A Case Study Of Leadership Development And Organizational Change

1
A Case Study of Leadership
A Case Study of Leadership Development and Organizational Change
Elizabeth Warrick
Campus Box 354570
206-543-0108
ewarrick@u.washington.edu
Running Head: Leadership Development and Organizational Change

2
Introduction
During the spring of 2005 the University of Washington (UW) invested an enormous
amount of resources through staff and faculty time in an effort to investigate issues of leadership,
community and values within the institution. The outcome of this effort will more than likely
include a recommendation that the UW establish a comprehensive leadership development
program for faculty and staff. In his October 2005, address to the university community President
Mark Emmert commented that academic institutions, while concerned about the development of
our students, have not thought critically about the development of faculty and staff, particularly in
the area of leadership. I think it’s critical that higher education starts addressing the issue of
leadership. In the Kellogg Foundation report Leadership Reconsidered Alexander and Helen
Astin stated;
Even though the United States is generally regarded as having the finest
postsecondary education system in the world, there is mounting evidence that the
quality of leadership in this country has been eroding in recent years. The list of
problems is a long one: shaky race relations, growing economic disparities and
inequities, excessive materialism, decaying inner cities, a deteriorating
infrastructure, a weakening public school system, an irresponsible mass media,
declining civic engagement, and he increasing ineffectiveness of government, to
name just a few.
The problems that plague American society are, in many respects, problems of
leadership. (2000, p.2)
At universities across the country there have been similar leadership problems. Public trust
has been lost as evidenced by a decrease in state funding and tax payer support, calls for
accountability via contracts with state legislatures, and attitudinal shifts that are harder to measure
but nevertheless have an impact on students, faculty and staff at colleges and universities. In the
past 5 years at the University of Washington the cloud of scandal has included the firing of a head
football coach for violating NCAA rules and rampant dishonesty, the retirement of the athletic

3
director who hired the football coach, ostensibly her retirement was unrelated, but the timing was
quite coincidental, a multi-million dollar Medicare fraud investigation in one of the medical
centers, and the rumors of inappropriate conduct between the former university president and one
of his female staff. All of these less than noble activities were occurring at a time when state
funding was continuing to decrease and the state legislature put forward a performance contract to
hold higher education within the state accountable for specific outcomes. In addition, since 2000
the UW has seen enormous turnover of deans and chancellors leaving leadership gaps that have
weakened the confidence in leadership. These are just a few of the more public examples of the
leadership crisis experienced at the University of Washington.
When Barry Posner, co-author of the award-winning and best-selling leadership book: The
Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations and
Dean of the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University, was asked if he was aware of
exemplary knew of leadership development programs within colleges and universities, Dr. Posner
said that he did not. Dr. Posner went on to say that he didn’t believe that it would be possible to
implement an effective leadership development program for faculty and staff within higher
education due to the unique organizational culture of higher education institutions. He was quick
and definitive in his beliefs; he stated his opinion without hesitation. His response raised a
number of questions related to the possibility of leadership development within academe. These
questions include:
• How is leadership defined, recognized and measured at colleges and universities?
• Is the culture of academe so different that faculty and staff leaders cannot be
developed through a comprehensive program?
• What aspects of institutional culture are different from corporate culture and what is
it about those differences that may make implementing an effective leadership
development program within a college or university difficult?

4
• What would a leadership development program at a university look like? How
would it be designed, delivered and evaluated?
The purpose of this case study is to examine, analyze, and present how one institution
approached answering these and other questions through the Leadership, Community and Values
Initiative (LCVI).
Background
Leadership development programs are prevalent within corporations and are gaining
interest and investment in public sector organizations. It has been estimated that between 30 and
50 billion dollars per year is invested by corporations for leadership development (Meister as
quoted in Ruben, 2004; Ready & Conger, 2003). Leadership development programs are also
gaining interest and investment in state and city governments (Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004;
Green, 2002; Goski, 2002). There are a few examples in the literature of college and university
focused leadership development programs (Hornyak & Page, 2004; McDaniel, 2002; Brown
2001.)
The case study appears to be the most commonly used methodology in writing about
leadership development programs. This may be the case for a number of reasons; 1) the concept
of leadership is very broad with a wide variety of definitions and descriptions of good leadership;
2) many of the leadership development programs are either spurred by or result in at the least an
examination of organizational culture and at most culture change and so a case study allows the
author to describe their examination within a specific context; 3) leadership development
programs are a relatively new phenomenon therefore there is little available data regarding the
efficacy of these programs; 4) many readers are interested in developing programs for the first
time or refining their relatively new programs by using best practices from other organizations; 5)

5
the arena of leadership development is a fast changing landscape making longitudinal, outcomes
based studies difficult, if not impossible; and 6) there is common agreement of the need for strong
leadership, but there are differing drivers for building a leadership development program and
there is little agreement about what leadership is and how to best development the necessary skills
through a leadership development program (Hernez-Broom & Hughes, 2004; Ingraham & Getha-
Taylor, 2004; Ready & Conger, 2003; Green, 2002, Goski, 2002).
Leadership Described and Defined
There is no shortage of literature available regarding leadership; traditional and emerging
leadership theories, behaviors, attributes and practices.
Few people agree on exactly what leadership is, how it should be exerted,
who should lead, or whether leadership is even possible. Studies of leadership and
the growing complexity of leadership theory only seem to make leaders more
confused about leadership. Is leadership situational? Is it only symbolic? Is a good
leader primarily a good mediator—a person highly skilled in negotiating power
and interest—or are leaders expected to have vision? Should they try to discern
the common good or seek uncommon achievement? Are leaders found chiefly at
the top of the organization chart, or might they reside throughout the institution,
even in unlikely places? (Davis, 2003, p. xii)
Joseph Rost (1993) wrote in his book Leadership for the Twenty-First Century that he
“analyzed 221 definitions of leadership that I found in 587 books, book chapters, and journal
articles which by title indicated that they were primarily concerned with leadership.” (p. 44) Rost
continues to describe his findings which provide the context in which leadership has been
discussed over the decades. I have summarized his points below:
• The authors were from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, indicating that
leadership research and discussions were primarily Western.
• Men made up the bulk of the authors Rost researched; female authors appeared only in the
1980s in significant numbers.

6
• A number of disciplines were represented in the works, including popular publications.
• The number of works on leadership and those with definitions has increased significantly
since 1900 to 1989. From 1900-1902 three works on leadership were found, only one
included a definition; in the decade from 1980-1989 the number of works about leadership
reached nearly 600; 221 of them included definitions of leadership.
(Rost, 1993, p. 45-46)
In terms of the content of these works, Rost reports that “the definitions of leadership in
the first three decades of the twentieth century emphasize control and centralization of power.”
(p.47) Through the 1930s and 1940s the central theme of dominance and control waned and was
replaced by the ideas of leadership as a social and group process. In the 1950s and 1960s
leadership as a component of group process continued and in fact strengthened, however, added
to the group process definition was the concept of leadership as influencing others toward the
accomplishment of shared goals. The 1960s and 1970s saw more and more definitions provided
for leadership; the problem was and still is that there are so many definitions of leadership with
very little agreement among the experts. Rost does applaud Burns’ (1978) definition of
leadership “Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives
and values, various economic, political and other resources, in a context of competition and
conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers.”
(Burns, cited in Rost, 1993, p. 65) In the 1980s, Rosts explains that “leadership [was] recast as
great men and women with certain preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders
wish in order to achieve group/ organizational goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind
of higher-level effectiveness.” (1993, p. 91)

7
In reading about leadership and its many definitions some words keep rising to the
attention of the leader. Words like power, relationship, change, meaning, empowerment,
excellence, influence, mutual purposes, followers, motivation, inspire, vision, transformation,
symbols, politics, and conflict appear regularly in writings of leadership (Astin and Astin, 2000;
Burns, 1978; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Davis, 2003; Eckel, Hill & Green, 1998; Lipman-Blumen,
1996; Ramsden, 1998; Rhodes, 2001; Ruben, 2004; Witherspoon, 1997). Finally, in his book
Learning to lead in higher education, Paul Ramsden provides a simple, yet elegant three phrase
definition of leadership, “Leadership is about producing excellence. . . Leadership is about
change. . . . Leadership is about tensions and balances” (1998, p. 8-9).
Finally, Alexander and Helen Astin provide the following definition of leadership in their
Kellogg Foundation Report entitled Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in
Social Change:
By ‘leadership’ we mean not only what elected and appointment public
officials do, but also the critically important civic work performed by those
individual citizens who are actively engaged in making a positive difference in the
society. A leader, in other words, can be anyone—regardless of formal position—
who serves as an effective social change agent. In this sense, every faculty and staff
member, not to mention every student, is a potential leader. (p. 2.)
Astin and Astin agree “Practically all of the modern authorities on leadership, regardless of
whether they focus on the corporate world or the nonprofit sector, now advocate a collaborative
approach to leadership, as opposed to one based on power and authority.” (2000, p. 4) However,
Alexander and Helen Astin point out “…the traditional approach to academic governance taken by
most colleges and universities makes it very difficult to model collaboration.” (Astin & Astin,
2000, p. 4) In addition, academic governance there may be other cultural realities that impact
how leadership is carried out on campus and how leadership is developed within colleges and
universities. This brings us to the research questions related to culture. Is the culture of academe

8
open to leadership development strategies? What is the connection between leadership,
organizational culture and leadership development?
Ruben, 2004 outlines four tenets which form the basis of a university leadership program.
1. Strong leadership in higher education must become a higher priority. The academy
needs a growing number of effective and committed leaders to ensure its appropriate
role within contemporary society.
2. Exceptional scholars, teachers or skilled practitioners do not automatically become
effective leaders.
3. Effective leadership is not simply a matter of common sense.
4. The knowledge and competencies associated with effective leadership can be taught
and learned with a substantial commitment of energy, time and resources” (p. 298).
In a recent article that examined leadership development through corporate universities,
John Storey, Professor of Management at The Open University Business School in the United
Kingdom wrote:
the transformational and charismatic leadership concepts have enjoyed pre-
eminent position in recent years. This approach has emphasized clarity of vision,
transformative intent, purposefulness and determination, communication and
inspiration. The corporate scandals such as those at Enron and Parmalat are only part
of the current wave of hesitation about this model which is emerging. The underlying
‘theories’ of leadership are once again under challenge. (Storey, 2003, p. 42)
Theories of leadership do tend to come and go based on the example set by those
professed to be leading based one theory or another. In their article Why leadership development
efforts fail, Ready and Conger (2003) point out that one of the reasons efforts fail is because they
are tied to a leadership theory or practice that at the time is in fashion and when it is no longer the
hot trend the development effort redefines itself based on the new theory or “product” which leads
to inconsistency and lack of relevancy for the organization.

9
Needless to say there is a plethora of research, thought and opinion about what makes a
leader a leader, what the role of a leader is and how he or she should behave. Many of the
leadership development programs that have already been established in corporations or the
academy have adopted a set of competencies, behaviors or leadership concepts to be based upon.
Organizational Culture
Adrianna Kezar and Peter D. Eckel in their article The effect of institutional culture on
change strategies in higher education provide an overview of two ways of looking at
organizational culture and how it impacts changes within academe. The authors analyzed six
institutions in the process of implementing change and looking through a cultural lens identified
relationships between institutional culture and change. While this article did not address
leadership development programs specifically, it can be argued that a systemic, comprehensive
leadership development strategy is in itself a change initiative.
Kezar and Eckel provide an overview of theories related to change and organizational
culture. Most notable is their discussion of “(1) Berquist’s institutional archetypes of culture and
(2) Tierneys’ unique institutional culture” (2002, p. 439.) According to Kezar and Eckel Berquist
“hypothesized (yet never empirically tested that different change strategies would be needed and
appropriate within the four different academic culture archetypes that reflect any higher education
institution—collegial culture, managerial culture, developmental culture and negotiating culture”
(2002. p. 439.)
Tierney’s framework was used to enhance their analysis using Berquist archetypes.
Tierney categories include: environment, mission, socialization, information, strategy and
leadership. “Analysis consists of examining each category in depth, asking such questions as,
how is the mission defined and articulated? Is it used as a basis for decisions? What constitutes

10
information and who has it? Or how are decisions arrived at and who makes them? This approach
assumes that the values, beliefs, and assumptions of an institution are reflected in its processes
and artifacts” (Kezar & Eckel, 2002, p 440.)
Kezar and Eckel’s (2002) analysis resulted in the following findings:
• There is a connection between institution culture and change.
• Ignoring institutional culture can impede or bar successful change.
• Berquist’s four cultural archetypes are a helpful lens for understanding the way in
which culture is related to the change process.
• Each campus’ change process could not be explained by the archetypes alone.
• Cultural archetypes and unique institutional cultures may help to determine which
[change] strategies might take prominence in the change process.
• Change strategies seem to be successful if they are culturally coherent or aligned with
the culture. (p 456-457)
Other works that discuss organizational culture include Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
Reframing Organizations. Bolman and Deal contend that there are four organizational frames or
cultures; the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame and the symbolic
frame. Each of these frames are based on assumptions about organizations and people. The
organizations and the individuals within them behave in ways consistent with the unique
assumptions and goals.
Developing leaders and creating organizational change requires that organizations have an
understanding of the culture currently in place and an understanding of the culture they want to
create.

11
Hernez-Broome and Hughes write about successful leadership development needing to be
designed and implemented in the context of work. While they do not specifically address
organizational culture, they do contend that leadership development strategies must take into
account “ongoing work initiatives that are tied to strategic business imperatives (Dotlick &
Noel, 1998; Moxley & O’Conner Wison, 1998 as cited in Hernez-Broome and Hughes, 2004.)
Leadership Development Programs and Organizational Change
In a 2003 study of organizations engaged in change efforts and leadership development
the Best Practice Institute (BPI) found that “a majority of our world’s best organizations describe
leadership development and organization change as ‘the real work of the organization.’” (Carter,
Ulrich & Goldsmith, 2003, p. xv) In their book Leadership development and organizational
change the authors study eighteen different organizations that have used leadership development
and organizational change to achieve their business goals. (Carter, Ulrich & Goldsmith, 2003)
In the BPI study the authors concluded that there were elements shared by all the
organizations studied. These elements included:
• A commitment to organizational objectives;
• The aim of changing behaviors, cultures and perceptions;
• Competency or organization effectiveness models;
• Strong top management leadership support and passion. (Carter, Ulrich &
Goldsmith, 2003)
Carter, Ulrich and Goldsmith organized their case studies using a six-phase system to
achieve leadership development and organization change. These six phases included:
1. Business Diagnosis—business drivers and rational for creating the initiative
are identified.

12
2. Assessment—measurement and characterization of current leaders using any
number and variety of assessments including the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, 360-degree and multi-rater feedback forms, external benchmarks,
etc.
3. Program Design—The program is designed to meet the goals of the
organization in developing leaders and creating cultural change. Many of the
organizations included in the study utilized a number of design elements at
one time including coaching, selection of participants, action learning,
connection to core organizational purpose, etc.
4. Implementation—formal workshops were used to ignite the change and
development process. Components of these workshops included, teaching
new behavioral competencies, using case studies, using storytelling and
creative culture speakers etc.
5. On-the-Job Support—the programs highlighted by BPI, while started in a
formal workshop setting continued with on-the-job support and activities to
ensure that the change and development would transfer to real-work
application.
6. Evaluation—all of the initiatives measured the success of the initiative. Often
the criteria for success were established in phase 1, business diagnosis.
(Carter, Ulrich & Goldsmith, 2003)
It is interesting to note that one university, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
was identified as a ‘best practice’ organization and was included in this study. The good news is
that 10 years ago, a university never would have been included in such a study; the bad news is
that only one university was included today.
Ten years ago Sharon McDade and Phyllis Lewis edited a monograph entitled Developing
administrative excellence: Creating a culture of leadership (1994). In the monograph the authors
identified the benefits of a leadership culture within academe. Some of the benefits they
identified included; (1) a focus on institutional problem-solving through broaden understanding of
the institution through development opportunities; (2) recognition is based on demonstrated
potential rather than status or position. There is a stronger sense of inclusion; (3) talent
management within the organization is made easier, potential talent is identified and more easily

13
deployed within the organization; (4) increased opportunities for diverse populations to gain
access and exposure to high levels of leadership. (McDade & Lewis, 1994) These benefits can be
used as criteria for success or business drivers in the lexicon of Carter, Ulrich and Goldsmith.
McDade and Lewis’s monograph included descriptions of a variety of approaches used by
colleges and universities to develop leaders. These approaches included; sending leaders outside
the institution for training and development, developing internal leadership development
programs; and leveraging existing “comprehensive employee development programs” (McDade
& Lewis, 1994, p. 9.)
There is much more literature about leadership development and organizational change,
many of them are case studies that provide specific instructions or steps to developing an effective
program. John Storey (2003) compared four different corporate university cases based on six
different dynamics including: strategic drivers, form and approach, location in company space
(actual place and reporting relationship), issues to which leadership is the solution, scope and
focus of leadership programs, and methods used.
Ready and Conger (2003) presented their findings of a case study of IBM in the form of
pathologies present in organizations that can be barriers to effective leadership development and
ways to avoid being trapped by these pathologies. The authors advise the following:
1. Share ownership and demand accountability. “One key to our success over the past
decade has been that we established leadership development as a top corporate
priority. Every manager and every executive at IBM is accountable for identifying
and developing leaders.” (Ready & Conger, 2003 p. 87)
2. Invest in processes, not products. “Companies that excel at building leaders don’t rush
to buy quick-fix products, they know that panaceas are a myth, and they invest in
process excellence rather than a multitude of programs.” (Ready & Conger, 2003 p.
87)
3. Measure what matters. “Rather than dwelling on ‘activity analysis,’ . . . companies
should link leadership-development investments to building the capabilities that will
produce superior business results. (Ready & Conger, 2003 p. 88)

14
The federal government has also recognized a need for leadership development to meet
the challenges they are facing. In their article Leadership in the public sector: Models and
assumptions for leadership development in the federal government, Ingraham and Getha-Taylor
(2004) outline the lessons they learned from their case study research of federal leadership
development programs. These lessons include: (1) personal initiative and top-level support are
necessary; (2) on-going monitoring and continued mentoring are important; (3) there should be a
mix of developmental activities; (4) teaching leadership skills includes teaching life skills; (5)
leadership development includes individual long-term career planning and organizational
succession planning; (6) growing leaders should be the rule, buying (hiring from outside the
organization) is the exception; (7) leadership development requires attention to core
competencies; (8) leadership development is needed at all levels; (9) leadership is not “one size
fits all and the program should be designed and developed in alignment with the organization’s
culture and goals.
Summary
The literature available regarding leadership, organizational culture and change and
leadership development programs is rich and dense. However, the majority of the literature
focuses on private sector organizations. There are very few case studies available on leadership
development and organizational change in higher education.

15
From this initial literature review we have learned that there are a number of ways to
define and describe leadership and these leadership concepts fall in and out of favor from time to
time. There are authors who believe that a collaborative leadership style is what is needed within
higher education.
We have also learned that leadership development is often tied to organizational culture.
Organizational culture is a complex idea that has been unpacked by a few authors who have
identified frames, types or lenses through which we can describe organizational culture. Other
authors in discussing leadership and culture change have contended that the culture of academe is
very unique.
Finally we have learned that there are common elements found to be important to the
success of a leadership development/ organizational change initiative. Many of the authors
outlined specific lessons learned, factors for success and/or steps to an effective leadership
development program.
Leadership development and organizational change are relatively new areas of study.
Much of the literature is no more than 20 years old and so there is still much to learn about how
leaders are effectively developed and the impact on organizational culture leaders can and do
have. The literature regarding leadership development in higher education is much more sparse
than the literature available regarding corporate programs. Many of the concerns about leadership
development raised within higher education thus far has to do with the “forcing” of a corporate
model into the distinctive environment. While there have been many calls for the serious
consideration of doing more intentional leadership development and culture change initiatives
within higher education, very few comprehensive programs have been implemented on college
and university campuses. The reasons are more than likely many, however, one reason may be

16
that there are very few models from which to learn as there are for private sector organizations.
Therefore more study about organizational change through leadership development in higher
education is necessary to understand the specific needs and challenges facing academe and how to
develop leaders and create organizations that can meet those challenges. It makes sense to use the
efforts at the University of Washington as a case study to add to the small but growing body of
knowledge about these issues in higher education.
Methods
Strategy
The case study method has been used within many disciplines for many years “to examine
contemporary real-life situations and provide a basis for the application of ideas and extension of
methods.” (Soy, 1997, p. 1) The case study method will be used in this study for a number of
reasons including; the complexity of the research question and the UW and the fact that through
the review of literature it has been established that the context of leadership
development/organization change efforts is critical to understanding success and failure.
Individuals who work within higher education can be suspicious of models and ideas that
work in other arenas but are conceived in academe. It can be said that this is true of leadership
development/organizational change. (Ruben, 2004; Davis, 2003; Diamond, 2002; Ramsden,
1998) Therefore, when an opportunity is available to study and learn from an effort conceived
within a university appears, it should be taken. That is why I have chosen to take the opportunity
presented by the Leadership, Community and Values Initiative at the University of Washington to
add to our knowledge of the development and implementation of leadership development/
organization change efforts within higher education.

17
The University of Washington (UW) is categorized as a research intensive university by
the Carnegie classification structure. It is located in Seattle, Washington and has an enrollment of
approximately 36,000 students. The UW employs approximately 35,000 permanent faculty and
staff. These employees work on the Seattle campus, two medical centers, campuses in the nearby
cities of Bothell and Tacoma, at research sites throughout the world. It is a large, decentralized
university serving a multitude of missions. The UW is not unlike the general description given
universities in Returning to our roots: toward a coherent campus culture. (2000).
Institutions of higher education were once understood to be places where
all knowledge came together and was unified (i.e., the uni-versity). In today’s
multi-versity, knowledge is understood to be something that fragments even as it
expands, resolving itself into ever-newer, kaleidoscopic patterns.
The uni-versity has become an institutionally fragmented aggregation of
departments. The primary loyalties of scholars are increasingly directed away
from their immediate colleagues, students, and institutions toward national and
international societies and associations of their disciplinary peers. (Returning to
our roots: toward a coherent campus culture, 2000, p. 9-10)
The authors of this open letter point out that universities are made up today of a variety of
cultures including academic, student, administrative, and athletic. The variety of cultures within a
single community add to the complexity of initiating and successfully implementing a leadership
development/organizational change effort. (Returning to our roots: toward a coherent campus
culture, 2000) My experience at the UW would lead me to add additional subcultures to those
listed above. Because of the complexity of the UW, the research questions and of the subject a
case study seems logical as a first step in studying the LCVI effort.
This case study will take the LCVI effort as a real-life situation, and through observation,
interviews, and analysis aim to offer direction for other institutions and scholars interested in this
type of change initiative at universities.

18
References
_____(2000).Returning to our roots: toward a coherent campus culture. Fifth report. An open
letter to the presidents and chancellors of state universities and land-grant colleges.
(Opinion Paper) Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.
Alldredge, M., Johnson, C., Stoltzfus, J., & Vicere, A. (2003). Leadership development at 3M:
New process, new techniques, new growth. HR. Human Resource Planning, 26(3), 45.
Astin, H. S., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: engaging higher education in social
change. Battlecreek, MI: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Brown, L. M. (2001). Leading leadership development in universities: A personal story. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 312.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Basic Books.
Carter, L., Ulrich, D., & Goldsmith, M. (2005). Best practices in leadership development and
organization change: how the best companies ensure meaningful change and sustainable
leadership. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Davis, J. (2003). Learning to lead: a handbook for postsecondary administrators. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Diamond, R. (Ed.). (2002). Field guide to academic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). En route to transformation. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Eckel, P., Hill, B., Green, M., & Mallon, B (Ed.). (1999). Reports from the road: insights on
institutional change. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Goski, J. (2002). A model of leadership development. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 517.
Green, M. E. (2002). Ensuring the organization's future: A leadership development case study.
Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 431.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership Development: Past, Present, and Future.
HR. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24.
Hornyak, M., J., & Page, D. (2004). Experiential learning: Introducing faculty and staff to a
university leadership development program. Simulation & Gaming, 35(4), 461.
Ingraham, P. W., & Getha-Taylor, H. (2004). Leadership in the Public Sector: Models and
Assumptions for Leadership Development in the Federal Government. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 24(2), 95.

19
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4).
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge: how to keep getting extraordinary
things done in organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective leadership: managing in a changing world. New York:
Oxford Press.
McDade, S., & Lewis, P. (1994). Developing administrative excellence: Creating a culture of
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McDaniel, E. A. (2002). Senior leadership in higher education: An outcomes approach. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 80.
Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to lead in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why leadership-development efforts fail. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 44(3), 83.
Rhodes, F. H. (2001). The creation of the future: the role of the American university. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Rost, J. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ruben, B. (2004). Pursuing excellence in higher education: eight fundamental challenges. San
Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
Soy, S. (1997). The case study as a research method. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from
http://fiat.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/139d1b.htm
Storey, J. (2004). Leadership development through corporate universities. Training &
Management Development Methods, 18(4), 441.
Witherspoon, P. (1997). Communicating leadership: an organizational perspective. Needham
Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

A Case Study Of Leadership Development And Organizational Change

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Case Study Of Leadership Development And Organizational Change

Similar to A Case Study Of Leadership Development And Organizational Change (20)

More from Jessica Henderson

More from Jessica Henderson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Case Study Of Leadership Development And Organizational Change