Valerie I. Sessa

Generational Differences in Leader Values and Leadership Behaviors

As a new generation of workers enters the workforce and the realms of leadership and management, headlines in the business and popular press are encouraging managers to deal with generational differences that appear to be affecting employees, particularly those in the leadership ranks. This article describes generational cohort theory and summarizes research on the impact of generational differences on work processes. It then explores what differences are occurring among managers in different cohorts in terms of attributes they value in leaders and their actual behaviors as leaders (as perceived by self, boss, and subordinates) using data obtained from 2 large databases, including managers across the country spanning 4 generations. Results of the 1st study demonstrate that managers and professionals in different generational cohorts do value different attributes in leaders. Results of the 2nd study find that managers in different generational cohorts also report behaving differently. Although the differen...

Using Perspective Taking to Manage Conflict and Affect in Teams

This article draws from the authors larger 1993 study on antecedents and consequences of conflict in teams. It looks at the influence of perspective taking on types of conflict and the influence of conflict on affect. Teams using perspective taking were hypothesized to perceive conflict as task oriented as opposed to people oriented. Although both types of conflict were hypothesized to lead to arousal within the team, people-oriented conflict was expected to lead to a more negative team tone. To test hypotheses on perspective taking, 15 medical teams participated in a perspective-taking training program while 15 teams served as a control group. Perspective taking was also measured using self-report scales. Conflict and affect were measured using observation and self-report. Although the training program had no impact on perceived conflict, teams with higher perspective taking (using self-report measures) were likely to perceive conflict as task oriented and less likely to perceive it as people oriented. Hypotheses on the impact of conflict on affect were supported. This study suggests that conflict and negative affect do not necessarily go hand in hand, and that perspective taking is one mechanism teams can use to help manage conflict.

Assessing Learning in Service-Learning Courses through Critical Reflection.

The purpose of this study was to describe and examine a model for assessing student learning through reflection in service-learning courses. This model utilized a course-embedded process to frame, facilitate, support, and assess students’ depth of learning and critical thinking. Student reflection products in two service-learning courses (a freshman course and an upper-level course) at a public university were examined at two times for depth of academic, personal, and civic learning and for level of critical thinking. Depth of learning and levels of critical thinking between freshmen and upperclassmen were compared. Results suggest that the model and associated rubrics were useful in documenting student learning. Students could identify, describe, and apply their learning. They had difficulty, however, evaluating their learning and thinking critically. There was some enhancement in depth of learning and critical thinking over time with upperclassmen achieving greater depth of learning and higher levels of critical thinking in some areas. Findings indicate that the model is a rigorous tool that can be used to document and assess student learning in service-learning courses.

Group Feedback for Continuous Learning

This article explores relationships between feedback, group learning, and performance. It considers how feedback to individuals and the group as a whole supports continuous group learning. Feedback source, purpose, clarity, and valence may affect perceptions, processing, and outcomes of feedback. How feedback is processed and used may be influenced by group and individual conditions, such as demands and goals, accountability for performance, learning orientation, and whether the group is engaging in adaptive, generative, and/or transformative learning. Implications for human resource development practice focus on interventions to improve the use of feedback. Directions for research include examining the content and process of feedback at the individual and group levels of analysis and exploring the effects of feedback source, feedback specificity, leader behavior, and member interactions on group learning.

E‐leadership: tackling complex challenges

In exploring the impact of digital technology on leadership, we identify e‐leadership as a complex challenge that is characterized by five key paradoxes: swift and mindful; individual and community; top‐down and grass‐roots; details and big picture; and flexible and steady. For people to function effectively in this changing environment, a broader definition of leadership is needed – one where people in organizations make sense together of the challenges facing them and where they participate in leadership at every level. This requires a training environment where individual skills of perspective‐taking, network and coalition building, and story telling are developed along with team‐based skills of using dialogue, managing networks, and protecting voices from the fringe.

Evaluating a College Leadership Course: What Do Students Learn in a Leadership Course with a Service-Learning Component and How Deeply Do They Learn It?.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate final projects in a freshman leadership course (combining grounding in leadership theories with a service-learning component) to determine what students learned about leadership, themselves as developing leaders, and leading in the civic community, and how deeply they learned these concepts. Students found situational leadership theories, team leadership theories, and leadership principles (Drath, 2001) most relevant to their experiences. Personally, students learned about themselves as individuals, leaders, team members, and community members. Civically, students learned how to apply leadership theories, work in teams, and about the community as a system. In terms of depth of learning, based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, students were able to identify, describe, and apply concepts and to some extent analyze and synthesize them. These findings suggest that using service learning to help students learn about both the theory and practice of leadership is a viable alternative. Journal of Leadership Education Volume 7, Issue 3 – Winter 2009 168 Introduction and Purpose Today’s organizations are seeking college graduates with leadership skills and are finding the students deficient (Casper-Lott & Barrington, 2006). Those in higher education are beginning to realize that their institutions are now expected to play a major role in shaping the future of leadership development in today’s society. Colleges and universities across the nation have responded to this realization by providing their students with leadership courses designed to develop (in varying degrees) students’ formal knowledge about leadership, as well as to develop the students as leaders. These leadership courses are growing in popularity. Numerous colleges and universities across the nation are offering courses for credit, and curricular and co-curricular programs on leadership. In particular, leadership courses are now part of nearly every business school’s curriculum in the country (Doha, 2003). The proliferation of these courses at the undergraduate level presumes that colleges and universities are well equipped to undertake the mission of providing training and education in leadership (Doh, 2003). However, there has been little rigorous evaluation to date of available leadership courses to determine their effectiveness, particularly in terms of what students are learning about leadership and how deeply they are learning leadership. The purpose of this study is to begin filling this gap by evaluating learnings in a freshman leadership course that utilizes a service-learning pedagogy. Our hope is that as faculty begins to evaluate their own curricula in this area and communicate their findings, universities can develop or improve their own leadership development courses and programs, students can be assured that they are receiving quality leadership development, and organizations can begin meeting their needs. This call is shared with other faculty who are beginning to evaluate and communicate information on their own leadership development courses using a variety of different pedagogies (see Blackwell, Cummins, Townsend, & Cummings, 2007; Barbuto, 2006; Goethe & Moore, 2005; Stedman, Rutherford, & Roberts, 2006). To carry out our evaluation, we posed two research questions. First, what do students say they are learning in our leadership course utilizing service-learning in terms of formal theories of leadership, about themselves as developing leaders, and about leading in the civic arena? Such information would help us and other instructors using service-learning pedagogy in their courses on leadership to gain a better understanding of the types of learnings in which students are actually engaging. Second, how deeply are they learning these concepts (Biggs, 1999; Bloom, 1956; Rams den, 1992)? When examining depth of learning, we were interested in determining the extent to which students could critically analyze the leadership ideas to which they were being exposed, and whether they could link Journal of Leadership Education Volume 7, Issue 3 – Winter 2009 169 learning’s to themselves and to real life observations and practices and link their observations and practices back to the theoretical learnings. This information would help us and other instructors begin to critically assess the merit of servicelearning pedagogy to teach leadership as well as give us tools for deepening student learning. Using Service-Learning to Help Students Learn about Leadership Because the course we are evaluating uses service-learning as one of the main pedagogies for helping students learn about leadership theory and its application, we begin by describing why we used service-learning. In learning about leadership theory, students are faced with a large, historical, and confusing body of both academic and pop literatures that illustrates the complexity of study, practice, and understanding of leadership. To date, no single theory has been able to fully capture the essence of leadership, and many available theories are disparate or even contradictory (Mello, 2003). For example, theories have focused on the presumed leader’s traits, skills, and behaviors; on the interplay between the leader and the follower; and, most recently on what is accomplished rather than who is actually “doing” the leadership (Drath, 2001). One way for students to grasp and interpret the complexity of leadership, as well as draw from it in such a way as to help them develop as leaders, is to expose students to experiences that allow them to learn about theories, try the theories out or observe them in real life settings, and reflect on the interplay between formal theory and their own practice; in particular, what are they learning about leadership, what are they learning about themselves as leaders, and what are they learning about practicing leadership in the civic arena. An alternative for allowing students to do this is through an academic service-learning course. However, there is currently little available information regarding the impact of academic servicelearning on learning outcomes on leadership. Service-learning, which combines academic study with community service, has been growing dramatically in popularity (Campus Compact, 2003). In servicelearning courses. students’ community service experiences are compatible with and seamlessly integrated into the academic learning objectives of the course, in a manner similar to traditional course requirements (Howard, 1998). What servicelearning brings to the traditional classroom, one typically based on abstract conceptualization of theoretical concepts and models, is experiential learning (concrete experiences with the real world) and reflection (observation of own and other’s experiences that tie together abstract conceptualization and concrete experience) (Kolb, 1984). That is, student’s observations and experiences in the community and reflections about their experiences are a medium for students to Journal of Leadership Education Volume 7, Issue 3 – Winter 2009 170 learn and demonstrate their knowledge and are as pivotal to the student’s academic learning as class lectures, library research, writing research papers, and taking exams. There is a growing body of research demonstrating that service-learning contributes to the civic, personal, and academic development of students (see Madsen, 2006, for a brief review). In terms of civic development, students participating in service-learning demonstrate increased political awareness, community engagement and civic action, social justice attitudes, and intentions to participate in future community service (see McCarthy & Tucker, 2002; Moely, Mercer, Ilustre, Miron, & McFarland, 2002; Simons & Cleary, 2006). In terms of personal development students participating in servicelearning demonstrate increases in self-efficacy, interpersonal skills, self-rated leadership activities (see Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Moely et al., 2002). Service-learning also facilitates academic development, and has also been linked to better writing skills, increased critical thinking, increased motivation and contextual understanding of course material, improved test performance, and GPA (Astin, et al., 2000; Ash, Clayton, & Atkinson, 2005; Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). In addition to its many benefits to students themselves, service-learning can be practically incorporated into current undergraduate curriculums. There is a growing body of literature describing the mechanics of implementing servicelearning in a broad spectrum of courses. For example, the American Association of Higher Education has a series of 18 monographs focusing on why and how service-learning can be implemented in a specific discipline. Academic Service-learning and Leadership Courses As yet, little is known specifically about how service-learning can be implemented in leadership courses and its impact on learning outcomes of leadership courses. For example, Middleton (2005) examined charismatic leadership emergence in students participating in a service-learning leadership course. Other available studies have looked at the impact of service-learning on certain leadership concepts such as interpersonal skills, ethics, teamwork, and decision-making (Astin et al., 2000; Dumas 2002; Friedman 1996; Moely, et al., 2002; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000); however, the courses included in these studies have not been leadership courses per se. For example, Astin and colleagues (2000) compared academic service-learning students within a variety of courses and students who performed community service through settings other than a course on a variety of abilities and skills, and found that in the leadership arena, the outcomes between the two groups were the same. They concluded that service-learning does not add to the students’ leadership abilities, but rather that leadership growth oc

Adaptive, generative, and transformative learning in project teams

Purpose – The aim of this study is to analyze a framework of team learning that includes three learning processes (adaptive, generative, and transformative), factors that stimulate these processes, and consequences of them. The variables provided a field study of the model.Design/methodology/approach – In the field study, 69 project teams of 3 to 11 students and their instructors responded to surveys.Findings – Positive learning stimuli were related to adaptive and generative learning processes, while negative stimuli were related to transformative learning processes. Learning processes were related to individual student learning outcomes. In addition, adaptive and generative learning processes were positively related to team and instructor ratings of outcome quality, while transformative learning was negatively related to team ratings of outcome quality.Research limitations/implications – The results were subject to the following limitations: cross‐sectional design, mostly self‐report measures, and the l...

The Development of Group Interaction Patterns: How Groups Become Adaptive, Generative, and Transformative Learners

This article integrates the literature on group interaction process analysis and group learning, providing a framework for understanding how patterns of interaction develop. The model proposes how adaptive, generative, and transformative learning processes evolve and vary in their functionality. Environmental triggers for learning, the groups readiness to learn, stage of development, control mechanisms, and facilitation influence the interaction patterns that emerge, are reinforced, and repeated over time. The model has implications for research on the evolution of adaptive, generative, and transformative group learning and for diagnosing group conditions and implementing interventions that promote group learning.

Continuous learning in organizations: a living systems analysis of individual, group, and organization learning

Students of organizations are beginning to recognize the importance of continuous learning in organizations, but to date the concept is not well understood, particularly in terms of how the learning of individuals is related to the learning that takes place in groups, which is related to the learning that occurs in organizations (and all other combinations). To further our understanding, we offer the idea of continuous learning in organizations from a living systems perspective. We view individuals, groups, and organizations as living systems nested in a hierarchy. We propose that living systems can learn in three ways: they can adapt, they can generate, and they can transform. Learning triggers from the environment spark learning, and this relationship is moderated by the systems readiness to learn. Readiness to learn is a function of the permeability of the systems boundaries, the systems stage of development, and the systems meta-systems perspective. Additional research questions are presented to explore learning flow between levels and to determine how the match between one systems pressure for change and another systems readiness to learn affects the emergence of adaptive, generative, and transformative learning. In addition, research questions are offered as a means to test these ideas and build grounded theory. Finally, using this model, the chapter presents three case studies and suggests diagnostic questions to analyze and facilitate continuous learning from a multi-level perspective.

Interventions to stimulate group learning in organizations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe a model of group learning, examine variables that stimulate a group to learn and determine the groups readiness to learn, and provide suggested interventions to enhance group readiness to learn.Design/methodology/approach – This practical paper, based on a model of group learning and recent group, learning, and systems literature, examines what triggers groups to learn and what makes groups ready to learn, and then suggest interventions to enhance group readiness to learn. Learning requires that the group recognizes variables that trigger learning. These may be pressures or opportunities from outside the group or encouragement and direction from group members. In addition, the group needs to be ready to learn when the triggers occur. Readiness to learn is a function of the groups maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation.Findings – Based on a review of the literature and the model, the paper suggests ways to diagnose learning tri...