Ethical Considerations in the Development of the Interdisciplinary Leadership Studies Program

Executive Summary The recent increase in college-level leadership coursework offers ethical challenges for educators and administrators responsible for the development of leadership programs. In the past, many such programs were designed to meet the needs of very unique and limited student populations. However, a broader view of leadership studies suggests that our programs need to employ a transformational model of leader development across the student body. This article chronicles the development of two recent leadership studies programs--University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington--and the ethical decision-making considerations that directed their evolution from planning to implementation. Over the past decade an increasing number of colleges and universities have developed leadership coursework and degree programs (Hackman & Johnson, 1996). Indeed, over three-quarters of communication departments surveyed in 1993 by Johnson and Hackman indicated that leadership material was included in at least one course. A recent call for submissions in the Center for Creative Leadership's Leadership Education A Source Book produced over 250 responses describing leadership courses and programs currently offered on college and university campuses in the United States (Freeman, Knott, & Schwartz, 1996). Most of these programs are based on emerging leadership perspectives that focus on the transformation of followers into leaders (see, for example, Bass, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1990), the minimization or elimination of traditional leader/follower divisions (see, for example, Gardner, 1990; Rost, 1991), empowerment (see, for example, Block, 1996; DePree, 1989), and diversity (see, for example, Cox, 1993; Hickman & Creighton-Zollar, 1997). These new perspectives on leadership focus on equality and the diffusion of leadership responsibility throughout groups, organizations, and society. This view directly opposes earlier perspectives focusing on elitism and the separation of leader/follower roles and responsibilities. As Hashem (1997) explains in his description of the role faculty play in teaching the new leadership paradigm, "The conventional leadership concepts and practices which rely on top-down philosophy, decisiveness, unemotional, and total control have been challenged by the transformational concept and more empowering practices." (p. 94). These new perspectives on leadership offer ethical challenges for educators and administrators responsible for the development of leadership curriculum and programs. In the past, many such courses and programs were designed to meet the needs of very unique and limited student populations (student government leaders, athletes, campus activists, etc.). These programs were designed to provide instruction to the small percentage of students deemed to have leadership potential. Although the need for advanced training for this population remains, there is another larger population of students who also benefit significantly from leadership training. This population of students will assume positions of responsibility in groups, organizations, and society, but will not attain senior leadership positions or authority. Despite this, these students can also learn to be better leaders and can develop knowledge and skills that will enable them to be more effective in their informal leadership endeavors. Indeed, it is this group of transformed followers that provides the engine that powers society. It is therefore ethically imperative that colleges and universities meet the challenge of providing leadership instruction for this vital group. The argument to extend leadership education to a wide cross-section of students can be viewed from the ethical decision-making perspective posited by Rest (1994, 1984, 1983). Rest suggests that ethical decision-making is a four-part process. The stages in the process are as follows: (1) Ethical sensitivity interpreting the situation (2) Ethical reasoning determining the ethical course of action (3) Ethical motivation -- deciding what to do (4) Action -- carrying out intentions Ethical Sensitivity has to do with being able to recognize ethical issues. …