[The following chapter is taken from The Future of Leadership Development, edited by Susan Elaine Murphy and Ronald E. Riggio, and is reproduced by permission from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.]

 

Leadership Education at the Undergraduate Level:

A Liberal Arts Approach to Leadership Development

 

Ronald E. Riggio

Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College

 

Joanne B. Ciulla

Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond

 

Georgia J. Sorenson

James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership, University of Maryland

 

The number of recognized leadership development programs in institutions of higher education is rapidly nearing 1,000.  This includes all three forms of leadership programs – training, education, and development as outlined by Ayman, Adams, Hartman, and Fisher (Chap. 11, this volume; also see Mangan, 2002; Sorenson, 2000). Yet, relatively few of these programs are curricular-based undergraduate programs offering academic credit in the form of a bachelor’s degree, academic minor, or certificate. The purposes of this chapter are: (a) to provide an overview of the historical and conceptual development of undergraduate leadership studies programs, (b) to connect college-based leadership studies programs with the larger literature on leadership development via a model, (c) to provide guidelines for undergraduate curricular programs, and (d) to provide specific examples of leadership studies curricula with a liberal arts focus.

 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES

Throughout history, scholars from Plutarch to Carlyle have studied leaders and leadership. Leadership studies as we know it today emerged from social science research conducted primarily in the United States and almost exclusively since the turn of the 20th century.[1] Explanations for the strong role played by the United States range from the individualistic (and thus leader-focused) nature of the American experience, the relative stability of the American economy and democratic system, neoliberalism (DeMott, 1999), and the stream of leadership funding from American foundations and government. Leadership studies also evolved as a result of America’s powerful and innovative business culture, which was always hungry for new and productive ways to manage the workplace. Management research was heavily subsidized by big business and some of this work formed the building blocks of leadership studies (Ciulla, 2000).

The first large-scale research projects on leadership in the U.S. were funded by the government in the 1940s, principally as a means of improving wartime efficiency.[2] Later, in 1966, the Smith Richardson Foundation supported Ralph Stodgill’s systematic review of literature on leadership, resulting in the seminal Handbook of Leadership published in 1974 (Troyer, 1997).

Several large public universities played pioneering roles in the evolution of the empirical study of leadership, notably, Ohio State, Southern Illinois at Carbondale, and Michigan State. In small teams in these and other public universities, researchers, chiefly in the fields of psychology and sociology, conducted early research on leadership, in part the result of robust post-war funding (Sorenson & Howe, 2001).

There was independent work undertaken in small liberal arts colleges as well.  In 1978, James MacGregor Burns of Williams College published Leadership, a book embraced by academics and the general public alike for its interdisciplinary effort. It was a revolutionary book in many ways and continues to be among the five top books used in leadership studies classes around the country. (Sorenson, 2000)

Despite Burns’ effort, the study of leadership continues today to be multidisciplinary for the most part rather than truly interdisciplinary. Scholars in academic fields as divergent as political science, psychology, business, education, history, agriculture, public administration, management, anthropology, biology, military sciences, philosophy, and sociology have contributed to an understanding of leadership.  Sub-fields within disciplines (e.g., educational leadership, political leadership, business leadership) are taking hold and providing academic niches for leadership research. But even in departments that house scholars of various disciplines, the integration of their work is still rare. One notable exception is the so-called “general theory of leadership” group that began meeting in 2002 (Mangan, 2002). 

Rise of Leadership Programs

The work by researchers and scholars, such as Bass, Fiedler, Hollander, Hunt, Burns, and others over time contributed to the rise of leadership programs in academe. And to some degree, higher education organizations and private foundations contributed to the establishment of early programs as well. In 1976, an American College Personnel Association (ACPA) Taskforce produced one of the first surveys of the field, Leadership Programs in Higher Education. The number of sessions on leadership at the American Educational Research Association conferences doubled between 1985 and 1995[3] and the Center for Creative Leadership inaugurated the Leadership Education Conference. The W.K. Kellogg, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations produced seminal reports and provided early funding. Leadership courses for credit emerged shortly thereafter. Gonzaga University started offering a liberal arts-oriented Ph.D. program in leadership studies in 1980. In 1986 the McDonough Leadership Program at Marietta College was established as one of the first undergraduate liberal arts leadership programs. The Academy of Leadership, now called the James MacGregor Burns Academy was established in 1981 and soon began offering a variety of leadership educational programs. Courses on leadership continued to proliferate on college campuses through the early 1990s. But it was not until1992, however, that the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond, with money from Richmond alumnus Robert Jepson, became the first autonomous degree granting School of Leadership Studies.

“Leadership programs are now embedded in every imaginable discipline,” according to Leadership Education: A Source Book of Courses and Programs, the most comprehensive compendium on educational leadership efforts (Schwartz, Axtman, & Freeman, 1998). The number of programs continues to grow exponentially, with more than double the number of only four years ago.[4] In fact, today there are more than 100 programs that offer some sort of academic recognition for students in leadership studies.[5]  These efforts now range from single leadership resource centers to graduate degree programs in leadership studies (Honan, 1998). There is tremendous growth in liberal arts, history, agriculture, and literature, philosophy in particular, as well as the original base of business and the social sciences.[6] Double degrees, leadership majors, minors and certificates, and increasingly graduate degrees and Ph.D’s. in leadership studies, are offered in these pioneering programs. Many of the graduate degrees with leadership in the title are area specific, such as organizational leadership and educational leadership. While there are many new players, in a recent analysis of the disciplinary base of leadership faculty by William Howe (1997), the behavioral and social sciences and business management, continue to drive most leadership coursework in America.

We must conclude that growth of leadership research and leadership education has been nothing short of revolutionary. In the last two decades, the study of leadership has spawned thousands of publications across numerous disciplines.8 Professional journals, such as Leadership Quarterly and The Journal of Leadership Studies, and new ones, such as the Leadership Review, an online journal, have been established and are devoted exclusively to leadership research. A professional association, The International Leadership Association, was launched in 1999 with the goal of establishing an independent professional association in the near future. Clearly, the area of leadership studies has come of age. The challenge before us is to develop a coherent and useful model that integrates the research, pedagogy, and best practices of our accumulated experience.

 

A MODEL FOR COLLEGE-BASED

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Day (2000) distinguishes between leader development and leadership development. Leader development has a more individual focus, while leadership development focuses on the development of leadership capacity in the context of a group or organization. For the most part, in undergraduate leadership programs, the focus is on developing the individual student’s leadership potential via imparting knowledge, skills, abilities, and values. Most students are not currently in professional leadership positions (although many students in leadership programs may hold student leadership posts), so typically the emphasis in undergraduate programs is on preparing students for future leadership positions, or simply increasing their understanding of leadership. Therefore, what is delivered in most undergraduate leadership programs is consistent with Day’s definition of leader development. Van Velsor, McCauley and Moxley (1998) have a similar individual focus and view leadership development “as the expansion of a person’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes.” (p. 4). In sum, the college-based leadership development programs that we will discuss are those that are offered as part of the college’s or university’s regular curricular offerings, and usually lead to some sort of major or minor in the subject, other academic credit such as a certificate of completion, or in the case of the Jepson School a bachelor’s degree in leadership studies. This is a very different focus than the Ayman, et al., chapter in this volume that focuses on non-credit programs. Putting this into the larger context, Brungardt (1996) views these curricular leadership education programs as only a small subset of the larger area of leadership development.

There are many “philosophies” driving leadership education programs. Some programs are guided by business models of leadership, with heavy reliance on a management approach to leadership education. These programs emphasize educating students to lead organizations, with a curriculum that is heavily grounded in research from the areas of management and organizational psychology.

A second type of program is more multidisciplinary than the management-based programs, and focuses on citizenship as the core of leadership education – emphasizing an understanding of and engagement in democracy, values of social responsibility and social action (Rost & Barker, 2000; Welch, 2000). Astin and Astin (1996) advocate this approach in what they call a “social change model of leadership development” – increasing students’ potential for developing into leaders through a combination of classroom learning and social and civic engagement via service learning.

A third type of leadership education, and one that will be discussed more fully in this chapter, uses a liberal arts model – emphasizing that a broad educational experience is essential to leadership development (Gardner, 1990).

In creating guidelines for university- and college-based leadership education programs we attempt to draw on what is known about effective leadership development, as well as sound educational practices and pedagogy for undergraduate education. We have tried to learn from our experiences in developing and coordinating leadership studies programs, and the experiences of our colleagues at other institutions. We offer six basic guidelines:

Leadership Studies
Should Be Multidisciplinary

As we have seen, the study of leadership is not limited to a single discipline. As mentioned earlier, faculty from a plethora of disciplines have contributed to research and education in leadership. In the same way that one cannot do competent research in leadership without surveying literature across multiple disciplines, it is very difficult to teach leadership from a single disciplinary view. This is not to say that programs cannot be “slanted” toward a particular disciplinary emphasis. Indeed, some leadership studies programs are housed in particular academic departments. This multidisciplinary emphasis is most consistent with other academic programs, most notably women’s studies, American studies, ethnic studies programs, and public administration.[7]

Not only is the multidisciplinary approach to leadership education important because it provides curricular “breadth,” but there is evidence from cognitive psychology that suggests that learning is enhanced by the presentation of a particular construct from multiple perspectives and contexts (deWinstanlely & Bjork, 2002; Halpern, in press). In other words, studying leadership from political, psychological, and historical perspectives should enhance students’ more general understanding of the leadership construct.

Leadership Studies Students
Should Be Authorized Academically

Leadership studies should be a recognized academic pursuit. Therefore, it is essential that completion of a program of leadership studies be recognized on a student’s academic record via a major, minor, or academic certificate of accomplishment. There are instances where leadership programs are offered by undergraduate offices of student affairs or through the Dean of Students office. However, these constitute pure leadership development programs, as outlined by Ayman et al (2003), and would not be considered leadership studies programs, as valuable as these might be to student development. If leadership studies is truly an emerging discipline – and we believe it is – then academic credit must be offered, as well as academic authorization.

Leadership Studies Programs Are Guided
by Theories and Research on Leadership

This point has two meanings. First, it concerns what is taught in a leadership studies program. A leadership studies curriculum should present important theories of leadership and the content should be well grounded in leadership research. In other words, a sound leadership studies curriculum should avoid relying on “faddish” concepts and techniques, and should give primary attention to teaching theories, concepts, and their applications, that have been subjected to rigorous and objective evaluation and, where possible, empirical testing.

Second, the leadership studies curriculum and pedagogy should be consistent with the results of leadership research. In other words, when it comes to leadership education we should “practice what we preach.” For instance, effective and ethical decision-making, ability to think critically, and interpersonal skills are all believed to be important for successful leadership (Cavenagh, 1997; Ciulla, 1996; Conger & Benjamin, 1999; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2002; McVey, 1995). Therefore, these topics, and many others, should be included in the leadership curriculum. Moreover, leadership is an applied discipline. Leadership is both a topic of study and a set of knowledge and skills to be applied to leading groups and organizations effectively. Therefore, attention to the development of leadership skills should be a focus of leadership studies programs – producing graduates who possess knowledge of leadership studies, but who also have enhanced their personal leadership capacity.

It is important here to mention the critical role of experiential learning in leadership studies. Indeed, some undergraduate leadership development programs, such as those offered for student leaders through student affairs offices, are often substantially, or primarily, experiential in nature. We believe that effective leadership education has a balance of classroom-based instruction and relevant experience. Moreover, it is crucial that the two types of learning be interwoven. We will discuss this more fully later.

Leadership Programs Should Be Driven
by Proven Models of Learning/Development

Leadership studies programs have flourished, not only because of interest in the topic of leadership, but because students have an interest in developing their personal leadership to help them in their future careers and/or in effecting social change. Furthermore, many professors in leadership studies programs are motivated to prepare students for future leadership roles -- producing “tomorrow’s leaders.” The purpose of a liberal arts education is to prepare educated citizens, as well as educated professionals who will be leaders (Brungardt, Gould, Moore, & Potts, 1997). Often, colleges and universities focus on developing leaders as part of their mission. For example, the mission of Claremont McKenna College is “developing leaders for business, government, and the professions,” – a mission that greatly facilitated the development of a multidisciplinary leadership studies program. The Jepson School’s mission is “to educate for and about leadership as service to society.” Marietta College’s model aims at producing responsible citizen-leaders who can identify and solve the problems that face them.

Emphasis on experiential education in higher learning can be traced back to John Dewey (1938, 1958). Leadership is a discipline where it is particularly important that students receive some form of structured opportunities to apply theories and concepts learned in the classroom. Brungardt et al., (1997) argue that “liberal learning” is important for a successful leadership studies program, incorporating both classroom-based learning and experiential coursework (e.g., internships, service learning experiences, etc.). Once again, this assertion is supported by research in learning that suggests that opportunities to apply concepts learned in the classroom, via leadership experiences, promotes learning (although it is important to integrate the two by relating the experiences back to the classroom material; Halpern, in press). In addition, leadership experiences, such as case studies, leadership simulations or “games” designed to illustrate a point, can also promote learning, by offering an opportunity to apply learned concepts, as well as increasing students’ motivation to learn (i.e., by making learning both “fun,” and relevant to life outside of the college; Cantor, 1995; Halpern, in press).

Leadership Programs Should
Cultivate the Values of the Field

All leadership programs aspire to produce good leaders, meaning leaders who are both effective and ethical (Ciulla, 1998). However, how programs do this, depends on the location of the program in the university and the disciplines of its faculty.  For example, at Claremont McKenna College the leadership studies program is overseen by the Kravis Leadership Institute – one of the College’s nine research institutes, with core faculty who are also members of the Psychology Department. Because of this, CMC emphasizes the importance of empirical research in aiding understanding of leadership and the leadership process. Students are encouraged to take non-required courses in research methodology and to work with faculty on collaborative leadership research. At the Jepson School all of the faculty have different academic disciplines – half of them from the humanities and half from the social sciences. Its program is modeled on the liberal arts and requires students to take courses in everything from research methods to history. However, since one third of the faculty have academic backgrounds in ethics, there is a strong emphasis one ethics and social responsibility throughout the curriculum.

Many, if not most, leadership studies programs are influenced by values regarding social responsibility. Students are expected to become engaged in the larger community, both during their tenure as students and in their future careers and lives after college. The James MacGregor Burns Academy, due in part to the interests of its founder and its proximity to Washington, D.C. drew upon the value of public service. Internships in local, state, national and international venues undergirded coursework on political action and leadership

Service learning is one of the most prevalent features of leadership programs today. Some programs, such as the Hart Leadership Program at Duke University, have been built around service learning. Over the past 10 years service learning has been a rapidly growing part of the educational landscape in high schools and universities. But the case for service learning in leadership programs goes back much farther into Western and Eastern models of servant leadership found in texts such as the Holy Bible and the Tao-te-ching (1989). Robert Greenleaf (1977) popularized this traditional notion of “Servant Leadership” in contemporary leadership literature. Most leadership studies programs emphasize instilling in their students the value of service to the larger community.

Another value that guides many leadership programs concerns global awareness – critically important in our increasingly internationalized world. Many leadership studies programs offer service learning and internships in other countries, but this is an area that needs to be developed more. If we are to better understand the nature and values of good leadership, programs will have to make a strong effort to learn from students, faculty, and practitioners from other cultures. Most of the literature in the field is American or Western. The field still has a long way to go in fostering work on leadership by people in other cultures.

Leadership Studies Programs
Should Be Focused on Outcomes

Perhaps more than any other discipline, there is intense skepticism about the ability to teach “leadership” (see, e.g., Cronin, 1984). Some of the reasons given are that leadership is seen as too complex and abstract to be taught effectively, that leaders are born and not made, or that leadership is thought to be something that can only be learned through direct experience. In addition, critics of leadership education feel that the only way to truly justify the efficacy of these programs is by demonstrating that leadership education programs produce practicing leaders. Therefore, it is critical, for a number of reasons, that leadership studies programs conduct outcomes assessment, to both determine the effectiveness of a particular program, and to engage graduates in a lifelong learning process.

As mentioned in the Ayman, et al. chapter, evaluations of the effectiveness of leadership education programs have been scarce. In addition to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation evaluation (Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999a,b), that demonstrated some positive leadership development outcomes for program graduates, a smaller scale evaluation of graduates from Fort Hays State University’s program also found some evidence of successful outcomes for leadership studies graduates (Brungardt & Crawford, 1996). Obviously, more of this sort of evaluation needs to be done. Moreover, because many of the outcomes that would be typically associated with evaluation of a leadership education program, such as attainment of a leadership position in one’s profession, elected or appointed leadership positions in a community or civic-based organization, (or perhaps more importantly, being engaged in social change, whether they are formal leaders or not) are not likely to occur until many years after graduation, evaluations of leadership education programs need to have a long-term perspective – following alumni for several years post-graduation. One way to successfully engage leadership studies alumni in ongoing, longitudinal assessment is to offer continuing education in leadership for alumni. Another way to engage alumni in a “lifelong,” collaborative learning relationship, is to allow alumni to serve as a resource to current students, as guest lecturers in leadership courses, as potential supervisors for internship and service learning placements, as mentors, and as contacts for career opportunities.

Of course, merely measuring the achievements of leadership studies program graduates is not enough since many of these students would have ended up in leadership positions without leadership studies. The challenge is to conduct well-designed, longitudinal evaluations that use sound methodology, such as quasi-experimental designs with matched comparison students who did not receive leadership education, to demonstrate the added value of leadership studies to the student’s academic experience and later life achievements.

Clearly, there is a need for sound evaluation of leadership studies programs. To this end, the Gallup organization has recently sponsored an ongoing, longitudinal evaluation of college and university based leadership studies programs. It is hoped that in the not-too-distant future there will be useful data to support the efficacy of leadership studies programs.

There is another important concern when evaluating the impact of leadership studies, and that is that collegiate leadership education, particularly the liberal arts approach that we are focusing on, contributes to solidifying the social position and opportunities of elites. Therefore, it is important to ask the question of whether leadership studies programs reach students who would not otherwise consider themselves to be leaders or potential leaders, and to provide access to students who might not have either the opportunity, nor the inclination, to study leadership.

 

CURRICULAR GUIDELINES

Before providing guidelines for a sound leadership studies curriculum, let us first mention that these guidelines assume a liberal arts approach to leadership studies. As mentioned earlier, many leadership education programs are discipline based (e.g., programs in leadership education, or programs, usually in business schools that focus on leadership in management; etc.) and the curricular guidelines presented here would not be applicable, although some of these guidelines might be useful in designing or revising a discipline-based leadership program.

In addition, these guidelines are meant to be prescriptive, but not dogmatic. We draw heavily on our own programs, and other similar programs, to construct these curricular guidelines. However, specific programs may need to deviate from these guidelines because of a special mission or focus, such as an institution possessing a particular religious orientation, or by necessity due to limitations in faculty resources (e.g., a limited number of faculty in only select disciplines).

Key Curricular Components

Leadership Foundations. Leadership Foundations consist of some core course or courses that present core leadership theories and concepts. At the Jepson School, this involves a Foundations of Leadership course, and a History and Theories of Leadership course. This Foundations course exposes students to the concept of leadership, various definitions, as well as some understanding of the leadership process and how it is practiced (see Wren, 1994). At Claremont McKenna College, we have substituted two “foundations” courses in our core disciplines of Government/Political Science and Psychology.

Ethics Coursework. Courses in ethics have been an important part of many leadership education programs (Hackman, Olive, Guzman, & Brunson, 1999). Issues of ethics are critically important to nearly all aspects of leadership, ranging from studies contrasting the “dark” and “light” sides of leadership (e.g., Conger, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994) to research on the intersection of ethics and culture (e.g., Casmir, 1997), to concepts of social responsibility and moral leadership (e.g., Gini, 1998). Moreover, Ciulla (1996) argues that studying ethics enhances critical thinking skills – both core elements of leadership education. Ethics can also serve as a capstone course because it allows students to review what they have learned in the program through critical examination of ethical issues related to groups, individuals, cultures, service, and leadership theories.

Service Learning/Experiential Coursework. As mentioned earlier, sound leadership education combines classroom-based learning with opportunities to apply leadership concepts to actual or simulated leadership experiences. However, it is critically important that the classroom and experiential components be integrated (Kolb, 1984; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). In addition to providing practical leadership experiences, it has been argued that service learning can help teach students social responsibility and increase multicultural awareness – critical for leadership development in an increasingly diverse society (Simmons & Roberts-Weah, 2000). Courses on leadership in a global society taught in partnership with the University of Maryland’s Burns Academy of Leadership and the University of Capetown, for example, brought students together to learn about and contribute to the elimination of AIDS in southern Africa.

Understanding of Group Dynamics. Leadership cannot be learned, either as a skill set or as a knowledge set, without an understanding of group functioning. We do not see leadership as a set of habits or a list of traits, but rather a rich human experience in relationship with others. The Burns Academy, Jepson, and Claremont McKenna offer required and elective coursework either wholly, or focusing in part, on group dynamics, and often these are the most sought-after courses in our programs. These courses stress learning about leadership, followership, and membership of groups as the rich template of experience from which leadership arises.

Different Disciplinary Approaches/Electives. In keeping with our liberal arts emphasis, an important component of a leadership studies program is to study leadership from different disciplinary perspectives. Our programs offer a wide range of courses offering different historical, philosophical, religious, political, international, and organizational perspectives on leadership, from nearly every academic discipline. As one might imagine, many courses are taught by faculty in disciplines typically associated with leadership, such as psychology, sociology and political science. Other courses, however, include one from a professor of literature that looks at how leadership is portrayed in classic literature and films, another looks at leadership and religious values, and another elective course focuses on African-American leadership.

 

CONCLUSIONS

As leadership studies continues to emerge as a recognized academic discipline, it has important implications for the larger field of leadership development. Traditionally, the bulk of attention in leadership development has been focused on the continued development of leadership skills and ability for persons who are already identified in positions of leadership, such as higher level business managers, organizational administrators, elected officials, and the like. This is also evident in the focus of many of the chapters of this book. As more and more graduating college students enter the workforce with degrees in leadership, it will help move the focus of leadership development “downward,” to younger individuals who are identified as “potential leaders,” due primarily to their educational degrees, and accompanying leadership experience (e.g., leadership internships, service learning, etc.). This creates both opportunities, such as the early identification of persons who might fill leadership positions, and risks, such as the possible exclusion of potential leaders because they do not possess a leadership degree (i.e., the “elitism” discussed earlier) and the dangers of having a narrowly defined approach to developing leaders. Despite the scarcity of research on younger, college-aged leaders, some leadership development researchers are arguing the importance of studying leadership at an even earlier age, focusing on school age children and adolescents (e.g., Schneider, Paul, White, & Holcombe, 1999; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Ehrhart, 2002).

We offer these guidelines for undergraduate leadership studies programs not only as a means of helping those interested in developing leadership programs, but as part of an ongoing dialogue about best practices in the field of leadership studies. It is only by sharing what works and doesn’t work that we can save some from reinventing the wheel or repeating the missteps of others.

 

REFERENCES

Astin, H.S., & Astin, A. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Version III: Guidebook. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.

Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 81-95.

Brungardt, C., & Crawford, C.B. (1996). A comprehensive approach to assessing leadership students and programs: Preliminary findings. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 37-48.

Brungardt, C.L., Gould, L.V., Moore, R., & Potts, J. (1997). The emergence of leadership studies: Linking the traditional outcomes of liberal education with leadership development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4, 53-67.

Cantor, J.A. (1995). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and community. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Casmir, F. L. (Ed). (1997). Ethics in intercultural and international communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cavenagh, T.D. (1997). Establishing leadership studies in the liberal arts curriculum through conflict resolution education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4, 132-139.

Ciulla, J.B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York: Crown Business Books.

Ciulla, J.B. (1996). Ethics and critical thinking in leadership education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 110-119.

Ciulla, J.B. (1998). Leadership ethics, mapping the territory. In J.B. Ciulla, (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44-55.

Conger, J.A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cronin, T.E. (1984). Thinking and learning about leadership. Presidential Leadership Studies, 14, 22-34.

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.

DeMott, B. (1993). Choice academic pork. Harper’s, December, p. 61.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi (reprinted, 1997, Scribner).

Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.

deWinstanley, P.A., & Bjork, R.A. (2002). Successful lecturing: Presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. In D.F. Halpern & M.D. Hakel (Eds.), Applying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond (pp. 19-31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.

Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J.B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 27-45). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press.

Hackman, M.Z., Olive, T.E., Guzman, N., & Brunson, D. (1999). Ethical considerations in the development of the interdisciplinary leadership studies program. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 36-48.

Halpern, D.F. (in press). The development of adult cognition: Understanding constancy and change in adult learning.

Hogan, R.T., Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What do we know about personality: Leadership and effectiveness? American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Honan, W. (1998). Programs that make leadership their goal, New York Times, September 30, 1998, p. C 20.

Howe, W. (1997). Leadership education: A look across the courses. In F. Freeman, et al., (Eds.), Leadership education: A source book, 1996-1997 (Sixth edition, Vol. 2, p. 286). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2003). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. (4^th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lao Tzu. (1989). “The Lao Tzu (Tao-te-ching)” tr. Robert G. Henricks.New York: Ballantine Books.

Mangan, K.S. (2002, May 31). Leading the way in leadership education: The unending quest of the discipline’s founding father. Chronicle of Higher Education, A10-A12.

Markus, G.B., Howard, J.P.F., & King, D.C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 410-419.

McVey, R.S. (1995). Critical thinking skills for leadership development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 86-97.

Perucci G. (1999). “Leadership Studies Programs in the Context of Globalization,” Selected Proceedings of the international Leadership Association (College Park: The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership, University of Maryland), pp. 55-62.

Rost, J.C., & Barker, R.A. (2000). Leadership education in colleges: Toward a 21^st century paradigm. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 3-12.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, K.H., & Ehrhart, M.G. (2002). Understanding high school student leaders II. Peer nominations of leaders and their correlates. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 275-299.

Schneider, B., Paul, M.C., White, S.S., & Holcomebe, K.M. (1999). Understanding high school student leaders, I: Predicting teacher ratings of leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 609-636.

Schwartz, M.K., Axtman, K.M., & Freeman, F.H. (Eds.). (1998). Leadership education: A source book of courses and programs. (7^th ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Simmons, V.C., & Roberts-Weah, W. (2000). Service-learning and social reconstructionism: A critical opportunity for leadership. In C.R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 189-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sorenson, G. (2000). An intellectual history of leadership studies: The role of James MacGregor Burns. Presented at meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.

Sorenson, G. and Howe, W. (2001). As strange a maze as e’er men trod: A history of leadership studies. Presented at meeting of the International Leadership Association, Miami, Florida.

Troyer, M. (1997). The Growth of Leadership Development Programs in Higher Education. Unpublished paper. University of Kentucky.

Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C.D., & Moxley, R.S. (1998). Our view of leadership development. In C.D. McCauley, R.S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 1-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Welch, R.L. (2000). Training a new generation of leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 70-81.

Wren, J.T. (1994). Teaching leadership: The art of the possible. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 73-93.

Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J.C. (1999a). Leadership in the making: Impact and insights from leadership development programs in U.S. colleges and universities. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J.C. (1999b). Leadership in the making: A comprehensive examination of the impact of leadership development programs on students. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 50-66.