Search results

Building upon a larger mixed-methods research agenda, the purpose of this research study was to explore the growth of generativity (i.e. care for the next generation) among college student leaders who mentor, answering the central question “What changes in generativity do college student leaders who mentor associate with their mentoring experience, and why?” and associated sub-question “How does generativity develop among college student leaders who mentor?”

Applying methodological innovation to a phenomenological design, semi-structured interviews were conducted and triangulated with pictorial degree-of-change graphs among 33 collegiate leadership mentors at a large Midwestern USA land-grant university.

The findings indicated that senior collegiate leadership mentors overwhelmingly acknowledged sustained generativity increases as a result of mentoring a younger student when given the tools, environment to process and time needed to develop trusting investment relationships. These increases in generativity were associated with changes in their understanding of generativity, the desire to pass on the knowledge given to them and growth in both mentor and mentee.

Findings from the current study advance mentoring research and practice by providing a deeper understanding of mentoring as a developmental intervention, informing antecedents of generativity and utilizing innovative qualitative methodological techniques.

Generativity, defined as care for the next generation, is a hallmark of developmental theory (Erikson, 1950). Mentoring is an antecedent to generativity (Doerwald et al., 2021), with college students who mentor demonstrating higher generativity than their peers (Hastings et al., 2015). Yet no research has studied generativity development longitudinally among college students who mentor. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.

Using MANCOVA analyses, Study 1 (N = 91) cross-sectionally examined the influence of years spent mentoring on generativity levels among college students who mentor in the USA. Study 2 (N = 44) employed growth curve analyses (GCA) in multilevel modeling (MLM) to analyze longitudinal changes in generativity over three timepoints, each one year apart, while accounting for the influence of gender.

Although the results of the MANCOVA analyses in Study 1 were nonsignificant, Study 2 revealed a significant and positive increase in generative behavior. Specifically, generative behavior (e.g. teaching a skill or serving as a role model; McAdams and de St. Aubin, 1992) increased by 3.26 points, indicating that participants may have moved, for example, from performing a generative behavior never during the past two months to performing it more than once.

The current study advances the fields of college student development and mentoring by arguing for the utilization of mentoring interventions among college students to increase generativity and calling for changes to generativity measurement among collegiate populations.

The purpose of the current innovative practice paper is to introduce a technique to explore leader identity development and meaning-making that builds on the narrative pedagogical tradition. In this paper, we recommend a process for combining turning-point graphing and responsive (semi-structured) interviews to co-explore leadership identity development and meaning-making with college students.

The paper provides student feedback data on the effectiveness of the technique in improving understanding of leader identity and transforming meaning-making.

We hope practitioners can utilize this approach to build leadership identity development and meaning-making capacity in college students.

The current study examined and explained the relationship between generativity and socially responsible leadership using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The first, quantitative phase examined the predictive relationship between generativity and socially responsible leadership among 82 college student leaders who mentor at a four-year, Midwestern, land-grant university using multiple regression. The second, qualitative phase used a phenomenological design to explain the quantitative results by conducting semi- structured interviews among a sub-sample (n=9) of the quantitative phase participants. Results from the current study advance leadership research in social change as well as advance instruction by helping leadership educators demonstrate their outcomes related to generativity and social responsibility.

The current paper is part of a larger scoping review project investigating the intersection of leader(ship) identity development and meaning-making. In this review, we analyzed 100 articles to determine the current extent of literature that covers the intersection of leader(ship) identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

A review of the extant literature is included, and a conceptual model is suggested for further exploration into this critical and under-researched domain.

More research is needed at the intersection of leadership identity development, meaning-making and marginalized social identities.

As this area of study has expanded, scholars have noted an absence of research on the effect of multiple social identities, especially marginalized identities, on meaning-making and leadership identity construction.

Leadership is necessary for organizational effectiveness (Kroeck et al., 2004), a finding that applies to student organizations at institutions of higher education (Plante, 2016; Posner, 2012). However, student leaders of campus organizations face nuanced and significant challenges (Foubert & Urbanski, 2006; Plante, 2016). Therefore, we sought to diagnose and analyze the central challenge of a peer leadership position within a collegiate leadership mentoring program. After diagnosing the central challenge of the position, we built a training and development intervention grounded in the leadership theory of consideration versus structure (Halpin & Winer, 1957; Stogdill, 1974). The intervention was administered to two cohorts of seven student leaders and subsequently assessed for effectiveness. The current paper shares the assessment results, along with details on developing and implementing the leadership intervention. We hope practitioners can (a) implement the process we outline to conduct a needs assessment and create a leadership development intervention and (b) utilize the training in their co-curricular organizations.

The purpose of this application manuscript is to address assessing and evaluating the impact of leadership mentoring programs on collegiate mentors. Specifically, this paper addresses the nuanced considerations of creating appropriate program outcomes and associated objectives given the individualized nature of mentoring relationships. Additionally, the current paper discusses assessment and evaluation strategies to demonstrate impact of leadership mentoring on the collegiate mentor via a three-year program evaluation effort. By innovating leadership mentoring program practice, leadership educators can more soundly design and deliver leadership mentoring programs and more precisely measure and demonstrate impact.

Academic advisors are an invaluable and steadfast component of leadership students’ higher education experience (Hunter & White, 2004; Mann, 2020; Museus, 2021; Spratley, 2020). Yet, given the myriad student paths and preferences, advising calls for flexibility, commitment, and personalization. Applying growth mindset and design thinking to the academic advising process in leadership education may help advisors meet the diverse needs of their students, integrating theory and practice. Notably, growth mindset and design thinking are linked to overall motivation, confidence, and problem-solving (Dweck, 2015; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015; Mann, 2020), allowing students to take ownership over and actively engage with their academic advising experience. Therefore, two advising manuals (i.e., a student manual and a faculty manual) were generated to incorporate growth mindset and design thinking-based approaches to the advising experience within leadership education. The manuals were implemented into various advising situations for data collection and feedback. Findings revealed an overall favorable opinion of the manual and guidance for further implementation within the advising process. The two manuals presented in the current paper provide leadership education students, academic advisors, and departments with various tools to enhance and guide their undergraduate student experience.

While there are well-established personal benefits to being a mentor, such as increased life satisfaction and job performance (Ramaswami & Dreher, 2007), how mentors grow and develop requires exploration. We meet this need by presenting six key themes from two recent research studies related to the experiences that mentors perceived as contributing to their development. The growth of two leadership theories in particular were explored: generativity and Psychological Capital. Six themes emerged: (a) curricular training, (b) exposure to leadership outcomes, (c) being mentored by peers, (d) experiences with mentee, (e) reflection, and (f ) observing a ripple effect. These themes offer insights on how curricular and co-curricular experiences might maximize leadership development of students and ground leadership interventions, such as mentoring, in theory and research.

The purpose of the current application paper is to integrate previous literature with recent results from practitioners on effective practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom.

We use these integrated findings to innovate practice on maximizing the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) by matching their tasks to signature pedagogies in leadership education.

The integrated findings revealed three practice themes: (1) match UTAs to pedagogical approach, (2) create small groups by design and (3) providing training and reflection practice for UTAs.

In sum, leadership education can and should challenge historical practices in higher education whereby UTAs are used purely for grading and course logistics management.