Know, See, Plan, Do: A Model For Curriculum Design In Leadership Development

Know, See, Plan, Do: A Model for Curriculum Design in Leadership Development Scott J. Allen, John Carroll University Rosanna F. Miguel, John Carroll University Beth Ann Martin, John Carroll University

Although much has been accomplished in the realm of leadership development in the last 25 years (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Strum, and Mckee, 2014), it seems that graduate degrees, majors, minors, and certificates are growing faster than our ability to understand how best to design curriculums that will have an impact (Khurana, 2007) and bridge the theory/practice gap (Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009). Likewise, as the topic of leadership development struggles to gain legitimacy in the realm of man­ agement and the larger context of business, it is imperative that we provide both conceptual and empirical work to begin the process of validating our curriculum (Rynes and Brown, 2011). Several authors have discussed the challenges inherent in designing leadership and manage­ ment development programs of study (Bradford, 1983; Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009; Miles, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004). One critical problem in the delivery of leadership educa­ tion at the undergraduate and graduate levels is the paucity of both theoretical and empirical research on the design of effective curriculum (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey, 2011). Another challenge is that skills are not transmitted from student to manager or leader, which is a compelling problem if we are to de­ velop leaders who can succeed in the real world (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Benjamin and O ’Reilly, 2011; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). Third, there is no well-developed and em­ pirically supported theory of leadership develop­ ment (Hannah and Avolio, 2010; Khurana, 2007;

26

Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Riggio, 2008). Compounding this issue, Klimoski and Amos (2012) state clearly that most university faculty do not use the existing research. In other words, they do not practice evidence-based teaching. We believe this may be due in part to a lack of understanding of how to implement existing research. From a curriculum design perspective, there are clear starting points to guide our thinking. The cognitive science and related literatures propose that leadership development curricu­ lum should be designed to develop declarative (knowing about), procedural (knowing how), and conditional knowledge (knowing why and when) in the learner (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011; Schraw, 1998). Conditional knowledge has also been described as applied knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011). These distinctions are important because to design a curriculum that captures the full range of learning, all three types of knowledge must be part of the process. For instance, an effective leader is an expert in a skill such as problem solving, only because that leader has the concep­ tual knowledge (declarative and procedural) and the applied knowledge (conditional). In addi­ tion, a curriculum of leadership development should be multi-dimensional and clearly identify learning goals such as: foundational knowledge/ cognitive (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Clark and Gibb, 2006; Fink, 2003; Hogan and Warrenfeltz, 2003), skill-building/behavioral (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Cameron and Whetten,

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

1983; Conger, 2013; Hunt and Sorenson, 2001), and personal growth/affective to explore topics such as personal values, motivations, and pas­ sions (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Clark and Gibb, 2006; Conger, 2013; McKnight, 1991). Likewise, based on the identified learning goals, program designers may identify core skills and competencies for development (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Strum, and Mckee, 2014; Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011; Lord and Hall, 2005; Yukl, 2012) and choose appropriate sources of learn­ ing or instructional strategies that best meet the development objectives (Allen and Hartman, 2008, 2009; Fink, 2003). Although identifying specific learning goals (e.g., skill building, personal growth, conceptual understanding), topics for development (e.g., decision-making, transformational leadership theory, negotiation), and specific instructional strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, service learning, case-in-point) are outside the scope of this paper, we would assert that these compo­ nents are easily inserted into the proposed model of curriculum design for leadership development according to the goals and preferences of the program designer. With an expressed objective of filling the gaps in the literature and capital­ izing on what we already know, the purpose of this paper is to introduce a model of curriculum design for leadership development in the aca­ demic realm that is both theoretically grounded and actionable (Pearce and Huang, 2012; Vaill, 2007). While we believe the model could be ap­ plied to other fields, such as, management de­ velopment and contexts, such as, corporate and nongovernmental organizations, we have chosen to begin our work on leadership development in the context of higher education. Specifically, the proposed Know, See, Plan, Do (KSPD) model suggests that leadership development is rooted in knowledge that occurs as learners: 1) acquire facts and theories (primar­ ily declarative knowledge), 2) assimilate new information with existing knowledge in context or practice (primarily procedural knowledge), 3) integrate existing knowledge to plan a course of action (primarily procedural knowledge), and 4) apply knowledge (primarily conditional knowl­ edge) to carry out a course of action. As previ­ ously suggested, we are not promoting a single theory, instructional strategy, or ultimate objec­ tive for development. Based on Our objective, we next provide an overview of the literature and first define lead­ ership development, briefly identify existing

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

models, and introduce the proposed model along with its theoretical foundations. We continue with a discussion of curriculum design and provide a brief review of the expertise literature, which is the basis for the proposed model. The expertise literature is rooted in the cognitive sciences literature, and, therefore, readers will see concepts from both. We continue with an in-depth description of the KSPD model and provide examples that fit into it. The examples should help the reader understand a few ways the model can be applied to developing a curric­ ulum for leadership development in an academic environment. We conclude with a description of some initial results and recommendations for successfully implementing the model. Literature Review A model of curriculum design for leadership development should address three primary challenges discussed in the literature. First is an explicit need to define an end state or clearly articulated objective. In this case, the topic is leadership development which, in and of itself, is challenging to define. Second is a need to distinguish delivery from curriculum design with objectives to “develop” leadership (Klimoski and Amos, 2012; Raelin, 2007). As a result, there is a need to incorporate multiple models of learning to facilitate the development of declara­ tive, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Third, if stage-specific mastery (e.g., white belt leads to green belt) is an objective, curriculum designers will need to demonstrate that learning has occurred.

Defining leadership development Although several authors (Avolio, 2005; Brungardt, 1997; Day, 2001; Fleishman in London, 2002; McCauley and Van Velsor, 2005; O’ Neil and Fisher, 2004) have tried to define leadership development, there is no consistent, uniform definition. However, close examination yields major themes across the various definitions. First, leadership development is multi-level (Avolio, 2005; Day, 2001) and a long-term pro­ cess (Avolio, 2005; Conger, 1992; Day, 2011). Leadership development ideally builds individ­ ual, group, and organizational capacity (Avolio, 2005; Drath, 2001) to achieve goals. Second, leadership development should promote growth and development in areas such as knowledge, personal/group understanding, and building skills (Conger, 1992; Day, 2001; Lord and Hall, 2005). In alignment with these themes, we have

27

chosen to use a variation of Allen and Robert’s (2011) definition, and suggest that: Leadership development is a multi-level process that facilitates the continual and long-term growth o f the knowledge and skills needed to achieve individual, group, or orga­ nizational objectives. Along with definitional challenges, existing models of leadership and management devel­ opment vary in focus and scope. For instance, some models serve as a planning framework (Cacioppe, 1998; Giber, Carter, and Goldsmith, 2000; Vicere and Fulmer, 1998), while others focus on learning interventions such as training, experience, and education (Hunt, 1991; Yukl, 2010), or a general structure for developmental activities such as the Center for Creative Leader­ ship’s assess, challenge and support (McCauley and Van Velsor, 2005). Likewise, some (manage­ ment) models focus specifically on skill building (Cameron and Whetten, 1983; Hunt and Soren­ son, 2001), and others bring a life-span oriented approach (Avolio, 2005; Murphy and Johnson, 2010). Some include individual difference con­ structs with organizational climate (London and Maurer, 2004; McCauley, 2001), while others focus on individual difference measures such as motivation to lead (Chan and Drasgow, 2001) or developmental readiness (Avolio and Hannah, 2008). While each of the models challenges and advances our understanding of leadership devel­ opment, an analysis identifies a void. Based on our review, we were unable to locate models that provide guidance for designing a comprehensive leadership curriculum for graduate or undergrad­ uate education into which critical knowledge, skills, and other characteristics are incorporated. A model is needed that is flexible enough to be applied to a single class or an entire curriculum for leadership development. In addition, there is a need for a model that encourages “transfer” to real world contexts. Even when a single class or series of classes contain robust content or several interesting activities, there is no assurance that students will transfer that knowledge into ef­ fective leadership behaviors or job performance (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Klimoski and Amos, 2012).

The importance of curriculum design There is an important distinction between a fo­ cus on teaching leadership development and one on curriculum design. Leadership development alone tends to investigate issues of topic content

28

and instructional strategies (e.g., case study, lec­ ture, role play). Curriculum design emphasizes what is planned, what is actually delivered, and the students’ holistic experience (Fink, 2003; Whetten, 2007). The curriculum is reinforced by a set of values and beliefs about what students should know and how they will come to know it. Several authors have suggested the need for ad­ ditional research and focus on curriculum design (e.g., Fink, 2003; McEvoy et al., 2005). Similar to Klimoski and Amos (2012), Raelin (2007) discusses the issue where teaching be­ comes separated from learning. Teaching is seen as the process of transferring information from instructor to student, and learning happens when information is received, stored, and then reiterat­ ed. The result of this approach is that knowledge is fixed and not fluid (Styhre, 2003), and there may be no practice or application built into the learning process. Raelin (2007) clarifies the need for instructors to better understand what students need to know about the discipline and only then create a curriculum including cases, simulations, experiential activities, and field projects students can apply their knowledge. Another way to approach the teaching vs. curriculum design issue is to focus on applied or conditional knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Schwandt, 2005). McEvoy et al. (2005) focus their research on the academic discipline of human resources (HR), but the ap­ plication to leadership development is clear. They criticize existing HR programs for focusing too heavily on content knowledge, which we view as declarative knowledge, and in response they propose a model for graduate education in human resources with four stages: acquiring, applying, mastering, and influencing (credited to Dalton and Thompson, 1986). McEvoy et al. suggest that each state of competency coincides with an additional step of professional development, and explain that undergraduates only get to the first level of “acquiring” while graduate students would only learn up to the “applying” stage. According to their model, the “mastering” and “influencing” stages can only be learned on the job. We disagree with this delineation because we feel that students at the undergraduate level typically are only offered content at the level of acquiring, but we believe that they are capable of more. Many academic programs are designed only to provide a lecture-based, content-focused dissemination of declarative information (Fink, 2003) and do not account for the need to develop procedural knowledge or informal, tacit knowl-

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

edge. However, we agree it is unlikely that any single class can clearly encompass all stages of McEvoy et al.’s model. Our proposed model draws from relevant aspects of multiple theories that possess some commonalities. Notably, we rely on the expertise literature drawn from cognitive science theory. However, the reader will recognize concepts from other learning theories (e.g., behaviorism, humanism, and constructivism) as well. The benefits of practice, for example, are empha­ sized in the expertise literature and also in social learning theory and other behavioral theories. We found that expertise literature best captures the critical elements of an effective curriculum design model in the context of leadership devel­ opment.

The development of expertise The expertise literature offers a strong founda­ tion for curriculum building for three specific reasons. First, it addresses how individuals can navigate ill-structured/ill-defined problems (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007; Voss and Post, 1988). Current models of leader develop­ ment rarely focus on the actual activity most leaders will engage in, which is a process of leading groups through prolonged periods of uncertainty (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002; Lord and Maher, 1991; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009). A curriculum with a focus on expertise will result in leaders who will be trained in a way that prepares them to effectively navigate a series of adaptive (ill-defined) chal­ lenges (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman, 2000) rather than a prescribed set of skills needed for a confined system (e.g., chess). Returning to a theme from the previous section, expertise is es­ tablished as individuals acquire declarative, pro­ cedural, and conditional knowledge (Sternberg, 1995). Voss and Post (1988) discuss the issue of ill-structured problems and suggest the need to have the appropriate conceptual knowledge (declarative and procedural knowledge) for the components of a problem as well as having the ability to utilize those components to effectively solve the problem (conditional knowledge). A second reason that leadership development can benefit from the expertise literature is the focus on deliberate practice. An Achilles’ heel of leadership development is the lack of a venue for deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer, 1993). Some equate experience as a predictor of expertise, but this does not

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

align with empirical findings from the expertise literature. Ericsson (2006) suggests that experi­ ence alone does not predict expertise; deliberate practice is required. According to Ericsson et al. (1993), deliberate practice requires an individual to work at the edge of their current abilities for upwards of five hours a day for a prolonged period. While it is unrealistic to think that any academic curriculum will allow for this level of practice (outside of a military context), Erics­ son’s work does encourage including practice in a leadership development curriculum (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007). Practice ultimately leads to greater conditional or applied manage­ ment knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011). Finally, the expertise literature explains how experts differ from novices. Based on existing research, we focus on four primary attributes that separate them. First, experts have a greater conceptual understanding or knowledge in the domain of their expertise (declarative and pro­ cedural knowledge) than do novices (Lord and Hall, 2005; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009; Sternberg, 1995). Second, experts can quickly and accurately diagnose what is hap­ pening in their environment (Ericsson, Whyte, and Ward; 2007). Third, experts understand a problem at a deeper level than a novice and have the ability to identify options quickly and select the best one given the context (Ericsson, 2006; Glaser and Chi, 1988). Fourth, experts execute at superior levels and consistently outperform others (Ericsson and Smith, 1991). The applica­ tion of critical knowledge is akin to possessing conditional knowledge. These attributes are fun­ damental in the proposed model for curriculum design in leadership development. To summarize, a model of curriculum design for leadership development that clearly defines an end state and builds declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge is needed. To accom­ plish this, multiple approaches to learning will need to be integrated, and program designers will need to approach learning in a way that will help the learner move along the path from nov­ ice to expert (Lord and Hall, 2005). In addition, the curriculum design model needs to be flex­ ible so that program designers can build in their specific learning objectives, content, and instruc­ tional strategies — depending on the context. Fi­ nally, the model needs to lend itself to evaluation that moves beyond simple “reaction criteria” or self-report surveys to a more empirically robust validation (Day and Sin, 2011; Riggio, 2008).

29

The model As a brief introduction, the KSPD model of leadership development is intended to provide guidance for creating a curriculum for leadership development in an academic environment (see Figure 1). The model rests on a clear definition or “end state” and incorporates Raelin’s (2007) building blocks of critical reflection for the purpose of moving a student from novice toward expert (note: we understand this is unlikely). The model requires program designers to incorporate multiple approaches to learning (e.g., cognitive, experiential, behaviorism), and aligns closely with our description of how experts are different from novices. Figure 1. Know, See, Plan, Do Model of Cur­ riculum Design for Leadership Development

Know: Obtaining declarative knowledge of terms, concepts, facts, and theories. See: Identifying and recognizing the concepts in others or the environment. Plan: Integrating existing knowledge to develop a plan of action. Do: Intervening skillfully when carrying out the plan of action. The model assumes that having declarative knowledge of terms, concepts, facts, and theo­ ries is a basic requirement for leadership devel­ opment. Consequently, the arrow from KNOW to SEE suggests that acquiring knowledge would ideally be followed by instruction on identify­ ing and recognizing the concepts in other lead­ ers or the environment. The arrow from SEE to PLAN indicates that once competence in seeing

30

is gained, the participants would be instructed on how to develop a plan of action based on what they see. Therefore, the arrow from PLAN to DO suggests the final set of instruction will focus on how to create and intervene skillfully on a course of action. The final loop back up to KNOW indicates the repetitive and reflective nature of learning. The authors recognize that in the real world intervening steps are sometimes skipped, and individuals may practice leader­ ship without going through the process we have outlined (which is quite common). The straight, two-headed arrows in the model indicate those relationships. However, the focus will be on the continuous, single-headed arrows that suggest an ideal model for designing a curriculum to move an individual along the path from novice to expert. We have identified a framework to help op­ erationalize the definition of leadership devel­ opment provided in the literature review. This framework can be used to guide instructors through the curriculum design process. The fol­ lowing section explains each component of the model more fully. Note, our examples are purely for illustration purposes and each institution would choose individual learning goals (cogni­ tive, behavioral, affective), topics (e.g., adaptive leadership, problem solving, emotional intel­ ligence), and instructional strategies (e.g., prob­ lem-based learning, service learning, reflection) that fit its own programmatic mission. In other words, individuals at the local level will need to determine the who, what, why, how, and when of their specific program (Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009). Know Learning depends on an individual’s ability to acquire knowledge, retain it, and form mental models to organize it for easy access and use. Declarative knowledge (information facts and knowledge of specific episodes) must be ac­ quired before higher-order learning (Kraiger, Ford, and Salas, 1993). To further explore the role of knowledge in learning, we turn to the expertise literature. Glaser and Chi (1988) sug­ gest that experts have better short- and long-term memory than novices. In fact, the “automaticity” of certain functions frees up space for additional knowledge. Likewise, experts rarely achieve a similar status in multiple domains. In other words, knowledge and expertise do not seem to transfer across domains (e.g., medical expertise does not equal chess expertise). However, in

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

the domain of the individual’s expertise, knowl­ edge far exceeds that of the novice (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000; Sternberg, 1995; Sternberg and Horvath, 1995). Furthermore, the expert organizes knowledge in a superior manner that leads to speed (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009). Once learners begin to master the knowledge through practice, they start focus­ ing on procedural and conditional knowledge. Through this process, learners begin developing more useful mental models for organizing the knowledge they have acquired. Based on the critical role of knowledge early on in the learning process, we propose that at the beginning of an academic leadership develop­ ment program the curriculum should focus on providing a core body of knowledge related to leadership (Bloom, 1956; Marzano and Kendall, 2007; Sternberg, 2003). Learners should read and be informed of basic theories, influence strategies, and other leadership concepts through sources that optimize knowledge acquisition, retention, and utilization (e.g., lectures, readings, discussions). Students should obtain a sound academic knowledge base (conceptually) for content deemed critical by the instructor, such as historical and contemporary leadership theory. This solid foundation is critical because this new information then forms the foundation for the next component of the model. Within the context of a class, series of cours­ es, minor, or major, this component begins with a focus on knowledge acquisition or the first component of the model: KNOW. This is intro­ ductory content focused primarily on declarative knowledge. For instance, students may spend time exploring a list of terms and concepts such as power, ethics, problem solving, trait theory, behavior theory, contingency theory, transforma­ tional leadership, authentic leadership, women as leaders, teams, leadership styles, and emo­ tional intelligence. Students learn through class­ room lectures, video, discussions, experiential exercises, and reflection. There may be tradition­ al writing assignments and exams to assess mas­ tery of the material. In essence, students learn the language of leadership, knowing 75-100 core terms should be sufficient to explore the topic at an introductory level. Of course, as students’ progress, new terminology and concepts should be added. Testing of this component takes on a traditional approach and will likely lend itself to traditional methods for ensuring declara­ tive knowledge (e.g., multiple choice, fill in the blank exams). One nontraditional method to test­

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

ing of this component would be to ask students to list all terms and their definitions on a blank word document. This not only requires practice but is also more likely to encourage mastery of the concepts, which is necessary for the other three components (SEE, PLAN, DO). See The second component of the model is SEE, which means that the learner will be taught to integrate new information into existing mental structures. The learner will begin to see connec­ tions and make meaning out of new information in the environment. As individuals switch their focus from declarative to procedural knowledge they begin to think about problems and issues. They begin to notice themes and patterns that repeat across various situations. Another way to conceptualize SEE is from the sensemak­ ing literature. Sensemaking involves the use of prior knowledge to interpret the meaning of new knowledge. It is a continuous process, through which individuals look for environmental cues, attach meaning to the cues, and move to action (Thomas, Clark, and Gioia, 1993). However, for sensemaking to occur, individuals must have a mental model in place to make meaning out of the new information (Schwandt, 2005). The meaning is only as good as the mental models in place. Further, meaning depends upon the values and beliefs that individuals hold in their mental frameworks (Schwandt, 2005). In curriculum design, learners must have an opportunity to move along the spectrum from novice to expert. Experts see large and meaning­ ful patterns which novices simply cannot see (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000; Glaser and Chi, 1988; Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009). For instance, chess players may see a constellation of pieces on the board while the novice does not. Nutt (1999) calls this “diagno­ sis,” which is marked by “signals” that there is a problem to be attended to. This ability to look at a problem from a deeper level also distinguishes experts from novices. In other words, while both experts and novices have conceptual categories, the experts’ categories are based on meaning and principles while the categories of the novices are more basic (Glaser and Chi, 1988). In the classroom, students could begin this process after a core set of terminology has been covered. What differentiates SEE from KNOW is that students begin to actively practice the concepts. This can be a difficult transition, so it

31

is important to set up opportunities for practice and reflection in this component. For instance, students could be led through structured dis­ cussions where, individually and as a group, they identify the terms and concepts previously learned via film and television clips. Videos could be used to explore specific concepts and provide students with an opportunity to diag­ nose what is happening in the clip. For example, while discussing charismatic leadership, the var­ ious components could be posted on the board while the students are shown videos (e.g., John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address or Barack Obama’s 2008 victory speech). The students’ responsibility is to watch each video and identify each of the components (e.g., vision) as they see it. In addition, students might be asked to take a set of terms (e.g., types of power) and record each time they observe one of the types of power being demonstrated over a week. Another way to encourage practice of this component may be through daily observa­ tions written on Blackboard or other blogging platform. For instance, students may spend three-quarters of the semester writing daily observations that highlight where they witnessed at least 10 of the concepts in their student orga­ nizations, internships, or class. Because these activities are repeated several times with each new concept, students are well prepared to iden­ tify and analyze leadership concepts outside of the classroom. Not only does this facilitate daily practice and transfer, it helps the students see how the concepts surround their daily interac­ tions. One final way we work to help students see the concepts in themselves is through work with a coach. Students could meet with a professional or peer coach at least twice to review assessment results, discuss goals, and make connections. In addition, they could study a recent performance review, interview friends and family, and in the end, identify themes that have emerged strengths and areas for development. Based on their work with the coach, students could choose one thing to work on in the context of class. Example include practicing optimism, working through introversion, or feeling more comfort­ able influencing the large group. Testing of this component may require stu­ dents to recognize the concepts and terms as they happen. For example, the instructor could show a full-length film (e.g., “Glory,” “Cry Freedom,” “The Queen”) and require students to write a narrative (similar to the daily obser­

32

vations activity) that uses a certain number of terms as they occur. Again, successfully com­ pleting this exercise requires practice by the students and requires them to know the content at a deeper level. A variation of this activity may include a series of clips and multiple choice questions using a learning management system such as Blackboard. In summary, one critical part of the proposed model is teaching students to see and identify key concepts. Using the model, this activity takes place in multiple ways and over time so that students are continually improving their ability to observe the concepts and ultimately di­ agnose what is happening in their environment.

Plan As leaders move from novice to expert, research suggests that they will spend more time analyz­ ing a problem before beginning to solve the task (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Glaser and Chi, 1988; Simon, 1973; Sternberg and Horvath, 1995). Expert leaders not only bring forth better decision-making processes than novices, but also yield better results on a consistent basis (John­ son, 1988). Experts think more critically and identify constraints in the problem solving and planning process. The planning process is crucial when confronting problems that require group main­ tenance and task accomplishment (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman, 2000). Because a leader will likely be challenged by a series of unique and ill-defined problems (Voss and Post, 1988), he or she will face a series of adaptive challenges that may be difficult to diagnose and define (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002). In fact, as Heifetz and Linsky suggest, the leader may face a series of technical and adaptive chal­ lenges bundled together. Mumford et al. (2000) suggest a relationship between a leader’s ability to identify goals, develop strategies, and direct others, and a leader’s overall performance. This reality requires a leader to display higher-level problem-solving skills, including the ability to define or structure the problem, generate alter­ native solutions, and choose the best course of action. These skills need to be designed into a curriculum. In practice, we know that organizational decision-making is a challenge (Nutt, 1999), and providing students with an opportunity to practice this process is a hallmark of the PLAN component. In this component, students will develop techniques to use their knowledge and

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

understanding of a situation to plan a skillful intervention (Meissen, 2010). By completing this step in the model, students can intentionally choose a course of action for intervention. Cur­ riculum design should include helping learners plan scenarios which is described as “specify­ ing” by Marzano and Kendall (2007). The KSPD model involves teaching participants to use their diagnosis skills from SEE to PLAN strategies, forecast outcomes of various plans of action, and critically evaluate the options available for action. In the classroom, experiential learning activi­ ties are crucial to this component. For instance, problem-based learning (Peterson, 2004) and case-in-point teaching (Daloz-Parks, 2005) give students an opportunity to begin using the con­ cepts that have been learned. A real problem will require students to use and practice problem­ solving models, address conflict, inspire others, and so forth. Instructors take on a role of coach in this component and become less of a focal point in the classroom. As previously discussed, experts tend to spend considerable time understanding a problem and planning an intervention. In the PLAN phase of the class, the instructor could introduce “consult­ ing conversations,” where students examine a leadership challenge or failure they have expe­ rienced. Based on the work of Elmore, Heifetz, Sinder, Jones, Hodge, and Rowley (1989), these conversations offer students the opportunity to share their case and gain feedback based on course content. In this highly structured con­ versation, classmates serve as consultants and explore options the individual may have missed, mistakes made, resources left untapped, and so forth. This deep reflection gives students a chance to analyze how their plan for action may not have been the best approach. The solutions must be supported by leadership concepts, con­ structs, and research. Another engaging activity is to have students watch a short video clip, for example a clip from the 1982 movie “Gandhi,” then break them into small groups and have them develop possible strategies to solve the problem. Student groups share the strategies and discuss strengths and weaknesses among their proposed solutions. In addition to case studies, students participate in an outdoor day that challenges them to navigate a series of challenges. As with the case studies, they must use course content to guide their work, which is discussed in activity debriefs (Raelin, 2007). These activities involve students relying

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Spring 2014

on the leadership theories, terms, and concepts they have already acquired (KNOW), identifying the problem (SEE), and then planning an inter­ vention or resolution (PLAN). Testing of this component may be facilitated in a number of ways. For instance, the instructor could plan an activity where students are re­ quired to analyze an actual CEO case (Rashford and de Figueiredo, 2011) and then recommend actions based on course content. In essence, students are required to diagnose (SEE) what is happening and then prescribe (PLAN) a course of action. In addition, more traditional case stud­ ies could be introduced and individuals could de­ vise interventions based on course content. This could be accomplished via video clips or film as well. Finally, students could be presented with a problem the class is currently facing (e.g., avoid­ ing conflict) and challenged to develop a plan individually to address the dynamics. Do The fourth component of KSPD is DO, which requires learners to apply and examine knowl­ edge from different perspectives (Marzano and Kendall, 2007) and then engage in appropriate action. Likewise, it may require an individual to use motor skills (Gagne, 1977) and move through stages of skill acquisition (Anderson, 1982). Just because a leader conceptually un­ derstands the need for a certain style of leader­ ship (KNOW), does not mean that he or she can employ this approach with skill and achieve at consistently high levels (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007). Declarative, procedural, and con­ ditional knowledge become operational through deliberate practice (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer, 1993). Experts often have engaged in deliberate practice over many years (Bloom, 1985; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009), and long-term and sustained attention is given to clearly defined objectives. In addition, there is a focus on what the student currently cannot do and there is a focus on repetition, feedback, and incremental improvement (Ericsson et al., 1993) — with an explicit goal of improving performance versus practicing for fun. Similar to the PLAN component, DO values the use of experiential learning theory (e.g., Kolb, 1984), which proposes that knowledge can be gained through repetitive experience. Specifically, ac­ cording to experiential learning theory, individu­ als acquire knowledge through a repetitive cycle of four phases: experience, reflect, think, and act

33

(Kolb, 1984). Our purpose in this paper is not to focus on the types of experiential learning, such as problem-based, student-centered, service, or case-in-point (Conklin, 2013), because these instructional strategies will flow from learning goals and course content. However, a curriculum for leadership development would need to create intentional activities that allow students to move through all four components of the KSPD model and culminate with an opportunity to implement an actual plan. To facilitate the DO component in the class­ room, instructors could introduce a larger project that requires a great deal of planning (e.g., break a Guinness World Record, provide recommenda­ tions for a local nonprofit, plan an event). While some aspects of DO have occurred throughout the course, this component focuses on deliber­ ate practice of course content. By doing this, the instructor has created a context where plan­ ning (and other concepts) can be observed and coached; in essence, the instructor helps students reflect on their work at an individual and group level. In addition, daily observations may focus more on what is happening in the room or in the group to help students make sense of what is taking place. Similar to the PLAN component, the instructor serves as coach and helps students capture the learning in the classroom. Likewise, instructors could host an outdoor day, where students focus heavily on practicing the concepts and navigating the various teambuilding activi­ ties. In this active coaching format, students are challenged to use the problem-solving model they have been taught, regulate emotions in dif­ ficult situations, actively influence the group to move on their ideas, and practice other course content. Testing of the DO component may be facili­ tated with the use of rubrics, successful comple­ tion of group activities (e.g., peer feedback), and presentations that challenge students to reflect on their contributions to the success or demise of the project. Another approach could be to use an activity and successful completion as an exam (Paglis, 2013). Grades could be based on successful completion of items on a rubric (e.g., problem-solving model) or successful comple­ tion of the activity in a certain amount of time.

Preliminary Empirical Support of the KNOW, SEE, PLAN Components To determine whether or not the proposed KSPD model of curriculum development resulted in learning at each designated level, a preliminary

34

analysis was begun. An online survey was de­ veloped to assess student knowledge and skills in the first three areas. For the section called KNOW, a series of fact-based multiple-choice questions were used to determine if students could correctly identify specific terms, theories, and introductory level information. To measure SEE, students watched a video clip from a Harry Potter motion picture and were asked specific questions regarding leadership behavior they should have been able to see in the clip. PLAN was assessed using multiple-choice questions that asked students to identify what specific leadership theories would posit for next steps. The survey required about 25 minutes. Three groups of students completed the sur­ vey during the second week of classes: freshmen who were not in leadership classes, students in a first leadership course, and students in their fourth leadership course. Because there were no differences in responses between students in the nonleadership course group and those in the first leadership course (second week), their responses were combined into a single group. For each section of the survey there was a sig­ nificant difference in the number of correct responses between students with no leadership course work and those who had taken several courses. For the KNOW section of the question­ naire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups (FU22 = 18.73, p < .001); for the SEE section of the questionnaire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant differ­ ence between groups (FU25 = 10.47, p = .002); and for the PLAN section of the questionnaire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant dif­ ference between groups (FU32 = 8.04, p = .005). In each of the three components of the model, students taking the leadership classes are per­ forming significantly better than those who have not taken the classes. Significant positive correlations indicate a strong relationship between the number of lead­ ership classes taken and scores on the survey, in each of the three areas (KNOW, r124 = .35, p