (2000). How can I tell if it’s working? Ten strategies for evaluating
leadership development programs in higher education. Concepts and Connections, 9(1),
9–11.
Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2000). Leadership in the making: Impact and insights
from leadership development programs in US colleges and universities (Executive
Summary). Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

240
APPENDIX A
LIST OF UNDERGRADUATE CORE COURSES
Accounting I Accounting Fundamentals and Financial Accounting
Accounting II Managerial Accounting
Business Communication Strategy
Organizational Behavior
Corporate Finance
Fundamentals of Marketing
Business Statistics
Operations Management
Business Analytics
Strategy
Microeconomics for Business
Macroeconomics for Business

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

241
APPENDIX B
QUANTITATIVE SURVEY EMAIL INVITATION
Dear Colleague: [Email message sent to core faculty; Up to 2 Reminder emails]

As part of a research study I am conducting for my doctoral program in organizational change
and leadership at the Rossier School, I am asking you to complete a short survey on student
leadership development. As an instructor of record in a core course in the past four years, your
answers to the online survey would be most helpful in better understanding the knowledge and
perceptions of core faculty on teaching in the core and specifically about student leadership
development. Questions will ask about how you create, plan, revise and teach your course as
well as your knowledge and experience of developing student leadership skills in your discipline.
The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Click this link [Qualtrics survey]
to begin the survey.

Attached to this email is an information sheet explaining your rights as a subject of research
conducted through USC. Please review the material and let me know if you have any questions
or concerns. I assure you that your participation and any information you share in this research
study will be anonymized and/or communicated in the aggregate to protect participants’
confidentiality.

I would be personally grateful if you would click on the link below and take 10-15 minutes to
answer questions about your perspectives and practices related to helping students become more
effective leaders. All responses are anonymous and strictly confidential.

CLICK THROUGH LINK BUTTON

Gratefully,

Jody Tolan
Email & Phone included

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

242
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW REQUEST EMAIL
Dear [core faculty member – most of whom I know]:

As you may know, I am currently a student in the USC Rossier EdD program in Organizational
Change and Leadership. I am writing to ask if you would agree to participate in my dissertation
research on the role of core faculty in undergraduate student leadership development. I am
seeking to better understand the experiences, interests and expertise of faculty with regard to
building student leadership knowledge, skills and abilities within their academic discipline. The
goal of my project is to identify better ways to assure that each and every West student graduates
with the necessary leadership knowledge, skills and abilities to be an impactful leader as they
progress through their career.

If you agree to participate, I will interview you for about forty-five minutes over the phone or in
person. During the interview, I will ask questions about how you create, plan, revise and teach
your course as well as your knowledge and experience of developing student leadership skills in
your discipline. You are welcome to skip any questions you do not want to answer and to end the
interview at any time.

Attached to this email is an information sheet explaining your rights as a subject of research
conducted through USC. Please review the material and let me know if you have any questions
or concerns. I assure you that your participation and any information you share in this research
study will be anonymized and/or communicated in the aggregate to protect participants’
confidentiality.

I truly appreciate your consideration of my request. I look forward to your favorable reply in the
next few days so we can set up a convenient time to talk.

Regards,

Jody Tolan
Email & Phone included

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

243
APPENDIX D
QUANTITATIVE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Colleague: [Page one of online survey]

Thank you for your participation in the following survey investigating your perspectives and
practices related to student leadership development in the Undergraduate core curriculum. The
survey contains 37 questions and should take about 5-10 minutes to respond. All responses are
anonymous and strictly confidential. Again, your contribution to this study is very much
appreciated!

NOTE: Because of Qualtrics question numbering, data questions started with Q3.

3. Please select the core course that you teach. If you teach more than one core course, please
select ONE course and answer the questions with regard to that course.
o Accounting I
o Accounting II
o Business Communication Strategy
o Organizational Behavior
o Corporate Finance
o Fundamentals of Marketing
o Business Statistics
o Operations Management
o Business Analytics
o Strategy
o Microeconomics for Business
o Macroeconomics for Business

1. How many semesters have you taught the same core course since Fall 2012? (0-18)

2. When was the last time you taught the course? (i.e. Fall 2015)

This first set of questions asks you about developing student leadership skills as it relates to our
School, the Undergraduate Program and student needs. Please indicate the degree to which you
agree or disagree with each statement.

7. A central mission of colleges and universities is to develop future leaders to address the
challenges faced by businesses and society in the 21
st
century.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

8. Leadership can be learned and developed.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

9. The West Business School’s mission is to develop future leaders.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

244
10. Educating students about being a leader should be an important learning goal of the
Undergraduate Program. [Knowledge, Motivation – value]
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

11. The Undergraduate Core Curriculum is responsible for developing students’ leadership skills
and abilities.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

12. The learning objectives in my core course align with the Undergraduate Program learning
goal to develop students’ leadership skills.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

13. Select the top five personal leadership skills, abilities or characteristics you believe are most
necessary for college graduates from the list below. Write in any other abilities you find
important and relevant that don’t appear in the list on the ‘Other’ line. [Knowledge; based on
general consensus in literature about leadership skills, abilities and characteristics.]
1. Think critically
2. Resolve conflict
3. Collaborate with others
4. Practice active listening
5. Communicate effectively (written and orally)
6. Influence others
7. Possess values of character (honesty, integrity, authenticity)
8. Practice self-awareness
9. Facilitate change
10. Behave ethically
11. Show persistence (continue in spite of difficulty) [an ability]
12. Demonstrate self-confidence (courage)
13. Be resilient (bounce back from adversity) [an ability]
14. Demonstrate accountability (responsible)
15. Demonstrate competence in functional field (i.e. marketing, finance, etc.)
16. Respect diversity
17. Practice good citizenship
18. Show commitment to making a positive difference [hope to reveal preference for a
social change/social impact perspective]
19. Other ___space for 4 items_________________________

14. Leadership skill building is included in the concepts I teach in my core course.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

15. Leadership skills are necessary for students to succeed in my field or discipline.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

245
16. Employers seek graduates who possess strong leadership skills.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

The following questions are asking you about your own knowledge of leadership theories.

18. I consider myself a Leader Educator. The International Leadership Association defines
leadership educators as those “for whom the teaching of leadership is integral or of interest,
and who are committed to the development of leadership capacity at educational institutions
and organizations” (“Leadership Education Member Interest Group,” n.d.).
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

19. Why or why not?

20. I help students develop leadership abilities in my core course.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

21. I know where to go to learn more about how students develop leadership capacity.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

The following questions are asking how often you engage in certain activities and interact with
students. I understand that not all courses lend themselves to the discussion of leadership topics
so your honest answers will be very much appreciated. In the context of this study, leadership
topics include how to communicate effectively, work collaboratively, influence others,
understand the hierarchical nature of group dynamics as well as understand leadership in shared,
non-positional roles, and how to develop a purpose and a passion to challenge themselves and
others to meet clear goals.

23. Leadership topics are important in the core course I teach.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

24. How frequently, if at all, do you discuss leadership topics in your core course?
(Every class, Weekly, Only in a specific unit (1-2x/semester), Never)

25. What specific topics do you discuss: ______________________________________

26. The topic of ethics is important in the core course I teach.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

27. How often, if at all, do you discuss ethical issues in class?
(Every class, Weekly, Only in a specific unit (1-2x/semester), Never)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

246
28. If you do discuss ethics topics, what specific topics do you discuss?

29. How often, if ever, do students engage in group work?
(Every class, Weekly, Only in a specific unit (1-2x/semester), Never)

30. In my course, I explain how working in groups develops leadership skills.
(Always, Sometimes, Rarely, Never)

31. Do you assign a team project? (Y/N; if N, skip related set below)

32. What weight do you give it in the course grade by % _________

33. How do you assign students to teams?
(Randomly, Assign using criteria, Students form own teams)

34. Teamwork depends on members assuming any number of different roles to achieve
successful outcomes. How are roles assigned in a student team?

35. Do you require teams meet with you during the project?

36. Do students complete a self-assessment of their experience? Y/N

37. How do you conduct the self-assement?
a. I supply a form with specific criteria for the self-assessment. Y/N
b. Students write up their own self-assessment freestyle/paragraph form. Y/N

38. Do students complete a peer-evaluation of team members? Y/N

39. Please indicate how you conduct the peer evaluation process.
(I supply a form with specific criteria, Students create their own criteria and form, Students
write up each peer evaluation freestyle/paragraph form, Other)

40. Students understand the value of peer evaluations in your course to developing their
leadership skills. Y/Maybe/N

41. I use active learning approaches in my core course. [We have had several PDWs on using
active learning I think faculty will understand.]
(Always, Sometimes, Rarely, Never)
a. Active learning is generally defined as any instructional method that engages students
in the learning process where students tackle meaningful learning activities and then
reflect on what they are doing in relation to the course content during class time.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

247
42. I use collaborative learning methods in my core course.
(Always, Sometimes, Rarely, Never)
a. Collaborative learning refers to any instructional method in which students work
together in small groups toward a common goal independently (i.e., in-class group
assignment/task, group project).

43. I use cooperative learning methods in my core course.
(Always, Sometimes, Rarely, Never)
a. Cooperative learning is generally defined as structured group work that involves
more facilitation by the instructor than collaborative learning methods.

44. I feel confident in my ability to apply:
a. Active learning methods in my core course.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree)
b. Collaborative learning methods in my core course.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree)
c. Cooperative learning methods in my core course.
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree)

45. In a typical semester, about how often, if at all, did you engage in each of the following with
undergraduate students. Please select all that apply. (Very often, Often, Sometimes, Never)
a. Talked about their career plans
b. Worked on activities other than coursework (i.e. school committees, student groups,
etc.)
c. Discussed course topics, ideas or concepts outside of class
d. Discussed their academic performance
e. Discussed the leadership challenges they faced
f. Discussed the personal challenges they faced

46. How often, if at all, do you communicate with other instructors teaching different sections of
the same core course(s) about course-related matters. [Motivation – interest in working
together/integrate across sections; follow up in interviews on content of communication]
(Very often (every week or two), Often (once a month), Occasionally (2-3x a semester),
Rarely (1x a semester), Never)

47. How often, if at all do you communicate with core course instructors in other academic
departments about course-related matters. [Motivation & Org support]
(Very often (every week or two), Often (once a month), Occasionally (2-3x a semester),
Rarely (1x a semester), Never)

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

248
48. The School effectively recognizes faculty who spend time on developing students’ leadership
capacity (knowledge, skills, abilities).
(Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

49. I have received funding from the School to support learning activities that contribute to
student leadership development (i.e. guest speaker, learning exercise or activity, field trip,
development time). Y/N; Please explain.

Demographic Questions

Please move the slider to indicate your age.
Please indicate your gender? (Female, Male, Transgender, Prefer not to answer)

How long have you been teaching at the Business School?
(1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-6 years, 7-8 years, 9-10 years, More than 10 years)

Please indicate your faculty classification
o Non-tenure track/Clinical
o Tenure-track
o Tenured
o Adjunct/Part-time faculty

Please indicate the highest degree that you have obtained
Bachelors, Masters, MBA, EdD, DBA, PhD, Other

Thank you for your time and effort contributing to this research study. You may be assured of
complete confidentiality. Your email address will be stored only to track survey completion. The
data will be reported only in the aggregate and no individual will be identified.

If you would be willing to contribute futher to this study by participating in an interview, please
click HERE to enter your name and email address. [Connected to separate URL not linked to
data]

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

249
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Qualitative Interview Guide
I am interested in learning more about what faculty members think about their role teaching in
the undergraduate core business program. More specifically, I am interested in learning what
you think as a core faculty instructor about how the core curriculum contributes, if at all, to the
Undergraduate Program learning goals and the overall mission of the Business School to build
future leaders.

The first set of questions relate to the West Business School Undergraduate Business Program
and the core curriculum in general. [Note: Assuming that I will have time to review the survey
responses before conducting interviews, the questions may be revised to ask about findings that
relate to the topics being asked below.]

1. In your own words, tell me what you know about the mission of the undergraduate business
program? [K factor]

2. How would you describe the learning goals of the undergraduate business program? [K
factor – do they know the 6 learning goals of which developing leadership skills is #4]

3. From your perspective, please describe what you know about how the core curriculum
contributes to the Program learning goals?
o Objectives align with program learning goals?
o Design? Integration?
o Assurance of learning for Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) using specified assessments in course for each learning goal and sub goal
o How the core courses fit together [is the program perceived as integrated or siloed
may reveal organizational role/factor]

Now I’d like to learn more about what you think about what it means to be an effective leader.

4. In your own words, how would you define leadership? [K factor]
o What is an effective leader?
o What does an effective leader do?
o What does it look like when someone demonstrates effective leadership?
o How might this be different in your discipline compared to others?
o What you think students need to learn to be effective leaders? [K factor]
o Please provide me an example or two of an effective leader – perhaps one of your
students or former students?

5. If leadership skills are expected in the workplace, eventually, where do you think people
would best learn them – in college, on the job, someplace else? [so do we develop leadership
here or in the workplace, or both]
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

250
I’m interested in your opinion about how students develop leadership capacity first in general at
the West Business School. Then I will ask about your experience teaching your core course.

6. How do you think undergraduate business students develop leadership capacity – what
should students be learning and doing (knowledge, skills, abilities – may use instructor’s own
words)? [K factor]
o Where do you see this happening at the West Business School?
§ In your core course or other courses [M factor]
§ In co-curricular activities
§ In internships/jobs
§ Elsewhere?

7. What would you consider to be effective methods for helping students develop leadership
capacity while they are at the West Business School? [K factor]

8. What do we do at the West Business School, if anything, that makes students able to step into
leadership roles soon after they graduate? (Knowledge of leadership, skills and abilities that
they practice and develop/improve.) [K factor]
o Can you give me a specific example?
o What have you observed in the past semester?

9. How do you believe we are doing in developing West Business School undergraduates to be
leaders? How are we doing? [K, M & O factors]
o Looking for what criteria they use to evaluate – what’s important to them about
leadership skills, knowledge, abilities, qualities.
o To what extent do you hear from employers about how students are performing?
[Knowledge/evidence]
o To what extent do you see it in your class? What do you see – how do you
know/evaluate?
o So what grade would you give the core curriculum in developing leadership skills in
undergraduates? Why/Explain why?

10. How does the core curriculum contribute to developing student leadership capacity? If not
mentioned in previous answer.
o Specifically where/what courses?
o How do you think this happens – what type of learning activities & assignments?
o Please give me an example.

11. What role, if any, do you see for yourself in developing students’ leadership capacity –
knowledge, skills, abilities? [M factor]
o How do you go about doing that? What does that look like?
o Can you describe an example from the past semester? of what that might look like?
o Please describe what personal experiences, knowledge and/or skills you have that
have been helpful in/contribute to developing your students’ leadership capacity. [K
& M factor – self efficacy]
o Perhaps something you have shared in class?
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

251
12. What about in the core course you teach? Do you do anything there – explicitly/implicitly?
Or directly/indirectly? Can you give me an example? If not mentioned in previous answer.

13. To what extent do you consider yourself a leader educator? [K & M factor]
o Have you heard this term before - leader educator? What does it mean to you, if
anything?

Because I am looking at the degree to which the core curriculum supports the learning goals
(specifically learning goal 4 of developing leadership knowledge, skills and abiltiies) of the
Undergraduate Program, I’d like to learn a little bit more about how faculty teaching core
courses relate to each other in your department.

14. To what extent do you coordinate or collaborate with other faculty teaching the same course
in your department? [M & O factors: how much support do they get from colleagues] If they
say ‘a lot’ then ask about how
a. Do you use the same syllabi?
b. Are all learning objectives the same?
c. Can you give me a specific example of how you share ideas? Discuss what’s
working and what’s not working?
d. How often do you meet with other core faculty in your department?

17. Please describe how you interact with the Department’s Core Coordinator. [M & O factors]
o How do you interact – meetings, emails?
o How often? What is the content of the interactions?
o How are they supportive of your work/efforts? Of the team/group of core instructors?
o Do you consider the group of core faculty a team or group?
o What information do you receive and share with the Core Coordinator?

18. Please describe an example of how you interact with your Department Chair with regard to
core course(s)? [M & O factors]
o How are they involved in the design and delivery of the core course(s)?
o How do they provide support to you?

I’d like to ask you for your opinion on the prospect of a more clearly defined and integrated
leadership development program embedded in the core business curriculum.

19. Please describe how developing student leadership is recognized in your department? In the
School?
o In the Undergraduate Program?
o In the core curriculum?

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

252
20. What specific opportunities, if any, do you see for an effective and coordinated/integrated
leadership development in the West Business School undergraduate core business program?
o Across courses – interdisciplinary?
o Working with West Business School Undergraduate Advising, Career Office,
International Programs offices/administrators? Integrating or coordinating?
o Other stakeholders/interested parties at West Business School and the University?

21. What specific benefits, if any, can you see from adopting a more integrated approach?
o For faculty? For students? For the Undergraduate Program & School?

22. What barriers, if any, do you see for engaging faculty in such a program?
o Do you see any risks if we don’t do this?

23. When you think of leading undergraduate business programs, what schools do you think “do”
student leadership development well?
o Who can we learn from?

Is there anything else you would like to add? Would you be available for any follow-up
questions if I needed to clarify any of your responses? And please don’t hesitate to contact me if
you have anything additional you would like to add to your responses. Thank you very much for
your time and active participation in this interview.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

253
APPENDIX F
SYLLABUS CHECKLIST
Course Number & Course Title ____________________________________________
Semester & Year _________________________________________________________
Common Syllabus? Yes ___ No ___
Faculty Name (if not using common syllabus) _________________________________
Is leadership mentioned or covered in: Y/N Comments
Course description
Course objectives
Student outcomes
Relation to West Business School Learning Goals
Required readings
Suggested readings
Class session topics
Active Learning Activities:
Discussion sections
Experiential Learning Center exercises
Guest Speakers
Student presentations
Assignments
Reflection papers
Self-assessments
Team project
Peer evaluations

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

254
APPENDIX G
INFORMED CONSENT/INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

THE ROLE OF CORE FACULTY IN
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This purpose of this study is to explore core faculty knowledge and experience as instructors in
the core courses in the Undergraduate Business Program including the benefits and challenges of
developing student leadership knowledge, skills and abilities in your academic discipline. It is
important for me to understand your experiences regarding creating, revising and teaching the
course, working with others in your department teaching the same course, meeting student
learning outcomes, as well as organizational resources to support your work to meet the learning
goals of the Undergraduate Business Program. The knowledge gained in this study will
contribute to the literature on faculty engagement in undergraduate student leadership
development.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
ONLINE SURVEY: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an
online survey that is anticipated to take about 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to, click “next” in the survey to move to the next question.

INTERVIEW: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-
minute audio taped interview in person or on the phone. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
SURVEY: You will not be compensated for your participation in this survey.

INTERVIEWS: You will not be compensated for your participation in the interview, however
you will receive $5 Starbucks gift card as a token of appreciation. The card will be sent to you
via email after the interview is completed.
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

255
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. Transcripts of your interview will
be made available to you to ensure accuracy. The data will be stored on a password-protected
computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.

The researcher and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Researcher/Doctoral Student Johanna (Jody) Tolan; Email & Phone included

Faculty Advisor Melora Sundt via email was provided.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Institutional Review Board (UIRB), address, phone and email was provided.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

256
APPENDIX H
IMMEDIATE PROGRAM EVALUATION
Thank you for participating in today’s workshop on student leadership development. Your
commitment to improve your students’ professional readiness and meeting the learning goals of
the Undergraduate Program is much appreciated. Please respond to the following items so might
evaluate the effectiveness of today’s workshop. You have the opportunity to provide additional
feedback at the conclusion of this survey. This survey is anonymous but you have the
opportunity to include your name and email address at the end so we might follow up on your
responses and suggestions.

1. I was well informed of the objectives of this workshop to help core faculty support our
undergraduate students’ leadership development.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

2. In answering these questions, please use the following rating scale:
1 Very Low
2 Below Average
3 Average
4 Above Average
5 Very High
BEFORE the
Workshop
AFTER the
Workshop
1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of how students develop their leadership identity
and capacity.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of contemporary leadership theories and concepts. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of leadership skills relevant to students. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of the Social Change Model of Leadership. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of how to assess leadership knowledge, skills and
abilities.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Confidence to include leadership topics and skills in my core
course.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Commitment to include leadership topics and skills in my core
course.
1 2 3 4 5
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

257
1 2 3 4 5 Belief in the importance of developing students’ leadership
knowledge, skills and abilities in the Undergraduate Core
Program.
1 2 3 4 5

3. Describe the THREE most useful things you learned today that you can apply in the
classroom.

4. What is the FIRST thing that you plan to implement from what you have learned today?

5. Select what type of additional help you would find helpful in order to be successful in
adapting your curriculum to include leadership topics or skills relevant to students’ needs.
◽Follow-up session with W Core Faculty
◽Follow-up session with only faculty teaching your core course
◽Individual coaching session
◽Regular monthly meetings with Core Faculty
◽Examples of leadership learning activities posted on the Faculty Development
Companion
◽Recognition from your Department Chair
◽Recognition from the Vice Dean of Undergraduate Programs
◽Financial incentive (i.e. to attend a leader educator conference)
◽Other/Please specify: ________________________________________________

6. I will attend a follow-up session next month.
Definitely Not Probably Not Probably Definitely

7. The activities in the workshop gave me adequate practice and feedback.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

8. The workshop held my interest.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

258
9. The pace of the workshop was appropriate.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

10. I felt that the instructor demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

11. The instructor was helpful and supportive.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

12. The workshop met my expectations.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree

13. Do you have any remaining questions or concerns that weren’t covered in today’s
workshop?

Additional Feedback: Please feel free to add any other comments you would care to make
with regard to this workshop.

If you would like someone to follow up with you, please include your name and email
address here.
______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your feedback.

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

259
APPENDIX I
POST PROGRAM BLENDED EVALUATION
Distributed one month out and at the beginning of the next semester

Directions: Thank you for taking time to complete the following evaluation so that we might
better the programs and support for an integrated leadership development approach in the
Undergraduate Core Program. Your feedback is important as we consider the impact of the
workshop and look ahead to opportunities for improvement and additional support in the
upcoming semester. You will have the opportunity to provide additional feedback at the
conclusion of this survey.

Name:
Core Course:

1. (L3) I have successfully applied what I learned in the workshop in my core course/in my
classroom. Yes/No

2. (L3) I have added one learning activity to develop students’ leadership knowledge, skills or
abilities. Yes/No
Please describe: ____________________________________________________________

3. (L3) I have revised an existing learning activity to develop students’ leadership knowledge,
skills or abilities. Yes/No
Please describe: ____________________________________________________________

4. (L3) I plan on revising my curriculum to develop students’ leadership knowledge, skills or
abilities. Yes/No
Please describe: ____________________________________________________________

5. (L3) Please indicate how many learning community sessions (i.e. follow up sessions or
meetings) you have attended since the first workshop. [Slider with choices 0-4]

6. (L3)
Please check the box that describes
your current level of application of
each behavior
Little or
no
application
Mild
degree of
application
Moderate
degree of
application
Strong
degree of
application
Very strong
degree of
application and
desire to help
others do the
same
Adapted course learning outcomes
to include leadership development

Created or adapted an action
learning activity to build leadership
skills

CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

260
Discussed Social Change Model of
Leadership in class and its
application to your course or
discipline

Led class discussion of effective
and/or ineffective leader(s) in the
field/discipline

Added an assessment of student
leadership skills

Please list any other learning activity or discussion topic that you applied in your course that relates to student
leadership development.

7. (L4) I have experienced the following outcomes in my course as a result of applying what I
learned at the workshop (check all that apply):
◽Improved student engagement in class discussions
◽Increase in questions from students about leaders in my discipline or profession
◽Increase in students taking initiative in class discussions
◽Improved student engagement in team activities
◽Students’ ability to understand the relevance of the 7Cs of the Social Change Model of
Leadership in the context of the course
◽Increase confidence in my teaching leadership topics and skills
◽Other (please explain):_________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

8. (L3) If you have not adjusted your curriculum to promote student leadership development,
what factors are influencing your decision? Please check all that apply.
◽I do not have the necessary leadership knowledge and skills.
◽The workshop did not give me the confidence to apply what I learned.
◽I do not have the necessary resources to apply what I learned at the workshop.
◽I do not have the time.
◽There is too much content to cover to add any new material
◽The Social Change Model of Leadership does not fit within the context of my course.
◽There is no incentive to change my course.
◽I do not have the support from my department chair.
◽I have other, higher priorities.
◽I do not have the interest.
◽Other (please explain): _________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

9. (L4) My efforts in fostering leadership development in my students contributes to the
Undergraduate Core Program learning goals.
(Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
CORE FACULTY AND STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

261
10. (L3) The Vice Dean of the Undergraduate Program supports my efforts in this initiative.
(Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)

11. (L3) The Vice Dean of the Undergraduate Program supports my efforts in this initiative.
(Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)

12. (L3) My Department Chair supports my efforts in this initiative.
(Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)

13. (L3) My Core Course Coordinator supports my efforts in this initiative.
(Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)

14. (L4) What early signs of success have you noticed from your efforts? Please give an
example of a positive outcome you have experienced since attending the workshop.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

15. Please feel free to add any additional comments you have about this initiative.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Leadership skills are required to address the complex challenges facing organizations in the 21st century. Colleges and universities have played a central role in preparing our nation’s leaders since their inception. However, a recent report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (2018) cited that only 33% of employers agreed college graduates were proficient in leadership skills. Building global leadership is an urgent issue for organizations to remain competitive. Since leadership skills are required in all organizations across all levels of employees, colleges and universities have reason to evaluate their efforts to develop a student’s leadership identity and leadership capacity that can serve both organizations and the broader communities in which they reside. It is the educator’s role to fully understand how they contribute to the student’s development to meet the needs of employers and society. This evaluative study explores the role of core faculty in an undergraduate business program that has as one of its goals developing student leadership skills. Key knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that contribute to effective student leadership programs were identified and evaluated using the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework. Findings from survey and interview data of a representative sample of core course instructors revealed several gaps in knowledge of leadership development yet instructors believed in the school’s mission to develop future leaders, albeit to different degrees depending on academic discipline. In order to become more effective leader educators, instructors need organizational support in the form of resources, incentives and benefit from the culture, adaptability and collaboration of a learning organization. Based on these findings, recommendations were proposed that enable instructors to create integrated learning environments in the core undergraduate program that help students understand that leadership development is a cross-disciplinary, on-going process to prepare them to lead effectively at all levels in organizations and in their communities. A detailed implementation and evaluation plan is presented that leverages current assets and addresses weaknesses. Undergraduate programs interested in integrating and strengthening their student leadership development efforts can benchmark these key factors and practices, and employ the recommendations and implementation to fit their institutional contexts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

PDF

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

Military instructor critical thinking preparation

PDF

Gender inequity in executive leadership of midsize and large organizations in Los Angeles County: overcoming barriers & building leaders

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Teaching academic and behavioral skills through arts-based programming: an evaluation study

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Deckplate leadership: a promising practice study of chief petty officer development

PDF

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Developing aspiring school leaders to address the diverse racial equity needs in school communities: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Tolan, Johanna Brockelman (author)

Core Title Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/07/2018

Defense Date 11/07/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty,integrated leadership program,leader educator,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,student leadership development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Cummings, Thomas G. (committee member), Ferrario, Kimberly A. (committee member)

Creator Email jodybt@aol.com,tolan@marshall.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-105808

Unique identifier UC11676865

Identifier etd-TolanJohan-6936.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-105808 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TolanJohan-6936.pdf

Dmrecord 105808

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Tolan, Johanna Brockelman

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA