Intentional Design of Student Organizations to Optimize Leadership Development

Components of Structure

When trying to understand how a group or organization functions, it is important to focus on its basic structure, which entails the stable pattern of relationships between members (Johnson & Johnson, 2013; Simon-Brown, 1999). Ultimately, the group structure is about the interaction among members and the two aspects that shape this interaction are roles and norms (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Roles define the expected behaviors of individuals who occupy specific positions within the group (Forsyth, 2014). Some formal roles include vice president, committee chair, and treasurer. Michael held several formal roles throughout his 4 years in college ranging from alumni chair to president. Carly has not held a formal role yet but is planning to run for an executive board position her senior year. Although holding formal roles in student organizations is significantly connected to students’ leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2010), it is important to note that roles are also informal and untitled. These roles, such as initiator of a project, opinion giver, and active participant, are vital to the success of an organization. It is common for students in high school and college to see only the formal positions and titles as contributing to leadership; therefore, they do not recognize their opportunity to build their leadership capacity when not holding a formal title (Komives et al., 2005, 2006).

Norms are common rules and beliefs, established by the group, that regulate the appropriate behavior, perceptions, and attitudes of members (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Some norms are explicit such as attending all group meetings and maintaining a specific grade point average, whereas other norms, such as not talking during a meeting, are assumed and not specifically stated. A difference between Carly's and Michael's organizations is that all members of Michael's organization create yearly group expectations, whereas Carly's organization depends simply on implicit norms. An explicit norm for Michael's organization includes each member contributing to one project or committee. Michael's collegiate all-male group (Organization B) has over 80 members and attendance at meetings is between 90% and 100%. Carly's high school group (Organization A) is small with 15 members, and it is typical to have about 60% of the membership at each meeting and even smaller numbers at group events. The simple explicit norm of taking on some kind of role in the organization not only encourages students to engage in the group but also provides an opportunity to develop their leadership capacity.

Other facets of a group's structure include communication networks and decision-making approaches. Communication networks convey who can communicate to whom and show whether the communication is direct or goes through one or more other individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). According to Leavitt and Shaw (cited in Johnson and Johnson, 2013), “communication networks have been found to influence the emergence of leadership, the development of organization, the morale of group members, and the efficiency of problem solving” (p. 151). Networks are divided into centralized and decentralized structures. Centralized networks are hierarchical and recommend how information is delivered through individuals at various levels of an organization (Forsyth, 2014). One pattern consistent with a centralized network is a chain of command. Michael's organization uses this type of structure by having a president, five executive board members that report to him, nine committee chairs that report to the vice president, and committee members who report to the committee chairs. As organizations increase in size, managing information and responsibilities is more complex and larger organizations are more effective using centralized networks (Forsyth, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Central leaders in larger organizations are able to spread out tasks and responsibilities before getting overwhelmed. In regard to student leadership development, centralized networks provide more formal leadership roles throughout the organization and allow members to address such important interpersonal leadership issues as trust, delegation, and communication.

A decentralized network opens the communication lines between members and avoids any one position being more central than another (Forsyth, 2014). One decentralized structure is the open network. Basically, all group members can communicate directly to each other without having a central person to pass through. When groups have complex tasks that require insight and full commitment from all members, decentralized structures are advantageous (Forsyth, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Student organizations using decentralized structures allow all members to have a significant role in contributing to the leadership of the organization. More specifically, within this structure, all members get to use critical thinking, interpersonal skills, and intrapersonal skills in order to collaborate with one another to accomplish shared goals. This structure also offers more opportunities for meaningful discussions around important sociocultural issues, which influences students’ leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2010). Carly's organization is small but still is structured in a central, hierarchical manner with an advisor, president, and five officers who report to the president. The officers in Organization A complain about being overextended and the members complain about being passive recipients of information.

The process of decision making is another factor associated with organizational structure. Johnson and Johnson (2013) provide seven different types of decision-making methods: (a) decision by authority without discussion, (b) expert member, (c) average of members’ opinions, (d) decision by authority after discussion, (e) minority control, (f) majority control, and (g) consensus. Johnson and Johnson (2013) share that there are advantages and disadvantages for each of the seven methods that can affect the group members positively or negatively. In Organization A, the president and executive board members typically make all the decisions. In Organization B, the entire membership gets to make many of the decisions but they usually occur during regular meetings and “majority rules” is the common process used. When Organization B determines group norms and goals for the year, the entire membership is involved and they use a consensus process. This process is time consuming but is essential for getting buy-in from all members. For certain decisions that do not have an impact on most of the membership and there is a time constraint, the president and executive board make the decision. Some of Organization B's committee chairs create a statistical mean for members’ opinions through online surveys for such issues as party themes and service project ideas.

The consensus decision-making format has an influence on all members’ leadership development through encouraging meaningful dialogue, constructive controversy, and shared leadership; however, it is not realistic for all decisions. Organization B uses a variety of methods, which allows most members to have voice in the organization and to feel that they are contributing to the effectiveness and success of their organization. The concern with Organization A's decision-making approach is that most of the membership is excluded from sharing their thoughts and opinions and from participating in any meaningful discussions; therefore, it is not surprising that Carly and the other general members feel like passive members and don't view themselves as part of the leadership process.

Organizational Context Should Drive Design

Considering contextual factors is critical when designing the most effective and appropriate organizational structure for a group or organization. Size, purpose, goals, vision, composition of group membership, and culture are some of the “micro” contextual components to take into account (Wren & Swatez, 1995). Although Organization B appears to have a structure that is enhancing its students’ leadership development and Organization A's structure seems to be hindering the development of its members’ leadership capacity, having Carly's group adopt Michael's organization's structure is not the answer. The two organizations differ greatly in size, purpose, composition of membership, and culture. Organization A is less than 4 years old, has a small membership, and focuses on introducing students to a professional field of interest. Organization B is over 60 years old; emphasizes social, personal, and leadership development as its primary purposes; and is large for a student group. However, Carly's group has a current structure that is inconsistent with their contextual variables. For a membership of only 15, they employ a communication network and decision-making format that is more appropriate for a larger membership. The incompatible structure of Organization A, including having no explicit norms, along with the possibility that there is not an interest in developing its members’ leadership capacity, provides a possible rationale explaining the differences in Carly's and Michael's thoughts about leadership development within their organizations. The congruence between contextual variables and organizational structure is an important issue for organizations to contemplate. The following section presents suggestions for student organization advisors and members to intentionally design group structures that are conducive for leadership development.

Group Structure/Culture

It is evident that not having specific expectations for commitment level, attendance, and participation is detrimental to Carly's organization and serves as a hindrance to members’ leadership development. At the beginning of a school year, I recommend facilitating a session for all members to build relationships and for members to develop clear and explicit norms for the group using inclusive processes so all members feel comfortable sharing their views. Along with developing norms, each person should leave the session with a clear understanding of their role in the group and all the responsibilities connected to that role.

A distinction between Organizations A and B is that Michael's organization does a good job distributing leadership and participation among all group members. Not only is this essential for creating effective groups but also for allowing all members to foster their interpersonal capabilities (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Student groups typically have the basic roles such as president, vice president, and secretary. Prior research suggests groups broaden the number of explicit roles throughout the organization, thus reaching a greater number of students who might never be interested in a traditional formal position but still want to play a significant role in the group (Dugan, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2013; Komives et al., 2006). Sharing roles, such as cochairs or copresidents, not only opens up additional spaces for students to take on a leadership position while decreasing the pressure on a select few, it also provides an opportunity for more students to develop their collaborative skills. Encourage students to find projects, consistent with the mission of the organization, that they are passionate about. This opens the door for students who might be uncomfortable being considered for a formal position to take on a leadership role. For example, after facing a tragic situation, a couple members in Michael's organization collaborated with the university's counseling center and developed an initiative to address depression and other mental illnesses on college campuses.

Particularly in larger organizations that use a centralized communication network, establish a culture in the organization where students start in minor roles and build to more complex roles throughout their term in the organization. Also, encourage senior members who have already held executive positions to continue their involvement on a committee of their choosing or to mentor or coach an incoming officer. Students who follow an intentionally developmental transition to their roles can allow members to feel like they positively affect the group throughout their entire tenure in the organization. This also creates an environment of personal investment and leads to greater leadership capacity over time (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Komives et al., 2006). In Carly's organization, a junior student joined the organization and within a couple months took on the role of president. Following his term as president, he attended meetings periodically but was generally uninvolved his senior year. Michael began his group experience by holding a position with his new member class, moved to committee chair roles, then eventually became the president his junior year. His senior year, he chose to stay involved as a mentor and is an active member of one of the committees. Michael came to the realization that he can still have a major influence in the leadership of the organization without holding a top position. This is consistent with the higher stages of the leadership identity development model, where more developed students recognize their potential to possess an important role in the leadership process without a formal title and that they have a responsibility to help in the development of upcoming leaders (Komives et al., 2005, 2006).

Student organizational advisors and members are advised to learn about the variety of decision-making methods and how to determine the most appropriate approach to use for each decision they face. Johnson and Johnson's (2013) text, Joining Together, is a good resource for individuals to familiarize themselves about methods of decision making. The type of decision, timeframe, importance, and type of climate the group wants to establish are key elements to consider in determining the suitable method (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Consensus building, though time consuming and mentally draining, is a method that allows all members to develop more of their leadership capacity. According to Johnson and Johnson (2013), consensus building encourages members to have voice in the decision, secures commitment by all members to implement the decision, and allows members to be as creative and innovative as possible in coming up with the decision.

Considering research shows that participating in sociocultural discussions is the strongest predictor of socially responsible leadership (Dugan & Komives, 2010), and many organizations consist of peers with different races, religions, sexual orientations, values, political views, and interests, it is highly suggested to incorporate deliberate conversations around these topics within the group's structure. Johnson and Johnson (2013) note encouraging structured controversies is a vital component of a group's structure when striving toward creating an effective group. Although discussions about members’ differences might occur during or outside of meetings, having more planned, thoughtful, and well-facilitated conversations will ensure that they happen and are constructive. Student organizations like Michael's, that use a hierarchical structure, are limited in their time and opportunities to have a facilitated, meaningful discussion compared to smaller decentralized structured organizations. Centralized student organizations need to make a commitment to incorporating discussion opportunities into their culture, even if it requires additional meetings just for them. Unlike Michael's organization, Carly's organization could easily incorporate these discussions into their regular meetings, especially considering members complain that the meetings are just about sharing reports, which could be done electronically. These discussions would add more purpose to the meetings and allow students to be more engaged in the organization.

Leader Succession

Identifying and cultivating future leadership for the organization is not only essential for the continuity of the organization but also to have a pipeline of successors to empower and to develop as effective leaders. The first suggestion for building a pipeline of future leaders, especially for secondary institutions, is for advisors to identify and directly contact students. Second, seasoned members, including executive board members and other senior members, should select newer members to nurture and develop as future leaders of the organization. Having newer members shadow executive board members for a period of time is a possible strategy for fostering interest. A final suggestion is to host information sessions to educate students on various roles and responsibilities in the organization and for them to design a personal involvement plan for their time in the organization.

Assessment

Collecting students’ thoughts, either verbally or in writing, about their group experience, is a great evaluative method. However, for the purpose of gathering data about what students are learning and gaining from the group experience, especially related to their leadership development, it is important to use assessment strategies (Owen, 2011). For the larger, more complex, centralized organizations like student government associations, Greek life organizations, and campus activity boards that have specific and consistent roles, it is suggested to set performance requirements and core leadership competencies for each role. These requirements and competencies can be provided to the students when they are placed in those roles and then assessed midway and at the end of their term. Getting feedback both formally and informally from the individuals who observe them the most in their roles is highly suggested. Using instruments such as the Student Leadership Practice or the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale is a good way to formally assess students’ leadership behaviors (Owen, 2011).

Role of the Institution

Both Organization A's and Organization B's presidents are required each year to attend a daylong leadership retreat. However, for Michael's organization, the president is elected at the end of the academic year, and the college holds the leadership retreat in early February, when the president has only a few months left in his term. Offering leadership training and education for student positional leaders is one way to assist with building the leadership capacity of student group members; however, a large portion of the membership misses this opportunity. Postsecondary institutions are improving in providing opportunities for students without formal leadership roles to gain leadership training and education through curricular and cocurricular programming; however, secondary institutions tend to still focus on positional leaders.

Considering the importance of well-constructed service projects in developing students’ leadership capacity (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Wagner & Pigza, 2016), institutions should make meaningful and appropriate service projects accessible for student groups as well as provide the resources for effectively facilitating post-project reflection sessions. Even if an institution does not house a community service office, having a contact person at the institution who can assist with the process, especially at the secondary level, would be beneficial.

A final suggestion for institutions to express a commitment to the leadership development of all organizational members is to review their awards process. Recognizing positional organizational leaders is an excellent avenue for building students’ leadership self-efficacy; however, nonpositional members need to be recognized as well. A clear message needs to be sent that students who are fully engaging in student groups, even if they hold no title, can make an impact and should be honored for their leadership and participation. Further, recognizing organizations for their excellence in group member involvement, shared leadership, and leader succession planning rewards the collective effort of members to function as a healthy, thriving group.