Components of a Leadership Development System - CiteSeerX

DESIGN COMPONENTS OF SYSTEMATIC LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Kwee Hoon Lim & Kim Yin Chan Centre of Leadership Development, SAFTI Military Institute 500, Upper Jurong Road, Singapore 638364 [email protected] ; [email protected] Kok Yee Ng Nanyang Business School 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798 [email protected] Lee Lian Lua Centre of Leadership Development, SAFTI Military Institute [email protected]

ABSTRACT Reviews of Best Practices in leadership development (LD) have concluded that the key to effective LD in organisations is the systematic application of tools and practices (e.g., Day & Halpin, 2001). In recent years, the SAF has embarked on an effort to systematise LD in its training system (e.g., Chan & Lew, 2003). This study describes the development of a survey measure that is based on a model of the “system components of LD” that has guided the SAF’s efforts to design systematic LD practices across different military training courses and schools. Data is collected on the “LD climate” across 13 training companies of officer cadets (N = 1109). A confirmatory factor analysis is performed which provides evidence for the construct validity of the measure. Scale reliabilities are also reported. The findings are discussed on context of the value of the measure and the “systems model of LD” with regard to the challenges of systematic LD in military organisations.

INTRODUCTION Interest in leadership development (LD) today is at an all-time high, as evidenced by the resources, attention and publication space given to the topic (e.g., Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Murphy & Riggio, 2003; Day, 2001). Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into leadership training and development (Fulmer, 1997). Similarly, armed forces around the world have established their own leadership centres or institutes to study, design and conduct leadership training and development programmes for their leaders (see Singh & Horn, 2005). Conger and Benjamin (1999) suggested that LD is the “new imperative” that must be mastered in organisations if they are to be effective in the next millennium.

1

While there exists much literature on the study of leadership, relatively less is known about what forms of leadership development will result in effective leadership. Schriesheim (2003) argued that leadership research is generally irrelevant for leadership development. For instance, few practitioners (i.e., leaders and managers) can understand the highly complex concepts and theories presented in a language targeted for academic research scientists. Practitioners are more concerned with observable phenomenon that will help inform their practice. That is why simplistic models are still the most commercially popular and viable approaches in LD. Therefore, with the increasing recognition of the importance of LD towards organisational success, there is a need for more focused and systematic research to identify the factors contributing to the development of effective leaders. Approaches to Leadership Development A review of the vast literature on LD shows a range of LD approaches, namely ‘formal training’, the ‘organisational human resource (HR)’ approach, ‘individualpsychological’ approach, and the ‘best practices’ approach. These approaches differ in their use of LD practices, processes, tools and content. The formal training approach to LD includes workshops or classroom teaching of leadership theories and principles. While formal training can be beneficial, especially if the training is linked closely to on-the-job experiences or used as a supplement experience to provide learning opportunities (e.g., in simulations, action learning), there is little concrete evidence to demonstrate the actual transfer of such training on the job. In an extensive field study of different approaches to formal leadership training and development, Conger (1992) found that effective leadership training included elements of conceptual development, personal growth (including challenge, risk taking, self-discovery), skill-building and feedback. He concluded that ultimately, the primary contribution of formal leadership training (e.g., in courses/schools) is "awareness-building". Time and actual on-the-job leadership experience are needed for mastery of leadership. He also found that leadership training depended on the individual's motivation, ability and opportunity to learn, reflect and change. For example, more defensive people find it harder to change; that learning is enhanced in a supportive workplace that provides coaching and where the bosses do not feel threatened by subordinate leaders, etc. The organisational-HR approach to LD combines issues such as selection, recruitment, training and succession planning to prepare and equip leaders to be effective to transit to the next level of leadership. A popular HR model of LD is the ‘leadership pipeline’, which is based on the work originally started at General Electric in the 1970s (Charan, et. al, 2001). The pipeline model consists of six passages in the life of a leader in the organisation. Leaders must grasp what each passage entails (e.g., the knowledge, skills and abilities a leader must have) and the challenges involved in making each transition to the next higher level. The strength of this model is that it differentiates the leadership demands required at different levels of leadership in the organisation. However, high attrition of staff leaving the job may pose a challenge for the development of leaders through the pipeline.

2

The individual-psychological approach to LD focuses on individual change in terms of how one thinks of oneself. London (2002) contended that three critical psychological processes are the key to being an effective leader in today’s context. These are self-insight, self-regulation and self-identity. Leaders must find their own individual way of being effective through understandings of their own strengths and weaknesses, of the context, of other people and their needs in the situation, and of how these three components relate to each other. In this approach, LD should therefore facilitate the systematic development of these psychological processes through the use of feedback processes such as multi-source feedback, coaching, and self-reflection. Other researchers (e.g., Popper, 2002; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998) emphasise the importance of experience as a critical component in the learning and developmental process. Popper contended that Albert Bandura’s study on experiences of success on self-efficacy was relevant and applicable in LD. For instance, retrospective studies conducted among commanders in combat units in the Israeli army showed that practical experiences was a most important learning mechanism in their preparation for leadership (Popper, 2002). The best practices approach, on the other hand, looks not only at the individual’s growth and learning, but also attempts to align LD to organisation strategies. Best practices can encompass any number of developmental processes and components including talent identification and management, individual development planning, management development, 360-degree feedback, succession planning, mentoring and coaching. The Centre for Creative Leadership (CCL) advocates that these processes and components must be in operation to foster LD. Individuals must have challenging experiences, be able to learn from them, receive feedback from others, and have time to reflect on the experience in order to grow as leaders (McCauley, et al, 1998). CCL’s approach to LD is essentially still a training intervention even though the practices, tools and processes are integrated to provide a holistic developmental experience for the individual participant in the programme. Systematic Leadership Development is Key In the review of industry best practices, Day and Halpin (2001) noted that successful LD depends more on consistent implementation of “best practices” rather than on using innovative practices. They found that effective LD resulted from the systematic design of LD practices and tools into a learning process. Simply providing stand-alone training or tools is not effective as the learning are not reinforced or integrated into the overall training programme. LD is not about delivering a programme or administering a feedback tool or making people go through a developmental experience. Instead, effective LD ensures that such LD practices and tools are used consistently throughout the training. LD should be implemented as a systemic process because development occurs over time and a single training event or programme is not sufficient. Effective LD consists of many components that are thoughtfully integrated into a coherent system to develop the individual. Many LD initiatives combine two or more of the leadership practices, but these LD initiatives should be orchestrated throughout the whole organisation. The backbone of most leadership development systems is the formal

3

programme, which serves as a shell under which a variety of practices can be introduced to address the desired training objectives. McCauley et. al. (1998) suggested that one method of making LD more systematic be to design and implement an array of developmental experiences that are meaningfully integrated with one another. A Framework for Systematic Leadership Development The above review of different LD approaches shows that LD can encompass any number of developmental components or best practices such as the training curriculum or the formal lessons, the training processes, coaching, the developmental or feedback tools, and even engaging the individual’s motivation to learn and to lead. While having a variety of LD best practices may enrich the learning experiences of the individual, the more successful LD efforts are those that attempt to systematically design these practices into the overall training programme (Day & Halpin, 2001). In service of being systematic about LD, the SAF has attempted to integrate these best practices into the overall training curriculum or into the work processes (e.g., when and how each component should be introduced and further reinforced throughout a training curriculum through experiential learning, etc.), rather than administered as isolated or separate interventions. In 2001, the SAF Centre of Leadership Development (CLD) worked with the SAF’s leadership schools to conduct trials of the enhanced LD in various courses. These trials aimed to explore the effectiveness of systematic design of LD practices, tools and processes such as learning organisation principles and practices, team building, team learning, reflection and journaling in enhancing the leadership development experience of trainees. It was through these trials that the CLD gained better understanding of the design components and principles needed to guide the systematic LD in the SAF (Chan & Lew, 2004). In 2002, CLD developed a LD Framework based on these design components and principles to guide the design of systematic LD in Schools and Units. Figure 1 presents this LD framework with the following six design components for systematic LD in an organisation (Chan, et. al, 2005): Component 1: The Self. The Self is at the core of the leadership development. This component refers to the trainee's personal involvement in the developmental process. According to Popper (2002), leadership is a function of one’s ability and motivation to lead. London (2002) draws on basic processes of self-efficacy and selfregulation to understand the conditions that encourage taking responsibility for one’s own development and providing support to enhance subordinate’s motivation. An important assumption in leadership development is that the trainee is motivated to lead and motivated to learn in the first place. Although selection procedures (e.g., "expressed interest") may be used to identify leadership trainees who are motivated to lead and to learn, these should be complemented by training processes that strengthen the trainees' personal commitment to improve themselves and to grow as a leader. It is vital that all leadership trainees take ownership of the developmental process, if they are to benefit from it.

4

Learning Climate & Culture Superior / Instructor

Curriculum Design

•as coach/facilitator rather than only •based on experiential learning cycle as expert/boss & infused into all activities •role-model •must have necessary LD knowledge, •balance explicit & tacit knowledge skills and ability of leading

SELF

Developmental Support Tools

•motivated to lead/learn

•for feedback, e.g. self and 360 degree assessments

Colleagues / Peers / Followers

•prepared to facilitate team learning and reflection

•for reflection, e.g., journaling

•e.g., team building for team learning & performance

Figure 1. Design Components of a LD System. Component 2: The Environment. This refers to immediate organisational culture and climate and the extent to which it is conducive for personal learning, growth and change. The ideal climate for leadership development is one that is not only "open", but one that has the capacities and disciplines for organisational learning (Yukl, 1998). The learning climate should be grounded in a learning organisational culture - with personal and social practices and disciplines that facilitate individual, team and organisational-level learning, e.g., rules for quality conversations, deep listening, reflection, etc. Component 3: Superiors and Instructors who are Coaches and Facilitators. Superiors and instructors have direct influence over their trainees and subordinates, and therefore have natural impact on their leadership development (Hughes, et. al., 2005; Lohmann, 2000). To date, the SAF has emphasised role modelling as a primary mechanism for superiors and instructors to influence their subordinates/trainees. While role modelling or learning by observation is effective, it is also a relatively passive method of leadership development, especially when it is at the level of behaviours rather than values or purpose (Popper, 2002). Superiors and leadership instructors need to actively role model values and a sense of purpose and commitment. While they are technically and tactically competent in their vocation, they must also have the relevant leadership knowledge, skills and abilities to positively influence their subordinates/trainees. They should also play the role of coaches and facilitators if they are to actively assist in the leadership development of their subordinates and trainees. For this to happen, all superiors and instructors must be equipped with the necessary skills and tools to coach and facilitate development, and for active (rather than passive) role modelling. Component 4: Peers, Colleagues & Subordinates. Leadership is a social activity. Recent research shows that teams learn through time and repeated

5

interactions among their members (Hughes, et. al., 2005; Lussier and Achua, 2001; McCauley & Douglas, 1998). Studies argue that the social context in which cognitive activity takes place is an integral part of that activity or that context and process are intertwined, with effects occurring in both directions. Hence, besides individualised reflection and learning processes, leadership development is also more effective when there is team learning and feedback. Peers and subordinates can act as a "Hall of Mirrors" to facilitate leadership development among trainees and leaders on the job (Popper, 2002). For this to happen, it is necessary to facilitate team building for team learning in all learning syndicates in schools. Team building should also be introduced in units not only for team performance but also to encourage team learning of leadership and team processes. Component 5: Curriculum Design. A key process in leadership development is the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1983) which calls for leadership development to be infused into everyday life activities in our training schools and units, rather than as isolated events or activities. In designing the training curricula, it will be beneficial to connect abstract concepts with active experimentation, concrete experience, and reflective observation (Hughes, et. al., 2005; Van Velsor & Guthrie, 1998; Conger, 1992). For instance, the Centre for Creative Leadership has incorporated principles of challenge, assessments/feedback and social support in the design of leadership development activities/curricula. Finally, leadership training should incorporate a balance of the explicit and the tacit knowledge of leadership in our military context (Yukl, 1998). Providing training on real life leadership issues and future-oriented leadership competencies will not only make the training more credible to the leadership trainees but also help them prepare for actual and future leadership challenges in the units (Day and Halpin, 2001). Component 6: Developmental Tools & Procedures. Besides the social components (e.g., instructors/superiors, colleagues/peers) of the leadership development system, it is also necessary to design some basic tools and procedures to support leadership development (Day and Halpin, 2001). These would include psychological assessment tools to be used to provide feedback for the individual (e.g., self-assessments, peer appraisal, 360-degree feedback), as well as tools to facilitate team and personal reflection (e.g., personal journal, team journal). The “tools” can also include procedures that facilitate leadership or command effectiveness and development – for example, processes that facilitate the preparation for command and command transition, and the facilitation of learning through after action reviews, etc. The above LD framework can be used to guide the design an enriching developmental process in terms of a generic set of mechanisms and experiences that may be employed for trainees and instructors in all its leadership courses. However, for this approach to work, it is essential for training schools to shift their thinking of LD from that of an isolated set of lessons or periods in a training curriculum, to a more process-oriented experiential approach. The instructors need to experience effective leadership and leadership development, in order that they may be more effective at developing leaders in their trainees.

6

To date, the SAF has made a significant effort to better integrate the “softer”, behavioural “leadership curriculum” with the vocational curriculum (e.g., operational military knowledge, military technology and strategic studies) in its leadership schools. Military training curricula are being redesigned to ensure that leadership training is oriented toward preparing and inspiring SAF leaders for the future SAF context rather than just the present. The current training-oriented philosophy in its Schools is being enlarged to include development (which includes inspiring, training and educating leaders) and building relationships. More importantly, our Schools are beginning to cater the time, resources and systemic structures to invest in instructor education and development to support LD. School instructors are being trained to use the new, doctrinal definition and framework for leadership, and the principles for leadership development as starting points to re-frame their LD assumptions and practices that were acquired tacitly from personal experience and role modelling over the years. Measuring Systematic Leadership Development The present paper reports a preliminary study of a survey questionnaire designed to measure the components of LD in a military training school, in this case, the SAF’s Officer Cadet School. The focus of our research was on the construct validity of the measure – we were interested to establish whether the various components of the LD Framework presented in Figure 1 could be independently and reliably measured. Data was collected on the “LD climate” across 13 training companies of officer cadets (N = 1109) over a period of about 2 years. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to establish the construct validity of the measure. Scale reliabilities were also studied. METHOD Participants and Procedures A total of 1123 male military officer cadets from 13 training companies participated in the study. All were Singapore citizens, possessed at least a high school or polytechnic diploma, and were enlisted for compulsory military service. All were at the final stage of their Officer Cadet Course conducted by the Officer Cadet School. The age of participants ranged from 19 to 24 years (M = 20 years, SD = 1.33). After list-wise deletion of missing values, the final sample for analyses was 1109. Given the large sample size, we randomly divided the data into a calibration (n = 553) and a validation sample (n = 556) for crossvalidation purposes. A leadership development component (LDC) measure was administered electronically during the last two weeks of the officer cadet course, which consisted mainly preparations for commissioning such as parade rehearsals, dining-in, and certification presentation ceremony. The LDC measures were administered to cadets from 13 Training Companies in the period from January 2003 to July 2005. The first 8 Training Companies received a pencil and paper version of the measure while the other 5 Training Companies completed did a computerised version of the measure. The computerised version were administered in Computer-Aided

7

Instruction (CAI) Classrooms, depending on the size of the company. All administrations were carried by trained staff who read out the instructions and supervised the entire survey process. Measures Leadership development components (LDC) measure. An initial pool of 51 items corresponding to the LDC framework was generated based on our conceptual model as well as focus group interviews with officer cadets at SAF. We wrote between 6-9 items for all dimensions except for the “instructor” dimension, which had 18 items assessing two subdimensions: instructors’ competence and instructors’ emphasis on development. Appendix 1 presents the items of the LDC measure and scales. Training outcomes. Two training outcomes were assessed. Participants were asked for the impact of their leadership training in OCS on their leadership skills and confidence to lead. Specifically, seven items assessed training impact on participants’ leadership skills (e.g., “How well has OCS trained and prepared you to provide coaching to others?”) on a fivepoint Likert scale (1=not effective at all to 5=very effective). Cronbach’s alpha was .80. Four items assessed training impact on confidence to lead (e.g., “My experience in OCS made a difference in my confidence to lead soldiers”) on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .83. Analytic Strategy We assessed the factor structure of the LDC measure using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with Lisrel 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2003). We tested our proposed 7factor measurement model against a 6-factor model (combining instructors’ competence and developmental emphasis) and a single-factor model. We first conducted the tests with the calibration sample, followed by the validation sample. We then performed a multi-sample CFA to test for measurement equivalence. Once measure equivalence was established, we assessed concurrent validity by regressing training outcomes on the LDC variables. FINDINGS Calibration Sample Results in Table 1 show that the proposed 7-factor model yielded better fit indices [χ2 (1203) = 3429.96, p< .00; RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .95; CFI = .94] than the 6-factor model [χ2 (1209) = 5035.17, p< .00; RMSEA = .08, NNFI = .93; CFI = .94] or the single-factor model [χ2 (1224) = 7937.97, p< .00; RMSEA = .10, NNFI = .90; CFI = .90]. Further, results for the 7-factor model showed that one indicator (assessing the peer dimension) did not load significantly to its factor, and modification indices suggested that three indicators (1 assessing the peer dimension, and 2 assessing the design dimension) cross-loaded highly to another factor. We dropped these four items and re-ran the CFAs using the reduced 47-item measure. Results showed that the 7-factor model based on 47 items were slightly better than

8

results based on 51 items [χ2 (1013) = 2621.13, p< .00; RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96; CFI = .96]. All indicators loaded significantly to their corresponding factors, with λs ranging from .40 to .82. As with our earlier results, the 7-factor model was superior to the alternative 6factor model [χ2 (1019) = 4167.76, p< .00; RMSEA = .75, NNFI = .92; CFI = .94] and the single-factor model [χ2 (1034) = 6928.64, p< .00; RMSEA = .10, NNFI = .90; CFI = .90]. Cronbach’s alphas are reported in Table 2. Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses Results Sample

Model

χ2

df

AGFI

SRMR

RMSEA

NNFI

CFI

Calibration

7 correlated factors (51 items) 6 correlated factors (51 items) 1 factor (51 items)

3429.96 5035.17 7937.97

1203 1209 1224

.78 .71 .61

.08 .08 .08

.06 .08 .10

.95 .93 .90

.95 .94 .90

Calibration


2621.13 4167.76 6928.64

1013 1019 1034

.81 .73 .62

.05 .07 .08

.05 .08 .10

.96 .92 .90

.96 .94 .90

Validation


2627.67 4004.09 7099.76

1013 1019 1034

.81 .74 .62

.05 .07 .08

.05 .07 .10

.96 .94 .90

.96 .95 .90

Validation Sample The lower portion of Table 2 presents results for the 47-item measure using the validation sample. Similarly, results supported the 7-factor model (χ2 (1013) = 2627.67, p< .00; RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96; CFI = .96) in favor or the 6-factor (χ2 (1019) = 4004.09, p< .00; RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .94; CFI = .95) and the one-factor model (χ2 (1034) = 7099.76, p< .00; RMSEA = .10, NNFI = .90; CFI = .90). See Appendix 1 for Cronbach’s alphas. Cross-validation As recommended by Joreskog (1971), we first test the null hypothesis of the equality of the covariance structures across the calibration and validation samples. Results of the multisample CFA show a good overall fit (χ2 (2026) = 5248.80, p< .00; RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96; CFI = .96), suggesting that the covariance structures across the two samples were equivalent. All factor loadings in the calibration and validation samples were significant, indicating configural invariance. Finally, as a further test of metric equivalence, we ran a nested model where factor loadings were constrained to be equal (χ2 (2072) = 5292.74, p< .00; RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96; CFI = .96). Nested chi-square difference tests show that adding factor loading constraints did not result in a significant decrease in model fit, ∆χ2 (46) = 43.94, p > .05, thus demonstrating metric invariance. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that the 7-factor model of LDC were invariant across the two samples.

9

Concurrent Validity We computed the average scores for the LDC dimensions based on the 47-item scale. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and inter-item correlations for the LDC and outcome variables based on the full sample (n=1109). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Scale Correlations based on Full Sample (n=1109) Scale

Mean

SD

1

2

3

1. Learning Climate 2. Instructor-Competence 3. Instructor Development orientation 4. Peers 5. Self 6. Dev. Support Tools 7. Curriculum Design 8. Leadership Skills 9. Confidence to Lead

3.23 2.96 3.34

.63 .59 .63

(.77) .58** .33**

(.86) .40**

(.81)

3.27 3.25 2.97 2.87 3.75 3.86

.62 .68 .64 .70 .53 .62

.06* .61** .58** .53** .37** .27**

-.07* .60** .50** .56** .32** .24**

.36** .31** .22** .27** .28** .15**

4

5

6

7

8

9

(.58) -.05 -.11** -.09** .07* .07*

(.88) .60** .63** .40** .32**

(.83) .61** .34** .27**

(.84) .35** .25**

(.80) .41**

(.83)

Note: Figures on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas

Using the full sample, we conducted two multivariate regressions to examine the relationships between the LDC variables and the two training outcomes. Regression results show that five of the seven LDC variables were significantly related to leadership skills (∆R2 = .22, F(7, 1101) = 42.97, p< .00). They were learning climate (β = .12, p< .01), instructors’ developmental emphasis (β = .12, p< .00), self (β = .17, p< .00), tools (β = .09, p< .05), and design (β = .10, p< .05). For confidence to lead, three of the seven LDC variables were significant (∆R2 = .12, F(7, 1101)= 21.57, p < .00). They were peers (β = .09, p< .01), self (β = .19, p< .00), and tools (β = .09, p< .05). All variance inflation factors were below 10, suggesting that multi-collinearity was not threat to statistical conclusion validity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The above study describes the development of a survey measure (the LDC) that is based on a model of the “system components of LD” that has guided the SAF’s efforts to design systematic LD practices across different military training courses and schools. Psychometric analyses indicate that we have a reasonably reliable and valid 47-items measure of LD components that includes 7 independent factors. Preliminary regression analyses suggest that all 6 components of the LD framework are significantly related to self-reported leadership training outcomes. Specifically, learning climate, instructors’ developmental emphasis, developmental support tools, and curriculum design are significantly related to self-reported impact of OCS leadership training on their

10

leadership skills; while team/peer learning dynamic, self, and developmental support tools are related to self-reported confidence to lead as a result of OCS leadership training received. However, a major limitation of these analyses is that both the predictor and criterion variables are self-reported. Hence, statistical conclusion validity may be threatened by common method variance. We are now collecting more objective criterion data to further validate the measure. To conclude, there are many different approaches to the study and practices of LD today. We believe that the LD Framework presented in this paper (see Figure 1) is a useful basis to diagnose and monitor the LD strengths and gaps in different settings. First, we believe that the LD Framework is reasonably comprehensive, and the components sufficiently generic to serve as a diagnostic tool for any systematic attempt to enhance LD. Second, the Framework can also be used to educate LD instructors and curriculum designers on the roles that they have to play to effect LD, and to understand how they may leverage on other LD system components (e.g., team/peer learning, developmental support tools, efforts to engage the self, a learning climate & culture) to more effectively develop leaders in their setting. Finally, the measure we have developed can act as a simple tool to monitor the “health” of any LD system, both over time and in comparison with other LD systems or settings.

REFERENCES Bennis, W. (1989). On Becoming a Leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications (3rd ed). New York: The Free Press – Macmillan. Bartone, P., Forsythe, G. B., Snook, S.A., Bullis, R.C. & Lewis, P. (2001). Leader development at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point: New directions in programs, theory and research. Paper presented at biennial meeting of Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Oct 2001, Baltimore, MD. Chan, K., & Lew, P. (2005). The challenge of systematic leadership development in the SAF. Pointer: Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, 30(4), Chan, K., Singh, S., Ramaya, R., & Lim, K. H. (2005). Spirit & System: Leadership Development for a Third Generation SAF [4th Pointer Monograph]. Singapore: SAFTI Military Institute. Charan, R., Drotter, S. J., & Noel, J. (2001). The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership-Powered Company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11

Conger, J. A. (1992). Learning to Lead: The Art of Transforming Managers into Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Learning to lead: How successful companies develop the next generation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 581-613. Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2001). Leadership Development: A Review of Industry Best Practices [Technical Report 1111]. Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Research Institute Fort Leavenworth Research Unit. Dixon, N. (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle. McGraw-Hill. Fulmer, R. M. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership development. American Management Association, Organizational Dynamics, 25(4): 59-72. Giber, D., Carter, L. L., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds) (2000). Linkage, Inc.’s Best Practices in Leadership Development Handbook: Case Studies, Instruments, Training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer and Linkage Inc. Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership Development: Past, Present, and Future. Human Resource Planning, March 2004: 24-32. Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2005). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrica, 36, 409-426. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Windows LISREL 8.12. Chicago: Scientific Software. Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience is the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: JosseyBass. London, M. (2002). Leadership Development: Paths to Self-Insight and Professional Growth. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

12

Lohmann, U. G. (2000). Army Management Staff College. In D. Giber, L.L. Carter, & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Linkage Inc.’s Best Practices in Leadership Development Handbook (65 – 103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer and Linkage Inc. Lussier, R. N. & Achua, D. B. A. (2001). Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill Building. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing. McCauley, C.D., & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental Relationships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (160-193). San Francisco: JosseyBass. McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.) (1998). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and Practice. California: Sage Publications. Popper, M. (2002). Main Principles and Practices in Leadership Development. In Readings on “How to Develop Leaders”, an in-house SAFTI Military Institute Publication. Schriesheim, C. A. (2003). Why leadership research is generally irrelevant for leadership development. In S. E. Murphy, & R. E. Riggio (Eds), The Future of Leadership Development (181 – 197). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Singh, S.M., & Horn, B. (2005). Military Leadership Centres: Overview and Discussion. A symposium of the 2005 Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association, Singapore. Van Velsor, E. & Guthrie, V. A. (1998). Enhancing the ability to learn from experience. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (242 – 261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yukl, G. (1998). Developing Leadership Skills. In Leadership in Organisations (466 – 491). London: Prentice-Hall.

13

Appendix 1: 51-item Leadership Development Components Measure (with scale reliabilities) Learning Climate [Cronbach’s α: .77 (calibration sample); .77 (validation sample)] 1. Trainees know that it is always safe to try new ideas and methods so long as these do not breach basic rules of safety or regulations 2. There is a willingness among trainees to admit mistakes and accept responsibilities 3. There is a lot of open sharing of our learning after every exercise 4. There is a feeling that not only trainees but also the instructors come here to learn in OCS 5. The environment in OCS encourages me to challenge basic assumptions in the SAF 6. The peers in a section and syndicate are a very useful source of feedback for my personal growth and development as a leader 7. There is much group-level learning, i.e., sharing of experiences and perspectives in the training sections and syndicates Instructor Competence [Cronbach’s αs: .84 (calibration sample); .87 (validation sample)] 1. Instructors show a deep professional understanding of military tactics and techniques 2. Instructors are sufficiently knowledgeable to discuss difficult subjects like 3. Different instructors are consistent in their language and explanation of matters related such as Leadership and Core Values 4. Instructors inspire their trainees with a deep belief and understanding of the SAF Mission and Values 5. By their personal example instructors inspire their cadets to improve themselves as leaders 6. Instructors do show a personal interest in the very subjects or topics they instruct 7. Instructors are as able to coach cadets in the soft skills of leadership as they are in technical military matters 8. Instructors are highly proficient in their instructional skills, e.g., presentations, lectures 9. Instructors are able to facilitate group discussions that result in much group-level learning Instructor Developmental Emphasis (Reverse) [Cronbach’s αs: .81 (calibration); .81 (validation sample)] 1. Instructors are more interested in assessing evaluating and ranking their student trainees than in developing them as leaders 2. Instructors are focused at spotting mistakes rather than drawing out lessons during training 3. Instructors see themselves more as technical experts on military matters rather than leadership coaches for their trainees 4. Instructors mostly adopt a I tell you mode when training cadets, e.g., giving a model answer 5. Instructors do not see the cadets leadership development needs as important 6. Instructors do not provide useful feedback and guidance when we hold leadership appointments 7. Instructors like to blame the trainees when things go wrong 8. Instructors are not interested in their trainees as individuals with unique needs and backgrounds 9. When mistakes are made instructors focus more on learning than on punishing or scolding * Peer/Team Learning Dynamic (Reverse) [Cronbach’s αs: .58 (calibration sample); .57 (validation sample)] 1. Our peers in a section and syndicate are more competitive than they are interested to team or group level learning 2. Our training section syndicates are more like administrative or social groupings than a learning group that facilitate our learning and development 3. The peers in a section and syndicate are not harnessed as a potential avenue for leadership development in this course 4. The interpersonal dynamics among peers prevent much group-level learning, i.e., sharing of experiences and perspectives in the course 5. Our peers in the course are mostly seen as partners in learning rather than competitors*

14

Self [Cronbach’s αs: .87 (calibration sample); .88 (validation sample)] 1. Trainees are challenged to think deeply and clearly about their personal values and identity and how these relate to the mission purpose and values of the SAF 2. Trainees are challenged to think deeply about their motivation to lead others in the SAF 3. Trainees are challenged to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses as leaders 4. Trainees are challenged to manage control their own strengths and weaknesses as leaders 5. Trainees are challenged to set goals to improve themselves as leaders during the course 6. Trainees are challenged to increase their range of leadership skills and competencies beyond what we already possess from the past 7. There are many occasions during the course for us to reflect on our understanding of matters related to leadership and Core Values Developmental Support Tools [Cronbach’s αs: .83 (calibration sample); .83 (validation sample)] 1. Specialized tools are used to raise our self-awareness during the course 2. We are given specific feedback on our strengths and weaknesses as leaders during the course 3. We are provided with specialized tools to facilitate our personal learning and development during the course 4. We are provided with specialized models and tools that help us understand ourselves as leaders 5. We are provided with specialized skills and practices that facilitate our learning at the individual and team level during the course 6. We can easily access the models and theories that we need to understand difficult issues like military leadership and values during the course Curriculum Design [Cronbach’s αs: .85 (calibration sample); .83 (validation sample)] 1. The lessons on Leadership are interesting and memorable 2. The lessons on SAF Core Values are interesting and memorable 3. What is taught in Leadership and Core Values lessons is tested and discussed during field exercises and appointments 4. What is taught in Leadership and Core Values lessons is tested and discussed during routine administrative appointments 5. Post-exercise debriefs include discussions on lessons learned on Leadership and Core Values 6. Learning about Leadership and Core Values is part of everything we do in the course and not seen as separate lessons or parts of the syllabus 7. Lessons on Leadership and Core Values are generally left to junior instructors or external personnel to conduct (R) * 8. Senior Commanders take a personal interest in lessons related to Leadership and Core Values* *Items were dropped based on CFA results; Cronbach’s alphas were based on 47-item measure.

15