So...this weekend was about my dance team's tech rehearsal and my literature review. With the proper balance and support from my professors, Philly cohort and friends and family, I managed to get both done. So...now I'm ready for the actual show...I'm attaching the flyer in case anyone wants to come and watch...AND, I'm also copying and pasting my Literature Review for anyone who would like to read it...both are things I'm very proud of...
A Review of Literature
Dr. Joyce Pittman
EDUC815
Review of Literature
Introduction of the Problem
Higher education is poised to lose between one-fifth and one-third of its senior administration by 2015 (Hugo as cited in Fullan, 2009, p.6). In order to plan for the loss of senior leadership in our colleges and universities, and to better prepare for the imminent leadership crises in higher education (Leubsdorf, as cited in Betts et al., 2009), higher education institutions must embrace the concept of leadership training to aid the development of future leaders within their organizations. However, attendance in training programs alone may not be enough to develop leadership efficacy. Trainees must be able to put the knowledge they have gained into action. As such, trainees must receive support and coaching to promote positive training transfer.
Conceptual Framework
This study builds upon the Training Transfer Model proposed by Burke & Hutchins (2008). This model highlights the need to engage multiple stakeholders in the training transfer process including peers/colleagues as well as supervisors. Burke and Hutchins content that that peer and colleague support has a stronger influence on transfer than just supervisory support (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). This model also points out the fact that the training transfer process is not time bound and entrenched in a particular time phase; as such, solutions to the transfer problem should be process that evolves and transpires throughout the entire instructional design process.
Review of Literature
Organizations of all types and sizes are facing a myriad of leadership challenges (Groves, 2007). In addition, a rapidly aging workforce may create a shortfall of experienced senior level administrators or leaders (Rothwell, 2002). Higher education is not immune to these challenges and given its unique environment, faces an even tougher struggle to identify and train their future leaders.
Many organizations, including a few higher education institutions, are now seeing the value of leadership training and education programs. In 2002, the average U.S. employer spent an estimated 2.2 percent of the payroll dollars on education and training (Segue, as cited in Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). However, research has shown that this investment may not be paying off as only 10-15% of employee training results in transfer to the workplace (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). With this in mind, this literature review will focus on the following topics: a) a better understanding of academe and its current leaders; b) leadership coaching; and c) training transfer. Understanding these areas will provide higher education institutions with vital information necessary to prepare their future leaders for success in an ever-changing environment.
Academe and its Leaders
There is no doubt that academia is becoming more like a business (Gonzalez, 2010). In its present form, higher education represents about 3% of the country’s gross national product (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d., para. 1). However, it has not inherited corporate America’s “tradition of developing leadership through succession planning” wholeheartedly (Gonzalez, 2010). In his book, “How the Mighty Fall,” Jim Collins (2009) suggests that no one leader can build a great empire, but the wrong leader can single-handedly bring a company down (p.62). Therefore, it is extremely important for higher education institutions to think clearly about the processes in place to hire and nurture current and future college leaders.
In her article, “Leadership, Diversity and Succession Planning,” Gonzalez (2010) indicates that succession planning is the key to sustainability, and stresses that all successful enterprises are engaged in “some sort of talent management, whether they do it openly or in secret” (p.2). Successful organizations outside of academe normally hire their chief executive officers from within. Oddly enough, in higher education, only 19% of college presidents surveyed in 2005 were internal candidates (Blumetsky, as cited in Gonzalez, 2010).
Academe and traditional business organizations value leaders differently (Bisbee &Miller, n.d.). Bisbee (2007) goes on to say that while corporate succession plans work on identifying leaders through a formal structure, higher education professionals rise through the ranks via excellence in their research and teaching. Therefore, it is no surprise that the traditional first step up the academic career ladder is that of department chair. A majority of faculty members enter this role unprepared to serve as academic administrators. As a result, 80% of department chairs return to faculty positions once their appointment ends (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004).
While national organizations such as the American Council on Education (ACE) have created leadership training programs for senior administrators, very little is being done at the institution level to grow leaders from within (Gonzalez, 2010). In addition, most of these programs are reserved for top level leadership and not necessarily focused at the development of new/young talent.
In response to the looming leadership shortage in higher education, the Council on Independent Colleges (CIC) commissioned two reports to study the career paths of their Chief Academic Officers and Presidents (Hartley and Godin, 2009 & 2010). This study provides tremendous insight as to where academic leaders are coming from and the preparation they are (or are not) gaining throughout their careers.
In their study regarding presidents at independent colleges, Hartley and Godin (2009) used data from a 2006 survey of first-time presidents (567 respondents). Their findings reveal the following significant facts:
· First-time presidents were less likely to have been hired internally.
· In 2006, the average age of presidents at CIC institutions was 60, with 49% over the age of 60.
· With the “graying of the presidency,” it is vital to create programs that identify and prepare potential presidential candidates.
Hartley and Godin’s (2009) conclusion that CIC presidents are less likely to have served as Chief Academic Officers (CAO), caused severe concern among trustees regarding the pool of qualified candidates groomed for the presidency. This concern was the driving force behind the study on Chief Academic Officers - the second executive leader of the institution behind the president (Hartley & Godin, 2010). The findings from the 2008 survey of 1,140 CAOs revealed the following significant points:
· In 2008, the average age of Chief Academic Officers was 57.
· CAOs were more likely to have been appointed by the faculty.
· CAOs were less likely to have participated in formal off-campus leadership development programs prior to assuming the role of CAO.
· CAOs show high levels of satisfaction with their work yet do not stay in their positions long (average 4.3 years).
Gabelnick (as cited in Kezam, 2009) makes the case that the biggest challenge in academe, particularly for its leaders, is the ability to understand and appreciate the intricacies of organizational processes and the ability to develop the aptitude to deal with these issues. There is no platform for faculty and administrators to develop these leadership capacities (Kezam, 2009). Thus, there is a clear need for training programs that encourage faculty and administrators to think creatively about leadership development within higher education.
Higher education is in an era where the public is demanding accountability and an opportunity to support economic development and growth (Kezam, 2009). As such, much is asked of leaders in this industry. There is an increasing need to open the doors to a broader band of leaders who might be able to provide new and different perspectives and approaches to leading these institutions. Undoubtedly there is a gap in the literature around empirical research on leadership training programs and the impact it has on higher education
Leadership Coaching
William Rothwell, a professor an industry expert on workplace development, outlines the role of coaching and how it relates to leader development and succession planning (2010). He deems that coaching is truly a means to building talent within an organization. While not a new concept, coaching has become increasingly important within organizations as they develop and implement leadership training programs and succession planning models. Rothwell (2010) stresses the need to differentiate training – which is planned and focused – from coaching – which is more spontaneous and driven by moment-by-moment efforts to help individuals perform.
Leadership coaching/mentoring has been a common occurrence in the business world for a number of years. According to Groves (2007), the research done on mentoring relationships in organization provides strong evidence that employees with mentors are much more likely to experience positive outcomes such as enhanced job performance, greater opportunity for promotions and compensation and an overall positive view on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. His study of 30 CEOs and senior Human Resource Personnel across 15 US healthcare systems has shown that the inclusion of informal mentoring is highly important to the success of an organization. Among his findings, Groves noted that an organization should develop their mentor network by engaging all managers in mentoring relationships with their direct reports as well as high potential employees in other departments.
The health care industry is also facing a challenge with regards to leader development. Rapid changes within the industry demands strong leadership at all levels and mentoring relationships extremely important (McAlearney, 2005). McAlearny (2005) synthesizes two studies; 1) a qualitative study done which comprised of 160 informant interviews representing health care organizations, industry associations, academic institutions and consulting firms, and 2) a quantitative study of about 5000 US hospital and health systems chief executives. Both studies focused on what has been done, what is currently being done, and what can be done in the future. Both studies showed that industry leaders have participated in leadership development programs in the past but could not recall any formal mentoring programs. The current state of the industry revealed that there is increased interest in formal mentoring programs throughout the trade and that recent additions and focuses are made with regards to program for women and diverse groups. Both the quantitative and qualitative studies show that leadership development and mentoring are not new concepts to the health care field but are still not widely used.
The American Society for Training and Development (1995) reports that 85% of companies engaging in leadership development programs do so by using formal classroom programs. Corporations are quickly discovering that these programs are not sufficient and suffer from transfer of training challenges in addition to cost-prohibitive matters (Day, 2001). Reviews of empirical studies on formal mentoring programs show that these initiatives have greater potential as leadership development tools (Kim, 2007). However, Kim (2007) suggests that there is a gap between the impact that the interpersonal relationship between mentor/mentee on successful coaching. In addition, studies focus primarily on the impact these programs have on the mentee’s growth and development. Studies should also focus on the impact/benefit that coaching has on the coach’s leadership development.
However, as the previous section highlighted, change such as this is often slow to enter the education realm (Gonzalez, 2010) and leadership coaching in education is a relatively new concept (Hammack & Wise, 2011). Nonetheless, a few schools across the nation are slowly starting to embrace this concept. In a recent study conducted by Hammack and Wise (2011) on 325 elementary school principles, findings showed that females, minorities, first-time principals and principals at low-achieving schools received coaching at higher percentages than their colleagues. Hammack’s study implies that school leaders do indeed consider coaching, coaching competencies and best practices as important. In addition, the participants felt that identification of coaching competencies is related to the creation and implementation of “best practices”.
Leadership coach, Mike Bossi (2008) decided to challenge his own profession and ask the question “does leadership coaching really work?” To answer this, he followed the first two cohorts of a training program designed for new principals in California where coaching was large part of the curriculum. He argues that leading adults in an educational setting is immensely different from teaching children in a classroom which the new principals are mostly well versed in doing. Thus, it was no surprise that California principals tend to leave their position within three years. His findings showed that participation in this program positively affected the academic performance index at the schools of 40 out of the 50 participating principals. In addition, out of these 50 new principles, only four left their position and the district in which they received their coaching. Bossi’s research emphasizes that coaching is more than an apprenticeship as it provides the trainee with continuous, supportive and positive “chatter.”
Training Transfer
Organizations currently spend billions of dollars in training and educational programs each year. However, much of the training competencies and knowledge fail to transfer to the workplace (Grossman & Salas, 2011). According to Burke and Hutchins (2008), information regarding guidelines and best practices for positive training transfer is given inadequate attention and is often anecdotal. Leading experts in training transfer have provided critical analysis of this issue, and have fueled the fire for conceptual and empirical research to attempt to bridge the gap between training and workplace performance (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). In sum, the literature highlights three factors that affect training transfer – trainee/learner characteristics, program/intervention design and delivery and work environment.
According to Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) research, while there are a variety of trainee characteristics that might influence training transfer, the trainees’ initial ability and motivation to learn and implement their new skills play a primary role in the transfer process. A more recent literature review conducted by Burke and Hutchins (2008) identified the following learner characteristics that influence transfer: a) intellectual ability, b) self-efficacy, c) motivation level, d) personality, and e) job/career variables. Also, the training design is impacted heavily by identical elements/stimuli throughout the process giving trainees numbers of opportunities to repeatedly practice the skill even after correct performance has been proven (Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). This is sometimes known as “overlearning” (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). It is also important to ensure that trainees gain knowledge regarding general rules and theoretical principles that underlie the training program content rather than just focusing on specific applicable skills.
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) review of literature was extremely limited in this area. Although there was little empirical evidence at the time, they alluded to the fact that supervisory support affects training transfer. Much has been discovered since their original research. The review conducted by Burke & Hutchins in 2008 reported the following work environment factors influencing training transfer; a) strategic linkage of training, b) transfer climate, c) supervisory and peer support, and d) accountability. Supervisory support along with the opportunity to practice the newly learned skills rated high as best practices (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). A recent finding of Burke and Hutchins (2008) shows that peer/colleague support plays an important role in the training transfer as well. In addition, they discovered that transfer cannot be isolated to a single time period. As such, job aids and training tools/coaching must occur at all stages of the training/learning program – before, during and after.
Cromwell and Kolb (2004) conducted a study to examine supervisory and peer support as factors in training transfer over a period of time after the training completion – one month, six months and one year. Most transfer training interventions occur in a relatively short time frame after the program’s completion and at just one point in time (Gaudine & Saks, 2004). This does not account for the maintenance of transfer and does not provide a short-term and long-term measure. Trainees and supervisors alike completed questionnaires and top manager were also surveyed. Results revealed that all four work-environment factors showed a positive correlation with training transfer. Furthermore, trainees who received higher levels of support showed that they were applying the knowledge they gained at a higher level. Trainees who perceived higher levels of peer support indicated that they were applying their new knowledge at a higher level.
A recent study by Martin (2010) examined two factors that affect training transfer – work environment and peer support. In particular, Martin looked at how close and immediate the factors are to the trainee and the impact that may have on transfer. Peer support is more immediate to the trainee (proximal) while work climate is more distant (distal). Results showed that positive exposure to both distal and proximal factors had a positive effect on training transfer. In addition, the results revealed that peer support (proximal factor) can help in overcoming the effects of a negative work environment (distal factor). Martin’s findings are in line with the literature and show that in order to maximize the organization’s return on investment and to impact positive transfer, support must be provided to trainees before, during and after the training.
Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang (2010) conducted a meta-analytic review of training transfer. In their review, the group conducted a search of empirical studies between training and several demographic and personality variables. Their review of the 89 empirical studies showed that transfer of training is indeed affected by a variety of factors. The meta-analystic review found meaningful correlation between work environment and transfer, and, in particular to the support the trainee receives from their peers and supervisors along with the climate and organizational limitations. The review also noted a relationship between the knowledge transfer and the time between when the training occurred and when training transfer was occurring – the greater the time between the training and the opportunity to transfer, training knowledge and transfer did decline.
Conclusion
The review on literature surrounding higher education leadership training programs and training transfer has shown that there has been very little research done regarding the actual implementation of these programs and positive training transfer. Although these areas have been of interest since the late 80’s, there is much that still needs to be learned. New information regarding the factors affecting positive training transfer has emerged and should be tested so that they may be included in the guidelines and best practices offered to the industry. This study will help to bridge the gap between the knowledge and information gained through leadership training programs and their successful transfer into the workplace. In particular, it will look at the effects of coaching before, during and after the training program on positive training transfer.
In order to be ready for higher education’s leadership shortage and to succeed in today’s ever-changing environment, higher education institutions must seriously think about highly effective and cost-efficient ways of preparing and training their next generation of leaders. As such, it is not enough to support and encourage participation in leadership training programs. Institutions must also create an environment where positive training transfer can occur.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment