Know, see, plan, do: a model for curriculum design in leadership development.

Although much has been accomplished in the realm of leadership development in the last 25 years (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Strum, and Mckee, 2014), it seems that graduate degrees, majors, minors, and certificates are growing faster than our ability to understand how best to design curriculums that will have an impact (Khurana, 2007) and bridge the theory/practice gap (Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009). Likewise, as the topic of leadership development struggles to gain legitimacy in the realm of management and the larger context of business, it is imperative that we provide both conceptual and empirical work to begin the process of validating our curriculum (Rynes and Brown, 2011).

Several authors have discussed the challenges inherent in designing leadership and management development programs of study (Bradford, 1983; Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009; Miles, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004). One critical problem in the delivery of leadership education at the undergraduate and graduate levels is the paucity of both theoretical and empirical research on the design of effective curriculum (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey, 2011). Another challenge is that skills are not transmitted from student to manager or leader, which is a compelling problem if we are to develop leaders who can succeed in the real world (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Benjamin and O'Reilly, 2011; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). Third, there is no well-developed and empirically supported theory of leadership development (Hannah and Avolio, 2010; Khurana, 2007; Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Riggio, 2008). Compounding this issue, Klimoski and Amos (2012) state clearly that most university faculty do not use the existing research. In other words, they do not practice evidence-based teaching. We believe this may be due in part to a lack of understanding of how to implement existing research.

From a curriculum design perspective, there are clear starting points to guide our thinking. The cognitive science and related literatures propose that leadership development curriculum should be designed to develop declarative (knowing about), procedural (knowing how), and conditional knowledge (knowing why and when) in the learner (Benjamin and O'Reilly, 2011; Schraw, 1998). Conditional knowledge has also been described as applied knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011). These distinctions are important because to design a curriculum that captures the full range of learning, all three types of knowledge must be part of the process. For instance, an effective leader is an expert in a skill such as problem solving, only because that leader has the conceptual knowledge (declarative and procedural) and the applied knowledge (conditional). In addition, a curriculum of leadership development should be multi-dimensional and clearly identify learning goals such as: foundational knowledge/ cognitive (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Clark and Gibb, 2006; Fink, 2003; Hogan and Warren-feltz, 2003), skill-building/behavioral (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Cameron and Whetten, 1983; Conger, 2013; Hunt and Sorenson, 2001), and personal growth/affective to explore topics such as personal values, motivations, and passions (Brownell and Jameson, 2004; Clark and Gibb, 2006; Conger, 2013; McKnight, 1991). Likewise, based on the identified learning goals, program designers may identify core skills and competencies for development (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Strum, and Mckee, 2014; Benjamin and O'Reilly, 2011; Lord and Hall, 2005; Yukl, 2012) and choose appropriate sources of learning or instructional strategies that best meet the development objectives (Allen and Hartman, 2008, 2009; Fink, 2003).

Although identifying specific learning goals (e.g., skill building, personal growth, conceptual understanding), topics for development (e.g., decision-making, transformational leadership theory, negotiation), and specific instructional strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, service learning, case-in-point) are outside the scope of this paper, we would assert that these components are easily inserted into the proposed model of curriculum design for leadership development according to the goals and preferences of the program designer. With an expressed objective of filling the gaps in the literature and capitalizing on what we already know, the purpose of this paper is to introduce a model of curriculum design for leadership development in the academic realm that is both theoretically grounded and actionable (Pearce and Huang, 2012; Vaill, 2007). While we believe the model could be applied to other fields, such as, management development and contexts, such as, corporate and nongovernmental organizations, we have chosen to begin our work on leadership development in the context of higher education.

Specifically, the proposed Know, See, Plan, Do (KSPD) model suggests that leadership development is rooted in knowledge that occurs as learners: 1) acquire facts and theories (primarily declarative knowledge), 2) assimilate new information with existing knowledge in context or practice (primarily procedural knowledge), 3) integrate existing knowledge to plan a course of action (primarily procedural knowledge), and 4) apply knowledge (primarily conditional knowledge) to carry out a course of action. As previously suggested, we are not promoting a single theory, instructional strategy, or ultimate objective for development.

Based on our objective, we next provide an overview of the literature and first define leadership development, briefly identify existing models, and introduce the proposed model along with its theoretical foundations. We continue with a discussion of curriculum design and provide a brief review of the expertise literature, which is the basis for the proposed model. The expertise literature is rooted in the cognitive sciences literature, and, therefore, readers will see concepts from both. We continue with an in-depth description of the KSPD model and provide examples that fit into it. The examples should help the reader understand a few ways the model can be applied to developing a curriculum for leadership development in an academic environment. We conclude with a description of some initial results and recommendations for successfully implementing the model.

Literature Review

A model of curriculum design for leadership development should address three primary challenges discussed in the literature. First is an explicit need to define an end state or clearly articulated objective. In this case, the topic is leadership development which, in and of itself, is challenging to define. Second is a need to distinguish delivery from curriculum design with objectives to "develop" leadership (Klimoski and Amos, 2012; Raelin, 2007). As a result, there is a need to incorporate multiple models of learning to facilitate the development of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Third, if stage-specific mastery (e.g., white belt leads to green belt) is an objective, curriculum designers will need to demonstrate that learning has occurred.

Defining leadership development

Although several authors (Avolio, 2005; Brungardt, 1997; Day, 2001; Fleishman in London, 2002; McCauley and Van Velsor, 2005; O' Neil and Fisher, 2004) have tried to define leadership development, there is no consistent, uniform definition. However, close examination yields major themes across the various definitions. First, leadership development is multi-level (Avolio, 2005; Day, 2001) and a long-term process (Avolio, 2005; Conger, 1992; Day, 2011). Leadership development ideally builds individual, group, and organizational capacity (Avolio, 2005; Drath, 2001) to achieve goals. Second, leadership development should promote growth and development in areas such as knowledge, personal/group understanding, and building skills (Conger, 1992; Day, 2001; Lord and Hall, 2005). In alignment with these themes, we have chosen to use a variation of Allen and Robert's (2011) definition, and suggest that:

   Leadership development is a multi-level

   process that facilitates the continual and

   long-term growth of the knowledge and skills

   needed to achieve individual, group, or organizational

   objectives.

Along with definitional challenges, existing models of leadership and management development vary in focus and scope. For instance, some models serve as a planning framework (Cacioppe, 1998; Giber, Carter, and Goldsmith, 2000; Vicere and Fulmer, 1998), while others focus on learning interventions such as training, experience, and education (Hunt, 1991; Yukl, 2010), or a general structure for developmental activities such as the Center for Creative Leadership's assess, challenge and support (McCauley and Van Velsor, 2005). Likewise, some (management) models focus specifically on skill building (Cameron and Whetten, 1983; Hunt and Sorenson, 2001), and others bring a life-span oriented approach (Avolio, 2005; Murphy and Johnson, 2010). Some include individual difference constructs with organizational climate (London and Maurer, 2004; McCauley, 2001), while others focus on individual difference measures such as motivation to lead (Chan and Drasgow, 2001) or developmental readiness (Avolio and Hannah, 2008).

While each of the models challenges and advances our understanding of leadership development, an analysis identifies a void. Based on our review, we were unable to locate models that provide guidance for designing a comprehensive leadership curriculum for graduate or undergraduate education into which critical knowledge, skills, and other characteristics are incorporated. A model is needed that is flexible enough to be applied to a single class or an entire curriculum for leadership development. In addition, there is a need for a model that encourages "transfer" to real world contexts. Even when a single class or series of classes contain robust content or several interesting activities, there is no assurance that students will transfer that knowledge into effective leadership behaviors or job performance (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Klimoski and Amos, 2012).

The importance of curriculum design

There is an important distinction between a focus on teaching leadership development and one on curriculum design. Leadership development alone tends to investigate issues of topic content and instructional strategies (e.g., case study, lecture, role play). Curriculum design emphasizes what is planned, what is actually delivered, and the students' holistic experience (Fink, 2003; Whetten, 2007). The curriculum is reinforced by a set of values and beliefs about what students should know and how they will come to know it. Several authors have suggested the need for additional research and focus on curriculum design (e.g., Fink, 2003; McEvoy et al., 2005).

Similar to Klimoski and Amos (2012), Raelin (2007) discusses the issue where teaching becomes separated from learning. Teaching is seen as the process of transferring information from instructor to student, and learning happens when information is received, stored, and then reiterated. The result of this approach is that knowledge is fixed and not fluid (Styhre, 2003), and there may be no practice or application built into the learning process. Raelin (2007) clarifies the need for instructors to better understand what students need to know about the discipline and only then create a curriculum including cases, simulations, experiential activities, and field projects students can apply their knowledge.

Another way to approach the teaching vs. curriculum design issue is to focus on applied or conditional knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011; Schwandt, 2005). McEvoy et al. (2005) focus their research on the academic discipline of human resources (HR), but the application to leadership development is clear. They criticize existing HR programs for focusing too heavily on content knowledge, which we view as declarative knowledge, and in response they propose a model for graduate education in human resources with four stages: acquiring, applying, mastering, and influencing (credited to Dalton and Thompson, 1986). McEvoy et al. suggest that each state of competency coincides with an additional step of professional development, and explain that undergraduates only get to the first level of "acquiring" while graduate students would only learn up to the "applying" stage. According to their model, the "mastering" and "influencing" stages can only be learned on the job. We disagree with this delineation because we feel that students at the undergraduate level typically are only offered content at the level of acquiring, but we believe that they are capable of more. Many academic programs are designed only to provide a lecture-based, content-focused dissemination of declarative information (Fink, 2003) and do not account for the need to develop procedural knowledge or informal, tacit knowledge. However, we agree it is unlikely that any single class can clearly encompass all stages of McEvoy et al.'s model.

Our proposed model draws from relevant aspects of multiple theories that possess some commonalities. Notably, we rely on the expertise literature drawn from cognitive science theory. However, the reader will recognize concepts from other learning theories (e.g., behaviorism, humanism, and constructivism) as well. The benefits of practice, for example, are emphasized in the expertise literature and also in social learning theory and other behavioral theories. We found that expertise literature best captures the critical elements of an effective curriculum design model in the context of leadership development.

The development of expertise

The expertise literature offers a strong foundation for curriculum building for three specific reasons. First, it addresses how individuals can navigate ill-structured/ill-defined problems (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007; Voss and Post, 1988). Current models of leader development rarely focus on the actual activity most leaders will engage in, which is a process of leading groups through prolonged periods of uncertainty (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002; Lord and Maher, 1991; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009). A curriculum with a focus on expertise will result in leaders who will be trained in a way that prepares them to effectively navigate a series of adaptive (ill-defined) challenges (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman, 2000) rather than a prescribed set of skills needed for a confined system (e.g., chess). Returning to a theme from the previous section, expertise is established as individuals acquire declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Sternberg, 1995). Voss and Post (1988) discuss the issue of ill-structured problems and suggest the need to have the appropriate conceptual knowledge (declarative and procedural knowledge) for the components of a problem as well as having the ability to utilize those components to effectively solve the problem (conditional knowledge).

A second reason that leadership development can benefit from the expertise literature is the focus on deliberate practice. An Achilles' heel of leadership development is the lack of a venue for deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer, 1993). Some equate experience as a predictor of expertise, but this does not align with empirical findings from the expertise literature. Ericsson (2006) suggests that experience alone does not predict expertise; deliberate practice is required. According to Ericsson et al. (1993), deliberate practice requires an individual to work at the edge of their current abilities for upwards of five hours a day for a prolonged period. While it is unrealistic to think that any academic curriculum will allow for this level of practice (outside of a military context), Ericsson's work does encourage including practice in a leadership development curriculum (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007). Practice ultimately leads to greater conditional or applied management knowledge (Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk, 2011).

Finally, the expertise literature explains how experts differ from novices. Based on existing research, we focus on four primary attributes that separate them. First, experts have a greater conceptual understanding or knowledge in the domain of their expertise (declarative and procedural knowledge) than do novices (Lord and Hall, 2005; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009; Sternberg, 1995). Second, experts can quickly and accurately diagnose what is happening in their environment (Ericsson, Whyte, and Ward, 2007). Third, experts understand a problem at a deeper level than a novice and have the ability to identify options quickly and select the best one given the context (Ericsson, 2006; Glaser and Chi, 1988). Fourth, experts execute at superior levels and consistently outperform others (Ericsson and Smith, 1991). The application of critical knowledge is akin to possessing conditional knowledge. These attributes are fundamental in the proposed model for curriculum design in leadership development.

To summarize, a model of curriculum design for leadership development that clearly defines an end state and builds declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge is needed. To accomplish this, multiple approaches to learning will need to be integrated, and program designers will need to approach learning in a way that will help the learner move along the path from novice to expert (Lord and Hall, 2005). In addition, the curriculum design model needs to be flexible so that program designers can build in their specific learning objectives, content, and instructional strategies--depending on the context. Finally, the model needs to lend itself to evaluation that moves beyond simple "reaction criteria" or self-report surveys to a more empirically robust validation (Day and Sin, 2011; Riggio, 2008).

The model

As a brief introduction, the KSPD model of leadership development is intended to provide guidance for creating a curriculum for leadership development in an academic environment (see Figure 1). The model rests on a clear definition or "end state" and incorporates Raelin's (2007) building blocks of critical reflection for the purpose of moving a student from novice toward expert (note: we understand this is unlikely). The model requires program designers to incorporate multiple approaches to learning (e.g., cognitive, experiential, behaviorism), and aligns closely with our description of how experts are different from novices.

The model assumes that having declarative knowledge of terms, concepts, facts, and theories is a basic requirement for leadership development. Consequently, the arrow from KNOW to SEE suggests that acquiring knowledge would ideally be followed by instruction on identifying and recognizing the concepts in other leaders or the environment. The arrow from SEE to PLAN indicates that once competence in seeing is gained, the participants would be instructed on how to develop a plan of action based on what they see. Therefore, the arrow from PLAN to DO suggests the final set of instruction will focus on how to create and intervene skillfully on a course of action. The final loop back up to KNOW indicates the repetitive and reflective nature of learning. The authors recognize that in the real world intervening steps are sometimes skipped, and individuals may practice leadership without going through the process we have outlined (which is quite common). The straight, two-headed arrows in the model indicate those relationships. However, the focus will be on the continuous, single-headed arrows that suggest an ideal model for designing a curriculum to move an individual along the path from novice to expert.

We have identified a framework to help operationalize the definition of leadership development provided in the literature review. This framework can be used to guide instructors through the curriculum design process. The following section explains each component of the model more fully. Note, our examples are purely for illustration purposes and each institution would choose individual learning goals (cognitive, behavioral, affective), topics (e.g., adaptive leadership, problem solving, emotional intelligence), and instructional strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, service learning, reflection) that fit its own programmatic mission. In other words, individuals at the local level will need to determine the who, what, why, how, and when of their specific program (Hrivnak, Reichard, and Riggio, 2009).

Know

Learning depends on an individual's ability to acquire knowledge, retain it, and form mental models to organize it for easy access and use. Declarative knowledge (information facts and knowledge of specific episodes) must be acquired before higher-order learning (Kraiger, Ford, and Salas, 1993). To further explore the role of knowledge in learning, we turn to the expertise literature. Glaser and Chi (1988) suggest that experts have better short- and long-term memory than novices. In fact, the "automaticity" of certain functions frees up space for additional knowledge. Likewise, experts rarely achieve a similar status in multiple domains. In other words, knowledge and expertise do not seem to transfer across domains (e.g., medical expertise does not equal chess expertise). However, in the domain of the individual's expertise, knowledge far exceeds that of the novice (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000; Sternberg, 1995; Sternberg and Horvath, 1995). Furthermore, the expert organizes knowledge in a superior manner that leads to speed (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009). Once learners begin to master the knowledge through practice, they start focusing on procedural and conditional knowledge. Through this process, learners begin developing more useful mental models for organizing the knowledge they have acquired.

Based on the critical role of knowledge early on in the learning process, we propose that at the beginning of an academic leadership development program the curriculum should focus on providing a core body of knowledge related to leadership (Bloom, 1956; Marzano and Kendall, 2007; Sternberg, 2003). Learners should read and be informed of basic theories, influence strategies, and other leadership concepts through sources that optimize knowledge acquisition, retention, and utilization (e.g., lectures, readings, discussions). Students should obtain a sound academic knowledge base (conceptually) for content deemed critical by the instructor, such as historical and contemporary leadership theory. This solid foundation is critical because this new information then forms the foundation for the next component of the model.

Within the context of a class, series of courses, minor, or major, this component begins with a focus on knowledge acquisition or the first component of the model: KNOW. This is introductory content focused primarily on declarative knowledge. For instance, students may spend time exploring a list of terms and concepts such as power, ethics, problem solving, trait theory, behavior theory, contingency theory, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, women as leaders, teams, leadership styles, and emotional intelligence. Students learn through classroom lectures, video, discussions, experiential exercises, and reflection. There may be traditional writing assignments and exams to assess mastery of the material. In essence, students learn the language of leadership, knowing 75-100 core terms should be sufficient to explore the topic at an introductory level. Of course, as students' progress, new terminology and concepts should be added. Testing of this component takes on a traditional approach and will likely lend itself to traditional methods for ensuring declarative knowledge (e.g., multiple choice, fill in the blank exams). One nontraditional method to testing of this component would be to ask students to list all terms and their definitions on a blank word document. This not only requires practice but is also more likely to encourage mastery of the concepts, which is necessary for the other three components (SEE, PLAN, DO).

See

The second component of the model is SEE, which means that the learner will be taught to integrate new information into existing mental structures. The learner will begin to see connections and make meaning out of new information in the environment. As individuals switch their focus from declarative to procedural knowledge they begin to think about problems and issues. They begin to notice themes and patterns that repeat across various situations. Another way to conceptualize SEE is from the sensemaking literature. Sensemaking involves the use of prior knowledge to interpret the meaning of new knowledge. It is a continuous process, through which individuals look for environmental cues, attach meaning to the cues, and move to action (Thomas, Clark, and Gioia, 1993). However, for sensemaking to occur, individuals must have a mental model in place to make meaning out of the new information (Schwandt, 2005). The meaning is only as good as the mental models in place. Further, meaning depends upon the values and beliefs that individuals hold in their mental frameworks (Schwandt, 2005).

In curriculum design, learners must have an opportunity to move along the spectrum from novice to expert. Experts see large and meaningful patterns which novices simply cannot see (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000; Glaser and Chi, 1988; Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009). For instance, chess players may see a constellation of pieces on the board while the novice does not. Nutt (1999) calls this "diagnosis," which is marked by "signals" that there is a problem to be attended to. This ability to look at a problem from a deeper level also distinguishes experts from novices. In other words, while both experts and novices have conceptual categories, the experts' categories are based on meaning and principles while the categories of the novices are more basic (Glaser and Chi, 1988).

In the classroom, students could begin this process after a core set of terminology has been covered. What differentiates SEE from KNOW is that students begin to actively practice the concepts. This can be a difficult transition, so it is important to set up opportunities for practice and reflection in this component. For instance, students could be led through structured discussions where, individually and as a group, they identify the terms and concepts previously learned via film and television clips. Videos could be used to explore specific concepts and provide students with an opportunity to diagnose what is happening in the clip. For example, while discussing charismatic leadership, the various components could be posted on the board while the students are shown videos (e.g., John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address or Barack Obama's 2008 victory speech). The students' responsibility is to watch each video and identify each of the components (e.g., vision) as they see it. In addition, students might be asked to take a set of terms (e.g., types of power) and record each time they observe one of the types of power being demonstrated over a week.

Another way to encourage practice of this component may be through daily observations written on Blackboard or other blogging platform. For instance, students may spend three-quarters of the semester writing daily observations that highlight where they witnessed at least 10 of the concepts in their student organizations, internships, or class. Because these activities are repeated several times with each new concept, students are well prepared to identify and analyze leadership concepts outside of the classroom. Not only does this facilitate daily practice and transfer, it helps the students see how the concepts surround their daily interactions.

One final way we work to help students see the concepts in themselves is through work with a coach. Students could meet with a professional or peer coach at least twice to review assessment results, discuss goals, and make connections. In addition, they could study a recent performance review, interview friends and family, and in the end, identify themes that have emerged--strengths and areas for development. Based on their work with the coach, students could choose one thing to work on in the context of class. Example include practicing optimism, working through introversion, or feeling more comfortable influencing the large group.

Testing of this component may require students to recognize the concepts and terms as they happen. For example, the instructor could show a full-length film (e.g., "Glory," "Cry Freedom," "The Queen") and require students to write a narrative (similar to the daily observations activity) that uses a certain number of terms as they occur. Again, successfully completing this exercise requires practice by the students and requires them to know the content at a deeper level. A variation of this activity may include a series of clips and multiple choice questions using a learning management system such as Blackboard.

In summary, one critical part of the proposed model is teaching students to see and identify key concepts. Using the model, this activity takes place in multiple ways and over time so that students are continually improving their ability to observe the concepts and ultimately diagnose what is happening in their environment.

Plan

As leaders move from novice to expert, research suggests that they will spend more time analyzing a problem before beginning to solve the task (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Glaser and Chi, 1988; Simon, 1973; Sternberg and Horvath, 1995). Expert leaders not only bring forth better decision-making processes than novices, but also yield better results on a consistent basis (Johnson, 1988).

Experts think more critically and identify constraints in the problem solving and planning process. The planning process is crucial when confronting problems that require group maintenance and task accomplishment (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman, 2000). Because a leader will likely be challenged by a series of unique and ill-defined problems (Voss and Post, 1988), he or she will face a series of adaptive challenges that may be difficult to diagnose and define (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002). In fact, as Heifetz and Linsky suggest, the leader may face a series of technical and adaptive challenges bundled together. Mumford et al. (2000) suggest a relationship between a leader's ability to identify goals, develop strategies, and direct others, and a leader's overall performance. This reality requires a leader to display higher-level problem-solving skills, including the ability to define or structure the problem, generate alternative solutions, and choose the best course of action. These skills need to be designed into a curriculum.

In practice, we know that organizational decision-making is a challenge (Nutt, 1999), and providing students with an opportunity to practice this process is a hallmark of the PLAN component. In this component, students will develop techniques to use their knowledge and understanding of a situation to plan a skillful intervention (Meissen, 2010). By completing this step in the model, students can intentionally choose a course of action for intervention. Curriculum design should include helping learners plan scenarios which is described as "specifying" by Marzano and Kendall (2007). The KSPD model involves teaching participants to use their diagnosis skills from SEE to PLAN strategies, forecast outcomes of various plans of action, and critically evaluate the options available for action.

In the classroom, experiential learning activities are crucial to this component. For instance, problem-based learning (Peterson, 2004) and case-in-point teaching (Daloz-Parks, 2005) give students an opportunity to begin using the concepts that have been learned. A real problem will require students to use and practice problem-solving models, address conflict, inspire others, and so forth. Instructors take on a role of coach in this component and become less of a focal point in the classroom.

As previously discussed, experts tend to spend considerable time understanding a problem and planning an intervention. In the PLAN phase of the class, the instructor could introduce "consulting conversations," where students examine a leadership challenge or failure they have experienced. Based on the work of Elmore, Heifetz, Sinder, Jones, Hodge, and Rowley (1989), these conversations offer students the opportunity to share their case and gain feedback based on course content. In this highly structured conversation, classmates serve as consultants and explore options the individual may have missed, mistakes made, resources left untapped, and so forth. This deep reflection gives students a chance to analyze how their plan for action may not have been the best approach. The solutions must be supported by leadership concepts, constructs, and research.

Another engaging activity is to have students watch a short video clip, for example a clip from the 1982 movie "Gandhi," then break them into small groups and have them develop possible strategies to solve the problem. Student groups share the strategies and discuss strengths and weaknesses among their proposed solutions. In addition to case studies, students participate in an outdoor day that challenges them to navigate a series of challenges. As with the case studies, they must use course content to guide their work, which is discussed in activity debriefs (Raelin, 2007). These activities involve students relying on the leadership theories, terms, and concepts they have already acquired (KNOW), identifying the problem (SEE), and then planning an intervention or resolution (PLAN).

Testing of this component may be facilitated in a number of ways. For instance, the instructor could plan an activity where students are required to analyze an actual CEO case (Rashford and de Figueiredo, 2011) and then recommend actions based on course content. In essence, students are required to diagnose (SEE) what is happening and then prescribe (PLAN) a course of action. In addition, more traditional case studies could be introduced and individuals could devise interventions based on course content. This could be accomplished via video clips or film as well. Finally, students could be presented with a problem the class is currently facing (e.g., avoiding conflict) and challenged to develop a plan individually to address the dynamics.

Do

The fourth component of KSPD is DO, which requires learners to apply and examine knowledge from different perspectives (Marzano and Kendall, 2007) and then engage in appropriate action. Likewise, it may require an individual to use motor skills (Gagne, 1977) and move through stages of skill acquisition (Anderson, 1982). Just because a leader conceptually understands the need for a certain style of leadership (KNOW), does not mean that he or she can employ this approach with skill and achieve at consistently high levels (Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely, 2007). Declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge become operational through deliberate practice (Day, Harrison, and Halpin, 2009; Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer, 1993). Experts often have engaged in deliberate practice over many years (Bloom, 1985; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, and Antes, 2009), and long-term and sustained attention is given to clearly defined objectives. In addition, there is a focus on what the student currently cannot do and there is a focus on repetition, feedback, and incremental improvement (Ericsson et al., 1993)--with an explicit goal of improving performance versus practicing for fun. Similar to the PLAN component, DO values the use of experiential learning theory (e.g., Kolb, 1984), which proposes that knowledge can be gained through repetitive experience. Specifically, according to experiential learning theory, individuals acquire knowledge through a repetitive cycle of four phases: experience, reflect, think, and act (Kolb, 1984). Our purpose in this paper is not to focus on the types of experiential learning, such as problem-based, student-centered, service, or case-in-point (Conklin, 2013), because these instructional strategies will flow from learning goals and course content. However, a curriculum for leadership development would need to create intentional activities that allow students to move through all four components of the KSPD model and culminate with an opportunity to implement an actual plan.

To facilitate the DO component in the classroom, instructors could introduce a larger project that requires a great deal of planning (e.g., break a Guinness World Record, provide recommendations for a local nonprofit, plan an event). While some aspects of DO have occurred throughout the course, this component focuses on deliberate practice of course content. By doing this, the instructor has created a context where planning (and other concepts) can be observed and coached; in essence, the instructor helps students reflect on their work at an individual and group level. In addition, daily observations may focus more on what is happening in the room or in the group to help students make sense of what is taking place. Similar to the PLAN component, the instructor serves as coach and helps students capture the learning in the classroom. Likewise, instructors could host an outdoor day, where students focus heavily on practicing the concepts and navigating the various teambuilding activities. In this active coaching format, students are challenged to use the problem-solving model they have been taught, regulate emotions in difficult situations, actively influence the group to move on their ideas, and practice other course content.

Testing of the DO component may be facilitated with the use of rubrics, successful completion of group activities (e.g., peer feedback), and presentations that challenge students to reflect on their contributions to the success or demise of the project. Another approach could be to use an activity and successful completion as an exam (Paglis, 2013). Grades could be based on successful completion of items on a rubric (e.g., problem-solving model) or successful completion of the activity in a certain amount of time.

Preliminary Empirical Support of the KNOW, SEE, PLAN Components

To determine whether or not the proposed KSPD model of curriculum development resulted in learning at each designated level, a preliminary analysis was begun. An online survey was developed to assess student knowledge and skills in the first three areas. For the section called KNOW, a series of fact-based multiple-choice questions were used to determine if students could correctly identify specific terms, theories, and introductory level information. To measure SEE, students watched a video clip from a Harry Potter motion picture and were asked specific questions regarding leadership behavior they should have been able to see in the clip. PLAN was assessed using multiple-choice questions that asked students to identify what specific leadership theories would posit for next steps. The survey required about 25 minutes.

Three groups of students completed the survey during the second week of classes: freshmen who were not in leadership classes, students in a first leadership course, and students in their fourth leadership course. Because there were no differences in responses between students in the nonleadership course group and those in the first leadership course (second week), their responses were combined into a single group. For each section of the survey there was a significant difference in the number of correct responses between students with no leadership course work and those who had taken several courses. For the KNOW section of the questionnaire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups ([F.sub.1,122] = 18.73, p < .001); for the SEE section of the questionnaire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups ([F.sub.1,125] = 10.47, p = .002); and for the PLAN section of the questionnaire, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups ([F.sub.1,32] = 8.04, p = .005). In each of the three components of the model, students taking the leadership classes are performing significantly better than those who have not taken the classes.

Significant positive correlations indicate a strong relationship between the number of leadership classes taken and scores on the survey, in each of the three areas (KNOW, [r.sub.124] = .35, p <.001; SEE, [r.sub.127] = .295, p = .001; PLAN, [r.sub.134] = .249, p = .004). These data suggest that students with no or few leadership courses are performing less well on the assessment than students who have taken more leadership classes.

Overall, while the data are still in the early stages, there is strong support that the model is functioning as expected. A subsequent paper will focus more in depth on the empirical findings associated with KSPD. Likewise, additional evaluation will focus on developing a measurement tool for DO and further refining the existing measures.

Recommendations for Implementing KSPD

Instructors with a desire to use KSPD will do well to keep at least five major thoughts in mind when planning courses. We have used the model in stand-alone courses and as a foundation for an entire minor. While we believe the model is unique in its form, we also believe it creates a powerful learning experience for students. The five suggestions focus on course content, repetition, instructor flexibility, problem identification, and evaluation.

First, we suggest that the instructor choose content that can be observed by students. These may be specific styles of leadership, approaches to conflict, stages in problem solving, techniques for creative thinking, and so forth. The content is important and must lend itself to observation so students can see the concepts in class, their internship, at work, and so on. Likewise, it will be helpful for instructors to choose observable concepts as they move from subject-matter expert to more of a coaching role with the group. Finally, it is important not to overwhelm students with content. Upwards of 125 concepts in the context of an individual class is plenty. The goal is to learn them quickly so subsequent components (SEE, PLAN, DO) have more meaning.

Second, repetition is needed in this approach. Students will likely cringe at the thought of knowing 125 concepts or terms in the beginning. The goal is to make this number feel like it's not enough by the end. As Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) suggest, repetition is important when developing expertise, so the instructor is constantly identifying new ways to help the students interact with the 125 concepts (e.g., daily observations, practicing difficult conversations, observing the concepts via film).

Third, the KSPD approach requires instructors to be flexible in their approach to teaching. As mentioned, the instructor's role moves from subject-matter expert to coach to process facilitator as the students move through the various components. As the class (or series of classes) make progress, the instructor becomes less and less of the focal point. In other words, the problem or leadership challenges take center stage. In addition, the instructor needs to be flexible and let go of knowing exactly how their course will begin and end. The personalities, problems, and associated challenges are dynamic and change with each group. The instructor needs to balance letting the students do the work with a Lord-of-Flies scenario. Knowing when to intervene is perhaps the most difficult balance to strike when using KSPD.

The problem or ultimate project should be introduced early in the class. Instructors may need to find a way to provide students with time at the end of a class to meet and begin initial planning. This can help when lecturing because the students are readily noticing their need to navigate various stressors, solve problems, and so forth. However, the problem (e.g., Guinness World Record, service-learning activity) needs to be both large enough to get their attention and manageable enough not to overwhelm. Instructors may consider assigning a specific number of points based on the successful completion of the class problem, activity, or event. Ultimately, the role of the instructor is to help the students achieve a win as a group and capture what was learned in the process.

This approach to learning can be somewhat disorienting for students at first. A clear introduction of the approach is warranted. Likewise, it will be important to evaluate progress several times throughout the semester and make any needed adjustments. Teaching in this way can feel like a roller-coaster at times; like any human system, at times students are up and other times they are down. Likewise, if possible, benchmark KSPD with other approaches in the institution to provide evidence for using the model.

Conclusion

This paper introduced a curriculum design model for leadership development in higher education. While we chose the context of higher education, we believe corporate universities and corporate development programs could benefit from this approach as well. The model addresses the gaps in the literature and builds upon existing theory. The KSPD model is built on expertise literature that emphasizes the critical role of knowledge and skill acquisition in learning. In this paper, we applied the expertise literature to the domain of leadership development in the context of an academic environment. Our intent was not to suggest learning goals, instructional strategies or even specific content or assessment exercises. Rather, we provided the underlying process through which learning takes place and a foundation for the design of leadership development curriculum. We argued that independent of the content selected to teach in leadership development, there should be some common approach to how we teach. As leadership and management educators, one of our primary objectives is to ensure that students leave our institutions better prepared to lead and manage in complex environments. We believe KSPD is one promising way to ensure this result.

REFERENCES

Allen, S. J., and Hartman, N. S. (2008). Leadership development: An exploration of sources of learning. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 77(1), 10-19, 62.

Allen, S. J., and Hartman, N. S. (2009). Sources of learning in student leadership development programming. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 6-16.

Allen, S. J., and Roberts, D. (2011). Leadership learning: Crucial conversations, next steps and thoughts for consideration. Journal of Leadership Studies, 52, 65-70. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-403.

Avolio, B. (2005). Leadership development in balance. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Avolio, B. J., and Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347.

Baldwin, T. T., Pierce, J. R., Joines, C. J., and Farouk, S. (2011). The elusiveness of applied management knowledge: A critical challenge for management educators. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 583-605.

Baylor, A. L. (2001). A U-shaped model for the development of intuition by level of expertise. New Ideas in Psychology, 19, 237-244.

Benjamin, B., and O'Reilly, C. O. (2011). Becoming a leader: Early career challenges faced by MBA graduates. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3), 452-472.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballentine Books.

Bradford, D. L. (1983). Some potential problems with the teaching of managerial competencies. EXCHANGE: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 8(2), 45-49.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brownell, J., and Jameson, D. A. (2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: An integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 558-577.

Brungardt, C. (1997). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 3(3), 81-95.

Cacioppe, R. (1998). An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership development programs. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 79(1), 44-53.

Cameron, K. S., and Whetten, D. A. (1983). A model for teaching management skills. EXCHANGE: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 8(2), 21-27.

Chan, K., and Drasgow, F. Z. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-49.

Clark, D. N., and Gibb, J. L. (2006). Virtual team learning: An introductory study team exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 765-787.

Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. (2013). Mind the gaps: What limits the impact of leadership education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(4), 77-83.

Conklin, T. A. (2013). Making it personal: The importance of student experience in creating autonomy-supportive classrooms for millennial learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), 499-538.

Daloz-Parks, S. (2005). Leadership can be taught. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Dalton, G.W., and Thompson, P. (1986). Novations: Strategies for career development. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 77(4), 581-613.

Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 561 571.

Day, D. V., and Sin, H. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 545-560.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., and Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York: Routledge.

Day, D., Fleenor, J., Atwater, L., Sturm, R., and McKee, R. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., and Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.

Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F., Heifetz, R. A., Sinder, R. M., Jones, A., Hodge, L. M., and Rowley, K. A. (1989). Teaching and assessing leadership courses at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8, 536-562.

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Chamess, R, Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (685-706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., and Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits in the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In K. A. Ericsson and J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (1-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.

Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., and Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert-response. Harvard Business Review, 85, 146-147.

Ericsson, K. A., Whyte, J., and Ward, P. (2007). Expert performance in nursing: Reviewing research on expertise in nursing within the framework of the expert-performance approach. Advances in Nursing Science, 30, E58-E71.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Giber, D., Carter, L., and Goldsmith, M. (Eds). (2000). Linkage Inc.'s best practices in leadership development handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

Glaser, R., and Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, and M. Farr (Eds.), The Nature of Expertise, pp. xv-xxviii. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hannah, S., and Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1181-1187.

Heifetz, R. A., and Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Hogan, R., and Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modem manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 74-84.

Hrivnak Jr., G. A., Reichard, R. J., and Riggio, R. E. (2009). A framework for leadership development. In S. J. Armstrong and C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management, learning, education and development (pp. 456-475). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hunt, J. G., and Sorenson, R. L. (2001). A leader-behavior approach to management skill development. Journal of Management Education, 25(2), 167-180.

Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In M. H. Chi, R. Glaser, and M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (209-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Klimoski, R., and Amos, B. (2012). Practicing evidence-based education in leadership development. Academy of Management: Learning & Education, 11, 685-702.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., and Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

London, M., and Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership development: A diagnostic model for continuous learning in dynamic organizations. In J. Antonakis, A.T. Ciandolo, and R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (222-245). London: Sage.

Lord, R. G., and Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.

Lord, R. G., and Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing. Boston, MA: Routledge.

Marzano, R. J., and Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McCauley, C. D. (2001). Leader training and leader development. In S. J. Zaccaro, and R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (347-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C. D., and Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2005). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McEvoy, G. M., Hayton, J. C., Warnick, A. R, Mumford, T. V, Hanks, S. H., and Blahna, M. J. (2005). A competency-based model for developing human resource professionals. Journal of Management Education, 29, 383-401.

McKnight, M. R. (1991). Management development: What it is and what it is not. In J. D. Bigelow (Ed.), Managerial skills: Explorations in practical knowledge, 204218. London: Sage.

Meissen, G. (2010). Leadership lexicon. The Journal of Kansas Civic Leadership Development, 2(1), 78-81.

Miles, R. E. (2005). Telling it like it ought to be. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 214-216.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., and Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11-35.

Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., and Antes, A. L. (2009). Leadership development and assessment: Describing and rethinking the state of the art. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments (84-107). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, S. E., and Johnson, S. K. (2010). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 459-470.

Nutt, P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: Half the decisions in organizations fail. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 75-90.

O'Neil, H., and Fisher, Y. (2004). A technology to support leader development: Computer games. In Day, D., Zaccaro, S., and Halpin, S. (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (41-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paglis, L. L. (2013). A review of managerial skills training in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), 472-498.

Pearce, J. L., and Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(2), 247-262.

Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you're thinking of trying problem-based learning? Three critical success factors for implementation. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 630-647.

Pfeffer, J., and Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(1), 78-95.

Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4), 495-519.

Rashford, N. S., and de Figueiredo, J. (2011). The live in-class CEO intervention: A capstone experiential technique for leadership development. Journal of Management Education, 35(5), 620-647.

Riggio, R. (2008). Leadership development: The current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 383-392.

Rynes, S. L., and Brown, K. G. (2011). Where are we in the "Long March to Legitimacy?" Assessing scholarship in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 561-582.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.

Schwandt, D. R. (2005). When managers become philosophers: Integrating learning with sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 176-192.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 53-69.

Sternberg, R. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert training. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.

Sternberg, R. A. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence and creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., and Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.

Styhre, A. (2003). Knowledge as a virtual asset: Bergson's notion of virtuality and organizational knowledge. Culture and Organization, 9(1), 15-26.

Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., and Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239270.

Vaill, P. V. (2007). F. J. Roethlisberger and the elusive phenomena of organizational behavior. Journal of Management Education, 33(3), 321-338.

Vicere, A., and Fulmer, R. (1998). Leadership by design. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Voss, J. E, and Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In R. Glaser, M.T.H. Chi, and M.J. Farr (Ed.), The nature of expertise (261-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about learning-centered teaching 30-years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31(3), 339-357.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.

Scott J. Allen, John Carroll University

Rosanna F. Miguel, John Carroll University

Beth Ann Martin, John Carroll University

Dr. Allen, coauthor of The Little Book of Leadership Development: 50 Ways to Bring Out the Leader in Every Employee and other books and articles, teaches management, consults, and facilitates workshops and retreats across industries. Dr. Miguel conducts research and has published in the areas of leadership development and employee selection. She also consults for a wide range of organizations. Dr. Martin's research is focused primarily on goal-setting and performance evaluation. In addition to teaching psychology, she has served as associate dean of the college.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	Allen, Scott J.; Miguel, Rosanna F.; Martin, Beth Ann
Publication:	SAM Advanced Management Journal
Article Type:	Report
Geographic Code:	1USA
Date:	Mar 22, 2014
Words:	9242
Previous Article:	A resource-based view of the "best" companies in Mexico: a multiple-case design approach.
Next Article:	Political skill at work: good or bad? Understanding its predictors and consequences.
Topics:	College students Education Leadership Curricula Study and teaching