S Y M P O S I U M

IntroductionAs incoming leadership students tend to quickly no-tice, campuses commonly off er undergraduate leader-ship studies programs as interdisciplinary initiatives, as opposed to separate academic departments. Only a few schools, in fact, off er a “school/department of leader-ship” within their university setting.1 Th e term “lead-ership studies” is often used as a catchall phrase for diff erent approaches, which tend to refl ect the peda-gogical preferences of certain faculty and staff . With so many diff erent voices and programmatic inclinations, sometimes it is challenging to assess the true nature of leadership studies as an academic enterprise (Harvey & Riggio, 2011).

LEADERSHIP EDUCATION ACROSS

DISCIPLINES: THE SOCIAL SCIENCE

PERSPECTIVE

GAMA PERRUCI

The current article makes a distinction between pedagogical delivery and “disciplinary foundations”

in our approaches to leadership studies. Although the liberal arts are helpful in the delivery of lead-

ership content in the classroom, it is argued that the content, at its core, remains a social science

enterprise. Therefore, leadership programs should help students understand how leadership works

as a social phenomenon. The current article shows how the McDonough curriculum moves students

beyond leadership training (with its focus on skill building), using a social science–based working

defi nition of leadership. Leadership education provides the opportunity to organize the curriculum

using the social science lenses. By moving the focus away from the leader and examining instead

the complex interaction of multiple components, a deeper understanding of how leadership works

under different contexts, infl uenced by a variety of societal norms and values can be obtained.

Th e current article examines the place of the social sciences in this interdisciplinary discourse. Although many diff erent approaches are used in leadership edu-cation, the article argues that the “heart” of leadership education is found in the Social Sciences.2 I make here a distinction between pedagogical approaches and dis-ciplinary foundations. Whereas the former deals with delivery methods, the latter focuses on core intellectual content. Th e fi rst section of the article explores the dif-ferent branches of leadership studies—education, train-ing, and development. Th e second section relates lead-ership education to the social sciences. Th e fi nal section shows how those concepts are used in the McDonough Leadership Program at Marietta College in Ohio.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 7, Number 4, 2014©2014 University of Phoenix

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.21309 43

44 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

S Y M P O S I U M

skills. As the global marketplace has become fi ercely competitive, these skills are prized additions to the stu-dents’ resumes. Th e real challenge that programs have is to defi ne the specifi c skills that will be developed through those activities, and how they will be assessed. A program cannot simply off er the activities and hope that the students’ leadership skills will be developed in the process. How does the program know that students’ skills have expanded as a result of these activities?

Leadership development goes beyond the intellectual mastery of theories and models and connects knowl-edge to experience. Th e Greek word praxis is particular-ly applicable to this context. Th is is one of the central ideas in Plato’s Republic—the aspiring leader does not simply receive instruction but follows years of practice and action.

In nonwestern societies, the combination (knowl-edge and action leading to growth) is often referred to as wisdom. Kaipa and Radjou (2013) argued that we limit ourselves when we focus only on developing smart leaders. Instead, they argue for a change in the mind-set—moving from smart to wise leaders. Wis-dom leadership calls for “noble purpose,” role clarity, discernment, fl exible fortitude, and enlightened self-interest. Currently, very few leadership studies pro-grams emphasize these topics.

Th e intellectual challenge for leadership studies as an academic discipline is to make leadership educa-tion more prominent and rigorous on our campuses, compared to leadership training.3 As long as the latter is off ered as the main reason to have a leadership stud-ies program in the fi rst place, the focus will remain on skill building. Th e intellectual by-product of this focus, however, is that leadership studies as an intellectual en-terprise will remain secondary in higher education.

Aware of such an imbalance, all three branches of leadership studies are employed at the McDonough Leadership Program. Th e curriculum, experiential edu-cation, and assessment activities are organized in such a way that they become interlinked. For instance, the relationship between knowledge and action is a two-way street. Students gain more knowledge by testing theories and models on the action side. Leadership development also provides new insights that inform both the knowl-edge and the action sides. Under such an approach, leaders must grow both as scholars and practitioners. As scholars,

Leadership Studies in Higher EducationIn the 1980s, as the proliferation of undergraduate leadership programs took place in the United States and Europe, Roberts (1981) provided a pioneering framework for program design. Roberts acknowledged the importance of skill building (leadership training), but also highlighted the need to provide students with an understanding of leadership concepts (leadership education). Th e combination of the two provided for “leadership development,” which ultimately off ered the environment for a student’s emergence as a leader. To-day, when diff erent programs are surveyed, those three branches of the fi eld are uncovered.

Some programs emphasize the curricular side of lead-ership studies, off ering for-credit courses that stress diff erent aspects of leadership—e.g., organizational leadership, leading change, and global leadership. Th ese courses cover the knowledge side of the fi eld. From an assessment standpoint, these programs establish learn-ing outcomes in terms of the ability of students to mas-ter the content of the fi eld.

Very few leadership students join a program for the sake of learning about diff erent theories and models. From that standpoint, within the social sciences, lead-ership studies is dissimilar to fi elds such as political sci-ence. Many students take courses from the latter be-cause they enjoy the subject in its own right—as an intellectual exercise in expanding their knowledge of politics and not because they want to become a better politician. Leadership studies students may fi nd more affi nity with those from psychology, who aside from enjoying the intellectual fi eld, also see direct applica-tion to their professional plans.

Most students join leadership programs because they want to become a better leader, which they often de-fi ne as someone who possesses strong leadership skills. Most undergraduate leadership programs in the United States are based on the cocurricular side—the ability of students to expand their leadership skills through experiential education. Th ese programs emphasize the action component of leadership studies, with a stress on specifi c skills—e.g., facilitation, decision making, confl ict resolution.

Campuses organize a variety of activities (e.g., work-shops, challenge courses, internships) in order to of-fer students opportunities to practice their leadership

S Y M P O S I U M

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 45

they refl ect the notion that leaders and followers are thinkers and value the intellectual side of leadership. Aspractitioners, they also value action-based learning. As leaders and followers grow, they gain new perspec-tives that allow them to adapt diff erent theories and models to new situations. Th ey also become more aware of how leadership skills work in specifi c contexts.

Assessment tools are designed to integrate these dif-ferent branches. Because eff ective public speaking is one of the desired skills in leadership training, project assignments are built to allow students to make presen-tations, thus getting to practice their leadership skills. Community service projects also allow students to en-gage in teamwork, which in turn expand their “tool-box” within the context of service-learning course. On the growth side, students write several refl ection papers and fi ll out online leadership assessment surveys, which give them an opportunity to meet with faculty and discuss their leadership development. Th e mentoring and coaching relationship between faculty and student reinforce the lessons learned both in the classroom and in the fi eld.

Purposeful Interaction: The Social Science LensesAs we seek to give leadership education a more visible presence on our campuses, we also need to be mindful of the intellectual premises made about leadership in the classroom. Although at McDonough we draw from theliberal arts—particularly from the arts and humanities—to capture the wealth of human experiences in a social setting, it is also recognized that the heart of “leader-ship education” is found in the social sciences.4

We know that leading may feel like an art sometimes, but leadership as a fi eld of study is a science, with a par-ticular focus on social processes. In an earlier Journal of Leadership Studies article (Perruci, 2011), leadership is defi ned as “the process by which leaders and followers develop a relationship and work together toward a goal (or goals) within an environmental context shaped by cultural values and norms.”5

Th is defi nition encapsulates fi ve essential compo-nents: leaders, followers, goals, environmental context, and values/norms. Th e societal norms and values that guide behavior are expressed within the context of

human interaction. Th e variables may be multidimen-sional and complex—perhaps too complex to yield a general theory of leadership—but they are social vari-ables nonetheless.

Using this working defi nition of leadership, a focus on purposeful interaction as the central intellectual en-terprise of “leadership studies” is obtained. Such a fo-cus invites debates about ethics and power relations. We often think of leaders in positional terms—a title on a door. However, there are many ways to conceptu-alize a leader based on infl uence relationships. Th e fol-lower also has a great deal of power in the relationship. To what extent do followers help defi ne the goals in leadership? Th e environmental context also infl uences the choices presented to leaders and followers. Goals sometimes are determined based on environmental constraints. Also, cultural norms help defi ne the ex-pected behavior of leaders and followers. In the West, people tend to exhibit a cultural bias in favor of lead-ers as hero fi gures, separate from the group, charging in front on his or her white horse. Th is cultural value often clashes with more collectivist societies that view a leader as a “facilitator”—someone who leads quietly from behind.

One of the key questions in leadership studies (how humans ought to purposefully interact) serves as a vari-ation on similar questions asked in other social science fi elds. For instance, one only needs to turn to tradi-tional economics textbooks to see the wide variety of economic thinkers. Keynesians, the disciples of the British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946), are still calling for an activist government in the mar-ket place, whereas followers of the American economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006) extol the virtues of sup-ply-side economics.6 Th ese two theories diverge deeply on macroeconomic policy prescriptions, but they are both anchored in the same core question—how should values be exchanged?

The McDonough ModelAt McDonough, a liberal arts approach in the classroom is used. In other words, leadership education draws from a wide variety of disciplines in the arts, humanities, so-cial sciences, and natural sciences. Although the deliv-ery may be interdisciplinary, the intellectual approach is

46 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

S Y M P O S I U M

grounded in the social sciences, using the fi ve compo-nents of leadership discussed previously.7

Leadership education within the McDonough Model is organized around four core courses, taught in se-quence: Foundations of Leadership, Organizational Leadership, Th eories/Models of Leadership, and Glob-al Leadership. In the fi rst course, the central theme is the relationship between leaders and followers, includ-ing themes related to ethics and power. Th ese are age-old topics going back millennia. Th is course contrasts the perspectives from Plato and Aristotle. Th is is a highly relevant confl ict for leadership studies today—“how we ought to live together” (the idealistic hopes for which we should strive) vs. how we actually do and how to actu-ally succeed as a leader (focused on what is practical)8 (Aristotle, 1981; Bloom, 1968).

In the second course, we focus on the environmental context and the challenges associated with leading or-ganizational change. Th e third course surveys the many theories and models that have been developed to ex-plain how leaders and followers achieve their goals. Th e course allows the students to gain a deeper understand-ing of how the fi eld has evolved over the decades. Th e fourth course examines the last element of our working defi nition of leadership—the values and norms that guide human interaction. Beyond Western perspec-tives, other cultural traditions, including those from Latin America, Africa, ancient China (e.g., Confucian-ism), as well as Islam and Buddhism are examined.

Concluding RemarksTh e proliferation of undergraduate leadership studies pro-grams in the United States attests to the creativity and in-novation associated with this fi eld. Th e current article has identifi ed three main branches under which they tend to fall—leadership education, leadership training, and leader-ship development. Within leadership education, students fi nd a wealth of approaches to the study of leadership. Some programs, such as the one at McDonough, use a liberal arts approach, drawing from the arts and humanities, to illus-trate concepts and models associated with leadership.

Th e current article makes a distinction between peda-gogy and “disciplinary foundations.” Although the lib-eral arts are helpful on the delivery side, it is argued that leadership remains, at its core, a social science enterprise.

Th erefore, our leadership education programs should refl ect our eff ort to understand how leadership works as a social phenomenon. Th e McDonough Model draws from our working defi nition of leadership as a social process. Leadership education provides the opportu-nity to organize our curriculum around a social science perspective. By moving the focus away from the leader and examining instead the complex interaction of mul-tiple components, a deeper understanding of how lead-ership works in diff erent contexts, under a variety of societal norms and values, is obtainable.

Notes1Th e McDonough Center works more as a “school” with a dean and full-time faculty/staff, offering five academic tracks: Major in International Leadership Studies, Minor in Leadership Studies, Certificate in Leadership Studies, Engineering Leadership Certifi cate, and Teacher Leadership Certificate. The center also houses the Office of Civic Engagement, which coordinates the experiential education opportunities for the McDonough Scholars, as well as ser-vice-learning opportunities in the classroom.2For a general introduction to social science thinking, see Brown (2008). For perspectives on the philosophy of social science, see Delanty (2005) and Rosenberg (2008).3In addressing the issue of rigor in leadership education, we have made the argument in a recent Journal of Leadership Studies article (Perruci & McManus, 2013) that we need to give serious thought to a “formal review process” for aca-demic programs in leadership studies.4Th e use of certain disciplinary traditions from the liberal arts is not to be confused with certain leadership competencies associ-ated with the liberal arts—critical thinking, oral communica-tion, writing skills, cross-cultural understanding, and problem solving. In Perruci (2009), I make the point that an institution can promote these competencies through its general education curriculum. Furthermore, institutions can have both—the use of liberal arts disciplines to teach about leadership and the teaching of liberal arts competencies as a leadership devel-opment strategy. At Marietta College, we pursue both.5See Perruci (2011). Th is defi nition is used to build the four core courses in the McDonough Leadership Curriculum.6For an application of Keynesian economics to recent public policy issues, see Eatwell and Milgate (2011). For an equiva-lent source dealing with Friedman’s free-market thinking, see Butler (2011).

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 47

S Y M P O S I U M

7On the leadership training (action) side, two Leadership Practicum courses (one focused on facilitation/deliberation, and another on decision-making/project planning) are off ered, as well as a variety of Project Leader Assignments (PLA), grounded in experiential education (service-learning, intern-ships, study-abroad, undergraduate research). PLAs are also linked to a Summer Experiential Education (SEEd) Program, which takes the students off campus into a variety of activities. On the leadership development (growth) side, emphasis is placed on students developing their ability to refl ect, analyze, and communicate their experiences in a clear and compelling manner. It is not enough for students to acknowledge that they have had certain experiences while going through the leader-ship program. Th ey have to fully understand the meaning of those experiences and articulate the impact that they have made in their lives. Th rough this refl ective process, they gain a deeper understanding of how they are developing as leaders and how much more aware they have become of the way the fi ve components of leadership work in the 21st century. Only then can they apply those insights into their professional plans in a way that become powerful and purposeful.8I am indebted to Michael Harvey here for bringing this point to my attention and refi ning my own thinking about the contrast between Plato and Aristotle.

ReferencesAristotle. (1981). Th e Politics (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Bloom, A. (1968). The Republic of Plato. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brown, R. (2008). Explanation and experience in social science. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Butler, E. (2011). Milton Friedman: A concise guide to the ideas and infl uence of the free-market economist. Hampshire, UK: Harriman House.

Delanty, G. (2005). Social science: Philosophical and methodological foundations. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Eatwell, J., & Milgate, M. (2011). Th e fall and rise of Keynesian economics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Harvey, M., & Riggio, R. (Eds.). (2011). Leadership studies: Th e dialogue of disciplines. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publications.

Kaipa, P., & Radjou, N. (2013). From smart to wise: Acting and lead-ing with wisdom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perruci, G. (2009). General education as the nexus between the liberal arts and leadership studies. In J. T. Wren, R. Riggio, & M. Genovese (Eds.). Leadership and the liberal arts: Achieving the promise of a liberal education (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Perruci, G. (2011). Millennials and globalization: Th e cross-cultural challenge of intragenerational leadership. Journal of Leadership Stud-ies, 5(3), 82–87.

Perruci, G., & McManus, R. (2013). Th e state of leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), 49–54.

Roberts, D. (Ed.). (1981). Student leadership programs in higher education. Carbondale, IL: American College Personnel Association.

Rosenberg, A. (2008). Philosophy of social science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Gama Perruci, PhD, is the dean of the McDonough Leadership Center and the McCoy Professor of Leadership Studies at Marietta College in Ohio. In addition, he serves as the chair of the International Leadership Association (ILA), Inc., and the facilitator of the Leading Th oughts and Corner Offi ce sections in Th e New York Times in Leadership Project. Perruci also serves as a visiting lecturer in the Global Leadership Program at Dartmouth College’s Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. Perruci has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Florida.