study on leadership development in jesuit business education

Leadership Development in Jesuit Business Education Page 1

STUDY ON LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JESUIT BUSINESS EDUCATION

REPORT ON PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

June 2010

Prof. Guillermo Cisneros Garrido, ESADE. [email protected]

Prof. Enrique López Viguria, ESADE

[email protected]

ESADE Business School Avda. Pedralbes 60‐62

08034 BARCELONA SPAIN


Abstract

This is a report on the preliminary findings of our study in which we discuss the role, presence and practice of leadership development in Jesuit business education programs. For this purpose, we analyze the mission statements from all the universities studied (information available on their websites) and responses from 34 Jesuit universities to an online questionnaire. We also visited 7 Jesuit universities and conducted 38 personal interviews.

The importance of leadership in Jesuit business education programs has been growing over the last few years, and it is expected to keep growing in the coming years due to market and social demands and due to alignment with the Jesuit higher education mission as well.

According to our results, leadership development is seen as a key element of Jesuit business education mission and strategy and it is consistent with Jesuit tradition and its pedagogical approach. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of these universities considers that leadership development should be a priority and a distinctive trait of Jesuit universities. We analyze the existing programs and practices and compare them with those of non‐Jesuit institutions. We highlight some cases which serve as good examples of different ways of applying leadership development in Jesuit business education programs.

In spite of leadership development’s diversity and heterogeneity in terms of its situation and the little information shared between Jesuit universities, we have found some commonalties that are highly related to the Jesuit mission, tradition and values. There are also solid academic foundations and prestigious faculty in this field as well.

Although Jesuit universities can be considered “different horses for different courses,” there is an opportunity to develop common distinctive characteristics regarding leadership development. Three possible directions can include: Leadership “Formation”, service and leadership, and institutional integration. However, we feel that the following are required for any possible future actions: Connecting with the mission, developing reliable methodologies, building on strengths and tradition, and ensuring academic excellence.

Working as a network in the field of leadership development could provide many opportunities. However, the critical issue is to define whether and how leadership development is included in the educational mission. This is a leadership question, not an academic one.


CONTENTS

Page

O. Introduction: Objectives, motivation and methodology 4

1. The role of leadership development: What do we say and stand for? 10

2. The practice of leadership development: What do we do? 17

3. Provisional diagnosis: Situation, commonalties and differences 32

4. What can we do now that we know more? 36

Annex 1: General results of the online questionnaire 44

Annex 2: US vs. non‐US Jesuit universities 46

References 48

ADDITIONAL ANNEXES

1. Online questionnaire

2. Excerpts from university Mission, Vision and Strategic statements


0. Introduction: Objectives, motivation and methodology

Acknowledgments

Conducting this study has been a privilege. We’ve had the opportunity to garner insights, perspectives and experiences from many colleagues and university leaders and we would like to thank all of them. We would like also to thank other people that have been instrumental to providing us access to the universities and the Jesuit network: Father R. Spitzer S.J. , Father Gregg Ulfferts S.J. , and Chris Lowney. We are also very grateful to ESADE and its General Director, Carlos Losada, who supported this project from the outset and sponsored it. We hope to fulfill the expectations of all those that have participated in this study as we believe we are dealing with a critical issue for Jesuit higher education.

This is a report on preliminary findings

The purpose of this report is to present to the 2010 Colleagues in Jesuit Business Education Conference the preliminary findings and conclusions of our study. The purpose of this document is to make possible the reflection and discussion to enhance conclusions. Other reports and outputs of the study will be delivered in the future according to the inputs received and other information gathered during our field work

What is this study about?

This is not a theoretical study, and its purpose is not to try to define and apply a new theory or leadership model. This is a practical study related to the very practical purpose of education: To prepare and help our students manage their professional and personal lives, achieve their objectives and have an impact on society.

As Father Kolvenbach stated, “the real measure of our Jesuit universities lies in who our students become”(Santa Clara, Oct. 2000).

And above all we want our students to succeed in life as "men and women for others." We do not know if this statement is consistent with the definition of leadership, but it might be a good one. It is not achieved only through the delivery of knowledge or the development of intellectual capacities; rather, it can be attained especially through the development of the person as a whole, in line with the Jesuit educational tradition.

”We want our graduates to become leaders to serve […]. This has been the objective of the Jesuitical education since the 16th century and it is still today” (Kolvenbach, 1989).


If we accept that leaders are made and not born, then, as Drucker indicates, “leadership development can and must be taught.” Hence, leadership development is a responsibility we owe to our students, society and our mission.

Finally, as stated in one of the interviews we conducted, in this society, “if anybody should have the leadership positions in our society, let’s try to help the right people get there.”

The context: Leadership development in business education

Leadership as a an organizational need

Business education has undergone very significant changes responding to the evolving needs of organizations. In the beginning, corporations just needed good functional managers to be able to cope with the technical issues of the companies’ respective activities. However, the human factor’s increasing importance made it necessary to introduce the “soft skills” approach to prepare managers to be able to deal better with people‐related issues. The higher levels of competition at the global level have also forced organizations to look for managers that can make a difference and be agents of change, that is, “leaders” (Noel and Dotlich, 2008). Today, when uncertainty, globalization, complexity and speed are the new paradigms, organizations cannot rely just on a few individuals’ talent, and the idea of “leadership” (not just leaders) as a function and part of the culture is being consolidated as the new stage in organizational development.

Leadership as an academic field

It is evident that leadership has probably become a very relevant academic field in management and business education. But it is also clear that it is still in the process of being developed, with many emerging theories and diverse interpretations about what leadership is exactly. Although leadership was initially considered an inherited gift, now there is agreement and evidence that leadership is not a genetic trait (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, McGue, 2006) and can therefore be developed.

Consequently, after first paying attention to the situational and contextual factors when explaining the differences on how leadership appears and is exercised, the belief that leadership was the result of a series of competences later arose, with the notion of emotional intelligence starting the first revolution in the field of leadership development.

However, the situation and context, the possession of some inherited traits and the mastery of specific competencies cannot fully explain why some behave as leaders,


with a strong impact on their environment, while others do not. Moreover, the moral and normative dimensions of leadership have become more and more relevant. The transformational versus transactional leadership approach has become the new paradigm and serves as the basis for new perspectives and concepts such as charismatic, authentic, servant, responsible and spiritual leadership (Burke 2006, Dent, Higgins. and Wharff, 2006, Avolio and Gardner 2005, Maak & Pless 2006) .

The concepts of shared and distributed leadership, resulting from less hierarchical organizations and a more cooperative and agile conception of work, have reinforced the idea that leadership is not about a few exceptional individuals, but something that happens at all levels in organizations and in every aspect of life.

Leaders and leadership development

Consistent with organizations’ new needs and changes in the concept of what being a leader is, leadership development has become a discipline in its own right through new approaches to overcome the limitations of the classic teaching methodology used in business education. Growing as an effective leader requires developing competencies, learning from personal experiences (especially those that have been called “crucibles” because of their transformational effect) and acquiring a high level of self‐awareness. Action learning, outdoor training, service learning, storytelling, 360‐degree feedback, coaching, and mentoring, just to mention a few, are some of the most well‐known new techniques used in leadership development. Approaches offering a more holistic focus by introducing ontological, moral and spiritual dimensions are also becoming areas of intense research and experimentation (Avolio 2009, Jensen 2008).

Moreover, the conception of leadership development itself has evolved in terms of its objectives. The aim today is not only to identify and help individuals to become leaders, but to also transform the whole organization’s culture by spreading “leadership” and creating a dynamic of change and transformation within (Conger 2008, Noel and Dotlich 2008), that is, developing leaders and developing leadership.

Changes in business education

Leadership development has become a driver transforming the business education industry.

The first to demand a different approach in leadership development were the leading corporations themselves. Due to the new methodologies necessary for leadership development and the companies’ need for close‐knit integration between the organizational business processes and corporate culture, firms started to develop their own in‐house solutions. For example, General Electric with its “Jack Welch Leadership


Development Center” (also known as “Crottonville”) is still today the best practice which most companies use as a benchmark.

Business schools claim to be the source of potential leadership development, especially through the MBA programs that have become the global standard for the management education industry. But new players, like consultancies and educational centers specialized in leadership development have seen the opportunity to innovate by introducing new methodologies according to the changes in corporate needs. These new agents are becoming strong competitors for traditional business schools especially in the corporate education field.

Responding to these challenges and the needs of their stakeholders, academic institutions have transformed their approach and are giving increasing attention to leadership. As we will see later, in a sample of 15 top US business schools, 10 already have a specialized academic center to teach, research and establish a dialogue with their stakeholders on leadership.

The case of ethics and values: Value‐based and responsible leadership

Very recently, a study presented at the World Economic Forum revealed an overwhelming concern: Two‐thirds of the world’s population believed that the current economic global downturn is also a crisis of values, and 62% feel that personal values are acquired in the family and through education. It is clear in what direction we have to look for responsibilities and solutions.

The “argument” of being the world’s suppliers of leadership has backfired on business schools and their MBA programs, and the business education industry has been criticized and blamed for this first global crisis. However, there are no signs of significant change, and, surprisingly, MBA students still don’t see ethics and values as a relevant concept. But some companies do. Procter and Gamble’s CEO announced that the company’s future strategy would be based on what has been called “value‐based leadership.” The moral dimension of leadership development is now a practical issue, not just a theory, and it goes beyond the concept of corporate responsibility.

The objectives of the study

The purpose of our study is to analyze the role of leadership development in Jesuit business education programs, considering the following aspects:

• Its presence in the universities’ mission and strategy and

• The leadership programs offered.


The study is descriptive in nature. Therefore, it provides a picture of the current state of these business education programs. A logical outcome is that it will serve to identify best practices and areas of potential innovation and cooperation between Jesuit universities. But the information obtained can also be a trigger for reflection and discussion on three critical questions:

• How are Jesuit business education programs responding to the mission of developing leaders and leadership?

• Should leadership development be a priority for and a distinctive trait in these Jesuit business education programs?

• How should this be achieved?

Our study may also identify what additional research is necessary in the future to provide a more precise answer to those same questions.

The methodology

We used the following sources in our study:

• Information about programs and initiatives on leadership development available on the universities' websites;

• The mission statements when available on internet;

• A questionnaire sent to 84 Jesuit IAJBS members. The purpose of the questionnaire was to understand the role of leadership development within these institutions (see Annex 1 below). We received 36 responses from 34 different universities (a 40% rate of response). Respondents were from the USA (20) , Asia (3), Latin America (8) and Europe (3). 71% of US Jesuit universities participated in the study;

• Visits and personal interviews at the following universities and schools: Seattle University, Gonzaga University, Detroit‐Mercy, Boston College, Santa Clara University, Georgetown University and ESADE Business school. 38 personal interviews were conducted during these visits; and

• A review of leadership and leadership development literature.

Limits and considerations

There are two questions to consider due to their impact on the methodology.

a. The use of the terms “leaders” and “leadership” as discriminating filters:


• In our study we only considered “leadership” or “leader development” activities as those labeled specifically with these words. However, the words “leader” and “leadership” have different meanings in different languages and cultural contexts; in some languages there isn’t a specific word for “leadership”, adopting the term directly from English. Moreover, what being a leader means and showing leadership has changed. Does it mean that universities are not using these words in their mission statements or that their programs are not developing leaders? Surely not. Does it mean that all activities that are labeled as "leadership development" initiatives are truly and effectively developing leaders or leadership? We cannot assert this is true.

• Therefore, using these words as discriminating criteria may seem a source of bias. However, we have adopted it not only for practical reasons (otherwise, the study would have been impossible) but, overall, because it is a necessary distinction. Leadership development is an intentional process and it also requires conducting purposefully specific educational activities. Therefore, it requires a concrete language to describe the concepts, tools, processes and methodologies. Intentional leadership development is not possible if we don’t call it “leadership development.”

b. What is business education?:

• The way in which business education is offered at Jesuit universities is not homogeneous. Some universities have a separate business school with its own identity and programs while others only have a business and management education department. Additionally, business and management courses are also taught in continuing education programs. Leadership is a relevant topic in Education, Health and Engineering degrees, just to mention a few. We will address this point later when analyzing conclusions, and, even though we focus specifically on business education activities, leadership initiatives are not the exclusive territory of MBA programs; we must highlight the extremely interesting initiatives provided in other university schools and departments.

c. The US bias:

• The conclusions of our study may be partially biased due to the characteristics and results of our fieldwork. Most of the interviews and visits were conducted in the US, and, as we have seen, 58% of the institutions responding to our questionnaire come from that country. We should refer again to the importance of the cultural context because these results are


correlated with the much lower presence of leadership development programs in Jesuit universities outside the US. For this reason, we will briefly compare the results of responses to the questionnaire from the US to those from other countries.

• Because 71% of the US Jesuit institutions participated in the study, we can consider results to be highly representative for that country.

Part 1: The role of leadership development: What do we say and stand for?

Leadership in mission statements

We would like to introduce the results of our study by analyzing the presence of the leadership concept in the different university mission statements. The latter reflects the institution’s end objective, and the vision completes it by identifying the path to achieve this mission. We started by analyzing the university’s statements and completed our analysis with the business school’s or the business education department’s declaration, when available.

We should say that some mission statements were not available on internet. We also considered the broadest statement available, including the vision and strategic objectives.

According to our analysis, 29 Jesuit universities/business schools mention leadership or leader development in a specific way. To some degree, these are either in their mission, vision and strategy statements.

22 of these universities were in the United States and another 6 in Asia. We found only a single mention to leadership in Latin American universities/business schools. No mention to leadership was found in the European Jesuit universities or business schools. This evidences the importance of the cultural context when talking about leadership or using words to describe it.

If we analyze the context, not just the presence of the words, worth noting is that, in most of the cases, leadership is not an objective per se. It is accompanied by various adjectives and words associated to values. For example:

Andhra Loyola College ‐ Vijayawada: “To impart higher education with integral formation which involves academic excellence, spiritual growth, social commitment and value based leadership.”

Marquette University : “[…] and the development of leadership expressed in service to others.”


Rockhurst University Vision Statement “[…] be nationally recognized for transforming lives and forming leaders in the Jesuit tradition. Inspired by the example of St. Ignatius of Loyola, this Catholic university community seeks to make God’s good world better through learning, leadership, service, and the pursuit of justice […].

Seattle University: “[…] is dedicated to educating the whole person, to professional formation, and to empowering leaders for a just and humane world.”

Seattle University Albers School of Management mission: “ Inspired by the Jesuit traditions of academic excellence, education for justice, and service to others, we are committed to providing an integrated business education for ethical and socially responsible leadership.”

Xavier Institute of Management. Bhubaneswar mission: “We shall continue to be an institute with a difference by developing competent, committed and compassionate leaders through management education, knowledge generation and dissemination, capacity building, technology enabled learning and organizational development.”

Moreover, in the case of 5 universities, leadership is part of the claim and the general promise to the society.

Loyola University Chicago: “Preparing people to lead extraordinary lives.”

Regis University: “Learners becoming leaders in the Jesuit Catholic Tradition.”

LeMoyne College: “Spirit. Inquiry. Leadership. Jesuit.”

Canisius College: “Where leaders are made.”

Wheeling Jesuit University: “Life, Leadership, Service”

Finally, in a few cases, there is a remarkable commitment to leadership as an essential part of the universities’ pedagogical approach.

Loyola University Chicago: “Five Characteristics of a Jesuit Education […]Values‐based leadership: Ensuring a consistent focus on personal integrity, ethical behavior in business and in all professions, and the appropriate balance between justice and fairness.“

Rockhurst: “Learning, Leadership and Service in the Jesuit tradition. […] Through leadership students take responsibility for their own learning and apply that learning in the complex world beyond the boundaries of the campus. Students who take initiative will become leaders who strive continually to develop themselves and others […].


Throughout the campus, leadership is a theme in classroom discussions, student organizations, service opportunities and international service trips. The educational experience integrates these essential leadership skills.”

The importance of leadership development

In this section we analyze both the results of the online questionnaire (see Annex 1) and the personal interviews conducted during our visits to various Jesuit universities.

Leadership development is a most relevant part of our mission and consistent with Jesuit tradition.

44% of the respondents to the online questionnaire said that leadership development was extremely relevant for the educational mission of their institutions. This figure reaches up to 65% if we include those who believe that it is very important. With very few disagreements, this is also the majority opinion expressed in the personal interviews. Leadership development is seen as strongly connected to the mission, though not only as a university but also as a “Jesuit university”

“Leadership is why we have colleges and high schools”…to influence leaders

“Leadership development is an obligation.”

“Leadership Development is a very clear objective of Jesuit education, and has been part of the Jesuit Vision and Mission from the very beginning.”

This is why the vast majority (92% of respondents) indicates that they very much or strongly agree with the statement, “Leadership Development is consistent with Jesuit Values and Tradition.”

The increasing importance of leadership development

There is a clear opinion that leadership development is becoming more important for Jesuit business education.

80% of questionnaire respondents believes that leadership development has grown in importance in the last few years, and 92% believes that it will be even more important for their institutions in the future. The reasons for this increasing importance assigned to leadership in Jesuit business education can be classified into the following 4 categories:


a) Market demand: A higher demand for leadership‐focused programs by students, organizations and stakeholders. Leadership development is seen not only as a set of programs that attracts students and corporate customers, but also as a way to increase student employability.

b) Social reasons: Reflecting society’s needs with respect to leadership. The challenging economic environment makes this necessity more acute.

c) Mission alignment: The need to offer a better fit with the purpose as a Jesuit university.

d) Growing academic relevance and the need to increase the weight of leadership in the curricula: Due to its increasing popularity and/or the interest of faculty in developing this academic area.

e) Pedagogy: Changes/improvements in pedagogy according to new needs and requirements.

f) Strategy: Increasing the institution’s competitiveness.

According to this classification, the distribution of the various reasons explaining the evolution of leadership development is as follows according to the institutions responding to our multi‐response questionnaire:

Distribution of reasons mentioned which explain the greater importance given to leadership development by Jesuit institutions.

Growth in the

past Growth in the

future Mission alignment 40% 44% Market demands 48% 60% Academic 44% 16% Social demands 52% 64% Strategy 28% 36% Pedagogy 12% 0%

External forces (market and social demands) have been the primary forces in the past, and are essentially the driving forces for the future. In terms of internal motivations, alignment with the university’s mission has been an important reason for growth in the past and will also be a driver for the increased importance of leadership development in the future.


Leadership development and Jesuit pedagogical tradition

There is also a general perception that leadership development is strongly connected to the Jesuit pedagogical approach. 83% of questionnaire respondents very much or strongly agree with this statement. In the personal interviews, there were very categorical statements about this issue. Not only is leadership development very much in line with the Jesuit pedagogical approach based on action and reflection; it is also relevant due to the fact that Jesuit tradition has very powerful tools for leadership development based on Spiritual Exercises: Discernment and self‐awareness.

However, we should note that in most of the personal interviews, we found a lack of concretion when linking leadership development to Jesuit pedagogical tradition. In other words, even though there is agreement on the consistency between leadership development and Jesuit pedagogy “in theory”, there is not enough concretion “in practice.” As such, it seems that it has not been very well developed yet at the methodological level.

In addition, in some of our personal interviews, there were explicit mentions to the differences in pedagogical needs when dealing with different kinds of students: undergraduates, MBA students and Executive Education program participants. Their reference frameworks, demands, motivations and expectations are very different and should be considered in the pedagogical approach for leadership development.

Leadership development and the university’s strategy

60% of the respondents stated that leadership development is already very important or extremely important for their competitive strategy with respect to other business education universities.

Also according to the questionnaire, the opinion is that leadership development should not only be a priority but also a distinctive trait as well.

• 94% of questionnaire respondents very much or strongly agree that leadership development should be a priority in Jesuit business education programs (69% strongly agree).

• 88% very much or strongly agree with the vision that leadership development should be a distinctive trait of Jesuit business education programs (69% strongly agree).

This represents an overwhelming majority of the institutions participating in the questionnaire. The results in the personal interviews are very similar.


We shall discuss the implications of these results below, but, before going further, we should also pay attention to the few discrepant voices, especially with regards to the idea of “leadership development as a distinctive trait.”

Understanding this reluctance obliges us to consider two very relevant questions:

Leadership development as “a” distinctive trait.

A few of the interviewees were puzzled by the idea of having leadership development serve as a distinctive trait, believing that all universities can and should have that trait; therefore, it cannot be unique or exclusive to Jesuit business education programs.

However, distinctiveness (that is, a source of differentiation) can happen in one of two ways: a) possessing a unique trait, something that is an exclusive technology or b) doing what others do but in a different, unique or better way.

Only in very exceptional cases is it possible to have something that is exclusive. Hence, the secret of success is, most of the times, not what you do but how you do it.

Therefore, the question should be posed as follows: “Should Jesuit business education institutions be recognized because excelling in leadership development is an important part of their education?”

Leadership development as “the” distinctive trait

There were some warnings about this issue, and it is probably the most important consideration in the few discrepancies we did find. Leadership development is seen as something “soft,” a not very well defined discipline as yet. Success in the very competitive higher education industry comes from academic excellence and rigor. Leadership development is not included in the current “rules of the game”. Therefore, when confronted with the idea of “leadership development,” some fear jeopardizing their academic excellence if they focus on something that is still immature and not well developed.

There is a lot of truth in this concern. However, If we think in terms of strategy, there are always some aspects in every industry considered a part of “the rules of the game”, the basic requirements to compete. If you don’t have these traits, you cannot survive. This is the case with “academic excellence” in the educational sector as is technology and reliability in the car industry. If you don’t receive top scores on these factors, you cannot be at the top of the industry. If you don’t score at all, you could be forced out of the industry.

As such, these are necessary conditions to compete but not always sufficient to differentiate. A distinctive trait is something in addition to other characteristics; it is


the area of innovation and what makes you different and appealing and that for which you stand.

What kind of leaders?

Given the myriad of leadership models and definitions, one of the challenges was finding one that fit with the Jesuit tradition. The answers to this question in our interviews were clear and provided us with an easy solution to the dilemma: This is not about defending a specific leadership model; it is about values.

Leadership is a response to a specific context, and there are different ways of exercising leadership. The context that leaders have to face varies from country to country. Even within the United States, the leadership model needed in Silicon Valley is very different from the kind of leaders needed in Washington DC or in “Motown” (Detroit).

Hence, the relevant question is what values leaders should have, enabling them to make the right choices in the different contexts they have to serve.

In our online questionnaire, we asked about the specific leadership values that should be characteristic of Jesuit business education programs. The question was open‐ended, and, after classifying the responses, the results are as follows:

• The leadership values mentioned the most are ethics (50%) and service (50%), that is, “men and women for others”.

•Social justice, compassion, consciousness and Social Responsibility are found in the second block of the most cited values (mentioned by at least 30% of the respondents).

•And, finally, we should highlight Magis, self‐awareness, discernment and development of the whole person (cited by 10 to 15% of the respondents).

The rest of the leadership values cited cannot be grouped into a single category.

These results are consistent with the interviews we conducted, and, therefore, there is a clear and shared idea about the values and the kind of leadership these universities want to develop among current and future leaders.

The following question, then, is: “How are we doing it?”


Part 2: The practice of leadership development: What do we do?

In this section, we analyze the real practice of leadership development in Jesuit business education programs according to the information gathered in our study. A complete list of all the programs identified can be provided on demand. The precautions already mentioned in the introduction, however, should be taken into account.

Analysis of leadership development programs and initiatives: A preliminary examination

According to our questionnaire, leadership development plays a more important role in non‐curricular activities than in curricular ones.

Student development and service to community (actually, most student development activities are related with service learning) are the areas where leadership development has the most important role.

Within curricular academic programs, it is in the area of Executive Education where leadership development is considered very to extremely important. However, only 60% of the schools responding to our questionnaire offer any kind of Executive Education program.

Executive Education is followed by MBAs, undergraduate and graduate programs (in this order) in terms of the importance leadership development has in the respective program contents. As a result of the limited presence of doctoral programs (only 25% of the schools participating in the study have programs at that level), leadership development thus has a reduced presence also in absolute terms at the PhD level. A logical consequence is that research activity focusing on leadership is also somewhat limited.

Analysis of the information available through university websites

The data gathered from our analysis of the program and activity information available on participating university websites corroborates our results from the online questionnaire. We found evidence of leadership programs providing enough, quality information to analyze them in 29 Jesuit universities. 25 of these were in the US, 2 in Asia, 1 in Europe and the other in Latin America.


We cannot say that these are the only existing programs; they are the only programs we found with enough information for our analysis. However, it is a large enough sample for a good understanding of the nature and characteristics of the existing leadership programs at Jesuit universities.

In our analysis, we also included student development activities at the university level as well as programs in the leadership area taught by education departments. Although these programs are apparently beyond the scope of this study, we have included them because: 1) they are of intrinsic interest to our study; 2) they affect business and management students to some extent (for example, through university‐wide student development programs); and 3) they aim to prepare managers for a specific field of activity (education).

Seattle University, San Francisco, Le Moyne and Boston College are strongly positioned in the leadership area in the education field. Synergies with business education are quite evident.

This is the summary of our main findings:

• In the above mentioned 29 universities, we found evidence and descriptions of 144 leadership programs and activities. 89 of these were run by the universities’ business and management schools or departments (including continuing and professional studies); 38 were leadership programs at the university‐wide level for student development; 16 were in education schools and departments; and, finally, 3 were in other schools and departments.

• 70% of these universities have one or more student leadership development programs. These are, by far, the most important category in Jesuit leadership education.

• 9 of these universities (31%) have a Master’s degree program in their portfolio specializing in leadership; 28% run leadership programs at the executive education level; 24% have certificate programs in the field; and 17% have a major in leadership. 3 universities have a doctoral degree in leadership, and Ateneo de Manila has recently started a new one, raising the total to four. We found evidence of service learning being used as a means for leadership development at 9 universities (31%), all of them, however, in the US. This doesn’t mean that service or service learning is not present in other programs and universities; it is simply not related to leadership development.


• We also identified 8 centers in the Jesuit network specializing in leadership:

University & school Center

Boston College, Carroll School of Management

Winston Center for Leadership and Ethics

Creighton University, School of Business. Anna Tyler Waite Center for Leadership

Santa Clara University. Leavey School of Business

Global Women's Leadership Network

Seattle University, Albers School of Management

The Center for Leadership Formation

University of Detroit Mercy Leadership Development Institute

The Xavier Institute of Leadership The Xavier Institute of Leadership

The Xavier Institute‐Cincinnati. Williams College of Business

Xavier Leadership Center

ESADE Chair in LeadershipS and Governance

And, if we add the centers at the Fordham and San Francisco Schools of Education, this number ascends to 10.

University & school Center

University of San Francisco Institute for Catholic Educational Leadership

Fordham University, Graduate School of Education

The Center for Catholic School Leadership and Faith Based Education

These centers promote a variety of diverse activities, not just a single type of program.

• Gonzaga University also offers a PhD in Leadership Studies. Seattle University and San Francisco University have a PhD in Leadership within the field of Education. Ateneo de Manila has recently started a doctoral degree in leadership studies, too.

• There isn’t enough evidence to examine the level of research in the leadership field, but, according to the available information, there are also scholars carrying out research and publishing and developing knowledge in the field at


Santa Clara, Boston College, Detroit Mercy and ESADE in addition to the three above‐mentioned universities (Gonzaga, Seattle and San Francisco).

• Below is a chart detailing the Master’s degree programs offering a full specialization in Leadership in the Business and Management field (we do not include Master’s degrees in educational leadership here).

University School Program

Canisius College. College of Arts and Sciences MS in Communication and Leadership

Georgetown University McDonough School of Business

Executive Master's in Leadership

Gonzaga University School of Professional Studies

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

Marquette University College of Professional Studies Master in Leadership Studies

Regis University School of Management Master of Science in Organization Leadership

Seattle University Albers School of Management Leadership Executive MBA

Wheeling Jesuit University Business Department Master of Science in Organizational Leadership

Even before comparing with other universities, it seems that the Jesuit network has strong academic foundations from which to further develop the field of leadership.

Comparison with other universities

Any comparison should be done in terms of quantity and quality. Leadership is not just a “positive” concept; it is something related to values and, therefore, it is a normative concept in which the kind of leaders and leadership matters, a lot.

Moreover, the quality of the initiatives is what makes the difference, Understanding this quality is the only way to find hints to help improve and achieve excellence.

However, as a start, we will focus only on the most basic analysis, a quantitative and descriptive one.

Because the universe in which Jesuit business education programs compete is huge and not manageable for our analysis, we are going to limit the geographic scope only to US Jesuit universities. Previous work done by Ling and Phillips will serve as a valuable reference.


According to Ling and Phillips (2008), leadership is less present in Jesuit university missions compared to a selection of top‐ranked non‐Jesuit US universities. According to their results, 75% of non‐Jesuit universities included leadership as a part of their mission, compared to 50% of Jesuit universities.

In our own analysis, we enlarged the criteria to also consider the university and its relevant business education school’s vision statements and strategy declarations. As previously mentioned, applying this criteria yields 22 US universities (78%) which see leadership as a strategic objective in business education. If we restrict the analysis to the mission and vision statements, the number falls to 19, that is, 67% of US universities. If we consider only the mission statement, the number is 16 (56% of Jesuit universities), a result close to Ling & Phillips’ figures.

To establish a benchmark, we also selected and analyzed a sample of top 15 universities using the following criteria: “Ivy–league” universities with business, management or educational degrees (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Wharton, Dartmouth and Cornell, excluding Brown and Princeton). We also added other consistently top‐ranked universities with business schools: MIT (Sloan), Stanford, Duke (Fuqua), John Hopkins (Carey), Emory (Goizueta), Washington ‐(Olin) and Chicago (Booth).

This is of course a biased sample, but no unbiased sample was available. We also felt that if a benchmark was going to be considered, it had to consist of institutions distinguished by their undeniable academic excellence. Any comparison with average performers would only lead to mediocre standards.

We then analyzed the presence of leadership in their programs and mission statements and compared these results with Jesuit universities. The following table details the results of this comparison.


% of institutions mentioning leadership in their:

15 non‐Jesuit top‐rated

US universities US Jesuit universities

Mission and vision statement 67% 67% Student development 60% 80% Major/concentration 7% 20% Specialized Master 7% 32% Specialized PhD/Doctoral program 0% 11% Executive Education 93% 20% Service Learning 33% 36% Specialized Center 67% 32%

According to these figures we can conclude that:

a) There are no significant differences regarding the presence of leadership in mission statements. However, in future research, a more thorough analysis considering what values the leadership concept is associated to will yield more accurate conclusions on this issue.

b) Executive education: This is not a field where Jesuit universities are positioned, in general, and the results reflect this fact.

c) From an academic perspective, Jesuit institutions hold a robust position with respect to specialized Master’s, PhDs and majors, with a higher offering of these than the group of top‐ranked universities.

d) Some top‐ranked universities are already using service learning and in a proportion similar to Jesuit institutions.

e) The group of top‐ranked universities have specialized centers in leadership in a much higher proportion than Jesuit universities.

Special attention should be devoted to these leadership centers as they reflect the predominant orientation of their institutions in this field, representing some of the practices to benchmark. Stanford is the institution that is adopting leadership in a more integrated and holistic way, with a high impact on the pedagogical approach.


University School Center U. Pennsylvania Wharton Center for Leadership and Change ManagementYale Chief Executive Leadership Institute

Harvard JFK School of Government Center for Public Leadership

Harvard HBS HBS Leadership Initiative MIT Sloan MIT Leadership Center

Stanford Graduate School of Business

Center for Leadership Development and Research

Columbia University

Graduate School of Business

The Stanford C. Bernstein and Co. Center for Leadership and Ethics

Duke Fuqua The Fuqua/Coach K Center of Leadership & Ethics (COLE)

Dartmouth Tuck William A. Achtmeyer Center for Global Leadership

Babson Center for Women's Leadership

John Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering Center for Leadership Education

Some practices of note in the Jesuit network

Due to the nature of our research, here we present only a brief description of some relevant programs we were able to analyze during our study and visits. They are examples which stand out because of the quality of their contents, their results, their innovative focuses and because they represent different possible approaches to leadership development.

a. Developing leadership at the executive level: The Seattle University Center for Leadership Formation.

At Seattle University, leadership is a theme applied at different levels, with a strong tradition in student development and service learning. Leadership is embedded within Jesuit values, not following a specific model but inspired by responsibility and social justice. We would like to highlight the doctoral program on Leadership at the Seattle University School of Education and the high academic level achieved in this area.

However, if dealing strictly with business education, the Center for Leadership Formation is one of the few initiatives in Jesuit business education programs at the executive education level.

Created through faculty initiative, the Center for Leadership Formation “provides innovative, world‐class executive education to mid to senior‐level


professionals with an emphasis on leadership, business expertise, and a commitment to social responsibility.”

The Executive Leadership Program, a certificate program that has been running for thirteen editions and is, therefore, consolidated, is one of the center’s foundations. More recently it has launched the Executive Leadership MBA which integrates the contents and experiences of the Executive Leadership Program in a wider MBA context. The Center also offers an Advanced Leadership Program, a one‐week intensive residential program for senior managers that are advancing in their careers.

Jesuit values are present in the center’s educational approach and in the application of service learning at the executive level.

As mentioned, the Leadership Executive Program is probably the flagship and the best representation of the integrated approach developed at the center. In the program, the participants, most already holding an MBA degree and with solid professional experience overall, are required to work in teams on a social justice project which is later complemented with a business project for their respective companies. The participants also benefit from greater self‐knowledge through the use of assessment processes like Genesis 360, the Firo‐b test, and Myer Briggs (MBTI) . The program also offers participants coaching services during 6 months. The most important factor is that the program has consistently had a positive impact on participants’ careers.

To summarize, the Center of Leadership Formation is an example of how to integrate Jesuit values, service and state‐of‐the‐art leadership development methodologies.

http://www.seattleu.edu/albers/executiveeducation.aspx

b. Cooperation within the Jesuit network: The SUGU Leadership Conference

Every year, the SUGU Leadership Conference takes place, alternating between Seattle and Spokane. During 3 days, scholars present their work, most of which are doctoral research projects, and they have the opportunity to check their ideas with colleagues. The 2010 conference was the 4th edition of this event, the result of cooperation between the Seattle University Education Doctoral Leadership Program and the Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies. Besides the quality of the content and it being a highly interesting experience for


anyone dedicated to the leadership field, the conference is also an example of cooperation and leveraging within the Jesuit network.

16 projects were presented during the last conference, the majority addressing social issues, change, education and leadership.

c. Creating leadership knowledge: The Gonzaga doctoral program in Leadership Studies

In Spokane, WA, Gonzaga University has become the Jesuit university offering the widest portfolio of programs in leadership fully integrated with Jesuit values. Grounded in the university’s mission and strategic vision, leadership is and has been promoted strongly by Gonzaga’s former President, Father Robert Spitzer, S. J., and the current President, Dr. Thayne McCulloh, allowing Gonzaga to achieve a unique position in the area of leadership studies.

At Gonzaga we can find leadership programs at the undergraduate, graduate and PhD levels.

Gonzaga has a Master’s degree in Organizational Leadership (campus and online), a Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies, a Comprehensive Leadership Program for the undergraduate level, complemented with several study‐abroad programs, and also certificate programs in this field. Gonzaga University also publishes the International Journal on Servant Leadership. We should say that, from an academic perspective, Gonzaga’s position is truly strong, and its only area for improvement in its academic portfolio is Executive Education.

Most of the programs have been developed within the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, and in this report we would like to highlight its PhD in Leadership Studies, one of the very few programs of its kind in the US.

The program has been running for 20 years and has more than 300 graduates. Founded as a Doctorate in Education Leadership it evolved into a PhD when it was included in the School of Professional Studies. It has very solid conceptual foundations and is strongly linked to Jesuit values.

“The Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Leadership Studies is based on the Jesuit tradition of educating the whole person. The interdisciplinary degree program is designed for working professionals across an entire range of professions, including K‐12 education, higher education, health care, social services, theology, philosophy, engineering, government, law enforcement, and business. The program is interdisciplinary and designed to develop scholarship


and professional competencies while encouraging self‐reflection and strengthening a commitment of service to others.”

The program offers both a regular curriculum and a summer program, allowing professionals from all parts of the US to more easily participate.

Gonzaga’s PhD has also established international partnerships, including one with Ateneo de Manila. The latter has also recently launched its own Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies. This is another example of cooperation within the Jesuit network and the field of leadership.

http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges‐and‐Schools/School‐of‐Professional‐Studies/Ph.D.‐‐‐Leadership‐Studies/default.asp

d. Integration: Detroit Mercy’s Institute for Leadership and Service

Detroit Mercy is located in downtown Detroit and it is highly committed to the social problems of the surrounding area, deeply affected by the changes in its economic model.

Three interests have converged in leadership development at Detroit Mercy: a) fulfilling the mission as a Catholic university by promoting leaders in service and compassion, b) increasing the employability of its students, and c) improving student retention. The university also has a tradition in service learning and has faculty with a strong background in leadership development.

For this reason, Detroit Mercy's approach to leadership development is the most integrative we’ve found, with a shared model present in different moments of the students’ academic life. The Institute for Leadership and Service is the organizational instrument to achieve its leadership development objectives, and it has been recently remodeled to promote a more integrated and effective approach.

By integration we refer to purposefully developing leadership through diverse and coordinated actions throughout the students’ academic life and being able to involve all relevant parties in this goal: The university’s leadership, faculty, staff, students, alumni and the community. The objective is to make sure that


students are exposed to concepts such as Identity, Mission and Leadership. The Student Development Office is also very active in this process.

While in the past, the emphasis was more on service, the newer perspectives pay greater attention to leadership. The measurement using different tools and giving voice to students through many surveys is also a point worth noting.

The integrated approach promoted by the Institute for Leadership and Service is based on 4 lines of action:

1) A service learning focus, involving different parties (faculty, staff, students, community organizations and alumni);

2) Implementing leadership across the curriculum;

3) Developing a university culture on leadership; and

4) Leadership research and scholarly activities, including assessment and evaluation of the institute.

We will follow further development of the Institute with attention, possibly serving as a reference or example of an integrative approach to leadership development initiatives within a university.

http://www.udmercy.edu/institute/index.htm

e. Developing responsible global leaders: Santa Clara Global Women’s Leadership Network

Undoubtedly, Santa Clara is a reference for leadership in higher education programs. Most of its initiatives and programs in this field reveal the unmistakable footprints of the former Leavey School Dean, Barry Posner, and Santa Clara University President, Fr. R. Locatelli, S. J. The relationship with Ignatian Spirituality is very strong and evident.

But apart from Santa Clara’s evident general contribution to the field of leadership, we would like to highlight the combined use of the network concept, leadership development and service to develop global leaders. This is what takes place in the Global Women’s Leadership Network.

Established in 2004, the Global Women’s Leadership Network is “dedicated to developing the leadership capacity of women who dare to transform the future of their organizations, communities, and the world.”


A variety of programs have that very purpose: The International Fellowship Program, Global Innovation Dialogue, Global Leaders for Justice, Women at the Well and Women Leaders of the World.

These different programs are based on engaging in dialogue, residence, the application of an ontological approach to leadership, authentic leadership and service with a global perspective, all “guided by Santa Clara University leadership principles of competence, conscience, and compassion.”

A very interesting program for the potential it offers the Jesuit network is the International Fellowship Program. Through this program, approximately 30 undergraduate students participate every year in an international 5 to 7‐week work project in an international or US location through community‐based learning (this is the terminology adopted by Santa Clara for “Service Learning”). The learning experience is a 3‐phase process: Preparation, fieldwork and reflections. It offers students the opportunity to work on all continents with local or international NGOs in Ethiopia, India, Taiwan, Turkey, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.

These experiences have an important transformational impact on students who are selected with two criteria: Their readiness and capacity to represent the institution and its values.

The Global Women’s Leadership Network is financed through the generous contribution of many individual donors and it benefits from thousands of volunteers’ hours.

http://lsbglobalfellows.org/

f. Leadership and social responsibility: The Winston Center of Leadership and Ethics

Created through a donation and housed within the Carroll School of Management, the Winston Center of Leadership and Ethics promotes a complete set of activities which focus both on research and teaching. It has two co‐directors, one for each of the center’s two areas of specialization.

The center’s goal is to also bring “students, faculty and the Boston community together for thoughtful conversations about leadership and ethics in business and society,” according to the school’s Dean, Andrew Boynton. The Clough Colloquium, Chambers Lectures and the Winston Forum on Business ethics are all instrumental for this purpose.


However, the two programs we would like to describe in more detail are the Leadership for Change and the Jenks Leadership programs.

The Leadership for Change program is the center’s flagship and it has gone through 17 editions after its creation by a faculty member 18 years ago. The program is addressed at professionals with at least a graduate degree. Its aim is to enhance these professionals’ ability to deal with their leadership challenges trough a process based mostly on reflection. Every year, a group of 25 professionals join the program and go through 6 stages in four different levels. They start at the individual level, then move to the group level, followed by the organizational level and lastly the social level. The program brings together 14 faculty members from inside and outside the university. One of the program’s purposes is to promote an integrative approach within the university, tearing down the “silos” which frequently exist in academia. Because the reflection component of the program is crucial, it creates a safe environment for participants in which they can talk openly about their personal and professional challenges.

The Jenks Leadership Program is a leadership development program for undergraduates and it is thus named in memory of Sandy Jenks, a former faculty member who created and led the university’s counseling services for many years. The program was interrupted for some time though later reestablished at the request of Winston Center donors. The program follows the same integrative approach as the Leadership for Change Program. Though run by the Carroll School of Management, it is open to any student at Boston College. According to the words of its director, it is "a student‐oriented program and a student‐run program." The participants are selected after a highly competitive application process, and for 3 semesters they undertake different activities, including retreats and a service project. The alumni network is highly involved in the program, and there is a program Management Board consisting of 8 alumni.

The Jenks Leadership Program coexists with other leadership development programs at Boston College for undergraduate students: The Shaw Program, the Emerging Leader Program, and the more recently created Ahana Program for minorities.

g. Leadership from a global hub: Georgetown’s McDonough Executive Masters in Leadership

In the oldest Jesuit university in the US and in the heart of Washington DC, a place for public governance and global international relations, the McDonough


School of Business provides a unique context to have an impact on global and international organization leadership. In McDonough School’s own words: “Education at the Hub of Global Leadership.”

Among their programs in Executive Education, the Executive Master’s in Leadership has a privileged position. Aimed at experienced professionals in executive positions (with 8 to 15 years of experience), the program analyzes three levels of leadership:

“The Individual aspect enhances critical thinking and problem‐solving skills and tasks students with developing a personal leadership action plan.

The Team aspect solidifies the negotiation and influence skills necessary for leadership in collaborative, team‐based business environments;

The Organization aspect develops organizational strategy, governance, and institution‐building skills necessary for senior management success.”

The program’s design is adapted to working executives. The program’s length is 13 months long consisting of weekend sessions and three residential periods, one of which takes place in South Africa. Besides its curriculum, the global emphasis is one of the differential characteristics of this program, and the residential period abroad is the way to put this into practice. During this stay abroad, participants cooperate with local organizations to solve problems while dealing with cross‐cultural issues and understanding how to put their knowledge and experience into practice in a very different context.

http://msb.georgetown.edu/eml/

h. Creating a new social mindset: The ESADE Chair for LeadershipS and Governance

This Chair's aim is to promote “permanent dialogue between the organizations (companies, public administrations and NGOs) and the individual players (businessmen, managers, political representatives, and social, civic and union leaders, etc.) that are committed to responsibly addressing the challenges faced in governing a world which is both global and local.”

Created in 2006, its main program is called “Thinking about Leadership” which consists of a series of sessions with scholars and leaders that meet regularly. In addition, the Chair aims to study and promote innovative leadership in accordance with this complex reality.


In this challenge of creating a leadership mindset in society at the governance level, the Chair launched and is successfully celebrating every year what have been called its “Saint Benedict Meetings”, two‐day conferences where leaders from the three sectors meet to exchange their experiences and discuss leadership issues affecting society.

http://www.esade.edu/research/eng/liderazgo

Priorities for the future

In our questionnaire to Jesuit Universities, we asked about their priorities for the future. After classifying their responses, we found that the most cited priorities focused on launching or improving new programs in the field of leadership development (24% of the mentions), followed by the promotion of specific values and ethics (22%). There were also a significant number of references to initiatives to promote leadership transversally (19%), increasing the presence of leadership topics across the curricula and involving faculty, staff and students at a more general level.

Service is also a relevant topic for the future (9%) as are initiatives focusing on pedagogical approaches or developing methodologies (9%).

Priorities for the future % of

mentions Academic 24%Values 22%Integration 19%Service 9%Pedagogy 9%Research 3%Other 9%


Part 3: Provisional diagnosis: Situation, commonalties and differences

Summary of our main preliminary findings

According to our study when analyzing leadership and leadership development in Jesuit institutions:

Most of these institutions see these topics as a very relevant part of their mission.

A high proportion believes that they can play a role in their respective strategies.

There is the general perception that leadership development has not only increased in importance but that it will became more important in the future, driven by market and social demands and its alignment with the Jesuit mission, as well.

A vast majority believes that leadership is fully consistent with Jesuit values and tradition.

• There is also a high level of agreement on making leadership development a priority and developing it as a distinctive trait in Jesuit business education programs.

Although the general opinion is that leadership development is consistent with Jesuit pedagogy, there is a lack of concretion on how it should be enacted from a methodological perspective.

Service is a common orientation found in leadership development initiatives implemented in Jesuit institutions. Service learning is used by a relevant number of universities. However, service learning is still more about “service” than leadership development.

Most of the Jesuit Schools do not offer Executive Education programs.

Research and knowledge generation in the area of leadership is not present in most schools.

The priorities for the future are mostly in the academic field, especially creating new or better programs, reinforcing the presence and practice of values, one of the most relevant being service, and promoting a more integrative approach with cross‐curricular initiatives or involving different parties (faculty, staff and students).


Although Jesuit institutions present different situations concerning leadership development, considering the network as a whole, there are examples of excellence in all the different areas of application. Here we mention some examples that are limited to the information gathered from our visits and interviews:

• ESADE and Georgetown are building a strong international positioning in terms of Executive Education and MBA programs. Seattle University is also implementing interesting initiatives in this area.

• Gonzaga, Seattle and San Francisco have consolidated their Leadership Studies doctoral programs, and Ateneo de Manila has recently launched one. There are recognized researchers and scholars in the leadership field at Santa Clara, Boston College and ESADE.

• Santa Clara and Detroit Mercy have acquired significant expertise in their pedagogical approaches to leadership development among undergraduate students and their integration with service learning and student development. This is an area of attention and expertise among other Jesuit universities as well.

The cultural context: US vs. non‐US universities

Most of the information about leadership development programs is found among US universities. The same happens when we consider the presence of leadership in university mission statements. This could be interpreted to mean that leadership is not considered an important issue for non‐US institutions. However, we gathered enough responses from non‐US institutions in our online questionnaire whose results refute the assumption above.

It is clear that leadership development is not less important in non‐US institutions. In fact, it is worth noting that leadership development will be much more relevant in the future for non‐US institutions. The main gaps between US and non‐US institutions appear in the areas of research, service to community and generation of thought. There is less agreement among non‐US institutions about the consistency between leadership and the Jesuit tradition and pedagogy; however, institutions outside the US give it the same emphasis as a priority for the future and they give even more importance to making leadership a distinctive trait of Jesuit business education programs.

According to these results, we can argue that there is no difference in the degree of attention, relevance and importance for the future of leadership development.


Therefore, the gap observed in the presence of leadership development in programs and mission statements seems to be a reflection only of the universities’ capacity and experience in implementing actions and expressing leadership in a more formal way in terms of institutional statements and programs.

The driving motivators behind leadership development initiatives

After analyzing the different leadership programs and initiatives both In Jesuit and non‐Jesuit universities, it is possible to observe that they respond to different needs and have been launched for diverse reasons.

We can thus classify programs and activities not just in terms of their format but also according to their purpose or raison d’être. All of the motivators behind leadership initiatives are good and necessary, and, as such, their classification is not a judgment. It is just a description of the different added value that leadership development programs can imply. These motivators are not mutually exclusive, that is, a specific program can have more than one justification.

Broadly, then, these are the 5 motivation categories we found:

a. Market‐driven: These are the programs and activities developed to better serve the demand for leadership coming from the market. We understand the market to be the prospective students and corporations that either hire the students or want to train their executives as leaders. Therefore, the motivation is attracting more students, increasing their employability and attracting more corporations as both customers and recruiters. The final purpose is to increase the school’s and the university’s marketability.

b. Socially‐driven: We consider here those activities whose objectives are to promote leadership in society and/or a more responsible leadership based on the concepts of social responsibility and sustainability. The ultimate goal is to influence society, having a positive impact.

c. Mission‐driven: These are the activities that respond to the purpose of promoting and fulfilling the university’s mission and its foundational values over any other consideration. In the case of Jesuit business education programs, this category overlaps with socially‐driven initiatives.

d. Pedagogically‐driven: These are programs which aim to achieve a better, and higher level of personal development, in some cases referring to


professional and personal competences while in others to participants’ values or even the spiritual dimension.

e. Academically‐driven: Here we find research activities and the development of Leadership Studies curricula, majors and specializations. Doctoral studies are the ultimate expression of this kind of motivation.

Executive leadership development programs and Master’s degree in this field normally respond to market demand. Some student development programs are pedagogically driven while others are mission driven. Doctoral, research and curricular initiatives respond in most cases to a purely academic motivation. Activities to generate thought and debate are mostly socially‐driven. Obviously, there is the chance and, we would say, the need, to make it possible for a single leadership development activity to serve different purposes.

Similarly, it is also possible to classify schools and institutional activities in the leadership development field according to the dominant orientation of these initiatives. Examining, non‐Jesuit institutions, for example, one could say that the Harvard Business School is mostly market‐driven as its leadership initiatives have a strong focus on Executive Education programs, while the same university’s School of Public Governance is more socially‐oriented with respect to its Center for Public Governance. MIT, by contrast, reveals a more academic orientation while Cornell, Stanford and Duke give more emphasis to the pedagogical approach.

In Jesuit business education programs we can find all these motivations as well. As mentioned above, all of them add value to the institutions and are necessary.

The problem of internal integration

Leadership development initiatives developed within a single university may be sometimes quite independent due to their different motivations and internal sponsors. It is even possible to find programs inside the same university that compete for the same students. A lack of integration seems to be one of the traits we found, especially if we look at leadership development within the university as a whole.

Though this lack of integration can represent a type of freedom and respect for the singularity of each initiative that can exist within a university, it poses several risks in terms of continuity, reduced efficiency and less consistency.

This phenomenon is not only observed in Jesuit universities; it is very common in higher education institutions in general, reflecting academic culture which is very


individualistic by nature. However, we shouldn’t confuse this phenomenon as something normal, justifying it as something positive. Some institutions have taken steps to improve program integration as has occurred at Detroit Mercy within the Jesuit network. Stanford could also be an interesting example of this integrative approach among non‐Jesuit universities.

Different horses for different courses? What is the real competition?

Jesuit universities were described as “different horses for different courses” in one of our interviews. This is a very accurate description as Jesuit universities operate in very different contexts, facing different challenges and following different strategies. It would be impossible to do it any other way.

However, we should question if this is an obstacle for cooperation. Moreover, considering that we are running in different courses but competing as a team in the same “championship,” perhaps there is not only the opportunity but also the need to cooperate, especially in the new global world around us.

One of the motivations behind this study was to analyze if such differences also applied to leadership development programs and whether this field could serve as an area for cooperation.

As we have seen, Jesuit universities are still very different in terms of their degree of development in the area of leadership. However, we’ve also seen a common concern about this area, an emphasis on making it a priority for the future. We’ve also seen that there are some commonalties in the different practices, especially the orientation towards linking leadership development with social justice and Jesuit values and the attention to service as a way of developing better leaders while also fulfilling the university mission.

Moreover, looking at the Jesuit network as a whole, we found practices of excellence in the different areas where leadership development can take place. How to leverage the network to profit from this will be one of the key issues in the future.

The answer depends on how we define the global competition according to the mission; however, it should not be based on the individual races alone, but on the role that leadership can play to reach this end.


Part 4: What can we do now that we know more?

Purpose and requirements of possible lines of action

Now arrives the time to analyze the opportunities and implications of our research. As a Jesuit told us in one of the interviews conducted for this study:

“The question is not if we have to do it or not. The question is what and how.”

In the online questionnaire to the Jesuit universities we also recorded this statement:

“It is at the heart of the Ignatian Mission. The problem is have something that is effective, works and is unique. Jesuit institutions are in the position of talk about issues

others can't: Integrity, Spirituality, Ethics.”

And in another response we also heard a more urgent call for action mixed with self‐criticism:

“We in Jesuit institutions should be ashamed of ourselves. We have, growing out of Ignatian spirituality and pedagogy, the greatest leadership formation model in the

world. And we do not use it anywhere near enough.”

We already know some of the priorities of the Jesuit universities in the field of leadership development. Most of these are shared concerns and interests. Moreover, there is the question of how to make leadership development a distinctive trait of Jesuit business education programs.

With this in mind, we turn the discussion to some possible lines of action for Jesuit business universities as a whole. We do not dare to call this part "recommendations" or even "proposals"; they are just some ideas to share and to serve as the basis for reflection.

We believe that any course of action regarding leadership development should fulfill the following requisites:

a) Connect with the mission;

b) Have a reliable methodology;

c) Build on strengths and tradition; and

d) Strive towards academic excellence.


a) Connect with the mission

According to our study, "leadership" is very relevant for the university mission and it is consistent with the Jesuit tradition, its values and pedagogical approach. Whether leadership development should be part of the mission is a leadership question in itself: That is, it should be answered by Jesuit university leaders.

However, the answer to this question makes all the difference regarding how we develop our students as leaders. Moreover, answering this question is a way to start to make a difference in the leadership development field and in educational institutions.

b) Have reliable methodology

Effective leadership development cannot be just an intellectual debate or consist of motivational activities, “soft” on the academic side and with no evident results. This represents a problem for leadership’s credibility inside and outside the institutions.

Hence, it is necessary to define a solid approach to make it effective educationally, rigorous and consistent with the vision of leadership that the institution is promoting to fulfill its mission.

Leadership development has advanced enough to begin to have reliable methodologies available, most of which integrate experiential learning and are complemented with self‐awareness and reflection processes aided by assessment tools, coaching and mentoring activities. Therefore, we already have the raw material to put into practice. But the definition of a leadership development methodology is not neutral because it profoundly reflects the vision of leadership that it is behind it. The leadership development approach should be according to the kind of leaders and leadership we wish to develop.

This represents one of the main challenges for Jesuit institutions.

c) Build on strengths and tradition

Jesuit tradition offers unique instruments for leadership development. There is also enough experience and expertise within the network to engage in the process of creating methodologies that not only provide more effective leadership development but also reinforce its alignment with the Jesuit mission, values, pedagogy and way of proceeding.

In a global world, an educational network with the size and quality of the Jesuits’ higher education system is an enormous advantage. A global approach has been


adopted by the most successful international organizations and it is based on an easy‐to‐define but difficult‐to‐achieve principle: Make the whole greater than the sum of its parts in the accomplishment of a shared mission.

Father Adolfo Nicolás, Superior of the Jesuit Society, very recently addressed this topic: “Surely the words used by the 35th General Congregation to describe the Society of Jesus as a whole apply as well to Jesuit universities around the world: The new context of globalization requires us to act as a universal body with a universal mission, realizing at the same time the radical diversity of our situations. It is as a worldwide community – and, simultaneously, as a network of local communities – that we seek to serve others across the world”(Nicolas 2010).

Finally, Jesuit higher education institutions have the credibility to speak up and provide answers to the current challenges in a society that is demanding a more ethical, responsible and value‐based leadership.

d) Strive for academic excellence

As university institutions, the commitment to academic excellence is a necessary condition for success and sustainability, a responsibility with our students and a requirement to influence society through knowledge creation and dissemination.

Leadership development is not an alternative to academic excellence; it is a complement. If leadership development is built on an environment of academic excellence, it can become more effective and serve as a differentiating factor.

The application of Magis to all aspects of educational activity should remain as distinctive trait.


Some possible lines for future development

As a consequence of the results of our study and also the suggestions received during the different interviews, we propose some possible areas for future development, opportunities to not only achieve more effective leadership development in Jesuit business education institutions but to also reinforce its role as a distinctive trait. We hope these reflections prove to be useful as a starting point for reflection, triggering future work and generating concrete initiatives.

a) “Leadership Formation“

Ignatian pedagogy is based on the principle of cura personalis, that is, the development of the whole person. Leadership development represents the opportunity to add new dimensions to the education we provide our students. Moreover, Ignatian pedagogy can bring new perspectives to the concept of leadership development, a more holistic and integrative approach giving the opportunity to develop leaders and leadership with a more complete approach, encompassing skills, competencies, values, character and purpose in life.

This can be called, as Seattle University proposes, “Leadership Formation”, to make its connection with Ignatian pedagogy and language clearer and differentiate it from the traditional ‚"leadership development" which focuses more on skills and professional competences.

This approach is also fully consistent with the most modern approaches to leadership and leadership development which consider the character, moral and spiritual dimensions as the most important aspects to develop effective leaders.

From this perspective we should also consider that Ignatian spirituality and the Spiritual Exercises represent unique instruments for leadership development, with self‐awareness and discernment being the most relevant. Their application to leadership development integrated with other methodologies, such as service learning or adapted to the current state‐of‐the‐art leadership development tools, may contribute to achieve a more effective methodology which is better aligned with Jesuit ways of proceeding.


b) Leadership and service (men and women for others)

We’ve seen that service learning is a widespread practice in Jesuit business education programs. Service learning is also increasingly spreading in education in general. In spite of its popularity, it is still fairly new as a discipline, without a unified definition and even with some confusion regarding the terminology: Service learning, community engagement, community‐based learning, etc. are sometimes used without a precise distinction between them (Naudel 2007).

According to the National Service Learning Clearing House, “Service learning combines service objectives with learning objectives with the intent that the activity changes both the recipient and the provider of the service. This is accomplished by combining service tasks with structured opportunities that link the task to self‐reflection, self‐discovery, and the acquisition and comprehension of values, skills, and knowledge of content” (National Service Learning Clearing House).

In practice, service learning should always provide:

• Relevant and meaningful service to the community,

• A clear connection between pedagogical objectives and service activities, and

• Structured opportunities for reflection.

Although service learning can be used for many educational purposes, one of its increasingly important applications is in leadership development (Lavery 2008), and it has proven to be an effective methodology to achieve this goal (Stattford et al, 2003).

For Jesuit business education institutions, service learning presents many opportunities and advantages:

• Impact and effectiveness

Experiential learning has proven its efficacy in leadership development. In the case of service learning, the kind of experience it provides and its transformational impact on people makes it even more effective. When directly confronting society’s real problems and being in contact with the disadvantaged, students have the opportunity to create a new mindset and, in some way, go through a certain form of transformative “crucible,” developing their leadership capabilities.


• Authenticity

Role playing, outdoor training, internships and other forms of experiential learning take place in controlled and not‐real environments. There is a lack of authenticity, and the educational and transformational impact is reduced. Service learning requires relevant and meaningful practice, and this means engaging with real needs and situations, thus creating a completely different learning environment.

• Consistent with Jesuit values, proceedings and mission

Service learning is based on the principles of service, compassion, action and reflection. It couldn’t provide a better fit with Jesuit values and ways of proceeding. Moreover, it helps foment a more complete development of the person and it provides students the opportunity to reflect on and discover their purpose, to think beyond their own interests and discover or further explore the spiritual dimension. In addition, it becomes something that isn’t done because it is a nice thing to do but, rather, because it is the way we are, our mission and commitment.

• Consistent with the most relevant theories in leadership development

Service learning is consistent with the most recent leadership and leadership development theories: Transformational Leadership, Authentic Leadership, Servant Leadership, the Social Change Leadership Model, Responsible Leadership, Value‐based Leadership, Collaborative Leadership, and the Ontological Model of Leadership.

• Versatility

Even though the most widespread application of service learning is with young students, it is possible to adapt it to different contexts, kinds of service and student profiles. Service learning can be developed in neighborhoods to help to create leaders that are more connected with their communities or in faraway and foreign locations to promote global leadership. Also, with the corresponding adaptations in terms of format and content, service learning programs can be delivered to undergraduate students, MBA or even Executive Education program participants. PriceWaterhouse Coopers’ Ulysses program is an excellent example (PriceWaterhouse Coopers, 2010).

• Delivers value to society


It is an obvious benefit but also a requirement. Service learning cannot be just about learning; it should also provide meaningful and accountable value to society. Therefore, these results should somehow be measured. One of the payoffs is increased satisfaction by participants and better engagement with their leadership responsibilities.

• Potential impact on the academic community

Despite the fact that service learning is receiving greater attention and growing in popularity as a methodology, it is still not mature nor completely developed. Creating greater expertise in this area and sharing it with the academic community can be beneficial not only for the educational community from a global perspective but also an opportunity for Jesuit Business Schools to be more influential by taking on a leadership role in this field.

However, there is still a lot to do to consolidate service learning as a leadership development practice. Some actions are related to its constraints and requirements:

• Voluntary practice: According to the service learning experience of the Jesuit universities analyzed in this study, participation in service learning should be voluntary. One of the main motivations for participating in this kind of activities is “helping others” (Naudel 2007). Including participants that are not motivated enough means taking important risks with possible negative effects on both service performance as well as the relationship with collaborating organizations.

• Complexity: It requires managing students, resources, faculty and relationships with collaborating organizations. This complexity makes it difficult to scale.

• Faculty and staff involvement: This involvement can also be a source of motivation, personal development and personal satisfaction but it should be managed carefully, and special attention should be given to internal communications and training.

• Evaluation of results: One of leadership development’s weak points is the lack of results measurement. Accountability and measurability regarding the service provided or the impact on leadership development competencies is a requirement for service learning’s effectiveness and credibility.


• Integration with other leadership development activities: Service learning needs to be framed within leadership theory (Stafford 2004) and be supported by other leadership development methods. Moreover, because the impact of service learning on leadership development is directly related to the quality of reflection, the use of coaching, mentoring, reflective journals or 360 assessment techniques can increase the benefits for program participants.

c) Integration

Leadership is not a clear‐cut academic discipline like marketing or finance. It is multidisciplinary by nature, still novel and in the early developmental stages. For these and other reasons, it has many “owners” within academic institutions and it can sometimes be more an area of competition and "intellectual disagreement” rather than cooperation. As we’ve seen, leadership development initiatives respond to different motivations and can pursue different objectives within the same institution.

Jesuit business education programs are not exempt from this problem. However, if we believe that leadership development, as a key educational principle, is relevant in a culture of integral personal development and we agree that it is also essential to fulfill our mission; perhaps we should consider the alternative of a more integrative approach.

This integrative approach implies connecting (not centralizing) the different leadership initiatives and giving them a shared meaning.

It means also involving all different parties: students, faculty, staff, alumni and other relevant stakeholders in society. Leadership development becomes in that way a shared purpose for fulfilling the institutions ultimate educational mission and contribution to the society.

This can be done only by putting the mission and values at the heart of leadership development activities and applying it to the rest of the activities. This is also only possible if it has the visible support and sponsorship of the university’s top leadership.

Leveraging the network

The benefits of leveraging the network appeared recurrently throughout this study. Taking advantage of the expertise currently dispersed within the network,


sharing practices and knowledge and optimizing the joint use of resources are apparently good reasons on their own to find ways of effectively using the network.

But if leadership development is part of or instrumental to the mission of Jesuit business education programs, this creates another and more powerful motivation to start looking at leadership development as an area for cooperation within a common space for Jesuit business education institutions. A common purpose is a stronger motivation to cooperate rather than just being more efficient.

There are many ways of doing this: Creating a community of leadership scholars in Jesuit education programs, promoting research networks or joint programs…

Building this cooperation and shared methodology can also represent an opportunity when making possible and visible leadership development as a distinctive trait. This could be the case with service learning for leadership development at a global level. It is possible to imagine Jesuit business schools in privileged countries or cities cooperating with those that are closer to the most disadvantaged by creating international cooperation programs for leadership development.

We hope this study to be a modest contribution to that purpose.


ANNEX 1: General results from the online questionnaire

1. In the present moment, what is the role of Leadership Development in each of the following components of your management and business education activity?

Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.

Not relevant Somewhat important

Important Very important

Extremely important

N/A

Programs and contents 0 6 10 10 10 0

0% 17% 28% 28% 28% 0%

Research activity 0 17 9 7 3 0

0% 47% 25% 19% 8% 0%

Pedagogical model 0 10 9 11 6 0

0% 28% 25% 31% 17% 0%

Student Development activities 0 5 7 14 9 1

0% 14% 19% 39% 25% 3%

Service to community 1 7 6 9 12 1

3% 19% 17% 25% 33% 3% Generation of thought, opinion and debate

2 5 11 11 5 2 6% 14% 31% 31% 14% 6%

The strategy for competing in the business and management education industry

3 3 8 14 8 0 8% 8% 22% 39% 22% 0%

The institution's educational mission 1 5 7 7 16 0

3% 14% 19% 19% 44% 0%

2. What is the role that Leadership Development is playing today in each of the academic levels where you are operating? (If you don’t develop a significant activity in any of these academic levels, mark it with "NA")

Not relevant Somewhat

importantImportant Very

important Extremely important

N/A

Undergraduate 0 6 9 12 4 5

0% 17% 25% 33% 11% 14%

Graduate 0 2 11 7 7 9

0% 6% 31% 19% 19% 25%

MBA 1 1 14 9 6 5

3% 3% 39% 25% 17% 14%

Executive Education open programs 0 3 5 9 6 13

0% 8% 14% 25% 17% 36% Executive education corporate (custom) programs.

0 2 4 10 7 13 0% 6% 11% 28% 19% 36%

Professional and continuing education 0 3 7 6 3 17

0% 8% 19% 17% 8% 47%

Doctoral studies 2 2 2 5 1 24

6% 6% 6% 14% 3% 67% Alumni programs and activities 1 5 6 10 0 14


3% 14% 17% 28% 0% 39%

3. In your institution, compared with the past (5 to 10 years ago), Leadership Development today has become....

Much less important 0 0%

Less important 1 3%

No change. 6 17%

More important 23 64%

Much more important 6 17%

Total 36 100%

4.In your opinion, compared with today, Leadership Development will be in the future (next 5 to 10 years) for your institution....

Much less important 0 0%

Less important 0 0%

No change. 3 8%

More important 22 61%

Much more important 11 31%

Total 36 100%

5.Jesuit business education and Leadership Development (please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. If you have any comment, use the boxes below each statement).

Strongly disagree

Very disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Very agree

Strongly agree

N/A

Leadership Development is consistent with Jesuit values and tradition

0 0 0 3 8 25 00% 0% 0% 8% 22% 69% 0%

Leadership Development is consistent with Jesuit pedagogical model

0 0 0 5 9 21 10% 0% 0% 14% 25% 58% 3%

Leadership Development should be a priority in Jesuit business education

0 0 0 2 10 24 00% 0% 0% 6% 28% 67% 0%

Leadership Development should be a distinctive trait of Jesuit business education

0 1 3 0 7 25 0

0% 3% 8% 0% 19% 69% 0%


ANNEX 2: US vs. Non‐US Jesuit Universities

1. Importance of leadership development in each aspect of the institution’s activity

Extremely important

Very important Important Somewhat important

Not relevant N/A

Programs and contents USA 29% 29% 24% 19% 0% 0%

Non USA 27% 27% 33% 13% 0% 0%

Research activity USA 5% 14% 33% 48% 0% 0%

Non USA 13% 27% 13% 47% 0% 0%

Pedagogical model USA 19% 19% 29% 33% 0% 0%

Non USA 7% 47% 27% 20% 0% 0%

Student Development activities

USA 19% 43% 14% 19% 0% 5%

Non USA 33% 33% 27% 7% 0% 0%

Service to community USA 33% 29% 14% 19% 0% 5%

Non USA 33% 20% 20% 20% 7% 0%

Generation of thought, opinion and debate

USA 14% 29% 24% 14% 10% 10%

Non USA 13% 33% 40% 13% 0% 0%

The strategy for competing in the business and management education industry

USA 29% 29% 14% 14% 14% 0%

Non USA 13% 53% 33% 0% 0% 0%

The institution's educational mission

USA 43% 19% 19% 14% 5% 0%

Non USA 47% 20% 20% 13% 0% 0%


2. Evolution of leadership development in the institution

Compared with past In the future

USA Non USA USA Non USA

Much more important 14% 20% 14% 53%

More important 62% 67% 76% 40%

No change 19% 13% 10% 7%

Less important 5% 0% 0% 0%

Much less important 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 10000% 100% 100% 100%

3. Degree of agreement with the following statements

Strongly disagree

Very disagree Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Very agree Strongly agree

Leadership Development is consistent with Jesuit values and tradition

USA 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 81%

Non USA 0% 0% 0% 7% 40% 53%

Leadership Development is consistent with Jesuit pedagogical model

USA 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 70%

Non USA 0% 0% 0% 20% 33% 47%

Leadership Development should be a priority in Jesuit business education

USA 0% 0% 0% 10% 24% 67%

Non USA 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%

Leadership Development should be a distinctive trait of Jesuit business education

USA 0% 5% 14% 0% 14% 67%

Non USA 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% 73%


References

Althaus, Jennifer. “Service‐Learning and Leadership Development: Posing Questions Not Answers”. Michigan Journal of Community Based Learning. Fall 1997.

Arvey, Richard D. Rotundo, Maria, Johnson, Wendy, Zhang, Zheng and MacGue, Matt. “The determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy: Genetic and personality factors.” The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 1‐20.

Avolio, Bruce J. Pursuing Authentic Leadership Development, Global Leadership Institute. University of Nebraska‐Lincoln.

Avolio , Bruce J. and Gardner, William L. “Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005) 315–338.

Barrett, Richard. (2006). Building a Values Driven Organization: A Whole System Approach to Cultural Transformation.

Bolden, Richard (editor) et al. (2005). What is Leadership Development? Purpose and Practice. University of Exeter. Centre for Leadership Studies.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks”. Edited version of a report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre. June 2003. Centre for Leadership Studies. University of Exeter.

Brown, Michael E. and Treviño, Linda K. “Ethical Leadership: a review and future directions”. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006) 595‐616.

Burgoyne, John, Boydell, Tom and Pedler, Mike. “Leadership Development: Current Practice, Future Perspectives”. Corporate Research Forum. August 2005.

Burke, Doris, Hajim, Corey, Elliott, John, Mero, Jenny, Tkaczyk, Christopher. “How They Do It”. Fortune International (Europe), 07385587, 10/1/2007, Vol. 156, Issue 6.

Burke, Robert. “Leadership and Spirituality. Foresight???”. REVISTA Vol 8 No 6 pp 14‐29. 2006. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ISSN 1463‐6689.

Cha, Sandra E. and Edmondson, Amy C.. “When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values‐driven organization”. The Leadership Quarterly ,17 (2006), 57– 78.

Cohen, Eli and Tichy, Noel (AÑO). How Leaders Develop Leaders. ASTD


Conger, Jay A. (2008). Developing Leadership Talent: The state of Formal Educational Activities. EDITORIAL

Crevani, Lucia, Lindgren, Monica, Packendorff, Joahnn (AÑO). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. EDITORIAL

De Goia, John J., Banchoff, Thomas, Schwab, Klaus, Zahidi, Saadia, Rojas, Milagros, Finnell, Tanya (2010). “Faith and the Global Agenda: Values for the Post‐Crisis Economy”. World Economic Forum. Geneva‐Switzerland.

Dent, Eric, Higgins, M. Eileen and Wharff, Deborah M. Spirituality and Leadership: An empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. Elsevier. Available online, September 1, 2005.

Fisher Thornton, Linda. “Ethics Training: Why Is It So Hard to Get It Right.” T+D, September 2009.

Gentry, William A. and Leslie, Jean Brittain (2007). “Título”. Organizational Development Journal, Spring 2007. 25, I, pg. 37.

Glynn, Mary Ann and Dejordy, Rich. “Leadership through an Organizational Behavior Lens: A look at the Last Half‐Century of Research”. Harvard Business School Colloquium: Leadership: Advancing and Intellectual Discipline, June 10‐11, 2008.

Hansen, Fay. “Behaving Like a Leader”. Workforce Management, 12/15/2008. Vol 87. Issue 20. Pp 24‐29.

Hernez‐Broome, Gina and Hughes, Richard L., “Leadership Development: Past, Present and Future”. Human Resource Planning, datos.

Holdenback, George P., McCall, Morgan W. and Silzer, Robert F. (2006). “Titúlo”. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (398‐413).

Hunter, Samuel T., Bedell‐Avers, Kathrina, Mumford, Michael D. “The Typical Leadership Study: Assumptions, Implications and potential remedies”. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (2007) 435‐446.

Jackson, Ira and Jane Nelson. “Values Driven Performance: Seven disciplines for delivering profit with principles”. Ivey Business Journal, November‐December 2004 (1‐8).

Kets de Vries, Manfred , Hellwig, Thomas and Vrignaud, Pierre ; Guillén Ramo, Laura ; Florent‐Treacy, Elizabeth and Korotov, Konstantin. “Sustainable Effectiveness of a Transformational Leadership Development Program: An Exploratory Study”. Working Paper. INSEAD. Revised version as of 2008/24/EFE.


Kolvenbach, Peter Hans, S. J. “Discursos Universitarios. Georgetown I: Características de nuestra educación”. 1989.

Kolvenbach. Peter Hans, S. J. Título/Revista Santa Clara.

Lamoureux, Kim and O’Leonard, Karen (2009). “Leadership Development Factbook” Bersin & Associates Factbook Report.

Laverm, Shane D. “Developing Student Leadership through Service‐Learning”. Journal of Catholic School Studies, Volume 80, Issue 2, 2008.

Longo, Francisco. “Liderazgo Distribuido, un element critico para promover la innovación”. Capital Humano, 226, November 2008, 84‐91.

Lowder, Tim M. “The Best Leadership Model for Organizational Change Management: Transformational Versus Servant Leadership“. June 14, 2009. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1418796.

Lowney, Chris (2003). Heroic Leadership: Best Practices from a 450‐Year‐Old Company That Changed the World. Loyola Press.

Maak, Thomas and Pless, Nicola M. “Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A Relational Perspective”. Journal of Business Ethics (2006), 66: 99–115.

McGaw, Nancy. “Developing leaders for a sustainable global society: A new model for leadership development”. Strategic HR Review, Volume 4, Issue 6, September/October 2005.

Moss Kanter, Rosabeth. “Inside Procter & Gamble's New Values‐Based Strategy: A look at CEO Bob McDonald's road show promoting P&G's "purpose‐inspired growth" strategy”. Harvard Business Online, September 15, 2009.

Naudé, Luzelle (2007). Service‐learning and student development: the role of critical reflection. Doctoral dissertation in Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Free State. 2007.

Nicholas A. Andreadis. “Leadership for civil society: implications for global corporate leadership development”. Human Resource Development International. ISSN 1367‐8868 print/ISSN 1469‐8374 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

Nicolás, Adolfo, S. J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus. Remarks for “Networking Jesuit Higher Education: Shaping the Future for a Humane, Just, Sustainable Globe,” Mexico City, April 23, 2010.


Noel, Jim and Dotlich, David L. “Where we’ve been: Leadership Development in the 20th Century”. The 2008 Pfeiffer Annual: Leadership Development. Wiley and Sons.

Palanski, Michael E. and Yanmarino, Francis J. “Título”. European Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, 171‐184, June 2007.

Pearce, Craig L. “The Future of Leadership Development: The importance of identity, multi‐level approaches, self leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on‐boarding processes”. Human Resource Management Review, 17 (2007) 355‐359.

Pleasants, Robert; Stephens, Kristen R.; Selph, Hollace; Pfeiffer, Steven. “Incorporating Service Learning Into Leadership Education: Duke TIP’s Leadership Institute”. Gifted Child Today, Winter 2004, Vol. 27, 1.

PriceWaterhouse Coopers. “Ulysses program: a journey to responsible leadership”. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ulysses/index.jhtml

Quatro, Scott A. , Waldman, David A. and Galvin, Benjamin M. “Developing Holistic Leaders: Four Domains for Leadership Development”. Human Resources Management Review, 17 (2007) 427‐441.

Rost, Joseph C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st Century. Praeger.

Simola , Sheldene; K Barling, Julian; Turner, Nick. “Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care”. The Leadership Quarterly, VOLUMEN, ETC., 2009.

Scharff, Constance. “Service Learning: Bolstering Leadership Development While Encouraging Personal Growth”. Theory in Action, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2009.

Smith, Tracy & Rosser, Manda. Leadership Development through Experiential Learning.

Spitzer, Robert J., S. J., “The Distinctiveness of Jesuit Business Schools”. 12th Annual Colleagues in Jesuit business education Conference (CJBE), “Leading Others and Developing Leaders for Business in the 21st Century”. July 2009.

Stacey, K., Rice, D.L., & Langer, G. (2001). “Academic service‐learning: Faculty development manual”. Eastern Michigan University TM, Office of Academic Service‐learning, Ypsilanti, MI.

Stafford, Jill R., Boyd, Barry L., Lindner, James R. “The effects of Service Learning on Leadership Life Skills of 4‐H Members”. Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol 44, No. 1, 2003.


Steinke, Pamela. “Assessing Service‐Learning” Research & Practice in Assessment, Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2007.

The Economist. “Creating Leaders”, 10/25/2003, Vol 369, Issue 8347, special section, 7‐11.

Thomas, Robert J. “Crucibles of Leadership Development”. MIT Sloan Review, Spring 2008, Vol. 49, No 3.

Waters, Robert C. “Evolution of Leadership Development at General Electric”. Engineering Management Journal, Vol 21, No 1., March 2009, 41‐46.

Zhen Zhang, Michael J., Zyphur B., Jayanth Narayanan C., Richard D., Arvey C., Sankalp Chaturvedi D., Bruce J., Avolio E., Paul Lichtenstein, Fl, Gerry Larsson. “The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110 (2009) 93–107.

Documents

study on leadership development in jesuit business education