Understanding the Critical Perspective of Civic Leadership Theory (CLT) for Dr. Rocal

Community Based Civic Leadership Programs: A Descriptive Investigation

Tarek Azzam Ronald E. Riggio

Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College

This paper focuses on the development and operational practice of civic leadership programs within the entire state of California. The intention of this paper is to provide a clearer understanding of how civic leadership programs are shaped and structured. This paper also offers a glimpse into the status of civic leadership programs within California, and will cover a variety of topics such as the types of programs, curricular practices of programs, major issues facing programs, occupational make up of participants, and program funding. Implications for future civic leadership development are discussed.

Civic Leadership programs are formal leadership development programs sponsored by local community agencies with the aim of training future and current leaders in the skills necessary to serve their communities. These

programs attempt to foster an understanding of the events, people, and organizational entities that shape a community, while providing skills and knowledge to be more effective leaders. An important aim of these programs is to inspire citizens to step forward and assume leadership roles within the community. The concept of civic leadership has been defined as:

The ’art and science’ of leading in the public arena where one engages in the affairs of society through public advocacy, debate, education, and the fostering of dialogue and group reflection. Civic leadership promotes critical thinking in the public arena and an examination of new alternatives and paradigms. (Reed, 1996: 100).

The steady rise in the number of civic leadership programs points to the perceived

importance of having increased numbers of trained civic leaders within the community. Some evidence indicates that communities with

strong civic engagement and strong local

leadership tend to have lower crime rates, better schools, and more effective government institutions (Putnam 1995; Rossing, 1998). Typically, these cities have a strong sense of community and personal ownership. Fostering these feelings of civic respect and ownership has been a challenge to many local cities and governments, and the growth of civic leadership programs may be one important step in enhancing a sense of community.

Most civic leadership programs have had a relatively recent emergence in the United States. The earliest known program is Leadership Inc. in Philadelphia that began in 1959 (Moore, 1988). Different sources give different reasons and historical factors that contribute to the creation of civic leadership programs. Many stories attribute the formation of civic leadership programs to the race riots that were ravaging the country in the 1960’s (Community Leadership Association, 2001). These programs started as a way to bring the community together by trying to create a mutual understanding of the issues and problems facing the community.

Other stories attribute the formation of

leadership programs to a severe lack of leaders within the community. A dramatic example of such a case occurred with a tragic plane crash that was carrying most of Atlanta’s young leaders (Fredricks, 1998). This event created a leadership vacuum within the community and spurred members of the community to form Leadership Atlanta to help fill vacant leadership roles. Although this case is extremely rare, many communities report that they are finding it

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

56

harder to locate capable leaders to assume responsibility and help guide the community, and to replace retiring community leaders. R. D. Putnam, (2000) has suggested that the reduction of civic participation can be linked to increased pressure on time and money. Putnam also

suggested that current technological trends (such as computers and e-mails) have, in some ways, reduced human and community interaction.

The value of civic leadership programs is hard to gauge due to the unique nature of individual programs. Each program contends with different issues, different populations, different budgets, different approaches to training leaders, and many other significant differences. Although the differences between programs may be large, some preliminary research on the effectiveness of civic leadership programs found evidence of positive long-term impact. Daugherty and Williams (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of graduates of civic leadership programs and observed that alumni were still active in the community three years after completing their program. Interestingly, they also found that the impact of these programs went beyond the graduates. For example, non-graduates were found to use the methodology and curriculum of graduates of the leadership programs. There seemed to be a transfer of knowledge from graduates to other people when they interacted in the community. This led to overall improvement in the execution and formation of community projects.

Today, the number of community leadership programs is on the rise. Currently more than 700 community programs are operating in nearly all regions of the United States (Community Leadership Association 2001; Fredricks, 1998). Many of these programs were formed in or were closely affiliated with the local chambers of commerce. A substantial number of these programs were started by individuals who have either participated in other civic leadership programs or who have had some informal contact with other leadership programs.

There is a national organization for civic leadership programs called the Community Leadership Association (CLA). This organization has over 400 members and holds an annual conference for civic leadership program directors, and other interested parties. CLA also provides informational resources for emerging

and current programs by publishing a civic leadership program guide for individuals or programs that are interested in how to create, operate, and maintain a civic . leadership program. In California, the major association is the California Association of Leadership Programs (CALP). This association is well known among most civic leadership programs within California. These associations coupled with contact between other leadership programs in proximity yield a close-knitted network of programs that try to share their efforts and

experiences.

Leadership Development in Civic Leadership Programs

At their core, civic leadership programs have much in common with other leadership development programs. Over 85 percent of all leadership training programs use formal classroom instruction (Day, 2000). While many civic leadership programs use classroom instruction, most also offer direct involvement of participants in the community, as well as requiring participants to work on actual community problems or issues. In this way civic leadership programs have much in common with &dquo;action learning&dquo; approach to leadership development (Conger & Toegel, 2004; Dotlich & Noel, 1998). In addition, these types of civic leadership programs appear to see leadership as a complex interaction between the leader, the organization, and the larger social environment - - the city community (Fiedler, 1996).

Leadership development could be seen as a process that requires both social and contextual interactions coupled with formal training (Day, 2000). The use of social systems coupled with individual training can help to build commitments and establish a relational network

among members of an organization or community (Wenger 1998). Through this process, individuals will have the opportunity to learn through social interaction in relevant contexts. They will learn from their work and not be removed from their work to learn. This can ultimately lead to better retention and application of what is learned (Wilson, 1993; Dotlich & Noel 1998).

Individuals should be encouraged to understand and practice leadership development

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

57

in their work. To achieve that an environment needs to be created where individuals are able to

help and support each other, create social networks, and work toward relevant objectives. Each individual is considered a leader working together in a social setting and building relationships and commitments with other members of the community (Day, 2000).

Almost all civic leadership programs provide participants with the opportunity to interact with the community with many also including formal leadership training. This difference from other leadership programs can provide a distinct advantage for leadership development. Many civic leadership programs encourage participants to engage with the community and use what they have learned to work on or discuss solutions to problems facing the community. This engagement process can facilitate the learning process by providing a relevant context, and can help establish social networks between the participants and the community.

Most civic leadership programs (approximately 76 percent) tend to structure their curricula using both formal classroom training (Instructional Approach) and exposure to community organizations, and prominent community members (Orientation Approach) to facilitate the learning process. An important question is how effective each of these methods are in fostering leaders, and how they work in combination. A brief description of each approach is provided.

The Instructional Approach is focused on teaching participants leadership skills through courses and structured lessons. This is quite similar to typical managerial leadership programs, or leadership training programs conducted in organizations. Many of these programs hire leadership consultants (they are usually either academics or independent consultants) to train and instruct community participants in leadership skills. For example, common topics covered would be leadership styles, developing personal as well as team communication skills, and effective leadership strategies. Many of these programs include team-building exercises such as weekend retreats and the completion of a team building &dquo;ropes course.&dquo; The philosophy of these programs is that leadership is a skill that can be

learned in a controlled setting, and then be applied to the actual civic community.

The Orientation Approach is focused on orienting participants to the functions of the community and introducing them to different leaders within the community. The program curriculum is normally divided into different topics. These topics can cover areas in the community such as history, culture, education, law, government and economy. For example, on &dquo;government day&dquo; participants could spend a session meeting with the mayor, touring the local city hall, and meeting with various decision makers. For the &dquo;law&dquo; topic day, participants may meet with the head of the police, go on a police &dquo;ride along,&dquo; and visit the local jails. For the &dquo;education&dquo; topic day they may meet the superintendent of schools and visit different schools. The philosophy of these orientation programs is that interaction with

community leaders can implicitly teach participants leadership skills and provide participants with a better understanding of the community.

This paper provides information regarding the status of civic leadership programs with an initial focus on programs within California. It

provides an understanding of resources available to these programs (both human and financial), challenges facing programs, and community interest and participation in civic leadership programs.

Methods

Participants Seventy-two civic leadership program

directors/administrators were interviewed about their particular programs. All participants were located in California. Participants and programs were identified using multiple search methods such as internet web searches, phone directory searches, and contact with the local chambers of commerce. Augmenting the search were programs that were identified using the membership roster of the California Association of Leadership Program (CALP) and the national Community Leadership Association (CLA). These sources provided further information about the presence of many civic leadership programs within California. Seventy-two (72) of 83 program administrators agreed to be surveyed

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

58

for an 85 percent response rate. The survey was administered using a semi-structured telephone interview. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. A few program administrators

responded to the questions through electronic mail.

Procedures The survey instrument was administered to

the leading administrators for each program using semi-structured interviews. If the program director was not available, other knowledgeable sources from within the programs were interviewed (such as program assistants, advisory board members or events coordinators). The interview questions addressed the following topics:- year of establishment, tuition charged to attend the program, the different funding sources, number of students in current class, occupational backgrounds of participants past and present, curricular focus (Instructional vs. Orientation), number of meetings per year, time spent during each meeting, number of alumni, type of alumni follow-up, number of full/part time staff working for the program, communication with other civic leadership programs, and major issues and concerns facing the program. Internet websites and brochures

produced by the programs were also used to gather further information about each program.

Results

Interview data Number of Years in Existence-

Many California civic leadership programs are relatively new. The spread of civic leadership programs in California started in 1980 with Leadership Stockton as the vanguard program. Mean age of programs within California is approximately 10.7 years (SD=5.99). The oldest was Leadership Stockton at 22 years and the most recent were programs beginning in 2002, including Leadership Connection (Apple Valley) and Carlsbad Chamber University (Carlsbad).

Tuition & Funding Sources- The most striking aspect of tuition was the

great amount of variance among programs (M=$907, SD=$686). Some programs such as the Santa Ana Leadership Initiative and Leadership Coalinga offered their programs free of charge. These programs depended heavily on community sponsorships (e.g. Leadership Coalinga is mostly funded by Fresno County and local business), grants from local or national foundations (e.g., Santa Ana Leadership Initiative receives a grant from the Kellogg foundation), fundraising events, and volunteer services.

The most expensive programs had tuitions ranging from $2,000-$4,500. Most of these programs offered scholarships to help their participants with tuition. These programs were typically located in large metropolitan cities in California. Due to their locations, these programs had access to a relatively large population base. They also depended on grants and sponsorships (these include small business and large corporate sponsorships) to provide further funding.

As noted, civic leadership programs find funding from a variety of sources. Presented are the top six funding sources mentioned during the interviews. Community sponsorship was the top funding source for civic leadership programs with 53 percent of the program administrators interviewed saying that they receive in-kind donations from local business, corporations, and volunteer help from the community. Active fundraising was also a major source of revenue with 31 percent of programs engaging in events such as dinner parties, auctions to raise money, and various other fundraising events. Some programs (16 percent) receive grants from foundations such as the Kellogg and Harden Foundations. The Chambers of Commerce are also an important source of funding with 15 percent of programs receiving some monetary compensation from their local chambers. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of sources of founding. I

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

59

Table 1

Types and frequency of funding sources used by civic leadership programs

Only 8 percent of civic leadership programs receive some funding from their alumni dues, if they happen to have an alumni association or some organization or club to keep the alumni involved. Some programs are able to cover all of their funding needs from tuition alone.2

2

Many programs use multiple funding sources, only 16 percent of programs rely solely on tuition as their only funding source, while approximately 55 percent of programs use one additional funding source (besides tuition) to run their programs, 23 percent use two additional

funding sources, 6 percent use three or more additional funding sources. The level of funding available is heavily dependent on the location of programs. Programs such as Leadership Sunnyvale have access to major corporations such as Yahoo, Netscape, and AMD who have provided financial support. Other programs may not have the same corporate opportunities but they tend to have high levels of community

commitment to supplement their needs. These programs tend to utilize small local businesses and fundraising events to help sustain the ongoing program.

Class Size and Occupational Makeup of Participants

The class size of civic leadership programs can vary depending on the size and resources available to the particular programs. The mean for participants per class was 24 (SD=8.96). This number varied from 9 participants to up to 54 participants per class. However, this number fluctuated from year to year for most programs. Many of the program directors said that enrollment numbers are dependent on factors such as advertising, community involvement, and the economic condition of the area. Table 2

displays a frequency distribution of program enrollment.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

60

Table 2

Frequency distribution of class size across civic leadership programs

The survey also shed some light on the occupational background of participants. We were interested in finding out how involved different occupational sectors were in community leadership programs. Figure 1 is a pie chart that illustrates the occupational breakdown of civic leadership participants. Programs reported that approximately 28 percent of participants came from the govemment/public sector. This category encompassed individuals who work for or are affiliated with

government/public institutions such as public schools, fire and police departments, city halls,

and public hospital officials. The private sector accounted for 48 percent of participants, consisting primarily of large and small business owners and individuals coming from corporations. Participants from the non-profit sector accounted for 22 percent of enrollment, including participants from organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and many small local charity and service organizations. The remaining 2 percent of participants came from individuals who were either retired or local

community activists.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

61

Figure 1 Occupational background of civic leadership participants by sector

The occupational background of participants did vary somewhat from area to area. This again was related to the local demographics of the city or town. Many program directors interviewed said that they try to strike a balance during the application process. They wish to attain an even mix of backgrounds and experiences to increase the chance of learning from each other’s knowledge. Many program directors are faced with problems of acquiring a sufficient applicant pool to create this kind of balance. Overall, effort is made to ensure some representation from as many areas as possible.

Curricular Focus and Homework One of the objectives of this paper was to

find out how civic leadership programs approach leadership development and training. Directors were presented with a brief description of the

instructional and the orientation approaches and were asked if they had a combination of both approaches or if they did one or the other exclusively, or whether they had some other sort of structure.

Figure 2 presents a pie chart that illustrates the breakdown of the various approaches to leadership development amongst surveyed programs. As can be seen, the majority of programs (three-fourths) offer a combination of both orientation and instruction as part of their curriculum. Each of these programs, however, had a different degree of emphasis on each approach. Some programs included an instructional classroom session at the end of

every meeting. Others dedicated a full day to instruction while leaving the remainder of the meetings for orientation.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

62

Figure 2 Percentage of programs that follow the orientation approach, instructional approach, or combine both

The degree or level of emphasis of each approach in the combination programs varied greatly. Directors were asked to estimate the percentage of time dedicated to each approach. Results indicated that the amount of time spent on the instructional approach ranged from 10 percent to 50 percent. Overall, the orientation approach was incorporated into almost all of the civic leadership programs surveyed.

Only two programs were spending 100 percent of their time on the instructional approach. These were two relatively new programs Carlsbad Chamber University (just completed its first year in 2002) and Leadership Carpinteria (started in March 2002). These programs offered classes in leadership related topics to interested participants. Some topics included in these programs are: leadership styles, communication skills, and conflict resolution. This is a relatively new trend within California’s civic leadership programs and more attention will given to this trend as it develops.

Number of Meetings Civic leadership programs tended to run

from 9 to 12 months, typically meeting once a month. The mean number of meetings per year for each program was 10 (SD=2.9). Some programs (approximately 12 percent) also include a 2-day weekend retreat as part of their offerings. Each meeting usually lasts about 7 hours. This number varied depending on the topics covered and the resources available. Many of the programs have topic days that focus on specific areas of the community. Topics covered can include: education, economy, government, law, history and culture. Most programs begin in the morning with an introduction to the topic and the events of the day. Typically, the mornings are spent touring relevant locations and interacting with leading members of the topic area (i.e. education, police, and government). For example, during Leadership Modesto’s health care day participants would meet in the mornings with the chief executive officer (CEO) from the Memorial Hospital Association, learn the history of health care, and discuss ethical issues in the health care field.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

63

Depending on the program’s curricular focus the remainder of the day may be spent on orientation (continuing the tours and meetings with topic leaders) or instruction (classroom instruction regarding a leadership-related topic). Other programs, such as Leadership Salinas, offer their sessions during a 20-week period with meetings held once a week. Some other programs run as long as two years. For example, Leadership Clovis offers a two-year program where the first year is an introduction to the

community, offering various orientation opportunities to participants. In the second year participants choose a community issue or problem, then plan, and implement a community-focused project to attempt to alleviate the problem.

Number of Alumni and Alumni Follow-up The number of alumni for each program

was almost completely dependent on the number of years since the establishment of the program. The mean number of alumni was about 256 alumni. Typically, the programs with the largest number of alumni also tended to be located in

large metropolitan cities. (Lead San Diego and Leadership San Francisco have more then 800 graduates from their programs).

Regardless of the number of alumni, many programs are faced with the challenge of keeping their alumni connected and informed

about the events in the community. Almost 73 percent of civic leadership programs have some form of alumni follow-up using different methods. During the interviews we found that 28 percent of programs use monthly or quarterly newsletters to keep alumni informed, 45 percent of programs also use various social events such as dinners or luncheons or even annual Christmas parties to stay connected with their alumni. Almost 38 percent of the programs surveyed have an alumni association that has monthly meetings, tries to work on long-term community projects, helps raise money for the leadership programs (through dues or fundraising) and/or helps to decide on the events and curriculum of future leadership classes. Almost 6 percent of civic leadership programs have a yearly class reunion. Seventeen percent of programs also invite past alumni to join the steering committee to direct the future course of the leadership program. Eleven percent of programs invite alumni to continue their

leadership learning by taking refresher courses on leadership. Four percent of programs have an annual alumni retreat, and 9 percent provide volunteer opportunities through the leadership program as a way to keep them involved in both the community and the leadership program.3 3 Table 3 provides a breakdown of alumni follow- up methods.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

64

Table 3

Types and frequency of approaches to alumni follow-up

The involvement level of alumni was a

major concern facing many leadership programs. Many programs attempt to keep the alumni involved by having them participate in future and current classes and events either as instructors or as consultants to the incoming classes. In many programs, there was at least one alumnus on the programs’ boards of directors or advisory boards.

Staff and Networking One of the major concerns for most

leadership programs is the shortage of paid staff to help run and organize the program. The typical number of either full time or part time staff member is about one. Many programs rely heavily on volunteers to aid with day-to-day operations. Usually the only paid staff person is either the director of the program, or if run from the chamber of commerce, the person whose main job description includes part time work on

the local leadership program. In many instances, paid employees are faced with the task of conducting the program with minimal assistance. For example, in Leadership Santa Barbara County, volunteers run the entire operation with no paid staff. These programs like many others rely on volunteers and in-kind donations from the community.

As for contact with other leadership programs, a majority of the programs (63 percent) indicated that they are or have been in contact with other leadership programs and other similar organizations. Many are in contact with other nearby programs. There is also wide recognition of the California Association of Leadership Programs (CALP) and the Community Leadership Association (CLA) among the programs surveyed.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

65

Major Challenges Facing Civic Leadership Programs

Several key issues tended to dominate the list of challenges facing civic leadership programs. Table 4 presents an illustration of the

types and frequency of the major issues mentioned by civic leadership programs. The most frequently mentioned challenge was funding, with 43 percent reporting that they were having problems finding enough funds to operate their programs. Some programs were having problems recruiting enough participants

due to small populations in their area or a lack of awareness of and interest in civic leadership programs. These programs typically had problems with creating a diverse and balanced class from the applicant pool. Many programs wished to create more diversity in their selection process but were hindered by the relatively small applicant pool. Having enough resources (including staff and time) to run the program effectively was also a major issue mentioned by a number of program directors.

Table 4

Types and Frequency of issues and challenges reported by civic leadership programs

Other important issues that were raised by program directors were the lack of alumni and

community involvement in the program. This issue could be considered one of the most

challenging and crucial to any civic leadership programs. The fact that these programs have little community support can hinder the

development and experience of the participants. Although this issue was mentioned explicitly by only seven of the California programs, it is still an important problem for civic leadership programs in general. A related issue is the difficulty in getting alumni to stay active in the community and in the program. Most programs

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66

have tried to address the problem through a series of different alumni follow up programs that were discussed in an earlier section.

On the other end of the spectrum, approximately 11 percent said that they had no problems or issues. These programs were well funded, had a good applicant pool to draw from, and had a good deal of sustained interest from the community and alumni.

Discussion

This paper focused on the type, number, and status of civic leadership programs within the state of California to determine the

pervasiveness of types of programs, and to understand their various missions, structures, and their impact on the surrounding communities. While this paper provided some basic information, more work needs to be done to present a fuller picture of the effectiveness and importance of these programs. Many programs engage in a self-evaluation process. This is usually done by surveying alumni and current participants and by asking them to highlight what was learned and provide suggestions for improvement. Although this method has yielded helpful feedback for individual programs, no one has analyzed the impact of civic leadership programs on a more widespread basis using a standardized method, such as a standard survey of the alumni and

participants, and comparing results across programs. There are many difficulties in trying to compare these programs. Each program is

unique in its operation, its curriculum, and its population.

However, a standardized evaluation and comparison of civic leadership programs will yield many benefits. First, knowledge from such a study could ultimately lead to the development of best practices and best structures for civic leadership programs. Such information could prove extremely helpful in optimizing the impact and effectiveness of these programs in developing new leadership within the community. The difficulty of finding such information would lie in aggregating the various differences between different programs to find the best possible combination for all programs. Each program operates in a unique environment and has unique needs and resources, but the

benefits of having a general guiding principle of operations can contribute to program success.

Second, a standardized study of civic leadership programs could help identify the best curricular approaches or combination of approaches for training community leaders. Looking at what elements work best from both the instructional and orientation approaches would provide relevant information about leadership development and the best sort of curriculum.

Third, an evaluation of alumni across various leadership programs may also provide valuable insight into how leadership programs affect alumni and what are the best ways to keep alumni connected. This information would prove valuable in determining the impact of civic leadership development, and in determining the sustainability and evolution of civic leadership programs in their respective communities.

Summary

The relatively recent growth and seeming explosion of civic leadership programs in many communities has sparked an interest in these programs and the way they approach leadership development .

4 Due to the community

involvement and focus, these programs possess certain advantages over other leadership development programs. For example, many of these programs provide the opportunity to network with other members of the community and with current community leaders. This provides an important stepping-stone for incoming leaders. The networking opportunities may provide participants with the connections and information needed to get things accomplished. Moreover, unlike many executive leadership training programs, which are focused primarily on individual development, the focus of civic leadership is on the community and solving its existing problems. This can serve as a source of motivation and inspiration for students in civic leadership programs.

Looking at civic leadership programs within California, we know that they are relatively new and are operating with limited resources. Many approach civic leadership development by combining knowledge learned from the classroom with knowledge gained from interacting with the community. These programs

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

67

attempt to attract a wide range of participants from different backgrounds and experiences. They also have a growing number of alumni, with some alumni helping start civic leadership programs when they move to new communities. Most programs utilize different methods to tap into their alumni and use them as a potential resource. All programs attempt to act as instruments of positive change within their respective communities.

The impact of civic leadership programs will likely be greater as the demand for local leadership increases. The potential for these programs to be instruments of change and improvement within the community is high. Based on recent trends, civic leadership programs will likely continue to grow in many communities. As they grow, many of these programs will need to find sources of support and information in order to develop a program that is effective in developing leadership capacity in their communities. More attention will have to be given to this area of study in order to better understand and help in the development of these new and old ventures into community leadership.

References

Community Leadership Association (2001). Program Development Guide. Indianapolis: Community Leadership Association.

Conger, J.A., & Toegel, G. (2004). Action learning and multi-rater feedback: Pathways to leadership development? In S.E. Murphy & R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The Future of Leadership Development. (pp. ) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 107-128.

Daugherty, R. & Williams, S. (1997). The long-term impacts of leadership development: an assessment of a state wide program. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (2), 101-114.

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581-613.

Dotlich, D.L. & Noel, J.L. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companies are recreating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Fiedler, F.E. (1996). Research on leadership selection

and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250.

Fredricks, S. (1998). Exposing and exploring statewide community leadership training programs. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5 (2), 129-142.

Moore, C.M. (1998). A colorful quilt: The community leadership story. Indianapolis: Community Leadership Association.

Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.

Reed, T. (1996). A new understanding of "followers" as leaders: emerging theory of civic leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (1), 95- 104.

Rossing, B. (1998). Learning laboratories for renewed community leadership: Rational, programs, and challenges. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5 (4), 68-81.

Wilson, A. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 57, 71-79.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 139-145.

Reference Notes

’Note: Many of the chambers do not offer money, but other valuable services such as workspace, staffing, and access to equipment such as computers, phones, and internet access to many of the leadership programs.

2These percentages do not add up to 100 because many programs use multiple methods to find funding.

3Many of the programs use different combinations of the different types of alumni follow-ups.

4 Future planned research will expand the focus to

examine civic leadership programs nationally.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from