“The Guidelines Initiative: Enlarging the Conversation”

Learning Lab #2

Facilitator: Stephen W. Ritch, Ph.D.

Learning Lab Design: Nancy L. Thomas, J.D., Ed.D.

Summary and Recommendations

Process: Conference participants joined in a modified study circle process that was designed to identify the organizing topics/chapters and questions essential to the development of leadership education programs. Conclusions were posted for review and comment by the general assembly. Revisions were made based on the advice gathered from this process; organizing topics/chapters as well as guiding questions (detailed below) were developed that are intended to become the basis for writing a guidelines document for consideration for endorsement by the ILA.

Recommendations: Participants recommended that a conference be held to review invited papers that address the chapter topics.  At this conference, these papers would be integrated into a first draft of a guidelines document. This draft would be research based. Further, participants recommended that this work be revised and further edited through the establishment of a learning community. Finally, Participants volunteered to serve as “chapter leaders” to facilitate the process of defining and clarifying the scope of the invited papers and the conference process of integrating them into a first draft.  

The general goal is to have a final draft for presentation at the conference in Los Angeles, 2008, which is the tenth anniversary of the formation of the International Leadership Association.

There was also consensus in support of the following principles and goals:

• To keep the Guidelines Initiative grounded in the mission of the International Leadership Association and to encourage face-to-face conversations, continue to invite papers, presentations and discussions regarding guidelines and related issues for leadership education programs at the annual conference.

• To build community, commitment, and provide first drafts, use a study circles process and host a conference to receive, review and synthesize papers that address the organizing topics/guiding questions and related content areas identified in this learning lab.

• To ensure that the process is transparent, iterative, and ongoing, establish a community of practice (learning community) to write and revise the organizing topics/guiding questions.

Background

The Guidelines Initiative is  a volunteer project that has its roots in discussions and presentations dating back to the conference in Seattle (2002). In Washington (2004), a formal panel entitled “Emerging Accreditation Issues: Toward Professional Standards for Leadership Programs?” was sparked interest in pursuing the issues that were raised. (Ritch, Robinson, Riggio, Roberts and Cherrey, 2004).

As a follow up to these and other discussions regarding the establishment of guidelines and standards for leadership studies programs, six ILA members gathered  in roundtable sponsored by  Regent University in early 2005.

The roundtable participants agreed on principle directions to move forward, understanding that this was the beginning of a complex process would require the voices and expertise of many and diverse stakeholders. The benefits, and therefore aims, were declared:

1.      Create frameworks to articulate both the essential nature and distinctiveness of individual leadership programs.

2.      Address issues of legitimacy both internal and external to academia.

3.      Serve as a resource for new and developing programs.

4.      Serve as a reference for programs responding to accrediting processes.

5.      Maintain an internal locus of control and creativity for individual programs.

A research agenda was proposed to explore both the content and context of leadership programs. Although this research was originally designed to be more prescriptive through an inclusive process of setting standards, this was later modified due to ILA member input in Amsterdam (2005).

The ILA Board of Directors approved this proposal in April, 2005. A voluntary advisory group comprised of representatives from nine colleges and universities (now 11) was assembled and Regent University faculty began research over that summer.

This preliminary research was presented in a panel, “Academic Standards for Leadership Studies Programs: Enlarging the Conversation” (Patterson, King, Hartsfield, Klenke, and Harter, 2005) in Amsterdam.  In addition, two related programs, one a roundtable and the other a forum, were presented in Amsterdam. The roundtable, “Tools, Guidelines, and Outcomes for Leadership Studies Programs” (Robinson, 2005) resulted in not only a sharing of experiences but also a first spark of ideas concerning the topics that might be most helpful to address in a document.  The forum, “Standards and Guidelines for Leadership Programs: What Shall We Do?” was a deliberative, democratic forum that was designed to inform and expand the conversation among the ILA membership and conference attendees regarding guidelines and standards for leadership programs (Ritch and Roberts, 2005). This forum also modeled a highly effective process for achieving consensus and direction for social change. A full report including a description of the choicework process, alternatives, and participant responses is available in the ILA 2005 Conference Proceedings.

The conclusions of this forum were crucial in the evolution of this project:

“There was unanimous agreement that this project and process must be kept grounded in the mission of the International Leadership Association.  …The consensus was that these conversations and the research associated with them should continue. The research should be broadened to include not only the content and context of our field but also “best practices” relating to conceptual framework, mission, assessment, instruction, and otherprogrammatic elements. This research should produce guidelines, endorsed by the ILA that can be used, following a format of essential “guiding questions,” to create and improve leadership programs. This process should be an important professional imperative that is transparent, iterative, and ongoing.” (Ritch and Roberts, 2005).

In Chicago (2006) the learning lab “Guidelines for Leadership Programs: Enlarging the Conversation” (Ritch, 2006) was identified organizing topics/chapters, guiding questions, and recommendations for next steps that were consistent with the consensus reached in Amsterdam.

Organizing Topics, Chapters and Guiding Questions

Using an abbreviated process based on study circle techniques, participants identified and developed the following chapters for a guidelines document. These chapters will frame the topics to for invited papers.

Conceptual Framework

• (Question) How do we make this a generic document yet give adequate direction?
• Clear definition of program’s conceptual framework/platform/manifesto.
• Clear idea of mission and vision statements; strategic plan: goals and values.
• How does theoretical framework fit into the organizational mission and vision?
• What kinds of leadership concepts/theories fit into what the organization is trying to accomplish?
• Strategic process for implementation including evaluation and revision. Relate to activities of program including curricular and co-curricular.
• (Resources) Examples of other frameworks/platforms/manifestos.
• (Resources) Case studies/best practices.
• (Resources) Human resources, people to assist in development/creation/ implementation/etc.
• (Comment) ILA to provide consultation with institutions

Teaching/Learning

• (Question) Who, What, How and Why will you teach?
• Andragogy/Pedagogy
• Methods
  • Activities
  • Experiences   
  • Discussion
  • Media
  • Observation
  • Simulation
  • Role playing
  • Case studies
  • Story telling  
  • Service learning
• Teaching theories
• Learning theories
  • Practice
  • Experiential
  • Coaching/mentoring
  • Peer learning
  • Adult Transformative Learning
• Applied theories
• Action learning/Action research
• Assessment/Evaluation
  • Projects       
  • Individual students
  • Courses
  • Teacher
  • Validation of what was accomplished in addition to evaluation
• Inquiry
• Student centered learning
• Teacher centered learning
• Self starting learning
• Training-to-practice
• Link/Relevance to community
• Naturalistic inquiry/Foundation for theory development
• Syllabus
  • Readings
  • Content of course
  • Activities
• Researched practices
• Outcomes-driven
  • Comparative (program-to-program)
  • Draw from environmental scan
  • Important elements to teach
  • Continuous quality improvement
  • Course refinement and redevelopment

Context

 (Question) What are the contexts of leadership programs?

• Sectors
  • Government
  • Education
  • Community
  • Business
• Discipline (Location of program)
• Audience
  • Demographic
  • Level of experience
  • Culture/Backgrounds
• Purpose (Impact)
• Reach/Scope (Impact)
• Places of learning (physical or virtual)
  • Classroom
  • Online
  • Community
• Global
• Curricular/Co-curricular/Continuing Education
• Outcome directed (Training)

Content

(Question) What is the content of the program and how does it relate to leadership studies? What is the program focus?

Three dimensions of content:

• Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
• Personal, Community, Global/Society
• Concentration areas:
  • Ethics
  • Theory
  • Leadership methods
  • Change
  • Relationships
  • Conflict
  • Influence
  • Diversity/Inclusiveness
  • Values
  • Self awareness/management
  • Organizational, Community, Group development

(Comment) Systems Theory, Critical thinking

List is not exclusive, research needs to be conducted to identify additional areas.

Outcomes and Outcomes Assessment

(Question) How do field of practice and standards inform your outcomes and assessments?

(Statement) Programs need to clarify outcomes as well as the means of assessing outcomes at various levels.

• Clear and specific description of outcomes on an institutional, program, and individual level
• Assessable/observable competency and growth on each level
• How do you assess?
• What conceptual framework informs your choice of outcomes?
• What research informs your assessment process?
• How does field of practice and standards inform your outcomes and assessment?

Resources

Agreement was not reached as to whether this should be a separate chapter or should each chapter feature a discussion of relevant resources. There was general sympathy to include resources in each chapter because resources vary by topic area and reverence more than financial considerations but this recommendation remains to be determined.