Leadership Development Program Content and Attributes 95 

Thus far, the literature review has established that program evaluations, while less than perfect methodologically, have indicated that leadership development interventions have resulted in enhanced leadership self-efficacy. The review has also established that LSE should have been an important program outcome as it was linked to organizational performance, although few programs had specifically intended to develop LSE. Because

LSE is so important to performance, it was imperative that LSE be evaluated as part of the study of an intervention. Finally, the research as to how program content and attributes affected LSE and leadership development was essential to the determination as to what elements and attributes should be considered in a LDP. Thus, it was appropriate to review potential items for program content based on the research that supported their importance to LSE and thus their inclusion.

Various studies have examined how best to develop leaders or enhance leadership skills and the effect of these methods or program content on leadership self-efficacy. However, these studies tended to be of one of two types: those that focused on a single dimensional intervention such as mentoring, and those that focused on a multi-dimensional program of interventions which is the typical leadership development program. Other studies yet were concerned primarily with increasing the effectiveness of a development intervention with respect to the behavioural or organizational outcomes. These studies seldom focused on self- efficacy but rather were concerned with program content specific to leadership development.

The transference of the leadership skills attained in a leadership development intervention to actual practice is necessary to determine that behavioural change has occurred as a result of the program. Program attributes and characteristics can make a difference in whether the skills are ultimately used. Social Cognitive Theory and the self-efficacy construct explain the importance of self-efficacy to utilization. In the literature, the program attributes and content that best facilitated the desired program outcomes, and which presumably incorporated the self-efficacy construct, were referred to as best practice. The best practice components were intended to apply to a comprehensive development program within an organization or industry. However, as Thatcher (2006) suggested, best practices that related to the creation

of a learning system and which included both traditional or formal learning and action learning such as challenging job assignments, mentoring, senior leaders as models and 360 degree assessment, were particularly relevant.

To date, Versland (2009) has been alone in asking some of the relevant questions relating to a development program and leadership self-efficacy: what program content affects

leadership self-efficacy and what role does the program content play in the development of LSE. The targets of her investigation were principal preparation programs that were designed to equip principals to lead schools, and thus the term leadership self-efficacy was replaced by principal self-efficacy. The research required that the principals reflected on their experiences with their principal preparation program. The participants were very different from that what would be expected in librarianship in that they were predominantly male, experienced principals who, for the most part, could not be regarded as emerging leaders particularly at the time the data for the research was collected.

The research was potentially important as it represented one of the few attempts to study the effect of leadership program design attributes and content on self-efficacy development. The research used survey methodology to gather the results from past program participants relative to their perceptions of the program effectiveness and their leadership self-efficacy. Using the 18 item Principal Self Efficacy Scale (PSES) and 34 other measures relating to principal preparation, Versland (2009) measured the leadership self-efficacy at the time of data collection. So while self-efficacy was measured at the point of survey, one could not attribute causality to the program nor ascertain whether the program had any effect on leadership self-efficacy. This was one drawback of the research design adopted by Versland in that the leadership self-efficacy measured was not commensurate with an experimental or

quasi-experimental design and thus there were no pretest and posttest measures of principal efficacy nor a control group that would have helped to link the self-efficacy studied to the intervention, nor provide objective evidence of self-efficacy gains. Given other findings that indicated that few principals experienced a change in LSE as a result of a specific

intervention (McCauley & Hughes-James, 1994), one could not surmise that the interventions studied by Versland were necessarily responsible for LSE changes.

Nonetheless, the conclusions that the program positively affected LSE were no different than that reported from both library and other leadership development programs.

Versland (2009) determined four factors that principals perceived contributed to their LSE: instructional leadership experiences, motivation, including motivating others, authentic learning and practice, and finally, self-regulation. In interviews with six of twenty-two principals who had high levels of leadership self-efficacy and who had rated the preparation program highly, Versland found that peer and mentor relationships as well as authentic, leadership learning experiences, represented by field experiences and small group

interactions, were perceived to affect LSE. Perseverance and persistence including managing stress and working with an intense schedule and format, were important for the LSE growth in the principals (Versland, 2009). Thus, a mix of program design attributes, content, relationships and experiences were perceived by participants as contributing to LSE.

However, the context of the research and some of the results were interesting particularly as it related to other research. While leadership development experiences, whether they were of a short or long duration, had a positive effect on LSE (Dugan & Komives, 2007), more research was necessary to determine the optimal length of a leadership development

a 13 week program of three hours per week was not sufficient to positively affect leadership effectiveness. The conclusion suggested length was the issue but neglected to consider intensity. The perception that it was important to have a tightly scheduled format that created intensity, rigor and stress (Versland, 2009) was consistent with the findings of Lai (1996) that intensive programs were more effective than distributed programs. Thus, intensity appeared to be important to both leadership effectiveness and efficacy. However, intensity could be construed as contradictory to a reflective environment. Nonetheless, both findings fit within the self-efficacy construct and were related to the source of efficacy from affective psychological states. Not only do pre-existing efficacy beliefs influence responses to stress but moderate levels of stress generally encourage performance (Bandura, 1997).

Versland (2009) also found that the leadership program faculty, through encouragement, feedback, role-modelling and mentoring had a positive effect on the self-efficacy

development of all of the participants in the qualitative study. This finding was consistent with the recommendations of Popper (2005) and the conclusions of Eich (2008) that a high quality leadership program included experienced practitioners as leaders, role modelling, and a supportive culture with a one on one relationship between participants and leaders. One might have characterized the role of the program faculty as expert facilitators. Thus, the leadership behaviours and attitudes of the persons that delivered the development intervention, including their self-efficacy, had a predictive effect on the success of the training (Hardy et al., 2010). Similarly, Tai (2006) found that how training was framed affected self-efficacy and motivation of trainees. These studies explained why the program attribute of ‘expert facilitation’ was identified as relevant to a successful behavioural outcome (Cohenno, 2004; Crosbie, 2005; Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007; Thatcher, 2006).

Various researchers have identified lists of activities or program characteristics that were found to be important to behavioural change in their respective research context or that constituted best practice. None of these lists was identical although they had common elements. Program content that was deemed to contribute most to the individual program outcomes included: reframing, mentoring, individual and collaborative inquiry, and journaling (Fleishman, 2005). However, Fleishman (2005) was not able to establish any outcomes for the LDP beyond those experienced at the individual knowledge and

behavioural levels which was consistent with the findings from earlier meta-analytic work (Collins, 2002; Collins & Holton, 2004). Thus, while most programs were effective in assisting participants gain new knowledge, behavioural change was dependent on the presence of expert facilitation, formal and informal support including mentoring, coaching and peer interactions that enabled participant observation of others using the skills

(Cohenno, 2004; Crosbie, 2005; Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007; Thatcher, 2006). Furthermore, self-study and self-analysis, opportunities to use the new skills and action learning increased utilization of the skills (Cohenno, 2004; Crosbie, 2005; Thatcher, 2006). Stress and celebration (Crosbie, 2005) and formal 360-degree feedback (Cohenno, 2004; Bilhuber Galli & Muller-Stewens, 2012; Thatcher, 2006) were also essential to the attainment of behavioural outcomes associated with leadership development programs. Finally, transfer of skills was enhanced when multiple individuals from the same organization received the training and when the personal value of the training to the participant was high (Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007).

As in other research there was no attempt to explain the findings. This was fairly typical of leadership development interventions in that they rarely recognized the importance of

self-efficacy until it showed up in the results. While leadership self-efficacy was not specifically mentioned in any of the findings by Cohenno (2004), Crosbie (2005), Gilpin- Jackson and Bushe (2007), or Thatcher (2006), vicarious learning though observation of others using the skills and vicarious learning and social persuasion provided through a coaching or mentoring intervention and feedback implied that building leadership self- efficacy was important to the outcomes. Moreover, while leadership self-efficacy was not mentioned specifically as a factor or outcome it must have been a by-product if the recommendations were to have made sense. Nonetheless, the findings implied the

importance of leadership self-efficacy and the creation of vicarious learning opportunities such as mentoring, peer support, feedback mechanisms and coaching to ensure behavioural outcomes were achieved. Gist and Mitchell (1992) concluded that learning opportunities, experience and feedback changed self-efficacy.

However, the research also introduced the importance of stress. Psychological and affective states, such as stress, have been determined to be a source of self-efficacy in the right context but debilitative to self-efficacy development in many situations (Bandura, 1997). In stressful situations leadership experience made a significant difference to

performance, particularly if the subjects received neither task specific training nor leadership training (Murphy, 1992). Furthermore, psychological states significantly affected outcomes in that under stressful conditions, group performance was diminished in groups led by a leader with low self-efficacy while groups led by a leader with high self-efficacy did not experience the same decline in performance (Murphy, 1992). The notion of celebration also has had support in the construct of self-efficacy. While not specifically referencing

stress and celebration in behavioural change were in essence grounded in social cognitive theory and thus implied the connection to self-efficacy development.

Some studies, such as Eich (2008), Gist and Mitchell (1992) and Popper (2005),

introduced key elements of conceptual frameworks for leadership development rather than providing an evaluative role or particularly addressing self-efficacy development. The elements in these frameworks were nonetheless generally aligned with a subset of the factors that Bandura (1997) suggested were critical for self-efficacy development and thus included experiential learning and vicarious learning. Popper (2005) argued that a leadership

development model had to consider the situation, the development stage of the participant and the appropriateness of the method for each program element. Vicarious learning, where the experiences of outstanding leaders were shared, and experiential learning which

incorporated reflection, 360 degree feedback, joint investigation and skills demonstrated by an expert and known as “follow me” were prominent in the framework. Popper clarified the appropriateness of the “follow me” strategies as applicable to cases where practice was important and behaviours could be exactly replicated.

Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggested three intervention strategies for self-efficacy

development. The first is to offer task related information through experiential learning and modelling so that the task components and the task environment are understood. The second strategy is to provide task appropriate training through experiential learning, modelling, coaching and mentoring to improve abilities or use of existing skills, knowledge and abilities. The final strategy suggests that information pertaining to how much effort is required to achieve the desired performance and information relating to the required

provision of frequent, timely and appropriate feedback (p. 203). These strategies have influenced the qualitative investigation.

In the Grounded Theory Model of High-Quality Leadership Programs for student leadership, Eich (2008) proposed a very similar framework to that introduced by Popper (2005), although uniquely capturing the elements in three outcome related clusters:

Participants Engaged in Building and Sustaining a Learning Community, Student-Centered Experiential Learning Experiences and Research-Grounded Continuous Program

Development. Like Popper, Eich emphasized the importance of experienced leaders who were able to model the desired behaviours, provide support and form individual relationships with participants. The use of small groups and peer to peer relationship building also

characterized a high quality program. Eich too, stressed the importance of feedback and reflection, experiential learning and practice. Finally, a flexible but integrated design that incorporated evaluation and continuous improvement was deemed to be the most desirable. The works of Popper and Eich were both relevant to the research as the Northern Exposure to Leadership Institute was largely aligned with the frameworks.

The development of leadership self-efficacy was informed by studies of single development interventions in the content areas of mentoring, coaching, building peer networks and reflection. Thus, the findings in these studies provided a basis for the

qualitative research herein. Separate studies on mentoring in the nursing profession and on executive coaching in the public sector and their influence on leadership self-efficacy produced similar results. In both instances, the research hypothesized that executive

coaching or mentoring that supplemented a leadership development program would increase LSE in comparison to those not receiving the specialized intervention. While Dugan and

Komives (2007) found that mentoring was a significant predictor of LSE in emerging student leaders, contrary to her expectations Blastorah (2009) determined that mentoring did not predict LSE for any of the leadership practices in nurses. However, mentored nurses were able to increase their LSE during leadership training and sustain the levels thereafter (Blastorah, 2009). Similarly, Brundett (2006) found that a coaching intervention associated with a leadership development program for middle leadership in education had a positive effect on leadership self-efficacy, yet Finn (2007) determined that executive coaching did not predict LSE. However, those receiving executive coaching were able to sustain the increases in LSE derived from the leadership development program and post program coaching positively affected the psychological states of the participants (Finn, 2007). From these results one might conclude that mentoring and executive coaching do not enhance leadership self-efficacy but help to sustain LSE derived from other experiences and

interventions. However, the conflicting results from the studies involving emerging or newer leaders suggest that mentoring experiences might positively affect LSE in some

circumstances.

Blastorah (2009) suggested reasons for the unanticipated results which included: the small sample size with low power, previous mentoring experience of the participants and a

potential ceiling effect for LSE. Both Blastorah, and Finn (2007) used subjects with experience. In the case of Blastorah the subjects were novice nurses, who previously had mentors and in the case of Finn, the subjects were executives. Thus, the suggestion that LSE might have a ceiling effect merited further consideration. However, in this investigation emerging leaders were the subjects, so significant experience and the manifestation of a ceiling effect were not expected but precautionary tests were built into the methodological

design. Both the Finn and Blastorah studies were indicative of the benefits to LSE of leadership development programs that encouraged an ongoing relationship with a mentor or a coach subsequent to the program completion. Neither study, however, determined whether LSE could be maintained without the supplemental intervention or whether there were less costly or more effective interventions.

From the research undertaken to date have come several salient observations and recommendations relating to mentoring in leadership development programs. First, in the review of mentoring as an aspect of library leadership development, Hicks (2011) observed that mentoring relationships have implicit emotional connections but those inherent in a LDP are often contrived and thus, more susceptible to dysfunction. Hicks also suggested that not only should mentor training be mandatory, but mentors and mentees should develop goals and ground rules for the relationship. Based on the results from a study of 303 participants and 41 mentors in a LDP, Solansky (2010) found that the frequency of personal contact initiated by the mentor with the mentee and the focus on coaching rather than program compliance by the mentor determined the degree to which mentees formed an emotional connection and shared information. Thus, the benefits of the mentoring relationship were only realized when the mentor-mentee had an engaged relationship. Bilhuber Galli and Muller-Stewens (2012) determined that both mentoring and networking, while enabling contact experiences, generated only weak social capital. While the research has suggested that mentoring was linked to behavioural change and related to vicarious learning, one factor in self-efficacy development, the evidence has been conflicted as to the nature of the

The evaluation of a leadership development program for female academic leaders found that not only did 80% of the participants report increased leadership self-confidence but the component of the program that facilitated networking and the building of peer relationships contributed the most to personal effectiveness (Harris & Leberman, 2012). While the

evaluation did not establish causality or a direct link between the building peer networks and self-efficacy, it was consistent with the findings of Popper (2005) and Eich (2008) and highlighted the importance of establishing peer networks for reflection, support and feedback. The program components were focused on change, communication, conflict and personal development. However, participants did not perceive the content to be as influential as the peer networks nor were any outcomes associated with the content perceived to be as important as the increase in self-confidence. The findings demonstrated that the structural attributes of a program were more the important than the content.

Related to both mentoring and the development of peer relationships and the overall structure of leadership development programs were the findings of Barclay, Mellor, Bulger, and Kath (2007) on perceived steward success and leadership self-efficacy in a union environment. Leadership self-efficacy enhancement through vicarious learning from same gender relationships was stronger than that derived from mixed gender relationships

(Barclay et al., 2007). That is females derived more positively enforcing efficacy experiences from female leaders, and males from male leaders than either males or females did in mixed gender situations. The study had an inherent design weakness arising from the single source, self-report nature of the data related to perceived steward success. Furthermore, there was no evidence that those surveyed ever aspired to become union stewards so it was uncertain whether that they would have wholeheartedly engaged in vicarious learning to acquire the