'Knowing me, knowing you': Exploring the effects of a rural leadership ...

Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Rural Society (2014) 23(2): 151–160.

‘Knowing me, knowing you’: Exploring the effects of a rural leadership programme on community resilience WENDY MADSEN AND CATHY O’MULLAN School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bundaberg, QLD, Australia

Abstract: Rural leadership programmes have proliferated in the past 15 years in countries, including Australia. Whilst most programmes have focussed on transactional leadership which aims to develop individual leaders, increased attention is being paid to transformational approaches to leadership which aim to enhance social networks, cohesiveness and civic activity within communities. In this way, leadership can enhance community resilience. This article uses interpretive case study methodology to evaluate a rural leadership programme in Central Queensland, Australia. Two key themes, self-development and building social capital, illustrate how leadership programmes can contribute to the development of community resilience. The article provides greater insight into the importance of leadership as a community responsibility rather than leadership as a narrow set of skills and highlights the need for such approaches to be transformative in the way they contribute to both individual and community wellbeing.

Keywords: community resilience, rural leadership, social capital, self-development, transformational leadership

R

ural leadership programmes have been prevalent in Australia since the 1990s, developed for a variety of reasons: to counter the growing environmental problems of agricultural communities; to address social and economic problems associated with population drifts from rural communities; and to shift the responsibility for governance back towards local communities (Gray, Williams, & Phillips, 2005). Throughout this time, there has been much debate about leadership programmes within the international literature regarding how these programmes work, but, overall little evaluation exists of the programmes themselves (Etuk, Rahe, Crandall, Sektnan, & Bowman, 2013). Furthermore, the philosophy and delivery associated with leadership programmes varies considerably, making large scale evaluation problematic. This article will outline an evaluation of a rural leadership programme that was devised locally and delivered in a small rural community in Central Queensland, Australia. The evaluation used a case study approach because of the unique nature of the programme. However, as will become evident throughout this article, the principles that underpinned the programme are consistent with other rural leadership programmes that have emphasised transformational leadership, programmes that aim to enrich social

networks, cohesiveness and civic activity within communities. These characteristics are also fundamental to community resilience. The two themes emerging from this study and that will be examined in this article, self-development and building social capital, provide an avenue through which we can explore the role of leadership programmes in the development of community resilience. Indeed, we argue that for leadership programmes to contribute to the development of community resilience, they need to be truly transformative in the way they contribute to individual and community wellbeing. Community resilience is an emerging concept. There is currently no agreed definition across the various disciplines that use the term (Reid & Courtenay Botterill, 2013). This project has a theoretical basis in community learning, in particular in relation to increasing adaptive capacity and community resilience through dialogic engagement (Brookfield, 1986; Wendel et al., 2009). As such, we refer to the definition of community resilience put forward by Magis (2010, p. 402): Community resilience is the existence, development and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterised by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members of resilient communities

Volume 23, Issue 2, April 2014

RURAL SOCIETY

151

Wendy Madsen and Cathy O’Mullan intentionally develop personal and collective capacity that they engage to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community and to develop new trajectories for the communities’ future.

Leadership is a key concept of community capacity building and community resilience, although variations exist in conceptualisations of leaders and leadership. The leadership programme presented in this article aimed to build the personal capacity of participants, but also sought to encourage participants to develop collective capacity by working with their own communities to prioritise issues of social and economic concern and to work with members of the community to achieve goals. In the summer of 2010–2011, extensive weather events impacted Queensland, including significant rain and flooding events throughout central and south inland and coastal Queensland, followed by a category five cyclone impacting the north of the state. As part of the recovery efforts, a number of community development programmes were instigated and delivered locally in an attempt to provide mechanisms for people to make sense of the natural disasters in their lives and to help rebuild communities, physically as well as emotionally. Community development programmes have been integral to rebuilding communities after disasters and have focussed primarily on building adaptive capacity and strong social networks, key factors in community resilience (Onstad et al., 2012; Pasteur, 2011; Pyles & Cross, 2008). One of the programmes implemented in the Banana Shire in Central Queensland involved delivering a rural leadership programme. Located in the town of Theodore, one of the towns to have experienced significant flooding, the programme attracted 18 participants from within Theodore and surrounding districts. The programme was delivered by a local economic development consultant and consisted of 10 full-day sessions, facilitated monthly, and commenced in March, 2012. LITERATURE REVIEW Community resilience, as a concept, has captured the attention of both researchers and policy makers over the past decade, although few agree on what constitutes community resilience

152

RURAL SOCIETY


(Bourgon, 2010; Eckersley, 2010; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008). A number of definitions highlight the adaptive capacity of a community to learn and adapt to adverse situations (Bourgon, 2010; Norris et al., 2008; Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2009) or to bounce back from disaster (Colten, Kates, & Laska, 2008). Others have highlighted the ability to maintain and preserve identity as part of this adaptive capacity (Walker & Salt, 2012; Wilson, 2012). Although community resilience is generally seen as a positive characteristic, it describes the stability within a complex adaptive system and set of circumstances, a stability that can be prevalent in dysfunctional communities that prohibits them from changing for the better (Castleden, McKee, Murray, & Leonardi, 2011). This aspect of community resilience is often not considered within the literature, but it is an important concept to understand when implementing strategies to increase community resilience, particularly in the wake of natural disasters. Although a number of researchers have put forward a range of features associated with community resilience including economic development, positive visions for the future and embracing diversity (Berkes & Ross, 2012; Buikstra et al., 2010; Norris et al., 2008), leadership has been identified through numerous case studies as one of three important attributes contributing to building community resilience; the other two being social networks and trust (Walker & Salt, 2012). Whilst leadership programmes have been shown to build social networks and develop community capacity, it is still unclear how such programmes can contribute to building community resilience. Work in the USA over the past 5 years has started to conceptualise leadership and leadership programmes within a complex adaptive systems thinking perspective similar to that used in community resilience by understanding issues of path dependency (Etuk et al., 2013), community leadership and servant leadership (Ricketts & Ladewig, 2008), and through exploring systems issues such as openness to new ideas and diversity (Majee, Long, & Smith, 2012). Banyai’s (2009) work in community leadership in rural Japanese communities draws even more heavily

© eContent Management Pty Ltd

Exploring the effects of a rural leadership programme on community resilience

on complex adaptive systems thinking and advocates community leadership is essential to building community capacity. More recent work in Europe has highlighted the need for leadership to be understood within a complex adaptive system in order to appreciate the inter-sectoral nature of distributive leadership within regional areas (Normann, 2013). These developments in understanding rural leadership need to be seen as part of an emerging change in how leadership is understood, particularly in rural communities. Rural leadership programmes are not new, although they have proliferated in the past 15 years in countries, including Australia, that have experienced a shift in political ideology towards neo-liberalism with its emphasis on encouraging local solutions to problems (Buultjens, Ambrosoli, & Dollery, 2012; Gray et al., 2005). Based on the pioneering work of James MacGregor Burns in the 1970s who identified two main types of leadership, transactional and transformational, rural leadership programmes can be broadly categorised according to these two types. Those that focus on enhancing transactional leadership are concerned with building individual skills or capacities of participants in the belief that the development of ‘leaders’ can provide solutions for organisational and local problems (de Guerre & Taylor, 2004; Gray et al., 2005). Such programmes are often based around developing such skills as grant writing and conflict management (Allen & Lachapelle, 2012). Transformational leadership programmes, on the other hand, focus more on developing collective capacity and relationship building within an organisation or community, with a much greater focus on developing ‘leadership’ as opposed to ‘leaders’ (Rasmussen, Armstrong, & Chazdon, 2011). Australian rural leadership programmes have, for the most part, focussed on transactional leadership (Davies, 2007, 2009; Gray et al., 2005), although there has been a shift in thinking in recent years. Buultjens et al. (2012) highlight the current Federal Government’s policy of supporting ‘collaborative leadership’ within rural communities so a shared vision for the future is developed. This is seen as a better way to influence policy and attract funding. In a review of leadership


programmes in Australia Davies (2009) suggests the previous focus on individual skill and ability development inherent in transactional leadership programmes has resulted in too much ‘top down’ action that does not enhance community support and engagement. Davies (2009) argues transformational style leadership programmes have been more successful in forming new social networks and generating learning opportunities for capacity building within communities. It is this aspect of building community capacity associated with transformational leadership programmes that is attracting increased international policy and research attention in recent years as the importance of community resilience has also gained recognition, particularly in regards to supporting community recovery in the wake of natural disasters (Banyai, 2009; Walker & Salt, 2012). While the concept of community resilience has emerged from a broad discipline base including ecology, psychology and disaster management, the prospect of climate change and associated increase in the number and intensity of natural disasters has generated a significant level of research in social–ecological interaction (Walker & Salt, 2006, 2012; Wilson, 2012). There is an increasing level of evidence to suggest that communities with strong relationships and high levels of trust are better able to respond to adversity and recovery quicker (Aldrich, 2012). Leadership is consistently raised within this literature as an important feature of resilient communities, and indeed, the connections between certain types of leadership and community resilience are already evident in practice. For example, Wells et al. (2013) outlines a community resilience tool kit that has been implemented in Los Angeles to develop community leadership. However, not much research has been undertaken regarding how local leadership can enhance community relationships and, hence, community resilience (Walker & Salt, 2012). This requires a much greater understanding of community learning and how communities engage with each other to develop adaptive capacity through dialogic engagement. Such research has been inhibited to a large extent by the lack of extensive evaluation of leadership programmes, despite these programmes having been run for a


RURAL SOCIETY

153

Wendy Madsen and Cathy O’Mullan

number of years (Clark & Gong, 2011; Van De Valk & Constas, 2011). Consistent with the individual focus of transactional leadership programmes, most evaluations of leadership programmes have measured individual traits and behaviours (see for example Meier, Singletary, & Hill, 2012; Walker & Gray, 2009). The outcomes of transformational research of expanded social networks, building trust and capacity for learning to deal with disruption are much less able to be measured using traditional evaluative methods. Millitello and Benham (2010) have outlined development of an evaluation tool to measure growth in collective leadership as a result of attending rural leadership programmes in the USA; the process outlined in the evaluation tool involves a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, including: stakeholder interviews; field/reflective notes; and Q-sorts (a process of discerning subjectivities). This process is extensive, but more in line with principles of adult learning evaluation than traditional quantitative approaches because it takes into account the context of the programme to a greater extent as well as provides input into the evaluation process from participants (Brookfield, 1986). Although this approach to programme evaluation is much ‘messier’ than traditional quantitative data collection methods, and much less able to be generalised to other contexts, taking a more naturalistic inquiry approach to understanding the impact of rural leadership programmes on community resilience is a necessity because of the very individual nature of each community. Thus, much can be learned from examining each case and considering each within its own context. RESEARCH METHODS This project used interpretive case study methodology to guide the project design. Merriam (1998) argues case study is an appropriate approach for studies that relate to: (1) a particular situation, event, or programme; (2) drawing on multiple sources of data; and (3) complex phenomena best understood within the context of that situation. As such, case studies should be bounded by time and place to provide a clear analytical focus that is relevant to that particular context

154

RURAL SOCIETY


(Remenyi, 2012). The case outlined in this article relates to a rural leadership programme conducted throughout 2012 within a single location, Theodore, although some of those who attended the programme came from a couple of surrounding rural towns. Ethical approval was granted through Central Queensland University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The research questions identified for this project included: How well did the programme prepare rural leaders to build community capacity and resilience? What impact did the programme have on participants’ views of themselves and their community? What changes in thinking occurred as a result of taking the programme? How did the programme impact on participants’ preparedness to take on leadership roles? The data collected for this project focussed primarily on semi-structured interviews undertaken with 16 of a possible 18 participants in the programme. The interviews explored aspects of the research questions by asking participants to outline what they had gained from attending the programme and how their perceptions of leadership may have changed as a result of the programme, as well as discussing aspects of the programme that worked well and what could be improved. These interviews were conducted by the two researchers at the venue of the programme on the last day of the programme schedule. Interviews ranged from 10–55 minutes but mostly lasted around 30 minutes. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken by the researchers who independently read and re-read the transcripts before they each broadly coded the transcripts. They then came together to discuss and finalise the themes by looking for patterns from across the codes and transcripts (Liamputtong & Serry, 2010; Nagy, Mills, Waters, & Birks, 2010). The researchers also drew data from two other projects conducted in Theodore during 2012 to help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the context of the programme. These included a community-based participatory research project related to community resilience and a comparative case study analysis related to identifying and evaluating factors influencing community resilience



in a crisis. Finally, a reflective diary and record of discussion was kept as the project evolved. By foregrounding the context of the programme in this way, the themes that were developed reflected the constructionist philosophical basis of the project (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013); a basis that is consistent with interpretative case study and adult learning principles as outlined by Brookfield (1986). The prior contact the researchers had with many of the participants in the programme and the process of data collection used supported a high level of rigour. Houghton, Casey, Shaw, and Murphy (2013) outline a number of strategies that can be used to enhance rigour in case studies related to credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. These strategies include: prolonged engagement, triangulation, peer debriefing, member checking, audit trail, reflexivity and thick descriptions (Houghton et al., 2013). The credibility of the researchers depended on their prior work and building trust with the community such that they were asked to undertake the evaluation of the rural leadership programme by the facilitator. Credibility was also strengthened by drawing on the results of other projects to help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the context in which to interpret the findings. Furthermore, the researchers independently undertook the thematic analysis of the interviews and then collaborated with each other as to the data labels and process of identifying the themes (Houghton et al., 2013). Dependability and confirmability were strengthened through the use of NVivo (version 10) to undertake the thematic analysis of the interviews and thus created an audit trail. The reflective diary further supported the ability of the researchers to trace their decision making (Houghton et al., 2013). Finally, the thick descriptions of the context of the project and the inclusion of examples from the interviews illustrating how the themes were derived permits others to decide how transferable the insights gained from this study are to other locations and situations (Houghton et al., 2013). There are a number of limitations associated with this evaluation. First, the researchers were not involved at the beginning of the project to be


able to include any base line or process evaluation data. Thus, there is a reliance on self-reported changes from participants at the end of the programme. Second, a lack of funding restricted how extensive the evaluation could be. Whilst it is recognised that the recommended evaluation of leadership programmes as outlined by Millitello and Benham (2010) is very comprehensive, it is also very resource-intensive and as is the case in this article, may well be beyond the budgetary limits of most leadership programmes. Third, the rural leadership programme was designed specifically for the local context and it may be that the evaluation draws out aspects that are only applicable to that local context and therefore of limited value to other communities. FINDINGS Three main themes were derived from the thematic analysis. One of these themes related specifically to the curriculum of the programme and is explored elsewhere. The two themes presented in this article which relate specifically to community resilience are: self-development and building social capital. Each of these themes was constructed from a number of sub-themes and will be examined separately. Self-development Personal skill development has featured in both translational and transformative leadership programmes although the skill sets developed in each programme differ (Clark & Gong, 2011; Rasmussen et al., 2011).Two sub-themes made up this theme: knowing self and learning. Together they provided evidence of the learning journey each of the participants travelled in regards to understanding their own strengths and weakness and why they behaved the way they did, as well as learning more about their own interactions with others and how this challenged their understanding of leadership. All participants reported the rural leadership programme had caused them to reflect on themselves, with most of them suggesting they had learnt a lot about themselves as a result of the programme. In particular, comments emphasised the Myers–Briggs assessment of personality


RURAL SOCIETY

155


types. As one participant noted, I’ve really gained, just insight into who I am – me, the personality I am, the type (Participant (P) 11). As another described, I think I know myself better and understanding, you know, what motivates me and my decision making (P4). Much of this reflection also provided insight into how participants interacted with others: Better understanding of myself and how I work well and how I don’t work well and how to identify in others the same things and how I can then not only become better in working with or around my strengths and weaknesses but also around others’ strengths and weaknesses in a more harmonious way (P20). Yeah, you’ve got to understand yourself first and then you’ll again understand why other people … how other people might think … which enables you to be a bit more understanding and work better with them (P8).

This reflection helped those who had traditionally held back to gain confidence in their own viewpoints. Comments such as, Probably the thing I’ve gained the most is a certain amount of self-confidence, out of much deeper understanding of myself (P13) and, I think I have gained a lot more confidence (P18) reveal the extent to which the programme impacted self-confidence. For others, there was recognition that those with more introverted personalities had something to offer even though they were not always forthcoming with their viewpoints: I’m now more willing to listen to others (P10). Often labelled ‘emotional intelligence,’ this increased insight into self and how they reacted to others was recognised as having an impact on how well the participants dealt with a range of situations: I think I deal with situations better, at home and at work … So it’s fantastic, ‘cause it’s actually changed the meetings that I run, the management meetings (P11). Participants extended this deeper understanding of themselves by learning to find their own voice or to learn to listen to those which quieter voices. Comments such as, I’ve sort of had to learn I can be vocal and I can be valuable and that’s been really good actually (P19) and, Some people are very free and very quick to say what they think, others aren’t but, so it’s very easy just to listen to the ones who are quick and more vocal (P20) highlight

156

RURAL SOCIETY


how the programme provided better insight into themselves and others. This acknowledgement of the value of hearing a wider range of viewpoints shifted many of the participants’ understanding of leadership: I guess my definition of leadership now has changed somewhat to actually be taking responsibility because traditionally we think of leadership as the person at the helm, forging direction and everyone following, but that’s totally not really what the new leadership is (P13). The leader isn’t someone that lords it over anybody. The leadership comes along side of, and works with those other people with their different skills and abilities and everything else and cementing that side of it (P17).

This insight into themselves allowed the participants to consider extending how they could better understand others within their work and voluntary committees. Such an understanding has the potential to lead to building stronger social capital, as outlined in the second theme. Building social capital Social capital refers to the resources of social support embedded in social networks that are reinforced through relationships of trust and social norms (LaLone, 2012). Three sub-themes make up this theme: knowing others, being with the group, and impact on community. This theme reflects how participants learnt a greater tolerance for others and a higher level of appreciation for others to be able to get a better outcome for their communities; to learn from each other and use this increased understanding to decrease potential conflicts in their dealings with others, as well as increase the capacity and cohesiveness of their communities. Understanding themselves better allowed the participants to understand how others behaved. It’s certainly made me more aware of the different people and how we’re not all the same (P9). This increased insight into others allowed participants to recognise that these differences constituted weakness as well as strengths: Probably the biggest surprise and it was an insight into how other people think. You know that you’re different from other people. You don’t always know why, and I think it explained why people, you know the


Exploring the effects of a rural leadership programme on community resilience people’s type reflects how they think and why they do the things they do and why it doesn’t always agree with what you are going to do (P12). We’ve all got our strengths and our weaknesses and that we can all come together in whatever it’s in that we are involved with. You know that project can benefit, that there’s a result in it (P17).

How participants arrived at this point of enlightenment related, in a large part, to the structure of the programme that encouraged considerable interaction with other participants since each was able to draw from each other’s experiences and diversity of knowledge and wisdom. For example, two of the participants reflected on the experience of working with others: But the people involved with it, their knowledge and experience is tied into the concepts … it’s really exciting people, which really helped the course flow. It all moulded the different components together, so it worked pretty well (P11). Actually going through that personal development journey with other members of the community is a highlight. I think there’s direct benefit to us actually all working together as a direct result of this course which is wonderful (13).

The benefits identified by the participants included a likely reduction in conflicts within committees through an increased understanding of others. Increased capacity within communities, as more introverted people gained confidence to step up to community roles, also might improve community cohesiveness. Such benefits were frequently noted, I think it will certainly lift the standard of self-belief and self-appreciation which then helps you to go out and do things in your community (P8) and, … so all of that I think strengthens the bond with the community and therefore strength the community and its resilience (P20). Summarised by another participant: This course has been awesome to actually get to that point where you go, if I can understand where that person is coming from and what they are trying to relate to, then we can actually start coming to an agreement and made decisions on something (P13).

The leadership subscribed to by these participants was one of bringing out the best in others and within their communities.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Transformational approaches to leadership have been shown to increase social connectedness and cohesiveness within communities, characteristics which are fundamental to building community resilience (Aldrich, 2012; Walker & Salt, 2012). Transactional leadership approaches, on the other hand, have been criticised for increasing community vulnerability and potentially contributing to the marginalisation and disempowerment of community members as a result of perceived power differentials (Davies, 2009; Wilson, 2012). Both types of programmes develop personal skills, but the two approaches to leadership development aim to develop different skills. One of the main themes highlighted in this study, self-development, reflects a long standing discussion around leadership, particularly regarding the types of skills required for leadership at a community level (Clark & Gong, 2011; Rasmussen et al., 2011).The perception of distributed leadership gained as a result of undertaking the programme examined meant participants recognised the need to acquire a different set of skills to those such as grant writing and conflict management, skills which are commonly associated with transactional leadership programmes. Skills such as gaining insight into self and others were perceived to be more important for building collaborative leadership aimed at enhancing community relationships. This increased insight into themselves and others helped participants to learn tolerance, a trait they recognised as important, especially for minimising conflict when working on specific volunteer projects within their communities. According to Bourgon (2010), resilient communities are built through active citizenship, by activities such as volunteering, and through the strengthening of social networks over time. The ability to work collaboratively and to be able to draw out the best in each other when participating in local projects, therefore, become important skills for developing and nurturing social connections and networks. Another key insight from this study relates to the ability to embrace diversity and value differing life experiences. One participant in particular commented on how the programme enabled him to make small changes which resulted in more productive


RURAL SOCIETY

157


meetings and better collaboration within his workplace. Being able to accept, and indeed embrace, diversity of viewpoints and ways of doing things greatly enhances resilience because a wider range of options become available to communities that allow for more creative solutions to be found to problems and issues that need changing (Walker & Salt, 2006; Wilson, 2012; Zolli & Healy, 2012). Furthermore, participants emphasised improvements in social connectedness both within and outside the local community as a result of the programme. This provided an opportunity for strengthening bonds within existing networks, as well as opportunities for creating networks with people with whom they had not previously connected. A number of researchers have explored the importance of networks as part of social capital, namely bonding, bridging and linking ties (Poortinga, 2012; Woolcock, 2008). ‘Bonding’ denotes ties between intimate social circles such as family and close friends, ‘bridging’ describes wider social networks and acquaintances and ‘linking’ refers to connections between higher and lower status positions. The programme reported here appeared to show a strengthening in both bridging and linking networks, although this could only be definitively demonstrated through the use of techniques such as social network analysis (Van Beurden et al., 2011). Within the resilience literature, these networks have been identified as being essential to building healthy and resilient communities (Aldrich, 2012; Wilson, 2012). In particular, development of these ties help to counter the ‘shadow side’ of social capital where bonding ties are stronger then bridging ties, resulting in exclusion, stigmatisation and a break down in the social order of the community, particularly during times of adversity (Aldrich, 2012; Rasmussen et al., 2011). The importance of this issue has been highlighted by Rasmussen et al. (2011, p. 66) who have called for community leadership programmes to, ‘promote bridging social capital without further unbalancing bonding social capital.’ Whilst rural leadership programmes which focus on promoting social capital, especially bridging networks, can contribute to community resilience, it is important to recognise that such programmes cannot build resilience in isolation.

158

RURAL SOCIETY


Although community resilience is a contested term, the current literature seems to be recognising that it needs to be considered as part of a complex adaptive system (McManus et al., 2012; Walker & Salt, 2012; Wilson, 2012). Whilst the key theme of ‘building social capital’ through leadership programmes has been explored with respect to building community resilience in this article, the overall relationship between social capital and leadership is still emerging (Rasmussen et al., 2011). As the links between transformational approaches to leadership and the development of social networks start to be more extensively explored in the literature, it needs to be remembered social capital refers to more than social networks and includes a wide range of social characteristics including trust, social resources and community cohesion (Rasmussen et al., 2011; Woolcock, 2008). Characteristics such as trust and community cohesion can only be established over time, and although leadership programmes appear to have a role in contributing to social capital, what is also evident, is that social capital needs to be built and nurtured over a long period of time, certainly well before a crisis occurs (Aldrich, 2012; ChamleeWright & Storr, 2009; Ozawa, 2012). The research presented here provides an insight into how rural leadership programmes can contribute to the development of community resilience. This article, while focussing on one small, local programme has suggested that if these programmes are to be truly effective in developing community resilience, they need to aim towards transformational leadership and work towards a shared understanding of leadership as a community responsibility rather than seeing leadership as a set of narrow skills found in charismatic people or those in authoritative positions. This includes encouraging people to better understand themselves so they can better understand others and be more accepting of differences in others. There is no doubt the participants who attended the rural leadership programme examined here found the experience transforming; transforming the way they saw themselves, each other and their community. It is also likely that in bringing this change about, the programme has contributed to building stronger networks and trust amongst the participants that are likely to extend beyond the programme



These changes suggest the adaptive capacity of this community has increased and that the members of this community are in a better position to be able to mobilise their social resources in response to change; that is, they have become more resilient. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded through an internal grant from the Learning and Teaching Education Research Centre (LTERC) at Central Queensland University. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the research participants for their time and insights. REFERENCES Aldrich, D. (2012). Building resilience social capital in post disaster recovery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Allen, R., & Lachapelle, P. R. (2012). Can leadership development act as a rural poverty alleviation strategy? Community Development, 43(1), 95–112. Banyai, C. (2009). Community leadership: Development and the evolution of leadership in Himeshima. Rural Society, 19(3), 241–261. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2012). Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. Bourgon, J. (2010). The history and future of nation building? Building capacity for public results. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2), 197–218. Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Buikstra, E., Ross, H., King, C. A., Baker, P. G., Hegney, D., McLachlan, K., & Rogers-Clark, C. (2010). The components of resilience – Perceptions of an Australian rural community. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(8), 975–991. Buultjens, J., Ambrosoli, K., & Dollery, B. (2012). The establishment of regional development Australia committees in Australia: Issues and initiatives for the future. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 18(2), 182–205. Castleden, M., McKee, M., Murray, V., & Leonardi, G. (2011). Resilience thinking in health protection. Journal of Public Health, 33(3), 369–377. Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2009). Club goods and post-disaster community return. Rationality and Society, 21(4), 429–458. Clark, P., & Gong, T. (2011). Developing leadership competencies to promote the community


development of the Mississippi Delta Region. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 6(2), 143–154. Colten, C. E., Kates, R. W., & Laska, S. B. (2008). Three years: Lessons for community resilience. Environment, 50(5), 36–47. Davies, A. (2007). Organic or orchestrated: The nature of leadership in rural Australia. Rural Society, 17(2), 139–154. Davies, A. (2009). Understanding local leadership in building the capacity of rural communities in Australia. Geographical Research, 47(4), 380–389. de Guerre, D., & Taylor, M. (2004). Graduate leadership education in a socio-ecological perspective: Working at the paradigmatic interface. In E. O’Sullivan & M. Taylor (Eds.), Learning towards an ecological consciousness: Selective transformative practices (pp. 65–83). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Eckersley, R. (2010). Population health – A forgotten discussion of social resilience. In S. Cork (Ed.), Resilience and transformation: Preparing Australia for uncertain futures (pp. 115–128). Collingwood, VIC: CSIRO Publishing. Etuk, L., Rahe, M. L., Crandall, M. S., Sektnan, M., & Bowman, S. (2013). Rural leadership development: Pathways to community change. Community Development, 44(4), 411–425. Gray, I., Williams, R., & Phillips, E. (2005). Rural community and leadership in the management of natural resources: Tensions between theory and practice. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7(2), 125–139. Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurse Researcher, 20, 12–17. LaLone, M. B. (2012). Neighbours helping neighbours: An examination of the social capital mobilisation process for community resilience to environmental disasters. Journal of Applied Science, 6(2), 209–237. Liamputtong, P., & Serry, T. (2010). Making sense of qualitative data. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice (pp. 369–386). Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Publishing. Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 401–416. Majee, W., Long, S., & Smith, D. (2012). Engaging the underserved in community leadership development: Step up to leadership graduates in northwest Missouri tell their stories. Community Development, 43(1), 80–94. McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Argent, N., Baum, S., Bourke, L., Martin, J., … Sorensen, T. (2012). Rural


RURAL SOCIETY

159

Wendy Madsen and Cathy O’Mullan community and rural resilience: What is important to farmers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of Rural Studies, 28(1), 20–29. Meier, A., Singletary, L., & Hill, G. (2012). Measuring the impacts of a volunteer-based community development program in developing volunteers’ leadership skills. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 1–10. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Millitello, M., & Benham, M. (2010). Sorting out collective leadership: How Q-methodology can be used to evaluate leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 620–632. Nagy, S., Mills, J., Waters, D., & Birks, M. (2010). Using research in healthcare practice. Sydney, NSW: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Normann, R. (2013). Regional leadership: A systemic view. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26, 23–38. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. Onstad, P. A., Danes, S. M., Hardman, A. M., Olson, P. D., Marczak, M. S., Heins, R. K., … Coffee, K. A. (2012). The road to recovery from a natural disaster: Voices from the community. Community Development, 43(5), 566–580. Ozawa, C. P. (2012). Planning resilient communities: Insights from experiences with risky technologies. In B. E. Goldstein (Ed.), Collaborative resilience: Moving through crisis to opportunity (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pasteur, K. (2011). From vulnerability to resilience: A framework for analysis and action to build community resilience. Rugby, England: Practical Action. Poortinga, W. (2012). Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health and Place, 18, 286–295. Pyles, L., & Cross, T. (2008). Community revitalisation in post-Katrina New Orleans: A critical analysis of social capital in an African American neighbourhood. Journal of Community Practice, 16(4), 383–401. Rasmussen, C., Armstrong, J., & Chazdon, S. (2011). Bridging Brown County: Captivating social capital as a means to community change. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(1), 63–82. Reid, R., & Courtenay Botterill, L. (2013). The multiple meanings of resilience: An overview of the literature. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(1), 31–40. Remenyi, D. (2012). Case study research: The quick guide series. Reading, England: Academic Publishing International.

160

RURAL SOCIETY


Ricketts, K. G., & Ladewig, H. (2008). A path analysis of community leadership within viable rural communities in Florida. Leadership, 4(2), 137–157. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405. Van Beurden, E. K., Kia, A. M., Hughes, D., Fuller, J. D., Deitrich, U., Howton, K., & Kavooru, S. (2011). Networked resilience in rural Australia – A role for health promotion in regional responses to climate change. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 22, 54–60. Van De Valk, L., & Constas, M. (2011). A methodological review of research on leadership development and social capital: Is there a cause and effect relationship. Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory, 6(1), 73–90. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function. Washington, DC: Island Press. Walker, J., & Gray, B. (2009). Community voices – A leadership program making a difference in rural underserved countries in North Carolina. Journal of Extension, 47(6), 1–11. Wells, K. B., Tang, J., Lizaola, E., Jones, F., Brown, A., Stayton, A., & Plough, A. (2013). Applying community engagement to disaster planning: developing the vision and design for the Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience initiative. American Journal of Public Health, 103(7), 1172–1180. Wendel, M. L., Burdine, J. N., McLeroy, K. R., Alaniz, A., Norton, B., & Felix, M. R. J. (2009). Community capacity: Theory and application. In R. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 277–302). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wilson, G. (2012). Community resilience and environmental transitions. London, England: Routledge. Woolcock, M. (2008). The rise and routinization of social capital, 1988–2008. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 469–487. Zautra, A., Hall, J., & Murray, K. (2009). Community development and community resilience: An integrative approach. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(3), 130–147. Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Free Press. Received 23 July 2013

Accepted 04 February 2014 © eContent Management Pty Ltd