Campus Labs: Leader and Leadership Development ...€¦ · CAMPUS LABS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 6 assessment, and/or accreditation, and high-impact practices as well as many other topics

Running Head: CAMPUS LABS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1

Campus Labs: Leader and Leadership Development Intervention Program

Kaley R. Klaus

Fort Hays State University

LDRS 811: Organizational Intervention Strategies

Dr. Brent Goertzen

VoiceThread: https://fhsu.voicethread.com/new/share/6791308/

CAMPUS LABS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2

Introduction

Campus Labs, a higher education software company located in Buffalo, New York, has

existed for 14 years and continues to grow. Like all organizations, Campus Labs has experienced

change in structure and leadership throughout the years. As a former employee of the

organization, I write from my own experience and reflect on the organization’s structure, as well

as its strengths and weakness regarding leader and leadership development of its employees, and

how it contributed with the organization’s success as a whole. Based on this reflection, I have

developed a leader and leadership development intervention program to implement at the

organization. The program, complete with learning objectives, strategies, and assessment

materials, aims to develop the culture of a learning organization, in which Campus Labs

“embraces the importance of collective learning as it draws on a larger dimension of internal and

external environments” (Yeo, 2005, p. 369).

About Campus Labs

Campus Labs was founded, as StudentVoice, in 2001 by Eric Reich and Michael

Weisman in Buffalo, New York (Campus Labs, 2015). As a company designed to “collect

information from students that could be used to impact programs and services,” the company has

grown exponentially and now provides their services to over 750 higher education institutions

nationwide (2015), employs 100-150 personnel, and encompasses a culture of assessment and

technology. Currently providing services through six online platforms, acquired or developed

over its 14 years, Campus Labs is said to be the “only specialized, comprehensive assessment

program that combines data collection, reporting, organization, and campus-wide integration”

(2015).


The six platforms of distinction include Compliance Assist, which includes modules for

accreditation, assessment and strategic planning, and program review; Baseline, which is a data

collection system for surveys, rubrics, and formative classroom assessments; CollegiateLink,

which is a student engagement platform measuring student involvement throughout college;

Beacon, a retention and early alert software; Course Evaluations, an online course assessment

tool; and Insight, which is a cumulative data warehouse to view a compilation of all information

collected through the former five platforms. Each software package contains various features in

order to assist colleges and universities in making informed, strategic decisions, based on

assessment data.

After 11 years of growth and success Higher One, Inc. (HOI) acquired Campus Labs.

HOI is a 12-year-old organization offering technological platforms to higher education

institutions that allow students to receive their financial aid funding more efficiently, and to also

provide campuses with comprehensive banking systems. The combination of HOI with Campus

Labs has created an organization that serves 1,900 campuses (Higher One, 2015d). In addition,

the backing of HOI placed Campus Labs in a publicly traded organization that is subject to the

fluctuating New York Stock Exchange, which as of January 26, 2015, values HOI (including

Campus Labs) at $3.80 per share (Higher One, 2015b).

Organization Structure & Dynamics

Campus Labs experienced a shift in leadership structure as result of the HOI acquisition.

In addition to the overall corporate leadership located at the HOI office in New Haven,

Connecticut, which houses and leads human resources along with the overall HOI strategic

direction, finances, and services, Campus Labs is led by one president and five vice presidents

(Figure 1). The organization is divided into five departments--Campus Relations, Campus


Success, Strategic Initiatives and Corporate Development, Product Management, and

Technology & Operations. Campus Relations includes sales and account creation for new

clients; Campus Success, the department in which the author was employed, includes technology

support and consultation services as well as client relationship management; Strategic Initiatives

and Corporate Development also includes sales and account management but with a focus on

existing clients; Product Management includes a team of product developers and designers; and

Technology & Operations oversees the operation of the organization, internally. A vice president

oversees each department, while the president of the organization oversees Campus Labs’

strategic direction. Other than human resources and client financial transactions, Campus Labs

operates as a separate entity from HOI.

Figure 1. Campus Labs Organizational Structure

Although the organizational structure of Campus Labs is divided into five departments,

each department interacts frequently. When adopting new clients, the Campus Relations team,

implements and completes the sales process through final contracting. Upon agreement between


Campus Labs and the new client, the campus is assigned to one account executive and one

consultant (if multiple products are purchased a campus may receive two consultants), and, if

licensing Baseline, one support coordinator. The consultants and support coordinators are a part

of the Campus Success team. The Campus Relations representative schedules a meeting to

introduce the campus contact(s) to their consultant (and coordinator, if necessary). Before the

meeting takes place, the Campus Relations representative and consultant discuss the goals of the

new member campus for a successful product implementation on campus. After receiving the

new member campus, the consultant(s) is then the primary contact at Campus Labs for the

institution’s product line. The consultant is responsible for the implementation, training, and

success of the relationship with the client. It is important to understand that the Campus Success

consultant is responsible for the implementation, training, and success of the relationship with

the client; should any issues arise, or if the client is unsatisfied, it is the duty of the consultant to

fix the issue or design a solution to satisfy the client and its needs. The Campus Success

consultant is the most consistent point of contact for the client.

Throughout their time working with the campus, the Campus Success consultant assigned

to the institution becomes an “off-campus employee” for the campus, as they are the person who

becomes familiar with all campus processes that are associated with the licensed product lines.

The Campus Success consultant also provides professional development opportunities to faculty

and staff who work with the products on campus. On occasion, the consultant may travel to the

campus for an in-person visit to provide additional development for campus faculty and staff.

This extensive support structure is a component on which Campus Labs prides itself, in addition

to its product lines. Consultation services range from offering feedback on program assessment

plans and/or measurements to specialized training about retention, student engagement,


assessment, and/or accreditation, and high-impact practices as well as many other topics.

Depending on the number of software packages a campus chooses to license, it may be paired

with one or two consultants, each specializing in a particular area. This has, and continues to be,

one of key selling points among Campus Labs licensed institutions.

It is also the duty of the consultant to work with not only the technical support team that

supports basic technical tasks for the campus, but also the Product Management team to discuss

various technical issues or member campus desires. Although a product cannot be designed for

one single institution’s processes, it can be designed with enough flexibility to cater to any

institution’s needs. The communication between the Campus Success consultants, support

coordinators, support team, and the Product Management team is key to ensuring the successful

adoption and retention of member campuses. In addition, the consultant is expected to

communicate with an institution’s account executive on a regular basis to discuss progress and

potential upgrades to the client’s contract. Again, this ensures not only retention and relationship

building, but also the potential for future sales. The extensive role of the Campus Success

department provides a clear view of how the consultant is responsible a large portion of the

organization’s success with its clients.

Organization Culture

As a result of its acquisition, Campus Labs gained a set of core values, which had not

previously been defined in the organization’s history. The three core values were created

collaboratively among employees at HOI and the adopted Campus Labs; they include: Champion

Innovation, Communicate Openly, and Go Beyond Expectations. Champion Innovation is

defined as, “There is a way. Take initiative and boldly pursue opportunity. Explore new ideas,

question norms, and find a better way. Be open to experimentation and learn from failure”


(Higher One, 2015c). Communicate Openly is defined as, “Share proactively and early. Engage

thoughtfully, constructively, directly, and with high integrity. Seek and respect others’

perspectives and ideas. Demonstrate stellar service—balance business and human needs in all

interactions” (2015c). Go Beyond Expectations is defined as, “Delight clients, customers, and

partners. Be experts in what we do. Work as a team to achieve more and produce faster. Take the

next step to get results” (2015c).

In addition to its core values, HOI and Campus Labs value a corporate culture that is

“inspiring, fulfilling, and fun” (Higher One, 2015d). Employees work in an “open office

environment” where open communication is encouraged for successful innovation. In addition,

employees are not required to dress in corporate attire, but are encouraged to dress comfortably

(2015d). To add to a positive environment, the organization offers free lunch three days a week

to employees working in the office (2015d).

Believing that all employees are critical to its success, the organization offers an

employee recognition program that not only pats employees on the back for a job well done, but

also provides incentives over time. Relating to the organization’s core values, employees are

encouraged to “nominate” each other for outstanding work. Whether it is in relation to their

ability to communicate openly, come up with new ideas, or to go above and beyond the call of

duty for a client, employees receive the recognition others believe they deserve; after a certain

amount of nominations, employees are eligible to receive gift cards as a reward.

Leader and Leadership Development

Leader and leadership development for all employees takes priority for Campus Labs.

Because the organization communicates frequently with campuses on a multitude of concepts, it

is important for them to understand the institution’s point of view. Through a variety of methods


such as developmental relationships and assignments, feedback processes, formal programs, and

self-development programs, employees are trained individually and as a group to create a

cohesive team of professionals; however, what methods can be considered strengths can also be

considered weaknesses.

Strengths

Campus Labs has strengths in the areas of both leader and leadership development. In

terms of leader development, in which the organization focuses on enhancing each individual’s

knowledge and skills (Day, 2001), Campus Labs offers many methods of development discussed

in the Center for Creative Leadership’s Handbook of Leadership Development (2010). The first

of which is the organization’s ability to create and maintain developmental relationships; these

relationships develop the skills of individuals (McCauley, Kanaga, & Lafferty, 2010). The

culture of Campus Labs provides an opportunity for employees to create social identity networks

because of its organizational structure. As a result of these networks, employees are more willing

to teach each other “tricks of the trade;” in turn, everyone’s learning experience is of the highest

quality. In addition, Campus Labs intentionally pairs a veteran employee with a new employee

upon their hire creating a peer learning partnership. This pairing challenges the new employee

with one-on-one skills training, complete with assessment and support throughout the process.

Developmental assignments are common at Campus Labs; they are lateral and, at times,

temporary in order to create a well-rounded staff; there is no formal process in place, however, to

determine which employees should be given developmental assignments. Developmental

assignments are those considered more challenging; they are given based on an employee’s

developmental needs and goals (McCauley et al., 2010). Developmental assignments often come

with a result of moving leaders up in an organization (2010); however, that is a rare occasion at


Campus Labs. At Campus Labs, an employee is often asked to complete an assignment above

and beyond their listed job duties; however, it is not a deliberate learning experience given with

the intention of promotion. On the other hand, these assignments would come one after the other,

and the employee would soon be considered an expert with that piece of work. Although these

assignments were not given with the thought of a promotion, the employee would feel a sense of

expert power with the task given.

Given that all leader development programs should contain at least one formal feedback

process (McCauley et al., 2010), Campus Labs supervisors prepare an annual performance

review for their employees. This assessment reflects on the employee’s competencies and

behaviors over the previous year, and is the only formal assessment provided. Portions of the

annual assessment differ depending on the department in which the employee works, but all

assessments contain a review on whether the employee demonstrates the organization’s core

values throughout the past year. Both the supervisor and employee complete this assessment

separately; then they come together to discuss their scores. This review is only for the employee,

not the supervisor; 360-degree feedback is not a portion of this annual review process, and will

be discussed as a weakness at a later point.

Self-development is also a strength at Campus Labs, but the organization’s leaders do not

necessarily coordinate all of the opportunities. Instead, it is common for employees to seek out

learning in their own time. On a regular basis, employees email each other valuable resources to

assist everyone with their duties. Among Campus Success consultants, a popular resource to be

sent includes information on innovative assessment practices, or changes to accreditation policies

in order for everyone to stay up-to-date on the current trends. In addition, “fireside chats” are

held, even if over the lunch break. These chats are not formally promoted in any way, they just


seem to happen as a result of a group of employees eating lunch together. During the chats,

employees will come together to come up with a new process or way of thinking for a particular

client. Although less formal, these chats encourage openness, expose different perspectives, and

are less time-consuming for everyone involved (McCauley et al., 2010).

The leadership development opportunities at Campus Labs are often intertwined with its

leader development techniques. Leadership development, in which organizations invest in social

capital, is rooted in relationships that are created through interpersonal interaction (Day, 2001).

The organization’s intentional peer learning partnerships, self-development techniques, and

formal feedback processes all create relationships, which, in turn, build “networked relationships

among individuals that enhance cooperation and resource exchange in creating organizational

value” (2001, p. 585). Through these interactions, it is believed colleagues will reach higher

levels of trust and respect (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014); this is evident in the

Campus Labs environment.

Not only do the organization’s leader development techniques offer more opportunity for

leadership development at Campus Labs, the company invests in various retreat days for

departments. During the retreats, the department not only receives training or education on

various topics related to the field, but employees also participate in team-building activities to

further garner trust and respect for each other’s knowledge. This time together exists with the

goal of creating a more collaborative and competent workplace to serve the clients effectively, as

well as a shared understanding of the organization’s core values and goals for the future.

Weaknesses

Although it seems a contradiction, development methods considered strengths at Campus

Labs are also its weaknesses. One of which is its use of developmental assignments. These


challenging assignments are discussed above as lateral and, on occasion, temporary in order to

create a well-rounded staff. A common feature of developmental assignments, however, is that

they often come with the result of one moving up in an organization (McCauley et al., 2010).

This is rare at Campus Labs, and developmental assignments are not given as deliberate learning

experiences with the intention of promotion or even the intention of learning about other

functional areas in the organization. Rather, the assignments are simply as a way to pinpoint one

person at the organization with the ability to do the task. While noting this gives the employee a

sense of expert power, there is little reward associated with additional assignments.

As noted, a weakness of the organization’s leader development is the lack of 360-degree

feedback processes. Although there is a formal review process in place for all employees of the

organization, they are only one-sided. The highly structured 360-degree feedback process offers

team members the opportunity to review their supervisor (McCauley et al., 2010). Day and

colleagues (2014) believed there might be a link between organizational culture and 360-degree

assessments positing that these processes may only work in organizations that “have a culture of

innovation, behaviorally-based appraisal practices, and developmental strategies” (p. 71). These

are all characteristics of Campus Labs, and having such a process at Campus Labs would open

communication channels and enhance trust. Although these are values of the organization, they

are not formally practiced from the bottom-up.

Another concept of leader development discussed above is that of self-development. Self-

development is a strength for Campus Labs in terms of sharing resources and fireside chats;

however, it is important to understand that it is initiated only among “bottom-level” employees

and not coordinated by the organization’s leaders. This is why it is also considered a weakness.

In addition, the company lacks providing self-development opportunities such as attending


conferences or trade shows. These experiences are often a way to expose employees to new ways

of thinking and upcoming trends (McCauley et al., 2010), but leaders at Campus Labs do not

offer these experiences to all employees. Instead, only those employed in a management

positions are selected to attend events. As a result, information garnered from these events is

only shared among top levels of the company.

A weakness in leadership development at Campus Labs is evident in the interactions

between departments. Employees in each department do interact frequently; however, there are

few, to no, opportunities to build the social capital of the organization as a whole. As discussed

above, the organization invests in retreats for each department, but there are no retreats for the

company as a whole. Leadership development is done with the end goal of creating an

interpersonally competent organization encompassed in trust and respect (Day, 2001). Without

leadership development opportunities including the entire organization, there was little time for

all to understand each other’s role in the company’s processes, and therefore, build bonds of

collaboration and cooperation among all entities.

Learning Objectives

Organizations invest in leader and leadership development to fulfill the need for

continuously effective leaders (McCauley, Kanaga, & Lafferty, 2010). Methods of leader and

leadership development include, but are not limited to, developmental relationships and

assignments, feedback processes, formal programs, and self-development programs (2010).

Campus Labs employs a variety of leader and leadership development methods in order to create

an organizational culture that fosters innovation and teamwork in an effort to succeed in all

areas. The needs assessment above identified strengths and weaknesses in Campus Labs’


developmental programs. As a result, learning objectives for a leader and leadership

development intervention program have been created.

The vision of the Campus Labs leader and leadership development intervention program

is to create more intentional developmental opportunities for all employees within the

organization, including upper-management and all subordinates. At the moment, Campus Labs

has two intentional developmental opportunities--relationships and an annual formal feedback

process, so the goal of this program will be to increase and/or enhance developmental

opportunities for all.

Campus Labs has created an organizational culture that fosters innovation and creativity

while encouraging employees to put forth their best ideas. Continuing with those values, an

objective of this program will focus on creating a 360-degree feedback program that will further

enhance the value of communicating openly up and down through the organization. This type of

feedback process is said to be highly useful in organizations where the culture believes in

innovation. Again, as this is a stated value of Campus Labs, a feedback process that is multi-

sourced may provide upper-management with relevant information to improve overall company

efficiency and effectiveness.

Objective: As a result of a 360-degree feedback process, Campus Labs employees will

Create an “Individual Development Plan” containing strategies for improving at

least three of his/her leadership competencies (which will be assessed via the

following year’s 360-degree feedback process).

Execute at least one strategy within four months of plan creation.

Developmental assignments are viewed as both a strength and weakness at Campus Labs.

They are a strength in that they assist the employees in developing a new skills; however, they


are a weakness in that they are not intentionally given to employees for developmental reasons.

This leader development intervention program would like to enhance the learning opportunities

created by the developmental assignment method at the organization by helping employees

recognize the learning that is occurring through the experience. By understanding the knowledge

that they have developed, an employee may be more equipped to work across departments or

management levels, if necessary.

Objectives: By performing developmental assignments, Campus Labs employees will

Develop new processes or documentation for internal or external purposes.

Select areas of professional interest with his/her supervisor.

The idea of self-development is learning is often initiated by a person who wants to learn

new information (McCauley, Kanaga, & Lafferty, 2010); however, it can be difficult to learn the

relevant information that meets the goals of the organization without guidance from upper-

management. At the moment, employees at Campus Labs take the initiative to gather

information in their own time about the subjects they discuss on a daily basis; however, this

information is shared in a “random” nature via email. In addition, “fireside chats” that take place,

often over the lunch hour, may not include all of the parties that could contribute effectively to

the conversation. In order to create a more cohesive learning experience for all employees at

Campus Labs, formal self-development opportunities should be made available too.

Objectives: Through participating in a formal “fireside chat” self-development program

once a month, Campus Labs employees will:

Be familiar with assessment best practices clients are implementing with Campus

Labs products.

Discuss strategies for solving conflict between Campus Labs and various clients.


Based on the strengths and weaknesses of this organization's needs assessment for a

leader and leadership development program, the suggested learning objectives should create a

cohesive learning environment and foster growth among all involved in the intervention

program.

Audience Analysis

Employees at Campus Labs come from a variety of backgrounds. Most often, employees

are hired with at least some experience in higher education; this is especially true for the Campus

Success department. On the other hand, program developers come from a multitude of

backgrounds such banking, computer science, mathematics, graphic design, and informatics. All

the while, account executives and campus relations representatives come from a primarily sales

background and have sold products like pharmaceuticals, newspapers, or office supplies.

Understanding that all employees come from vastly different backgrounds and education, it is

logical to believe that each employee learns in a different way.

Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory identified a collection of learning styles that

are appropriate for an array of audiences--diverging, assimilating, converging, and

accommodating. These styles are based on a pairings between four learning behaviors: concrete

experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active

experimentation (AE). Those with the diverging learning style, which is a combination of using

CE and RO, work best in situations of “brainstorming” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 196); they are

creative and people-oriented. The leader development opportunities in this intervention would be

best suited for those participating in the “fireside chats” because the chats are intended to

develop solutions and new ideas that can serve the clients of Campus Labs. In addition, it takes a

people-oriented person to actively participate in something like a “fireside chat” to ensure that


there is effective discussion taking place. Understanding the typical background of employees at

Campus Labs, the Campus Success teams and Product Development teams may be best suited

for this type of leader development.

Kolb and Kolb (2005) also identify the converging learning style, which is a combination

of AC and AE learning abilities. Those with the converging learning style have a strength in

applying theory to practice; therefore, they would be best suited in taking ideas and creating a

practical use for them. The employees at Campus Labs with this type of learning style would be

well suited for developmental assignments because of their problem solving nature. It is

suggested that those with a converging learning style often prefer to work with technical and

analytical tasks rather than interpersonal issues (2005); therefore, it is likely those working in the

Product Development department would do well with developmental assignments as they are not

involved with client interaction on a daily basis. Although, it can be argued that an employee in

any department who has the natural ability to solve problems and identify solutions could benefit

from developmental assignments in order to solve problems internally or externally with clients.

Employees with a preferred accommodating learning style are also to benefit from

developmental assignments. The accommodating learning style uses a combination of CE and

AE, and people with this preference like “hands-on” experiences (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). These

people like challenging themselves with new experiences; it is obvious developmental

assignments would benefit these people greatly as it would be a challenge to identify gaps in a

process and develop a new one from the ground up. In addition, it is always a challenge to learn

new things, which is the ultimate goal of a developmental assignment.

Overall, it is my belief that employees at Campus Labs primarily hold the mentioned

three learning styles. There is a possibility that there are some employees who prefer the


assimilating learning style, which is focused on using extensive analytical ability (Kolb and

Kolb, 2005); however, it is important to note that these learning styles are of preference to the

person and are not of permanence. Kolb suggests that different learning styles can be applied to

different subjects; in this case, it may or may not be likely that the assimilating learning style be

necessary for successful completion of the learning objectives proposed.

Strategies and Assessment

As previously stated, the needs assessment regarding Campus Labs’ leader and leadership

development programs discovered that the organization would benefit from a more organized

approach. In the past, and currently, much leader and leadership development is done informally.

As a result of this finding, a leader and leadership development program has been developed to

offer the employees of Campus Labs an environment filled with rich developmental

opportunities. Focusing on three types of leader and leadership development techniques, the

program has been created based on six learning objectives:

As a result of a 360-degree feedback process, Campus Labs employees will:

o Create an “Individual Development Plan” containing strategies for improving at

least three of his/her leadership competencies.

o Execute one strategy within four months of plan creation.

By performing developmental assignments, Campus Labs employees will

o Develop new processes or documentation for internal or external purposes.

o Select areas of professional interest with his/her supervisor.

Through participating in a formal “fireside chat” self-development program once a

month, Campus Labs employees will


o Be familiar with assessment best practices clients are implementing with Campus

Labs products.

o Discuss strategies for solving conflict between Campus Labs and various clients.

Using various developmental strategies, these objectives will be measured with a variety

of assessments to ensure the programs are meeting their full potential and offering employees the

best opportunities for development. Strategies for the leader and leadership development

intervention program include a 360-degree feedback process, developmental assignments, self-

developmental “fireside chats,” and a leadership development activity for departments to interact

with each other. Each learning objective and strategy will be assessed throughout the program

using various assessment techniques.

Multisource Feedback Process

Perhaps the most critical objective of this program is the creation of a multisource, or

360-degree, feedback process. As mentioned in previous deliverables, these processes work very

well in organizations that value open communication and innovation among all employees.

Given that Campus Labs’ organizational values include communicating opening and

encouraging innovation, this process is a perfect fit. Participating in this process provides

employees with formal feedback from multiple perspectives, but the process can also be

challenging (Chappelow, 2004). This process has potential to be time-consuming, and it forces

employees to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses (2004). Regardless, the benefits

outweigh the challenges.

In order to conduct this process, an instrument must be chosen. There are a variety of

commercial multisource feedback instruments available, but when deciding to use an instrument,

an organization must attempt to get the most reliable and valid instrument it can (Chappelow,


2004). For example, according to Envisia Learning (2015), its “Performance View” 360-degree

feedback assessment was developed by Dr. Ken Nowack, who adapted other validated

instruments to create a multisource feedback instrument that can be used for employees at all

levels in the organization. It measures competencies such as written and oral communication,

problem solving, collaboration, team support, and project management, and many others. When

choosing an instrument, an organization should determine the competencies it values the most,

so as to select a survey that measure the organization’s desired values. At the same time, an

organization must be aware of its financial situation and choose an instrument it can reasonably

afford for a sustainable amount of time; therefore, a detailed conversation with the organization’s

leaders must be held to determine its financial commitment to this feedback process.

Assessment. Upon completing of a multi-source feedback process, an employee must

review the results and take action. At this point, the leader development intervention program is

calling for each employee to create an “Individual Development Plan.” This term has been used

widely and is considered a report that focuses on “competencies in need of development for

either the current job role or for some future role” (Dai, De Meuse, & Peterson, 2010, p. 201).

Essentially, the plan is created using the results from the feedback instrument as well as

additional resources to improve selected competencies. The proposed program for Campus Labs

calls for employees to improve at least three competencies, which is similar to the process of

Dai, De Meuse, and Peterson’s study (2010).

Given this will be the first time the organization’s employees have created such a

document, I have provided a template, which is adapted from U.S. Department of Commerce

Office of Human Resources Management’s Individual Development Planning document (2001)

(Appendix A). This template should provide an organized, easy to read, document for the


employee during the creation of the IDPs. In addition, it offers the employee the ability to relate

his/her competencies selected for development to the organization’s values, which will help the

employee relate their work to the organization as a whole. Simply creating the plan, however, is

not enough. An employee must be assessed on whether he/she is actually executing their

individual development plan.

In order to assess these plans, a coach such as a respected peer, supervisor, or human

resources employee should review the plan to confirm that the employee is planning to improve

three competencies and has written tasks or strategies to accomplish the improvement. A rubric,

based on the criteria for an example IDP from the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of

Human Resources Management (2001), is located in Appendix B to guide the coach during the

review process. It is also ideal to share this rubric with the employee completing the IDP as it

may guide them to developing a quality individual plan. In addition, every four months, the

employee and their coach should come together to discuss whether tasks or strategies to improve

the competencies have been done. Through discussion, the coach and their “coachee” will be

able to gauge whether the employee is improving their competencies based on the multisource

feedback, and whether additional resources are need for the employee’s success.

There is one more component in this process that should be assessed as well--the peer

coach. Peer coaching will be a new process for all employees; although, some supervisors may

or may not have more experience than others in this area simply because of their position. In

order to assess the peer coaches, I have developed a short survey, located in Appendix C, to not

only guide the coaches to develop quality coaching sessions, but also give the “coachee” an

opportunity to offer feedback. This will enhance the idea of a 360-degree feedback process as the

evaluation is coming from the bottom-up as well as top-down in the peer coaching relationship.


As a result of this longitudinal process, it is my hope that this intervention will offer

employees a quality feedback process that fosters personal and professional improvement. All

too often, employees receive only corrective feedback; this process is sure to build upon the

organization’s values and create a more open and innovative company.

Developmental Assignments

Developmental assignments may possibly be one of the more difficult interventions to

implement at Campus Labs; however, I feel that given the innovative nature of the organization,

it will be successful. The objectives of this intervention include employee(s) developing new

processes or documentation for the organization as well as selecting areas for professional

growth. According to Ohlott (2004), developmental assignments are not “assigned.” Instead,

employees who are willing and wanting further development often seek out and volunteer for

these assignments; therefore, it may not be necessary for a formal selection process.

Volunteering for more assignments above and beyond typical job duties may also be an aspect of

an employee’s IDP, which is discussed above. Including a developmental assignment in an IDP

is a suggestion presented by Ohlott (2004). For those employees who may not be so brave to

volunteer for a new project, though, we must look to supervisors to actually assign

developmental assignments. At times, an employee who has great potential is not confident to

say so; therefore, I would recommend that any supervisor who believes that an employee has the

skills required to complete a new assignment, assign it to such an employee. However, this new

assignment would not be considered developmental unless it presented a level of challenge to the

employee, so a supervisor must allow those with, perhaps, less experience to take on the task. It

imperative, though, to provide the proper amount of support for the employee, and guide the


employee through the challenges of completing the task; this is the most developmental aspect of

the assignment (2004).

Ohlott (2004) also states that developmental assignments provide the supervisor data

such as the employee’s strengths or weaknesses when completing particular types of work. This

offers the supervisor an opportunity to help the employee build his/her competencies. The

specific learning objective for the leader development program at Campus Labs is asking the

employee to review or create a new process or piece of documentation for the organization.

Given there will be a variety of steps when it comes to creating new documentation or processes

for the organization, extensive support from the leaders in the organization will be needed. Steps

to complete the developmental assignment include research, identifying any gaps in existing

processes or documentation, brainstorming and further research for solutions, and the actual

creation of the new materials--all require a variety of leadership competencies including but not

limited to critical thinking, written and oral communication, and problem solving.

Assessment. In order to assess the work created as a result of a developmental

assignment, the completion of a new document or process will be key. Upon completion of the

project, the employee will complete a survey asking whether the assignment was developmental

for him/her as well as whether certain competencies were developed. While it would be ideal to

create an individual survey for each developmental assignment, long-term assessments can be

measured through a general assessment that assesses a general group of competencies, but also

allows the employee to qualitatively explain the learning that took place throughout the process.

Ohlott (2004) suggests a few questions to help an employee prepare for a developmental

assignment. Adapting those questions into a post-assessment would also prove valuable for the


employee. An example assessment, including Ohlott’s adapted questions, is included in

Appendix D.

In addition, a discussion between the employee and his/her supervisor is necessary in

order to review the learning that occurred throughout the assignment’s process. This discussion

will also help identify whether the activity helped the employee select a new area of professional

interest. The discourse between the employee and supervisor will likely guide the employee’s

work with future developmental assignments. It is my hope that with this plan, developmental

assignments will be accepted by employees with the intention of learning something new and

improving personal competencies, rather than the previous, and current, notion of getting things

done.

Self-Development “Fireside Chats”

The final leader development activity I plan to implement is a series of “fireside chats” at

the organization. Reichard and Johnson (2011) describe leader self-development activities as,

“any self-initiated behaviors focused on developing leadership capacities” (p. 35). “Fireside

chats,” in particular, are leader self-development events that “stimulate sharing and discussion

across management levels” (McCauley, Velsor, & Ruderman, 2010, p. 49). The chats at Campus

Labs will be hosted on a monthly basis and cover a variety of topics. Primarily, however, these

chats are intended to offer employees the time to strategize about conflict management with

clients as well as devise plans to help clients work with the products even better.

The chats will not need to last longer than one hour, although if attendees are deeply

engaged they may last longer. In addition, all employees will be invited to attend, but

participation is completely voluntary. With an organized time and place, employees may be more

willing or prepared to offer feedback to each other about the topics at hand. There is a risk that


even formalizing these chats may result in an empty conference room; therefore, it is an option to

hold these chats over the lunch hour, in which food would be provided. Because Campus Labs

offers free lunch to their employee three days per week employees will not be burdened with

having to purchase their own lunch or remember to bring one from home; it seems to be a natural

move to host these chats during the lunch time. Assessing these chats will need to be approached

in a creative way. Orvis and Ratwani (2010) state that evaluating leader self-development

activities is challenging as the activities are individualized; however, when an activity is formally

organized, it may be easier.

Assessment. Scholars recommend an end-of-session questionnaire is record the learner’s

experiences (2010). The questionnaire at Campus Labs will ask employees to rate a variety of

factors to gauge the quality of the activity. In addition, I want to ensure learning is actually

taking place, so there will be some questions included that directly assess the employee’s newly

gained knowledge. An example of the questionnaire is located in Appendix E. In all, these chats

are meant to stimulate critical thinking and help employees further develop their knowledge of

the information they work with every day. As a result, employees will be able to better serve

their clients as well as create trusting relationships with their colleagues.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have addressed the current organizational climate of Campus Labs in

regard to its leader and leadership development initiatives. The needs assessment showed both

strengths and weaknesses in the organization’s current development model. Like all

organizations, there is room for improvement when offering opportunities to employees for

individual development, but there is also room for improvement when developing its current

leaders. The needs assessment provided the evidence that Campus Labs should improve its


methods of developmental assignments and self-development activities as well as enhance its

feedback processes. Because the organization has three values centered on the idea of

improvement--innovation, communication, and going above and beyond--a new leader

development program will likely be welcomed.

I have proposed a leader and leadership development program based on six learning

objectives. These objectives focus on improving the organization’s feedback processes, by

creating a multisource process, improving the creation and assessment of developmental

assignments, and formalizing self-development opportunities in order to improve social capital.

To truly practice what the organization advocates--the idea of continuous improvement through

assessment--I have also proposed assessment materials to aid in the evaluation of each leader

development strategy. While some of these assessment activities will assess development

indirectly, there are a few that will directly measure the employee learning that is taking place

throughout the development intervention program. Of course, it is likely that some competencies

employees gain from these experiences are not measured on any of the assessments; therefore, I

would recommend that Campus Labs perform a self-study of the program within two to three

years of implementation in order to find gaps in the assessments.

In conclusion, it is my belief that implementing these strategies along with the proper

assessment techniques will guide Campus Labs to have an even more open, innovative, and

developmental culture. It will also allow the organization to live by its teachings, which

emphasize that assessment and continuous improvement is key to any organization’s success.

Although this leader and leadership development intervention program may not be perfect, it is

the beginning stage to developing a learning organization. Learning organizations are known to


be more open to change (Yeo, 2005), and in a technology company such as Campus Labs, the

ability to adapt to change, which is often fast-paced, will only help the organization flourish.


References

Campus Labs. (2015). About us. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from

http://www.campuslabs.com/about-us/

Chappelow, C. T. (2004). 360-degree feedback. In C. D. McCauley & E. V. Velsor (Eds.), The

Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (2nd ed.) (pp. 58-

84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Peterson, C. (2010). Impact of multi-source feedback on leadership

competency development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(2),

197-219.

Day, D.V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,

11(4), 581-613.

Day, D.V., Fleenor, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Sturm, R.E., & McKee, R.A. (2014). Advances in

leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The

Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

Envisia Learning (2015). Performance view: 360 degree feedback assessment for individual

contributors. Retrieved April 2, 2015 from

https://www.envisialearning.com/360_degree_feedback/performance_view

Higher One, Inc. (2015a). Careers and Culture. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from

http://www.higherone.com/about-us/careers-and-culture

Higher One, Inc. (2015b). Investor Relations. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=235726&p=irol-irhome

Higher One, Inc. (2015c). Our values. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from

http://www.higherone.com/about-us/careers-and-culture/our-values


Higher One, Inc. (2015d). Who we are. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from

http://www.higherone.com/about-us/who-we-are

Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D.A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential

learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-

212.

McCauley, C. D., Kanaga, K., & Lafferty, K. (2010). Leader development systems. In E. V.

Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership

Handbook of Leadership Development (3rd ed.) (pp. 29-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley & E. V. Velsor (Eds.), The Center for

Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (2nd ed.) (pp. 151-182). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Orvis, K.A., & Ratwani, K.L. (2010). Leader self-development: A contemporary context for

leader development evaluation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 657-674.

Reichard, R.J., & Johnson, S.K. (2011). Leader self-development as organizational strategy. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 33-42.

United States Department of Commerce Office of Human Resources Management. (2001).

Individual development planning (IDP). Retrieved April 14, 2015 from

http://hr.commerce.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@cfoasa/@ohrm/documents/content/dev0

1_006607.pdf

Yeo, R. K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning

organization literature. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 368-382. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/215659286?accountid=27424


Appendix A

Individual Development Plan (IDP) Template

Employee Name

Peer Coach

Developmental

Goals

Relationship

to

Organizational

Values

Competencies

to Develop

Developmental

Activities

Resources

Needed Timeline

Personal goals for the next year:

My goals have organizational and personal

relevance because:

My goals involve

developing the following

competencies:

Developmental activities I will

pursue:

Resources I will need:

Target dates for

goal completion:

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Goal 3:

Please discuss additional areas of improvement you would like to focus on over the next

year:

Employee Signature

Peer Coach Signature


Appendix B

Assessment Rubric for Individual Development Plan (IDP)

Employee Name

Peer Coach

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Developmental

Goals

The employee

does not list

goals.

The employee

lists goals that

are measurable,

but do not offer

examples of

evidence to

indicate progress.

The goals are not

connected to the

employee’s

capabilities and

do not have a

timeline for

completion.

The employee

lists goals that

are measurable

but not does

describe

potential

evidence of

progress. The

goals connect to

the employee’s

abilities. There is

a vague timeline

for completion.

The employee

has written

development

goals that are

clearly

articulated. The

goals are

measurable, and

offer examples of

evidence to

collect to

indicate progress.

The goals have

connection to the

employee’s

demonstrated

abilities. The

goals are to be

completed within

an acceptable

timeframe.

Organizational

Values

The employee

does not state

which

organizational

values his/her

goals relate to.

The employee

states which

organizational

values his/her

goals relate to

with no

explanation.

The employee

has stated which

organizational

values his/her

goals relate to,

and describes,

briefly, how

his/her goals will

contribute to

organizational

success.

The employee

has connected

his/her goals

with the

organization’s

values, and

provides a

thorough

explanation of

how the goals

will contribute to

the

organization’s

success.

Competencies The employee

has selected less

than three

The employee

has selected three

competencies to

The employee

has selected three

competencies

The employee

has defined at

least three


competencies to

improve.

improve, but

does not describe

why he/she chose

those

competencies.

and describes

why he/she chose

them without

using 360-degree

feedback data.

competencies to

improve through

his/her goals and

has described

how he/she chose

those

competencies

using 360-degree

feedback data.

Developmental

Activities

The employee

does not list any

activity to

improve

competencies.

The employee

lists one activity

per competency

to perform, but

does not offer

information on

how the activity

will improve

each competency

or the

organization.

The employee

lists one activity

per competency

to perform.

He/she describes

the activities in

detail, and how it

will benefit them

and the

organization.

The employee

has listed as least

one activity per

competency to

perform. He/she

described the

activities in

detail, and how it

will benefit them

based on

improving

specific 360-

degree feedback

data. The

employee also

describes how

the activity will

contribute to the

improvement of

the organization.

Resources The employee

does not list

resources.

The employee

lists resources

he/she will need.

The employee

lists or describes

the resources

he/she will need

and why.

The employee

lists or describes

the resources

his/she will need

in order to

complete the

listed

developmental

assignments and

why, and how

he/she will

obtain those

resources.


Timeline The employee

does not

establish a

timeline for any

activities.

The employee

offers a vague

timeline for

completing each

developmental

activity.

The employee

sets a deadline

for completing

each activity

The employee

establishes a

timeline for

completing each

of the

developmental

activities and

when he/she will

follow-up with a

peer coach for a

progress report.

General Comments:


Appendix C

Peer Coach Evaluation Survey

Availability: The coach is available to the “coachee;” follow-up meetings and planned, once

every four months.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Communication: The coach maintains a continuous open line of communication with the

“coachee.”


Critical Thinking: The coach takes the opportunity to ask reflective questions of the

“coachee.” The coach utilizes reflective questioning skills to invite the “coachee” to look at

his or her job duties with an eye for improvement.


Challenge: The coach challenges the “coachee” to take healthy, positive, and constructive

risks.


Feedback: The coach offers honest, supportive, and constructive feedback to help the

“coachee” improve his/her competencies.


Feedback: The coach shares his/her insights of their own expertise and experience to help

the “coachee” develop.


Encouragement: The coach models a positive attitude toward the “coachee.” The

encouragement to succeed is genuine.


Resources: The coach suggests or provides adequate resources to help the “coachee”

succeed.



Appendix D

Developmental Assignment Post-Assessment (Qualitative)

1. What strengths did I bring to this job?

2. What aspects of this job were challenging for me, given my background, experience,

strengths, and development needs?

3. What did I learn from this job? Is there anything I did not expect?

4. Did this job help me move toward my career goals?

5. Did this job meet the organization’s objectives?

6. Did this job meet my own personal objectives?

7. Is there anything I would have changed about the assignment?

8. How did I behave and what did I do when I felt particularly challenged? What were the

consequences or results of my behavior?

9. What will I do differently if faced with a similar situation in the future?

10. What mistakes have I made? What have I learned from them?

11. What was my greatest success? What contributed to it? What did it teach me?

12. What are my next steps? How can I take better advantage of the learning opportunities in

my next assignment?


Appendix E

Self-Development Fireside Chat Questionnaire

Please rate the following:

I had a high level of interest in the topic of discussion for this chat.


This chat lived up to my expectations.


The content of this chat was relevant to my job.


The chat stimulated my learning.


I will be able to use what I learned from this chat in my daily work.


Please list three things you learned from this chat (be specific):

1.

2.

3.

What chat topics would be interested in attending in the future?

Documents

Campus Labs: Leader and Leadership Development ...€¦ · CAMPUS LABS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 6 assessment, and/or accreditation, and high-impact practices as well as many other topics