InterrogatingLeadership.pdf

DOI: 10.1002/yd.20468

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Interrogating leadership education: Why? Forwhat? For whom?

Kathy L. Guthrie1 Christine D. Navarro2 John Weng3

Kerry L. Priest4

1 Florida State University

2 University of California, Davis

3 University of California, San Diego

4 Kansas State University

CorrespondenceKathy L. Guthrie, Florida State University,1114 W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.Email: [email protected]

AbstractThis article is an exploration into the purpose of lead-ership education and leadership learning in highereducation. It will simultaneously explore who leader-ship education is for and investigate privilege, iden-tities, class, and the intersecting impact on access tothese programs and content.

The events of 2020 amplified urgency to hit the reset button for leaders around the world.The global health pandemic was a tipping point which exposed long standing, deeplyrooted systems of inequity. Although when exposed, it may have not been surprising forsome, specifically individuals whose lives are the most affected. What was shocking was theextent to which those roots have grown. The ensuing additional pandemics in this tsunamishook our culture to its core. As a civilization, we have allowed the divides to grow deeperthan we realized. Should we truly want our communities, global society, and civilization tomove forward, we need to reckon with the purpose of leadership education and creation ofleadership learning opportunities (Wheatley, 2017) to address these root causes. Our effec-tiveness as leadership educators relies on our continual growth and development. As thecollaborative inquiry process outlined in Article 2 (Priest et al.) of this issue illustrates, intimes of uncertainty and change, we must lean into inquiry—asking powerful questions ofourselves and others, engaging new lenses for meaning making, and inviting new possibili-ties for action. One way we can do this is by interrogation, in our case, interrogation of lead-ership education. The principles and practice of interrogation as an inquiry purpose comesout of social justice research and is rooted in feminism, Marxism, and critical race the-ory/critical theory (Bhattacharya, 2017). This form of inquiry highlights issues of inequityand marginalization and offers ideas for solutions. This article reflects insights from theauthor team’s interrogation of leadership education and offers questions by which readersmay engage in their own inquiry that not only supports their growth and development asprofessionals, but also helps to shift broader systems within the leadership education field.

One aspect of interrogating leadership education is reflecting on where emphasis of theprocess and outcome should be. Although educators should focus more on learning thanteaching (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018), educators often create programs bypicking and choosing isolated activities. When educators can shift their focus to learning,student-centered learning approaches emerge (Barr & Tagg, 1995). This shift can allow for

New Dir Stud Lead. 2021;2021:45–52. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals, LLC. 45wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/yd

46 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

the social construction of leadership in and through learning opportunities that are cultur-ally relevant for all learners.

How individuals define the complex concept of leadership is another critical componentto consider when interrogating leadership education. Individuals define leadership differ-ently based on personal experiences, social identities, or various worldviews. Therefore, asa socially constructed concept, leadership holds different meanings to various individu-als (Billsberry, 2009; Dugan, 2017; Guthrie et al., 2013). Social construction means that anunderstanding of an idea (leadership in this case) is jointly created over time and developsinto a shared assumption. Shared assumptions have significant cultural influence as theybecome central to the meanings developed with others. By honoring that the concept ofleadership is socially constructed, we can interrogate how we teach the process of leader-ship and how to be a leader more critically.

In this article, using the interrogating words of why, what, and who will help guide usin deconstructing and reformulating leadership education. Dugan (2017) offers tools ofdeconstruction as one way to interrogate our leadership education practice, including ide-ological critique, commodification, willful blindness, and flow of power. Ideological cri-tique means to question underlying core beliefs of theories used to detect what is viewedas normative. Commodification questions how a constant focus on maximizing produc-tivity can dehumanize people and can diminish knowledge. Deconstruction using will-ful blindness questions how and why people remain unaware to avoid responsibility andtherefore perpetuates harmful norms. Finally, the flow of power provides reflection on howpower is acknowledged, flows, and shapes relationships and experiences. With Dugan’s(2017) deconstruction tools in mind, we interrogate leadership education by reframing ourpurpose as educators, reflect on our purpose and intended outcomes, intentionally thinkabout who we are creating leadership learning opportunities for, and then discuss how wecan move forward and frame higher education as a source of liberation.

STARTING WITH WHY? REFRAMING OUR PURPOSE

Interrogation of leadership education and creating leadership learning opportunities muststart with the question, “why.” Beginning any inquiry or interrogation with this one-wordquestion helps us to make sense of the things around us and leads to other questions thatcan help us progress in not only working from a place of passion and purpose, but alsocreating innovative and influential programs that have the power of developing the leadersour world needs now and in the future. Sinek (2009) popularized the concept of “startingwith why” through his golden circle model, which reflects a pattern of leadership think-ing, action, and communication. The model is represented by three concentric circles andcorresponding questions why, how, and what? The center circle question is about beliefsand purpose: Why do you do what you do? According to Sinek (2011), very few people canclearly articulate why they do what they do. We recognize the answer to “why” is uniqueto individual educators; yet through a critical systems lens, we are also curious about the“why” of our programs and the leadership education field more broadly.

The middle circle question is about process: How do you do what you do? Applied toleadership education, this question calls into question the learning and leadership pro-cesses embedded within our practice, programs, institutions, and professional organiza-tions. And finally, the outer circle is about results: What do you do? This is often what peo-ple can see – the activity or products or outcomes that can be clearly identified, assessed,reported, and marketed. It is also often the focus of best practice literature and trainingwithin our field (e.g., What topics to teach, what kind of activities to use). However, from asocial constructionist lens, we recognize that “best practices” are themselves culturally and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP 47

contextually situated – what works best for some may not be best for all. And in conditionsof great disruption, like the confluence of pandemics we have experienced, our “what” maybe in constant change. Getting clear on our “why” serves as a compass as we navigate theuncertainty (how and what).

The golden circle offers a lens to explore how leadership educators experience congru-ence or conflict between their individual purpose and philosophy and that of their pro-gram. Seemiller and Priest (2015) suggest a sense of congruence influences leadership edu-cators’ professional identity development. They emphasize the need for reflection on align-ment between content-related values (beliefs about what leadership is and is for), process-oriented values (beliefs about how leadership should be taught), and expectations-relatedvalues (how role expectations align with beliefs about what a leadership educator is andshould do).

The purpose and values of a program matter because, through a social construction lens,students and educators both shape and are shaped by the discourses, everyday practices,and experiences of participation within communities. Values and purpose are what con-nect people to the program (help people see themselves in the program) and influencetheir views of self in the work of leadership (identity), capacity, and efficacy (Guthrie et al.,2021).

Dugan’s (2017) tools of deconstruction can help us to reveal hidden, competing valuesat play within our leadership education programs. Recognizing programs are nearly alwaysembedded within broader institutional systems that seek to sustain themselves, there is arisk for commodification (increasing production and consumption at all costs). This mayshow up in an implicit, but observable emphasis on university recruitment, establishing“elite” learning experiences, or catering to the values of big donors (private or industry).A commodification lens of interrogation asks tough questions like: Is our why to keep pro-ducing positional leaders? Is our why to develop others to check off acquired competenciesto gain admission to graduate programs, medical school, or launch a career? Is our why toreally groom others to make money?

Wheatley (2017) spoke to purposeful leadership in times of chaos, asking, “Now, whodo you choose to be as a leader for this time?” (p. 249). Through the co-inquiry processthat prompted this special issue, we asked ourselves: who do we choose to be as leader-ship educators for this time? We considered our personal “why’s”, reflected on congruencywithin our programs, and interrogated broader themes we noticed in the field, both pre-and through the pandemics. Our reconstruction focuses on critical hope (Dugan, 2017).We propose the answer to “why” lies within the restoration of humanity. The restoration ofleading with love, compassion, grace, humility, inclusion, equity, mindfulness, and forgive-ness. These qualities and actions are not easily measurable; yet, they are fundamental tosurvival. Leading with humanity requires us to embrace different ways of knowing, being,and doing. As much as we would like to believe the events of 2020 have an end and we willresume some sense of normalcy, the real work is just beginning, getting to the root of thetrauma inflicted by our social and political divides and addressing inequities in policies,laws, and institutions. Working toward social justice and human rights must be our pathforward. Continuing to design and implement leadership education pre-pandemic will bemore detrimental than we think. Some questions for readers to consider:

∙ Why do you do what you do as a leadership educator?∙ In times of chaos, turbulence, and disruptions, what are the core values or beliefs that

serve as your compass?∙ How does your “why” influence your “how” and your “what”?∙ What values (spoken or unspoken) have the greatest influence on our program?∙ Where might there be competing values and what is the impact?

48 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

IDENTIFYING FOR WHAT? REFRAMING OUR FOCUS AND OUTCOMES

“What do we want students to learn or do?” A variation of this question is a common start-ing point for course, curriculum, or program design. From this framing, the question whatdrives outcomes, which then drive decisions of how we achieve those outcomes. What isnot a bad question, but it is not sufficient to the kind of leadership learning required toaddress inequities. We suggest a better question is: “leadership for what?”. Similar to why,the question for what holds our attention to a broader purpose or cause. Throughout ourco-inquiry process, our group returned, time and time again, to leadership is for creatingand maintaining justice, equity, and liberation. By situating justice, equity, and liberationat the core, figuratively and in practice, we are better equipped to achieve the aspiration ofour overarching purpose (why); the restoration of humanity. Work toward justice, equity,and liberation, in turn, calls for change in how we not only frame leadership, but also howwe teach leadership.

Shifting from a frame of leadership education to leadership learning is critical to achieveour purpose (why) and our focus and outcomes (for what). In Article 6 in this issue, Pierreand Weng discuss the need for this shift. Building upon the concept of creating leadershiplearning environments, fostering co-creation of knowledge opens possibilities to collec-tive solutions. Furthermore, collaborative environments provide space for diverse voices,views, and experiences to be shared and learned. If our focus and outcomes are to achievea more just, equitable, and liberated society then leadership must be rooted in community.Leader-centric mindsets and pedagogical practices are ineffective in the shift from leader-ship education to leadership learning.

Leading in and among community affords the energy, creativity, historical knowl-edge, and co-created solutions to address complex issues. Kniffin and Patterson (2019)highlighted collective dimensions of leadership theory and practices that emerged dur-ing the post-industrial era of leadership education. They argued the need for commu-nities to “exercise collective leadership to address complex social issues” (p. 205). Bydeveloping community leadership, solutions are generated within and alters the all-too-common approach of those existing outside of the community proposing and implement-ing changes. Ospina and Foldy (2015, 2016) examined the emergence of collective lead-ership practices to create social change and posited the need for multiple organizationsand communities to engage together to find and create solutions. To fully reframe ourleadership focus and outcomes (for what) toward justice, equity, and liberation, continuedresearch and efforts to develop leadership within and among community is key. Considerthe following questions to reframe the focus and outcomes of leadership learning:

∙ How would you describe the purpose of your leadership courses or programs?∙ Identify several primary resources or references that inform your course or program?

What do these resources say about the implicit or explicit assumptions about what lead-ership is and is for?

∙ Is there congruence between purpose and outcomes?

LEADERSHIP LEARNING FOR WHOM? ADDRESSING OUR ROLE INPERPETUATING THE PROBLEM

Many entry points in collegiate leadership education and development programs requirean application, nomination, or minimum grade point average. These programs end upbeing accessible to a select few. As such, the concept and attainment of “leader” and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP 49

“leadership” continue to be set aside for a select few. Historically, this selected few con-sists of privileged, homogeneous students from the dominant group. Leadership programsthen become gatekeepers to who has access to and who is served by what? These closedecosystems of who is funneling through leadership education programs keeps in placedominance, power, and hierarchies that perpetuate systems of oppression.

Outside of the academy, the definitions of “leader” and “leadership” are more fluid.Leader and leadership continue to be viewed in a top-down, hierarchical, transactional,pre-industrial manner (Rost, 1991) and the two terms are used interchangeably. Althoughscholarship has made progress in distinguishing between the individual as “leader” and theactions, behaviors of “leadership”, societal messages, depictions, and archetypes conflatingthe two persist. With this reality, misconceptions of “who” can be a leader (e.g., white malestypically in business and politics) also persist.

Recent leadership scholarship has broadened conversations on how personal and socialidentities, diversity, inclusion, and social justice intersect with being a leader and engag-ing in the leadership process. However, our field has not addressed the issue of accessto diverse voices and demonstrations of leadership. More often than not, we like to looktoward singular examples of diverse “leaders” in business (e.g., Oprah Winfrey), in socialmovements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez), and, of course politics (e.g., Har-vey Milk, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris). These individuals are all are leaders in their ownright and their contributions should not be dismissed. Yet, these singular examples so oftenused in our curricula reinforce positionality, hierarchy, and communicate underlying mes-sages to students of color that following in the footsteps of these individuals is how yourwill achieve being a leader. How many of us, really, in our lifetimes, will achieve this cal-iber of “leader”? Owen (2020) outlines the danger of placing positional leaders on pedestalsand labeling them as “SHE-roes”, thus leadership seemingly becomes unattainable. Owen’s(2020) argument can extend to any positional leader from all backgrounds and sectors.

Conversely, leadership education that focuses on addressing inequities can, uninten-tionally, privilege learning of students who are “less aware” of social justice over thosewho have lived experience. When we focus learning on diversity, equity, and inclusion, itcan tax students who come from historically excluded communities (Brewster, in press).In practice, we ignore collectivism: the practice of placing group/community as the pri-ority, not the individuals within. We continue to structure our programs, teachings, andexpectations toward individualism. The vast majority of historically excluded communi-ties of color function in a collective manner. Leadership models often are leader-centricand reinforce individualism. As leadership educators, we need to do a better job at distin-guishing between individualism and individuality. We propose a valuing individuality inthe form of social justice education and further describe how leadership education in ahigher education setting can support this below.

MOVING FORWARD: HIGHER EDUCATION AS A SOURCE OFLIBERATION

We hope it has become evident that the institution of higher education is at a time wherechange is not a nice consideration, but rather a necessary imperative. Leadership learningand development is not a mathematical concept to be learned or a vocabulary word to bespelled; treating it as such is neither sufficient nor acceptable.

In Article 7 of this special issue, Gleason and Weng recognized that leadership educa-tors are put in difficult situations. Those of us in the classroom must think about courseoutcomes, curriculum planning, alignment to program outcomes, accreditation, etc. And

50 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

some of us are in precarious situations where the abandonment of terminology like “bestpractices” can be seen as reckless and irresponsible. Many of us are embedded in systemsthat privilege or even mandate the use of “High-Impact Practices.” For example, the 23campuses that make up California State University (the U.S.’s largest public 4-year system)have taken up the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) essential learning out-comes as their general education and assessment framework (O’Donnell et al., 2011). Theroot and intention of these best practices come from a good place, an intention and desireto serve those who may be otherwise underserved. Yet, the reality of the matter that hasbeen enumerated above is that these ways of educating simply continue to perpetuate theproblem.

Chunoo et al. (2019) call for leadership educators to see themselves as social justice edu-cators who advance perspectives “that confront power and interrupt oppression in sys-tems” (p. 87), and who commit to culturally relevant pedagogies. This may require requiresrecognizing and reconciling the need for radical changes throughout curriculum and envi-ronments where leadership is learned. Leadership education needs to advance ideologicalpositions and pedagogical approaches through which learning about leadership can breakthe perpetuation of oppression in and of itself. For example, the study of formal author-ity and informal authority through adaptive leadership (Heifetz & Linsky, 2017) present anopportunity to examine other less conscious influences in which certain voices may beprivileged. This serves as a case in and of itself to examine where oppression is and canoccur.

In order for leadership learning to create the conditions to study and break the perpet-uation of oppression, the ways in which we are facilitating this learning must also change.Traditional ideology and approaches emphasize the development of leadership compe-tency, behavior, and traits. Scholars suggest instead a shift in focus toward the considera-tion and development of leadership identity, capacity, and efficacy (Bertrand Jones et al.,2016; Guthrie et al., 2017) which emphasize culture and context. Just as if fish were judgedby their ability to climb a tree, they will fail every time; those charged with facilitating thelearning of leadership need to contextualize this learning by approaching students as indi-viduals rather than a classroom to be taught. An example of this can be tied to consid-erations of identity, where someone’s identity might influence how they relate with oneanother. For example, an individual’s identities might influence the way in which they seethe world, and thus how they accept or reject aspects of leadership theory.

The consideration of individual characteristics in the facilitation of leadership learningdoes not necessarily represent a rejection of outcomes-based learning nor does it representa critique on the importance of accreditation for institutions of higher education. Instead,as Dugan (2017) described deconstruction as a disruption of dichotomies that are not actu-ally oppositional, this presents an opportunity to infuse equity-driven learning in leader-ship education that goes beyond the classical orientation around equality. For example,Mahoney (2016) proposes a framework for examining leadership programs through theincorporation of a critical displacement approach (Minh-Ha, 2006). The proposed strategyinvolves critically reviewing the systems in place including the theories that are taught andprivileged, the activities that are incorporated and amount of time given to developmentof socially just mindsets, and privileging student contribution to leadership learning in theclassroom by inviting them to co-create the learning.

The multiple pandemics of 2020 and onward prompt us to recognize the leadershiplearner in ourselves and seek to yield the learnings possible from this time of disruptionand transition. We envision a future of higher education that is no longer a vehicle for his-torically oppressive pedagogy and patterns of power privilege and oppression, but insteadis a space in which individual learning can be privileged for learning of the collective whole.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP 51

We ask readers to hold the following questions in mind and in heart as they engage in class-room and programmatic activities:

∙ Who are the students in my classroom? And, what are their stories?∙ Whose story are we telling by presenting certain course content? Whose story is not being

told?∙ How might the individuals that make up the classroom relate to or engage with the con-

tent?∙ How can I, as a leadership educator, help facilitation the relationship between the indi-

vidual and the content presented?

R E F E R E N C E SBarr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672Bertrand Jones, T., Guthrie, K. L., & Osteen, L. (2016). Critical domains of culturally relevant leadership learning:

A call to transform leadership programs. In K. L. Guthrie, T. Bertrand Jones, & L. Osteen (Eds.), New directionsfor student leadership: No. 152. Developing culturally relevant leadership learning (pp. 9–21). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20205

Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge.Billsberry, J. (2009). The social construction of leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.12806/v8/i2/ab1Brewster, B. (2022). Unpacking the influence of leadership tax on Black women. In K. L. Guthrie, & K. L. Priest

(Eds.), Navigating the complexities in leadership: Moving toward critical hope (pp. 153–162). Information AgePublishing.

Chunoo, V. S., Beatty, C. C., & Gruver, M. D. (2019), Leadership educator as social justice educator. In K. L. Priest,& D. M. Jenkins (Eds.), New directions for student leadership: No 164. Becoming and being a leadership educator(pp. 87–103). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20360

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. Jossey-Bass.Guthrie, K. L., Beatty, C. C., & Wiborg, E. (2021). Engaging in the leadership process: Identity, capacity, and efficacy

for college students. Information Age Publishing.Guthrie, K. L., & Jenkins, D. M. (2018). The role of leadership educators: Transforming learning. Information Age

Publishing.Guthrie, K. L., Bertrand Jones, T., & Osteen, L. (2017). The teaching, learning, and being of leadership: Exploring

context and practice of the culturally relevant leadership learning model. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(3),61–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21547

Guthrie, K. L., Bertrand Jones, T., Osteen, L., & Hu, S. (2013). Cultivating leader identity and capacity in studentsfrom diverse backgrounds. ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(4), Wiley.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line, with a new preface: Staying alive through the dangers ofchange (Reprint). Harvard Business Review Press.

Kniffin, L. E., & Patterson, R. M. (2019). Re-imagining community leadership development in the post-industrialera. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(4), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I4/T1

Mahoney, A. D. (2016). Culturally responsive integrative learning environments: A critical displacement approach.In K. L. Guthrie, T. Bertrand Jones, & L. Osteen (Eds.), New directions for student leadership: No. 152. Developingculturally relevant leadership learning (pp. 47–59). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20208

Minh-Ha, T. T. (2006). No master territories. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, & H. Tiffin (Eds.), The post-colonial studiesreader (pp. 196–198). Routledge. (Original work published 1991)

O’Donnell, K., Hecsh, J., Underwood, T., Loker, W., Trechter, S. A., David, D., & White, A. (2011). Putting high-impact practices and inclusive excellence at the center of GE reform: Lessons from the California State Univer-sity LEAP initiative. Peer Review, 13(2), https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2011/spring/odonnell

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2015). Enacting collective leadership in a shared-power world. In J. Perry, & R. Christensen(Eds.), Handbook of public administration (3rd edn., pp. 489–507). Jossey-Bass.

Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2016). Collective dimensions of leadership. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclope-dia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1–6). Springer.

Owen, J. E. (2020). We are the leaders we’ve been waiting for: Women and leadership development in college. StylusPublishing.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Praeger.Seemiller, C., & Priest, K. L. (2015). The hidden “who” in leadership education: Conceptualizing leadership edu-

cator professional identity development. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3), 132–151.

52 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action. [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Portfolio.Wheatley, M. J. (2017). Who do we choose to be? Facing reality, claiming leadership, restoring sanity. Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.

A U T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S

Kathy L. Guthrie (she/her) is associate professor in the higher education program atFlorida State University. She serves as director of the Leadership Learning Research Cen-ter and coordinator of the undergraduate certificate in leadership studies.

Christine D. Navarro (she/her) serves as the director of a special academic programknown as the Center for Leadership Learning in the Office of Undergraduate Educationat University of California, Davis. As an educator, she strives to find balance betweentheory and practice in her curricula and fostering learning environments where knowl-edge is co-created with her students.

John Weng (he/him) is an adjunct lecturer and doctoral student at the University of SanDiego’s Department of Leadership Studies. He is also the assistant director for Associ-ated Students Administration at UC San Diego. His research focuses on group dynamics,group relations, and leadership development.

Kerry L. Priest (she/her) is an associate professor in the Staley School of LeadershipStudies at Kansas State University. Her teaching and scholarship integrate critical per-spectives and engaged pedagogies that create the conditions for people to develop lead-ership through practice.

How to cite this article: Guthrie, K. L., Navarro, C. D., Weng, J., & Priest, K. L. (2021).Interrogating leadership education: Why? For what? For whom? In J. Chung, M.Gleason, K. L. Guthrie, C. D. Navarro, K. L. Priest, D. E. Pierre, M. C. Steele, & J. Weng(Eds.). New Directions for Student Leadership: No. 172. Leadership education throughcomplex transitions (pp. 45–52). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20468

Copyright of New Directions for Student Leadership is the property of John Wiley & Sons,Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.