National Leadership Symposium

NATIONAL LEADERSHIP SYMPOSIUM

Proceedings 2013 July 22-25, 2013 | University of Louisville© NACA, NCLP

Leadership Readiness: Exploring Student Development in the Context of Leadership Education

CONTENTS02

03

09

05

07

Theme: Leadership Readiness

Planning Team

Scholar Presentations

Timeline Through Pictures

Emerging Questions

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

Theory to Practice

Pecha Kuchas

Live Tweetership

Participant Reflections

Additional Readings

Evaluation Quotes

Final Thoughts: Preston

2

LEADERSHIP READINESSPlanning the National Leadership Symposium 2013

Dear NLS 2013 Participants,

Last year’s theme, Next Generation Leadership Education: Rigorous Design, Engaging Experiences, and Demonstrated Results, helped Symposium participants focus specifically on the curriculum and pedagogy of their leadership programs and initiatives. This year, the two co-chairs, Michael Preston, Director of the Office of Student Involvement at Central Florida University and I, decided to broaden the conversation to include a specific focus on the students who participate in leadership programs while in college. What do we know about them as developing and emerging adults and leaders? What commonalities should we be aware of in how students think about themselves? Beyond commonalities, how are students different, and can we group these differences into themes? How should our knowledge in these areas affect our curriculum and how we communicate our curriculum to students?

Our focus created some significant momentum among the planning team, primarily related to the list of quality scholars who are engaged in research and teaching related to these topics. Within the area of developmental readiness for leadership, we were delighted that Becky Reichard, on faculty at Claremont Graduate University and accomplished author, accepted our offer to attend. Her expertise and research in creating environments to accelerate the development of young leaders in unparalleled, such that Michael and I asked her to create not one presentation for the Symposium (which is standard), but two – to help kick-start our conversation on Day 1 and to cap our scholarly examination near the end of the Symposium.

Knowing that we needed someone expert in the student experience, we were excited that Michael Cuyjet, Professor at the University of Louisville and located just across campus, accepted our offer to attend. Dr. Cuyjet’s knowledge of student development theory, identity work, and especially the impact of culture on both, added a level of depth to our conversation, which was exactly what we wanted.

Susan Jones, a Professor at Ohio State University, also accepted our invitation to attend. Internationally recognized for her work in student identity development, and particularly for her work in how students experience the intersection of their multiple social identities, would have been a wonderful fit for us, given this year’s topic. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones had to cancel in the week leading up to the Symposium, but was kind and committed enough to recruit her co-author of the book Identity Development of College Students, Dr. Elisa Abes. Dr. Abes, Professor at Miami University (Oxford, Ohio), graciously agreed to participate, even if it could only be for a few hours, to present Susan’s slides and information.

Lastly, we were thrilled that Susan Komives, Professor Emerita at the University of Maryland-College Park and leader of the research team that created a theory of student leadership identity development, also accepted our invitation to participate. Particularly, we were excited about Dr. Komives’s ability to help place the presentations from Dr. Cuyjet and Dr. Abes within a framework of college student leadership.

This year was the first year that the University of Louisville hosted the National Leadership Symposium, and we remain grateful for their hospitality throughout our time. In particular, Tim Moore, Director of Student Involvement, had every detail arranged so that we could fully focus on the Symposium experience. I think we are all looking forward to returning to Louisville in 2015!

Sincerely,Dave RoschAssistant Professor of Leadership Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

3

The faces that put this whole thing togetherMEET THE 2013 NLS TEAM

MICHAEL PRESTONDirector of the Office of Student InvolvementUniversity of Central Florida

ELISA S. AbESAssociate Professor in the Student Affairs & Higher Education programUniversity of Central Florida

SUSAN R. JONESProfessor and Program Director in the Higher Education and Student Affairs program The Ohio State University

bECkY REICHARDAssistant Professor in the School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences Claremont Graduate University

DAvE ROSCHAssistant Professor of Leadership StudiesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MICHAEL J. CUYJETProfessor, College Student Personnel, College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of Louisville

SUSAN R. kOMIvESProfessor Emerita of the Student Affairs program University of Maryland

CO-CHAIRS

SCHOLARS

4

The faces that put this whole thing together

PLANNINg TEAM

ASSOCIATES

TIM MOOREDirector of Student Involvement and Student Activities CenterUniversity of Louisville

ADRIAN bITTONGraduate Coordinator for Co-Curricular Leadership ProgramsUniversity of Maryland

CRAIg SLACkDirector for National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs (NCLP)University of Maryland

DANYELLEGraduate Associate and Assistant Program Coordinator, University Honors and Scholars CenterThe Ohio State University

SANDRA ROUSEDirector of Education and ResearchNational Association for Campus Activities (NACA)

PATRICIA gARCIAGraduate Coordinator for the Partners in Print programUniversity of Maryland

DANYELLE REYNOLDS

5

Day 1 Day 2

TIMELINE THROUgH PICTURES

6

Set your eyes on the happenings that made NLS memorable

Day 3

7

EMERgINg QUESTIONSQuestions that you wanted to explore after Day 1

8

You constructed many deep questions related to leadership readiness. We hope that throughout your time at the Symposium you found some of the answers you were looking for and were challenged to think more critically about developmental readiness and leadership education.

9

MICHAEL CUYJETStudent Development and Cultural Influences

Before we can dive into the topic of developmental readiness, it is necessary to return to the basics of student development theory. Dr. Michael Cuyet did just that when he led us through the fundamentals of theory in his presentation at the National Leadership Symposium. Instead of reviewing specific theories, as if we were in a Theory 101 class, Dr. Cuyjet synthesized the various elements of theory and facilitated conversations around certain questions that many of us have related to using theory in practice.

First Dr. Cuyjet presented the definition of theory and differentiated between formal and informal theories. Dr. Cuyjet highlighted that one of the main benefits of formal theories is that they “help us to see what might not be obvious to casual observers.” On the other hand, Dr. Cuyjet reminded us that we must be cognizant of our own personal observations and beliefs and how they might impact our practice.

Another facet of student development theory that Dr. Cuyjet presented was the importance of culture and how it affects our use of theories. Dr. Cuyjet used Beverly Tatum’s list of characteristics that affect an individual’s cultural persona, which includes “race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age and physical or mental ability.” He also emphasized Tatum’s reminder that each of the cultural categories “has a form of oppression associated with it.” Dr. Cuyjet encouraged us to look inward and be self-aware about our own culture as scholar-practitioners. This self-awareness helps us understand what our biases are and how we may favor certain theories over others. The other piece of understanding multicultural aspects of student development is

to be aware that culture affects the development of students according to their “cultural conditioning.” This information is useful as we seek to work with students of diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Tell us about your experience at the National Leadership Symposium 2013.

Leadership development and training has mostly been a peripheral area of student development for me. The 2013 NLS opened my eyes to some of the excellent research being done specifically in this area and particularly to the existence of a cohort of dedicated professionals all over the country who are taking this research and operationalizing it into cutting-edge leadership development programs for students.

What new insights did you gain as a result of your personal conversations and large group discussions at the National Leadership Symposium?

I was unaware of the various models of leadership development that are really well-developed and are being employed in myriad programs at schools across the country.

Based on our personal beliefs and past experiences, we all create informal theories that shape the way we interact with our students. Sometimes our

PPTDOWNLOAD

10

informal theories do not align with formal theories of student development. How can we as leadership educators reconcile our informal theories with formal theories about student development?

Learning about formal theory and the research from which it is developed allows us to understand two things: what are some of the basic, time-tested theories about student development and how those theories and models were developed. This understanding should form an intellectual and practical foundation upon which practitioners use their own experiences and their own research on student development either to modify previously tested theories and models or to develop newer, complementary models. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and.

Many of the original student development theories were based on White men (the college population at the time); however now the student body of most college campuses is increasingly multicultural and some argue that these theories no longer apply or represent the student experience. How do you respond to claims such as these and what role does formal theory have in our practice as student affairs professionals?

Study, research, and use of theory are not static. In the presentation at NLS we talked about knowing and using various clusters of theories – psychosocial, cognitive, identity, emerging, holistic, environmental, student success, and typology – not just those basic psychosocial theories. We also mentioned some newer paradigmatic influences on theory such as constructivism – the notion that multiple realities exist – and critical theory – giving voice to all elements of society. These newer ways of viewing and using theory accommodate the multicultural compositions of our campuses.

You spoke about understanding and incorporating different aspects of students’ cultures into our consideration of their development. How can educators incorporate this diversity without stereotyping their experience or essentializing aspects of their identities?

Trying to be more conscious of the multi-faceted nature of everyone’s culture (starting with oneself) helps to avoid “labeling” or “typing” individuals based on an apparent cultural characteristic (which, ironically, might not even be the cultural characteristic that person considers the most salient). Recognizing that each individual is a cultural composite leaves us open to learning from each individual to add to the cultural mosaic of the environment of the campus.

11

SUSAN JONES, ELISA AbESSocial Identities and Leadership

“Who am I?” was the core question that Dr. Abes addressed during her presentation at the National Leadership Symposium on social identities and leadership. Dr. Abes encouraged self-reflection on who we are as practitioners, as well as reflection on who our students are, how they view themselves, and how the world views them.

Dr. Abes used Henry Taifel’s definition of social identity: an “individual’s knowledge of belonging to certain social groups, together with some emotional and value significance to the individual of this group membership.” Social identities affect who we are and in turn influence how we develop as leaders. Historically student development theories “considered social identities separately, not in ways they intersect or exist simultaneously,” Dr. Abes explained. Then Dr. Abes presented her work on the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMDI). The model reflects how our multiple social identities interact and considers the ways in which these identities are influenced by and exist within the larger environmental context. One of the key concepts of the model is the salience of identities and the interplay between how we self-identify and how others perceive us. Although an identity may not be salient to us, it may be what others see and influence the ways in which they interact with us. We can relate this to the leadership context, since social identities such as race, gender or sexual orientation shape our leadership development, especially when framed within the context of privilege and oppression.

Dr. Abes also discussed other iterations of the MMDI with the participants. The Reconceptualized MMDI incorporated the concept of developmental readiness with a “meaning-making filter.” Dr. Ables explained the more cognitively complex a person is, the less they are influenced by the environmental context. The Intersectional MMDI focuses on intersectionality and the macro context of power, privilege, and oppression. The core becomes more about living authentically amidst the pressures of the larger context.

Dr. Abes concluded by highlighting the implications of these concepts as they relate to practice and provided recommendations on how we can apply them to our own work with students on campus. The key is to remember that leadership development, as well as student development, does

PPTDOWNLOAD

12

not occur in a vacuum—it is molded by our social identities and social structures.

What new insights did you gain as a result of your personal conversation and large group discussions at the National Leadership Symposium?

Several interesting ideas emerged through discussions with the Symposium participants. In general, I was reminded how difficult it is to have conversations about identity and how important doing so is both for leadership educators and undergraduates learning about leadership. During my time speaking with the Symposium participants, we merely scratched the surface about the ways in which power structures, such as racism, classism, heterosexism, and ableism, shape identity. I am certain that, given the challenges of having such conversations, much more was left unspoken than spoken. This realization caused me to think about the importance for effective leadership of not only understanding oneself and learning about others, but also having the ability to engage in and facilitate conversations across identity differences. Clearly, engaging in and facilitating such conversations is a difficult task for undergraduate student leaders who are still very much in the process of learning about themselves. The ways in which students struggle with these conversations heightens the responsibility of leadership educators to be able to do so.

Indeed, I came to the Symposium considering myself knowledgeable about identity and facilitating difficult

identity conversations, but less knowledgeable about leadership education. However, through my conversations with the participants and their enthusiasm for thinking about Susan Jones and Marylu McEwen’s (2000) Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity, I clearly saw how effective leadership is not possible without understanding identity. Although understanding the nature of identity is not a sufficient knowledge base for leadership education, it is a critical component.

In the realm of understanding identity, I was struck by how challenging it is to recognize the role of power structures in identity formation. While discussing the meaning of living authentically, several Symposium participants discussed the importance of not revealing certain identities (often known as passing) when doing so feels important to achieve a particular goal. For instance, not revealing one’s gay identity when doing so might be detrimental to an employment opportunity. Although I understand the importance

13

of being prudent in how one presents identity, I was especially struck by how this line of reasoning does not question the role of power structures in creating norms or accepted behaviors. Indeed, we are often socialized not to question norms. Not revealing or being true to one’s identity, or passing, when doing so is to our advantage speaks to the difficulty of living authentically within inequitable power structures, especially in the context of identities for which passing is not possible. This realization made apparent the importance of leadership education that fosters students’ ability to live authentically.

Within the MMDI, context is characterized by “isms” that exist in our society (racism, classism, sexism, etc.). How can we teach students to live and lead authentically when those different “isms” are constantly pulling us within the greater context of society?

It is interesting that this question directly relates to our insights described above from the Symposium. In our work what we have found is that living and leading authentically is somewhat related to meaning-making, however, the challenges to authenticity will always be present. What living and leading authentically looks like then is captured in this dual process of both negotiating identities and managing others’ perceptions. So teaching students how to navigate these challenges and tensions while remaining true to themselves is important, which requires both an awareness of self as well as of the social systems that perpetuate societal “isms.” In the context of student leadership education, programming, advising, mentoring and other settings in which leadership educators interact with students, characteristics such as critical self-reflection, grappling with power and privilege, intercultural engagement, and dialogues across difference promote this kind of wrestling with authenticity. The reason why such characteristics are effective is because they contribute to challenging of stereotypes, disrupting

taken-for-granted assumptions about people and their identities, creating dissonance that individuals then work to resolve, and crossing borders into different contexts. It also strikes us that leadership educators can be powerful models for students in both living authentically while also grappling with these larger structures of power and privilege. As we noted above, some individuals may be cautious or afraid of living authentically, and for very good reasons. However, observing others who are navigating these tensions more or less successfully serves as compelling models for students.

You spoke about intersectionality and how it is difficult to isolate certain aspects of our identity, especially those that may not be externally visible to others. How might we help our students understand the concept of intersectionality and promote awareness of our multiple identities (both externally visible and invisible)?

We think many students are aware of multiple identities on some level—we all have them. Those students with externally visible identities are

14

typically very aware of multiple and intersecting identities, often because of the ways in which they are perceived by others. The important idea about intersectionality is that it is not just about multiple identities. If the discussion stays at the micro level then it does not go far enough. Instead, identities must always be connected to the larger macro structures that pattern and shape micro identities and this awareness is harder to cultivate, particularly among those with mostly privileged identities. Drawing upon the core tenets of intersectionality put forth by Thornton Dill and Zambrana (2009), in order to help students understand intersectionality then our efforts should be directed toward centering the experiences of people of color, embracing a more complex perspective on identity, always looking for structures of power and inequality in our work, and promoting social change. Precisely what this might look like is hard to say because there are so many opportunities to apply these tenets in our work with students. As a starting point, leadership educators might re-examine their day-to-practices, the programs they facilitate and to whom, and their efforts at the institutional level with these tenets in mind. How might our work with students look different if these tenets were taken seriously and applied?

How can we as educators help students to refine their meaning-making filters (understanding that as students become more developed, their meaning-making filters become more refined)?

Meaning-making filters refers to students’ meaning-making capacity. Meaning-making capacity, as we use it, is based on the ideas of Robert Kegan (1994) and Marcia Baxter Magolda

(2003; 2008), who explain that individuals develop complexity in three domains: cognitive (how students understand the nature of knowledge), intrapersonal (how students understand their own identity); and interpersonal (how students understand their relationships with others). In the context of understanding multiple social identities, we have described meaning-making capacity as a filter between context, including inequitable power structures, and self-perceptions of relationships among identities. Baxter Magolda has written extensively in the area of developing more complex meaning-making capacity, and we rely on her thinking. Specifically, Baxter Magolda describes the Learning Partnership Model (LPM) as an approach for partnering with students to help them move from their current developmental capacities to increasingly complex ones by validating their capacity to know, situating learning in their experiences, and mutually constructing knowledge with them. Regardless of the context in which the LPM is applied, students’ increased meaning-making capacity will create a more refined filter for understanding their social identities. Thinking specifically about the leadership contexts we facilitate to help students live more authentically and recognize the power structures that intersectionality makes apparent, these contexts can be created consistent with the LPM to foster refined meaning-making filters.

15

SUSAN kOMIvESLeadership Identity Development

Dr. Susan Komives began her presentation by asking two seemingly simple questions “What did you used to think leadership was?” and “What do you think it is now?” By juxtaposing participants’ responses, she demonstrated how our perceptions and understanding of leadership change over time. These shifts demonstrate the developmental nature of leaders and leadership.

Complimenting Dr. Jones and Dr. Abes’ presentation on multiple identities, Dr. Komives encouraged participants to think of leader as a social identity and reminded us that “identity is probably the most important aspect of leader. .

.development” (Hall, 2004, p. 154). Dr. Komives then provided an overview of past leader development models and highlighted how these leadership theories built upon one another.

These connections led her (along with colleagues) to develop the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Model. The LID Model emerged as a result of grounded theory research with 13 diverse students. It contains six stages (which can be seen below) with the most important transition occurring between stage three (Leader Identified) and stage four (Leadership Differentiated). This key transition is marked when people make the mental shift of “I can be A leader even if I am not THE leader.”

In describing the stages and how each further develops a leader’s identity in congruence with the relational model of leadership, she also pointed out that each stage has a transition element and is surrounded by developmental influences such as adult influences, peer influences, meaningful involvement, and reflective learning. These reflective moments are particularly important as Dr. Komives emphasized the role of reflection in helping to propel students from one stage to another and further develop as leaders. She reminded us “you cannot intentionally be what you cannot imagine.”

Dr. Komives concluded her presentation by highlighting a few ways the LID Model could be used in practice. She discussed its connection to the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership and how it could help us see students’ growth through their changing philosophies and perspectives on

PPTDOWNLOAD

16

leadership. She also invited Symposium participants Dr. Amy Barnes and Melissa Rocco to share how they use the LID Model in their work as leadership educators at The Ohio State University. Dr. Amy Barnes described using the LID Model as a framework for the First Year Leadership Collaborative to help students make the transition from stage 3 to stage 4. Melissa Rocco shared how the Student Leadership Advocates was using the LID Model and a cohort structure to move students multiple times through their leadership development (ie. from stages 3 to 4; stages 4 to 5; and stages 5 to 6). The session ended with many participants writing down notes or dreaming about new ideas of how they could incorporate more developmental elements into their leadership programs.

Tell us about your experience at the National Leadership Symposium 2013.

Amazing! Two things really stand out: (1) I was impressed with the breadth and depth of knowledge of all participants. Leadership education has come a long way and is in good hands with these fine professionals. (2) Who knew when we started the NLS over 20 years ago that they would still thrive and enlighten today? Kudos to NCLP and NACA for sustaining these great learning opportunities. The

fact that some come every year is a testament to their impact.

What new insights did you gain as a result of your personal conversations and large group discussions at the National Leadership Symposium?

I loved the literature on developmental readiness for learning (in this case learning about leadership). It is always enlightening to get into other bodies of literature and apply it to our work.

17

How might the interactions and intersections of students’ multiple identities affect the way that they move through the LID model?

When we were doing the LID research it was enlightening to see that all our participants did experience Stage 3 (Leader Identified) and did see leadership as positional and hierarchal. Indeed, these are common characteristics of organizational leadership and we all experience it and hold that paradigm at least for some time. Perhaps because of their identities, some people (like some of the women and one woman of Color) did progress more quickly through that stage and as they learned about collaboration, teamwork, facilitation, and shared leadership became more comfortable in the interdependence stages of leadership differentiated. Mentors who affirmed them for leading or participating with those approaches helped support that paradigm shift.

How can we help students develop in a way that allows their leader identity to become a social identity that is close to their core?

Making sure students “get” the idea that they can be “A” leader even if they are not “THE” leader is critical to this identity. To do that students have to see that leadership is positional AND non-positional.

Its been 12 years since you started the interviews that you used for LID and you’ve also mentioned that perhaps it would have been better to name it Leader instead of Leadership (Identity Model); if you were revisiting the study and/or the theory, what would you change? Is there anything else you would like to explore?

We had a ton of data from those interviews. I wish we had written more from the experiences of

those students, specifically more on developmental influences (role of adults, peers, reflection) and explored the stage 3 to 4 transition further. That may be for someone else’s research! We also need to work on an instrument that might help assess stage 3 to stage 4 thinking-- we have experimented with that but it needs work!

You spoke about the opportunity for developmental scaffolding of leadership skills. In what ways could the sequence of how students build complex skills from foundational skills change according to a student’s identity or culture?

That is a great research question. I do think that the first level of work is to identify skills that scaffold (which ones build on others indicating some degree of mastery is essential before moving into more complex skills) THEN examining them in light of social identities.

18

bECkY REICHARDDevelopmental Readiness and Developmental Accelerators

At the beginning of the Symposium, Dr. Reichard asked a wide-eyed group of participants who were ready to understand how developmental readiness impacts leadership education, “Are you developmentally ready for the National Leadership Symposium?” Dr. Reichard asked a wide-eyed group of participants ready to understand how developmental readiness impacts leadership education. This question started the participant learning process, expanding the understanding of development as an intentional and student-initiated process. Without students being motivated and able to move towards complexity, development cannot occur; leadership education cannot occur without attending to new leadership knowledge, skills, abilities, and attributes. Expanding upon current ideas about leadership education, Dr. Reichard presented development as a life stream or trajectory, rather than a blank slate, reminding us that leader development can begin long before students’ enrollment in college or specific leadership programs. This development should be considered

when building leadership programs, as it takes into account prior experiences that have built leadership skills and identity (DeRue and Ashford, 2010).

Continuing to discuss the trajectory of leader development, Dr. Reichard introduced the concept of trigger events, which create dissonance and discourse for students. When students experience dissonance it furthers the trajectory of the life stream because students are forced to “stretch” towards complexity. While these stretch events can also occur prior to students’ enrollment, it is important for leadership educators to create an environment in which students can safely experience and learn from the dissonance that leads towards greater leadership self-development. In this way, developmental readiness points to a student’s level of preparedness towards learning and benefitting from a developmental leadership experience.

Understanding that developmental experiences yield growth and benefits for students, participants questioned methods of accelerating and amplifying this development. Dr. Reichard shared research that demonstrated the importance of specific factors: a student’s ability to learn, a motivation to develop, and a reliable support system. As leadership educators create environments, experiences, and support for undergraduate students, developmental readiness of individual students should be at the forefront of this intentional planning. Doing so will amplify the results of these interventions.

In closing, Dr. Reichard presented a theory of undergraduate leadership education programs and

PPTDOWNLOAD

19

their impact on student leader development (Reichard and Johnson, 2011). This theory presents a student’s ability and motivation to develop as the factors in leader self-development. The model incorporates process, culture and norms, and resources as the components that affect development. This expansion of the components of leader self-development created a learning foundation for the remainder of the symposium in which developmental readiness became an important factor in the understanding of undergraduate leadership education and leader self-development.

Tell us about your experience at the National Leadership Symposium 2013. What new insights did you gain as a result of your personal conversations and larger group discussions at the National Leadership Symposium?

I had a great experience at this year’s symposium and was honored to be part of it. I had two major insights, the first being how the ‘meaning making filter’ regulates the influence of contextual influences on the strength of which of our social identities emerge in various contexts. The resulting struggle between adaptability and authenticity is one that every leader has to master in order to both put forth their true self in an appropriate way for each situation. The second insight I had was more of an emotion of encouragement and hope as a result of all the competent and passionate leadership educators that are working hard to create a context where their students can flourish and develop as a leader and person.

Understanding that self-awareness is fundamental to engaging students in the learning process, how can leadership educators assess our own developmental readiness? Are there any tools to help with this assessment?

Of course there are survey measures to assess the various dimensions of developmental readiness that can be used by leadership educators for self or student identification of level of developmental readiness, but there are also other means of becoming aware of how ready you are such as answering the following open-ended questions for yourself (journaling) or with a trusted and honest friend (deep meaningful discussion).

1. Where are you going with your career? What interests you most? What are your goals and strategies for getting there? What skills do you need/want to develop to do so?

2. How do you approach performing important work tasks where others will be evaluating your performance? Perhaps you want to show off how great you are? Avoid looking like the village idiot? Can you cognitively, and perhaps even verbally to

20

your group, reframe your performance into an opportunity to learn? To seek out and cherish feedback because you know it is a chance for you to get even better?

3. Have you been successful at developing in the past? What small goals can you set that you are confident you can reach in terms of your development? Who can you get to encourage and support you on your developmental journey? How can you structure your context to support your development?

Technology and generational changes have shifted the ways in which we engage millennial learners. What unique challenges do millennial learners have in terms of moving from a performance orientation to a learning orientation? And what strategies or suggestions might you suggest to leadership educators to help ease this orientation transition?

My advice regarding millennials would be for educators to experiment with a number of different strategies for using technology to support learning.

What are some processing questions leadership educators can be asking their students to support their development

during and after their movement through a triggering or stretch experience?

• What went well? What didn’t? How can we learn from experience to do better next time?

• What positive or negative emotions are you experiencing right now after the event transpired?

• How are those emotions influencing your thoughts and behaviors?

• How does the new knowledge and skills you are learning fit within your description of what you describe as your self-identity?

• How does this experience help you grow toward what you consider your possible future self in terms of roles and expectations?

21

THEORY TO PRACTICE Creating sustainable student leadership development programs

22

Creating sustainable student leadership development programs

Participants were encouraged to reflect upon the scholars’ presentations and synthesize their learning by infusing leader development and developmental readiness elements into their institutional context. We used an “Investment Portfolios” response structure from Grove Graphics (www.store.grove.com) to demonstrate the life cycle of our work with leadership programs. Afterwards we hung the portfolios on the wall and had a gallery walk so that others could learn and ask us questions about our work.

23

PECHA kUCHAS

Pecha Kucha (the Japanese term for “chit-chat”) is a presentation style in which presenters show 20 slides for a duration of 20 seconds each. As the slides are timed and contain mostly pictures, presenters rely on carefully planned and synthesized speaking points. At the National Leadership Symposium, participants were introduced to Pecha Kucha both by an instructional video and a humorous example presented by Michael Preston. Small groups were then charged with presenting on the learning that occurred during the symposium using this new format. These presentations highlighted the importance of considering developmental readiness in college student development and helping students to use triggering and stretch experiences to facilitate important leadership learning. Other presentations reminded educators that the onus of a student’s development is on the student, and while leadership education can help to facilitate learning, practitioners are not solely responsible for a student’s leadership development. Finally, groups reflected on the notion of leader as a social identity, and how internalizing leader as a social identity has implications in the understanding of leader development and program implementation. Pecha Kucha proved to be a fun and effective way to synthesize information and present the results of extensive reflection—a group even presented a new theory (the NLS Red Barn Theory)!

20x20 with incredible impact

24

20x20 with incredible impact

Click a box to download Pecha Kucha presentation

gROUPONE

gROUPTWO

gROUPTHREE

gROUPFOUR

gROUPFIvE

gROUPSIX

gROUPSEvEN

25

SUSAN kOMIvES @SusanKomives kYLE HICkMAN @kyle_a_hickmanCOURTNEY TIPTON @cctipton

bRENDA MCkENzIE @brendamac13

DANYELLE REYNOLDS @dainty_danyelle

EbONY @eroseinbloom

DANA CARNES @dana_carnes

DANYELLE REYNOLDS @dainty_danyelle

MELISSA ROCCO @MelRoc7NICk ESTRADA @nestrada89

NCLP @ed_lead

NCLP @ed_lead

PRESTON RAMSEY @PresRamsey

kATIE kRAMER @thekatiekramer

MICHAEL PRESTON @Mprest13

excited to be at #NLSymposium! This is my first tweet - thanks @alb1361

@tman84 Definitely jealous that you are at #NLSymposium and I’m at home working on a social identity theory of #Leadership research piece!

We need to teach them how to be better developers of their own leadership. Mind blown. #NLSymposium

Love hearing others stories. Makes me think about my story differently. #NLSymposium

#NLSymposium participants practicing vulnerability by sharing subordinate identity experiences that shaped their own personal development.

Amen! “You cannot intentionally be what you cannot imagine.” @SusanKomives #nlsymposium

Ironic: a leadership program based on Social Change Model, leadership is a process not a position...but only for org officers #NLSymposium

Leadership educators at #NLSymposium reflecting on their leadership development, understanding it drives the way they engage in their work.

Convo about identity & “isms” making me think about privilege some associate with term/concept of “leader” in the first place #NLSymposium

Providing students with language regarding leadership development helps them make their own connections and grow. #NLsymposium #salead

@BeckyReichard asks “Why care about Developmental Readiness?” #NLSymposium

@BeckyReichard has us thinking about readiness for leader development as both the motivation and the ability to develop. #NLSymposium

“Who am I” - learning how identity development affects leadership development. How do you identify yourself? #NLSymposium #salead

“Leader development is really leader self-development.” @BeckyReichard #NLSymposium #salead @THENACA

“A pathway to leadership development is the importance of failure” Adversity as path. Learn through setbacks = strength #NLSymposium #NACA

LIvE TWEETERSHIP#NLSymposium in 140 characters or less

26

kYLE HICkMAN @kyle_a_hickman

DANYELLE REYNOLDS @dainty_danyelle

EbONY @eroseinbloom

MELISSA ROCCO @MelRoc7

PRESTON RAMSEY @PresRamsey

@tman84 Definitely jealous that you are at #NLSymposium and I’m at home working on a social identity theory of #Leadership research piece!

#NLSymposium participants practicing vulnerability by sharing subordinate identity experiences that shaped their own personal development.

Amen! “You cannot intentionally be what you cannot imagine.” @SusanKomives #nlsymposium

Convo about identity & “isms” making me think about privilege some associate with term/concept of “leader” in the first place #NLSymposium

“Who am I” - learning how identity development affects leadership development. How do you identify yourself? #NLSymposium #salead

bRENDA MCkENzIE @brendamac13

AAUWHIgHERED @AAUWHigherEd

kATIE kRAMER @thekatiekramer

CARLA CHRISTENSEN @CarlaAg02

PRESTON RAMSEY @PresRamsey

NCLP @ed_lead

JOY USNER @joyofmu

NCLP @ed_lead

MICHAEL PRESTON @Mprest13

MICHAEL PRESTON @Mprest13

Leadership can’t be touched, tasted, or felt...it is socially constructed. #NLSymposium

We’re following #NLSymposium today & living vicariously through these lucky leadership development educators: http://goo.gl/KZg74g #salead

.@Mprest13 “I’ll end with this - conformity is creepy.” #pechakucha #NLSymposium

Found more great people to connect with at #NLSymposium Looking forward to keeping the conversation going.

This morning’s challenge: group presentations via the Pecha Kucha method about our experience at #NLSymposium. Challenge accepted.

As @SusanKomives said earlier today, things don’t turn into experiences until you reflect upon it. #NLSymposium http://ow.ly/i/2GLh4

“You know my name, not my story.” #nlsymposium

“I always leave here so energized knowing that there are so many others who care about students and want to change the world” #NLSymposium

Never knew my rock star moment would be doing a Pecha Kucha at the #NLSymposium

That’s a wrap. #NLSymposium 2013 is in the books. What a great time for leadership, fellowship, and great ideas. Can’t wait for Tampa 2014.

Participants were encouraged to use the Twitter hashtag #NLSymposium to capture and share their learning via social media. We were excited to see an online community of leadership educators come together. This community included both participants at the Symposium and those who were not able to attend but who wanted to engage with others and share insights with those who are similarly passionate about leadership education and developmental readiness. We hope that that the online community extended beyond our intimate group of participants, connecting leadership educators across the country. Search #NLSymposium to refresh your memory of what you and others found interesting during the Symposium.

27

PARTICIPANT REFLECTIONA look at NLS through the eyes of a first-time participant

As a first time attendee, I think that the National Leadership Symposium has been an extremely valuable experience for both my personal and professional development. The new found knowledge and professional connections that the symposium provided me with will have a lasting impact on my work as a leadership development educator. The pre-symposium readings, small and large group conversations, and scholar presentations made this experience very educational but, I feel that it was the small size of the symposium that truly made it unique. It was this unique factor that allowed me to have deeper conversations while building stronger connections with colleagues and scholars from across the country. Also, it was very clear that a tremendous amount of intentional planning went into how the symposium was organized to allow for maximum learning and development by the attendees.

As a result of attending the symposium I have learned a great deal about the intersection between the multiple dimensions of identity and developmental readiness. This knowledge has

provided me with an enhanced understanding of how I can intentionally create programs that will meet each student at their own current level of development. Armed with this knowledge I now hope to create an individually based leader self-development plan for students participating in leadership programs at my institution. This plan will help students focus on their leader self-development through appropriate levels of challenge, active reflection, trigger moments, stretch assignments, etc. I have also learned that it is our job as leadership educators to heighten our students’ awareness of the active investment that each student needs to make in their leader self-development. It is through this active investment that students will be able to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to build a strong foundation that will support their leader self-development beyond college.

Cheers,Tyler L. McClain, M.S.Assistant Director of Student Programs & Leadership DevelopmentFairfield University, Kelley Center

28

PARTICIPANT REFLECTIONA returning participant shares her experiences and lessons

I’ve been attending the National Leadership Symposium for a few years now, and each year I follow the same pattern. When the announcement comes out in the Spring to register for the NLS, I quickly do my paperwork at my institution, excited by the prospect of what I will learn and the people I will have a chance to interact with when I finally get to the symposium. I spend the beginning part of the summer, starting to read the assignments, feeling as if I have all of the time in the world. Fast forward to the days right before I leave, and I’m in a panicked mess, trying to get things done in the office, and remembering that I never finished those readings I started so many weeks earlier. I question if I should attend. I worry about what I am leaving behind that isn’t getting done in preparation for the looming school year. Then I arrive at the National Leadership Symposium, and the feeling is almost immediately changed. I feel grateful to be in the presence of such dedicated individuals, my mind is stretched, and the questions about how we can do this thing called leadership better, automatically start circling my thoughts. This year was no different. The scholars pushed us beyond our surface level understanding of concepts, reintroduced us to information, and challenged our understanding of concepts that we might have thought we had already mastered. To top this all off, we have the opportunity to learn aside individuals who are impassioned by their work and who remind me regularly that we are not alone in this work.

This year was especially relevant to the work that we are doing at East Carolina University. ECU has developed a framework that is grounded, in part, in the Leadership Identity Development Model. Our challenge has been in finding additional platforms to help faculty and staff truly integrate the framework into the vast amount of leadership learning opportunities that we have throughout campus. We have been building a campus wide leadership certificate program utilizing the framework. The conversations about developmental readiness and how to move theory to practice, sparked new thoughts about the best way to organize the certificate, integrate it into the fabric of ECU’s leadership learning and assess its effectiveness. Furthermore, as we broke down the MMDI, I suddenly realized that the leadership learning opportunities throughout our campus are created, delivered and assessed in a very linear fashion, putting almost all of the pressure on the students to make connection points between experiences. By thinking about our leadership curriculum through the lens of the MMDI, I began to think about how we could use this model to rethink the way we create and implement programs, courses, experiences etc. on our campus that give more room for individuals to explore their intersecting and varying identities. This work is just beginning, but already it has sparked dynamic conversation on our campus.

I believe that when you leave an experience with more questions than you have answers, that the potential is boundless. I try not to be overwhelmed by my long list of questions that I wrote during and after the symposium. I recognize that they are thought prompts not meant to be answered by only me, but to be shared and dialogued with colleagues and students. These questions are a gift because without the questions, complacency looms, status quo is accepted and learning ceases. While I might leave for the symposium overwhelmed by work, and return from the symposium inundated with email, in between my spirit is renewed and my mind is reopened ready to explore the dynamics of a new school year. And for that, I am always grateful for the experience, which is the final part of my NLS pattern.

Laura McMasterDirector of Student Involvement and LeadershipEast Carolina University

29

Ashford, S.J & DeRue, D.S. (2012). Developing as leader: The power of mindful of engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 146-154. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.008.

Avolio, B.J. & Hannah, S.T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347. DOI: 10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.331.

Jones, S. R., Kim, Y. C., & Skendall, K. C. (2012). (Re-) framing authenticity: Considering multiple social identities using autoethnographic and intersectional approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 698-724.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S., (2013). Chapter Four: Model of multiple dimensions of identity. In S. R. Jones & E. S. Abes,. Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp.77-96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S., Owen, J. E., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 401-420.

Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 593-611.

Reichard, R.J. & Paik, S.J. (2011). Developing the new generation of leaders: Research, policy, and practice. In Murphy, S.E. & Reichard, R.J. (eds). Early Development and Leadership: Building the Next Generation of Leaders. (p. 309-328). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ruderman, M.N. & Ernst, C. (2004). Finding yourself: How social identity affects leadership. Leadership in Action, 24(3), 3-7.

Day, D.V., Harrison, M.M., & Halpin, S.M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity and expertise. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dill, B. To, & Zambrana, R. E. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S., (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2011). The Handbook for Student Leadership Development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, S.E. & Reichard, R.J. (2011). Early development and leadership: Building the next generation of leaders. New York, NY: Routledge

ADDITIONAL READINgS

SYMPOSIUM READINgS

FOR YOUR SHELF

List of texts from the symposium

30

Schuh, J., Jones, S. R., & Harper, S. (Eds.). (2011). Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & Jackson, B. W. III (2012). New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Chen, G. A. (2009). Managing multiple social identities. In N. Tewari & A. N. Alvarez (Eds.), Asian American psychology: Current perspectives (pp. 173-192). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Day, D. D., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. L. (2004). Leadership development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4-12.

Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hames-García, M. (2011). Identity complex: Making the case for multiplicity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Komives, S. R., & Dugan, J. P. (in press). Student leadership development: Theory, research, and practice. In D. Day (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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.

List of texts from the symposium

bIbLIOgRAPHY

31

EvALUATION QUOTES

Which part of the Symposium did you find most helpful to you in your work as a leadership educator?

“ “

“““

““

““

The most helpful parts of the symposium occurred when the faculty related the information covered specifically back to administrative programming efforts. It helped to be able to connect theory to practice.

I truly enjoyed meeting other leadership educators from around the country and building a network of individuals whom I can rely on when I have questions regarding programmatic efforts.

I thoroughly enjoyed the pre-reading materials. I felt the Symposium was an intense graduate school class, but very focused and obviously more advanced. As practitioners, we become so busy that we don’t always take the time to engage ourselves in current scholarly work. I appreciated that the theoretical background wasn’t overly explained for my knowledge level but was still reviewed so everyone was on the same page.

The scholar presentations and the small group conversation that followed each presentation.

All of it. The entire symposium challenged me to think and approach leadership education in new ways.

Valuable feedback on what we took away from NLS

Describe one or two items from the Symposium that challenged your thinking about leadership.

The conversation around MMDI and its linkage to self-authorship. It challenged me to think about how some students strive to be authentic yet they struggle to be themselves fully in certain environmental contexts. It allowed me to reflect on how I create environments and what factors may encourage authenticity and what factors are stunting it. I also enjoyed further learning about the fluidity of creating frameworks/curriculum. I often time get too structured in creating frameworks for my students but need to build them in such a way that they lead the direction of their development and experience. And that ultimately the lived experiences result in stronger learning.

The idea of the MMDI was fascinating and really got me thinking about where our students are and how to really effectively reach people when they come from such different backgrounds. Developmental readiness was challenging as a whole as I think about how it can be applied to our conferences and events.

Authenticity. I find myself reflecting on and trying to be more of my authentic self day in and day out.

Learning about leader-self development and its importance to our students. Applying the developmental readiness concept to our programs and figuring out how to make changes to better meet our students at their own individual levels.

32

Valuable feedback on what we took away from NLS

Describe one or two items from the Symposium that challenged your thinking about leadership.

Can you share any next steps you plan to take to bring material back to your campus?

““

““

The conversation around MMDI and its linkage to self-authorship. It challenged me to think about how some students strive to be authentic yet they struggle to be themselves fully in certain environmental contexts. It allowed me to reflect on how I create environments and what factors may encourage authenticity and what factors are stunting it. I also enjoyed further learning about the fluidity of creating frameworks/curriculum. I often time get too structured in creating frameworks for my students but need to build them in such a way that they lead the direction of their development and experience. And that ultimately the lived experiences result in stronger learning.

I plan on using this information as I refine programming that is offered through my department as well as developing appropriate work plans for my staff based off of their developmental readiness.

I plan to speak to my supervisor and I am currently in the process of creating a Student Leadership Development Plan for each one of my student coordinators. The framework will be developed so that when they return in the fall we can began setting the learning centered environment. The information gained will also be infused in each of my programs because I have an enlightened outlook on leader identity, which will assist participant learning and processes in the larger context.

I plan to share our group Pecha Kucha presentation with my department to show what we discussed and how to use the method for our students. Also looking strongly at incorporating the LID model into our education plans.

I am currently working on leadership competencies within the department. I am also looking at different ways to incorporate the information that I walked away with into the leadership class that I instruct. I’m looking forward to incorporating methods to assess, figure out where our students are, and attempt to structure a scaffolded approach.

The idea of the MMDI was fascinating and really got me thinking about where our students are and how to really effectively reach people when they come from such different backgrounds. Developmental readiness was challenging as a whole as I think about how it can be applied to our conferences and events.

Authenticity. I find myself reflecting on and trying to be more of my authentic self day in and day out.

Learning about leader-self development and its importance to our students. Applying the developmental readiness concept to our programs and figuring out how to make changes to better meet our students at their own individual levels.

33

FINAL THOUgHTSAnother successful symposium; looking ahead to 2014

Dear NLS 2013 Participants,

Well, that’s a wrap! From the opening session to the closing dinner we had a blast this year on the campus of the University of Louisville. It is our hope that we are all developmentally ready to be better leadership educators and are more tuned into meeting our students where they are. Now that the 2013 National Leadership Symposium has come and gone it is time to look ahead to 2014. We are excited to welcome Dr. Corey Seemiller from the University of Arizona to the team that will be developing the theme and activities for engagement next summer. Of course, we want to thank Dr. Dave Rosch for his expertise and hard work making this all happen the past two years. For 2014 we will be moving on down the road and meeting in beautiful Tampa, Florida on the campus of the University of Tampa. Known for lots of sunshine and beaches with some of the whitest sand you will ever find, Tampa is the perfect place for a summertime pit stop to help you refine your leadership education skills. We plan on releasing the symposium theme during the fall and announcing our team of scholars shortly after the new year. So make plans to join us in my backyard so we can change the Sunshine State into the Leadership State. Corey and I will see you in 2014!

Sincerly,

Michael Preston

Director of the Office of Student Involvement

University of Central Florida

34

See you next summer at the University of Tampa...

THANk YOU!

35© NACA, NCLP