Leadership Programs

The September Student Leader Development Program workshop focuses on the Social Change Model of Leadership. The Social Change Model of Leadership was first proposed between 1994-1996 by a team of leadership educators with the Higher Education Research Institute. The model exists on three related perspective levels, joined together by a shared focus on creating change. While all the perspective levels are end-directed at change, each level has unique contributing value-means. Collectively these value-means are often termed “the seven Cs.”

Individual Values

• Consciousness of Self: Awareness of personal values, skills/strengths/talents, and beliefs, and ways of being, knowing, and doing (identity). 
• Congruence: Existing in alignment with your self, as you have become aware of it.
• Commitment: Akin to motivation, passion, and internal energies toward change.

Group Values

• Collaboration: Sharing responsibility, authority, and accountability via pro-social behaviors such as dialogue, negotiation, compromise, and conflict mediation. 
• Common Purpose: Aggregated individual commitments that manifest as a unifying vision.
• Controvery with Civility: An egalitarian determination to see others as contributing unalienable human dignity, resulting in an open/willing approach to conflict. 

Societal Values

• Citizenship: Existence in communal relationship with others, an embeddedness in something larger than yourself. 

“The point of the model is to help students acquire the skills and perspectives that will enable them to become effective change agents, regardless of their actual position or level of affluence.” (HERI, 1996, p. 77).

The October Student Leader Development Program workshop focuses on the Situational Approach to Leadership. The Situational Approach was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969, and was further developed by Ken Blanchard, Patricia Zigarmi, and Drea Zigarmi in 2013. The model focuses on the importance of situational context in developing a responsive leader approach. It is easiest to focus on the two leader behavioral components and the two follower readiness components, before seeing the model in its entirety. 

Leader Behavioral Components

• Directing Behaviors: focuses on technical and one-way communication — leader to follower.
• Supporting Behaviors: focuses on conceptual or relational and two-way communication — leader AND follower.
  

Follower Readiness Components

• Competence: focuses on follower technical ability (and belief in that ability).
• Commitment: focuses on follower-perceived attachment to the organization and its members.

Leadership Styles

• D4/S4 Delegating: Low supporting and low directing leader behaviors meet the needs of highly competent and highly committed followers.
• D3/S3 Supporting: High supporting and low directing leader behaviors meet the needs of moderate to highly competent and committed followers. 
• D2/S2 Coaching: High supporting and high directing leader behaviors meet the needs of followers with low competence and low commitment. 
• D1/S1 Directing: Low supporting and high directing leader behaviors meet the needs of followers with low competence but high commitment.

The November Student Leader Development Program workshop focuses on the Culturally Relevant Leadership Learning model. The Culturally Relevant Leadership Learning model was first proposed by Tamera Bertrand Jones, Kathy Guthrie, and Laura Osteen in 2016. The model expands previous work from Guthrie, Bertrand Jones, Osteen, and Hu (2013) and Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, and Osteen (2005; 2006). Principally, the model integrates a leader identity development model within critical contextual domains, adapted from Ladson-Billings (1995). While the model was revised in 2021, the November workshop focuses on the original 2016 conceptualization. Below you will find a description of the leader-leadership relationship as well as a description of the critical domains, as depicted by the model.

The model centers the relationship connecting leaders as people to leadership as a process occurring between leaders. This relationship is reciprocally supported by the development of leader/leadership identity, capacity, and efficacy.

• Identity is the internal integration of diverse ways of being, knowing, and doing that are self-attributed to “leaders.” A belief in the statement “I am a leader.”
• Capacity is the adaptive knowledge set (including concrete skills and abilities) necessary to overcome given leader/leadership challenges.
• Efficacy is confidence in a leader/group’s ability to overcome given leader/leadership challenges. Leader/leadership efficacy may also be likened to belief in leader/leadership effectiveness or success.

This inner leader/leadership relationship is contextually grounded by the five critical domains. The domains act as lenses that can be used to evaluate the leader/leadership climate. For CRLL these domains critically evaluate the climate as it relates to the presence of inequitable power — oppressive systems. Through this critical climate evaluation CRLL becomes responsive to nonrepresentative compositional diversity, exclusive organizations and structures, and histories of bias, as well as behavioral and psychological prejudice, as it impacts relational leadership processes.

The January Student Leader Development Program workshop focuses on the Emotionally Intelligent Leadership model. The Emotionally Intelligent Leadership model was first proposed in 2012 by Drs. Scott Allen, Marcy Shankman, and Rosanna Miguel. The model expands on the work of Peter Salovey and John Mayer, who published Emotional Intelligence in 1990, as well as Daniel Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. The model is composed of three domains, each with their own contributing components – in total there are 19 components across the domains. While the components are not outlined here, they are explained in detail in the 2015 book by Shankman, Allen, and Haber-Curan, Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: A guide for students. 

The model begins within the individual leader with Consciousness of Self and radiates outward through Consciousness of Others toward Consciousness of Context. A summary of each domain is given below: 

Consciousness of Self: Becoming aware of, understanding, and appropriately regulating internal emotional conditions. Developing a consciousness of self is a lifelong developmental process requiring critical reflection.  

Consciousness of Others: Becoming aware of, understanding, and appropriately responding to the emotional conditions of other people, engaged in the group leadership process. Consciousness of others also involves building and maintaining productive relationships with others.  

Consciousness of Context: Becoming aware of, understanding, and appropriately responding to the setting and situation of leadership – these are often non-personal factors, including organizational structures and  contemporary cultural expectations surrounding leadership choices.  

The March Student Leader Development Program workshop focuses on the Servant Leadership model. The Servant Leadership model was first proposed in 1970 by Robert Greenleaf. Servant Leadership, as a set of prescriptive leader behaviors (directed toward followers), is one example of a Behavioral Approach to leadership, as described by Peter Northouse in Leadership: Theory and Practice.  

Ultimately, Servant Leadership sees its most important task in supporting the personal and interpersonal development of followers – this is commonly done through predicting and removing barriers to follower development. Greenleaf’s greatest axiom of Servant Leadership is: “Do those served (followers) grow as persons? Do they (followers), while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants (leaders)?” 

While Servant Leadership aligns relational behaviors and task behaviors (seeing follower development as a task), the broader Behavioral Approach to leadership places relational behaviors and task behaviors on two separate axes that can be graphed (described as concern for people and concern for results, respectively). The resulting graph was termed the Management Grid by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. Today the graph is known as the Leadership Grid, and it is composed of five distinct styles of behavior-based leadership. 

Country-Club Leadership: Expressing a high concern for people and a low concern for results. Country-Club Leadership seeks to create a relaxing, stress-free, and comfortable environment for relationships.  

Impoverished Leadership: Expressing a low concern for people and a low concern for results. Impoverished Leadership is ineffectual due to its generally apathetic concern for both people and results. 

Authority-Compliance Leadership: Expressing a low concern for people and a high concern for results. Authority-Compliance Leadership prioritizes results over people. While this approach may be best for dangerous or crises-laden situations, it is not ideal for situations where collaborative relationships must be maintained for a sustained period. 

Team Leadership: Expressing a high concern for people and high concern for results. Team Leadership involves team members in the leadership challenge as obstacles toward results are overcome collaboratively. Servant Leadership is a prescriptive example of Team Leadership. 

Middle-of-the-Road Leadership: Resting in the middle of the grid, expressing a middle concern for both people and results. Conflict becomes the moderating factor, which compels leaders to prioritize either relationships or results, only when necessary.