Creating and maintaining networks among leaders: an exploratory case study of two leadership...

This research explores the link and importance of creating and maintaining networks with statewide and county-wide leadership training programs. The first section provides a review of literature on networking and its importance for leadership inside and outside organizations. The next section

focuses on the method of research of surveying and interviewing two sets of leadership training program alumni. The following sections provide an analysis and the results of the research questions. From these results, certain issues become apparent regarding the reasons for usage and frequency of usage of the networks including the desire, opportunity, and necessity of creating and maintaining networks. Additional prescriptions are made that lend themselves to other leadership training programs such as whether or not to explicitly identify, establish, and sustain networking in these programs.

**********

Networks are created and maintained for various reasons. People use networks for social and human relations, career advancement and job searches, for political and legislative purposes, group work, formal and informal dissemination of information, and leadership training (Hickson and Stacks, 1998). Since networks are fundamental to our own existence, networks are also fundamental to the existence and sustenance of organizations and their leaders. The training of these organizational leaders is often done through international, community and state-wide leadership programs.

According to the National Association for Community Leadership, there are 650 to 750 community leadership programs in the United States. Furthermore, these leadership training programs are growing from efforts in smaller towns and cities rather than from the state-wide or national levels (National Association for Community Leadership, December 1995). These programs are designed to create community leaders through educating participants on business, political, and community issues, and they involve grouping together individuals in order to address these issues or concerns. In so doing, whether overtly or covertly, leadership programs are essentially creating networking structures with the potential to have long-term effects on issues. Thus, networks are an important component of leadership course curricula. They are the medium through which key information can be disseminated and problems solved. For example, the Leadership Huntington program created networking opportunities that might have been missed through the cocktail party and fund raising circuit (Winzelberg, 2001). To examine how these leadership training programs attempt to create, maintain, foster, and utilize networks for and among their participants, a survey based exploratory case study was conducted to determine the frequency usage of their program networks regarding particular issues for two well established leadership training programs. One of the training programs is a state-wide program in the heartland and the other is a county based east coast training program. To complement the information provided by this study, literature on leadership and networking is reviewed.

Network Literature Review

Successful networking involves establishing relationships, gaining information from these relationships, and maintaining these relationships. Thus, leaders must be skilled in networking to progress in an organization. As leaders become more networked within an organization, they become more skilled perceivers, and their ability to interpret situations accurately is enhanced (Hosking & Morley, 1988). Leaders also become more powerful and influential within an organization if they are highly involved within a network. According to Barge (1994):

   Position centrality has been correlated with
   power, and since leaders are typically the
   most centrally located individuals within a
   network, they usually possess a high
   amount of personal power. Their location
   within the network allowed them to gain
   access to critical information as well as to
   regulate others' access to that information
   and other resources. (p. 75)

In addition to networking within an organization, leaders with links outside their specific organization increase their reputations and influence (Kaplan, 1984). Networking provides more opportunities for interaction among peers, leading to more social capital. Effective leaders have the ability to bring a mix of people together that will transfer that social capital into a successful project (Bass & Krackhardt, 1999). And, if done in conjunction with other leadership development activities, networking can lead to a collective leadership development rather than individual leadership development (Day, 2000). For leaders at the community level, the more influential leaders are in creating and articulating community opinions, the more linked they are to mass media (Heath & Bekker, 1986).

Because of the importance of networking in leadership development, many organizations and communities have started providing opportunities to enhance their leaders networking potential. For example, Marriott International Inc. has established a leadership conference for women to increase their contacts. Deloitte & Touche LLP in New York created Women's Initiative in 1993 and has increased networking through additional mentoring programs (Wells, 2001). Andersen Consulting, now Accenture Consulting, has a worldwide executive program aimed at exchanging ideas and views from its leaders around the world (Day, 2000). Nortel broadcasts a monthly transcontinental Virtual Leadership Academy advanced video conference to keep employees networked (Day, 2000). And Motorola's Vice President Institute fosters networking among its participants (Day, 2000). These organizations are attempting to create and maintain networks through consistent and frequent contact, especially among female employees. Essentially, they are trying to avoid the dilemma that is known to plague networks; a tendency to fall apart without an increase in effort by the individuals involved.

Durant and Warber (2001) noted that "networks have a tendency towards entropy that constantly must be fought" (p 236). In part, this tendency is due to the nature of a networks' ties, links, effort and distance. Bass and Krackhardt (1999) found that in the changing world with advances in technology, stronger ties limited the potential solutions to problems while the weaker ties were better able to connect diverse groups, thus provided more valuable information. With more successful interactions, these weak-ties develop into the stronger ties with better connections (Bass & Krackhardt, 1999). Networks are also affected by the efforts of the participants. As Rogers and Kincaid (1981) stated; "A basic paradox in human communication is that more informationally valuable links require more effort to form and maintain" (p. 324). Bass and Krackhardt (1999) concur and draw on the brief example that it takes more effort and cost to maintain a friendship than an acquaintance. There also appears to be a relationship between the balance of the social networks and the distance. As Krackhardt and Kilduff (1999) notes that "People tended to perceive relations close to and distant from themselves as more balanced than relations of intermediate distance" (p. 770). A prescription for maintaining networks includes having participants see the benefits of these relationships, having trust among the participants and nurturing the relationships (Durant & Warber, 2001).

This review of the literature indicates first that networking has a place in the development of leaders. Through networks, leaders can significantly increase their influence, power, and media affiliation and potential leaders need to have that opportunity provided as well be trained on how to foster their networks. And second, constant attention needs to be paid to maintaining these networks. Once lost, more time and resources may have to be allocated to recreate these networks than would have been exerted if initially maintained. To ensure that these networks are continuously fostered and growing, leadership and communications practitioners and scholars need to analyze networks.

These leadership programs were designed as a means to affect change in their communities. In order to do so, networks need to be created, maintained, and used by the participants of these programs. This research was designed as an exploratory study if these programs' networking capabilities. The two main research questions driving this study are: (1) Do the leadership training programs' alumni maintain networks established during their training program regarding particular issues; and (2) How frequently do they use such networks? Based upon these questions a survey based case study of a state-wide and county-wide leadership program was conducted.

Methods

In order to analyze networks, this exploratory study was conducted utilizing two well established leadership training programs. Without providing specific names of the leadership training programs, the first program is a state-wide leadership program. This program was established in 1978 and has continuously trained 35 individuals each year since then. The second program commenced in 1989 as a county-wide program and has trained approximately 40 individuals each year. However, the county-wide program took a break from 1993-1996 and did not conduct any training programs due to structure and employment issues.

The content of both training programs were designed similarly. Participants spend their time in sessions centered on specific issues, local organizations, and some skills development. They are then asked to create solutions to particular issues or concerns (Fredricks, 1998). The goals of the state-wide program are to: annually identify and select 35 individuals with demonstrated leadership potential from across the state; expose and inform each class to key issues affecting the state and its people; inspire individuals from each class to become involved in learning of the problems and opportunities facing the state in order to provoke useful solutions; and serve as a catalyst for the development of leadership skills throughout the state. And the goals of the county-wide program were designed to provide participants with an opportunity for: volunteer leadership development; basic business training; basic nonprofit management training; networking opportunities with other companies' employees; and expanding team building skills through community service projects. The state-wide program does not address its networking capabilities while the county-wide explicitly states that it will provide networking opportunities. Based upon these goals and the research questions stated before, the survey based methodology was developed.

Initially a pilot study tested the instrument design in which preliminary question were tested with a select number of state-wide program alumni. Participants were asked about the questionnaire, the length and applicability of the questions. After revisions were made to the survey, a two-step case study of a state-wide leadership training program was conducted involving a questionnaire to all program alumni. County-wide surveys were conducted after the state-wide research was completed in order to compare and contrast the findings. Respondents were divided by place and type: (1) state or county, (2) business, (3) political, and (4) personal. Primary questions focused on whether alumni continue to network with other alumni. Responses were measured on a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Secondary questions focused on frequency and measured the number of people contacted and the number of contacts per year. (See Appendix 1) In addition, alumni of the state-wide training program were interviewed to provide qualitative data to validate the quantitative data and enhance the researcher's understanding of the networking. (See Appendix 2)

Limitations

There are a few limitations associated with this methodology and its results. First, this study is an exploratory survey based case study of two leadership training programs. The methodological construct of the survey and interviews have reliability and validity considerations. The survey by its nature is weak with validity but strong with reliability (Babbie, 1998). However, through the use of a pilot study and follow-up interviews, these considerations were narrowed. Second, the network analysis provides a "snap-shot" of how the networks operate. Rogers and Kincaid (1981) argue that advantages outweigh limitations with regards to network analysis. These advantages include:

   (1) Network analysis is a means of
   investigating behavior at a more macro
   level than the psychological microanalysis
   of individual-level variables that have been
   the primary (and almost complete) concern
   of past communication research; and (2)
   Network analysis procedures help convert
   the individual-level data to higher-level
   data. This transformation across levels is a
   crucial function of network analysis
   techniques. The other important function is
   to cope with problems of information
   overload. (pp. 328-329)

Although the snap-shot is still a concern, the transcendence from individual levels to higher-levels of networks is able to provide more stability for research, especially considering the potential instability of networks. And third, the results of this study relate directly to the two programs studied, but the applicability of the findings is for all leadership training programs to review and consider when evaluating their own goals.

Results

After surveying all alumni, 608 for the state-wide program and 155 for the county-wide program, a response rate of 58.8% for the statewide and 34.8% for the county-wide program was achieved. The state-wide program alumni have an overall agreement that their leadership program created and maintained networks regarding state, business, political and personal issues. The alumni also utilize their network of 3 to 5 people 3 to 5 times a year. Findings are presented in Table 1.

Findings for the county-wide program are presented in Table 2. The county-wide program alumni somewhat agree on the program's ability to create and maintain networks regarding the four issues: state, business, political and personal. In addition, depending upon the issue, the alumni contact 1 to 2 people either 3 to 5 or 1 to 2 times a year.

The numbers do not tell the whole story. While they clearly indicate that networking occurs with some frequency, they do not provide an understanding around the motivations. The qualitative findings from the interviews suggest that networking and leadership enjoy a reciprocal dynamic.

Qualitative Findings

Certain themes developed through the follow-up interviews and are presented in Table 3. Alumni believe that the state-wide program changed them as leaders through networking because they met a variety of people with differing backgrounds from different communities. Most interviewees were in contact with other alumni and others in the state for business, social, or political reasons. Their contacts are not deliberate or planned. They occur when alumni engage in similar activities and are "bumping into each other." Most interviewees do not desire more contact with alumni because they are too busy, have no reason for contact, or have no time. There is also evidence that the state program discourages alumni.

One study participant said, "the only alumni event that is offered is the graduation in [the state capital]. I have attended two subsequent graduations and did not find them worthwhile." Even though alumni are invited, there appears to be little effort made either by the state-wide program or the training session organizers to incorporate, or to maintain, or to pursue these valuable links. Another alumnus explained:

   I have never been contacted again to help
   plan. Although [the program] has been in
   [my] County many more times since I was
   on the planning committee. The "older"
   alumni are not asked to participate. That
   job usually is given to more recent alumni.

Thus, the experiences of the earlier graduates are not drawn upon to further networking in the program. Essentially, the earlier graduates implied that they are excommunicated from the program and not heard from again, especially if their ideas differ from the organizers.

As another study participant, an early graduate, exclaimed;

   [The state-wide program] is so rigid, I don't
   know how to become more involved
   because my thoughts and ideas do not
   generally reflect those of the executive
   director and so they are never heard.

These finding suggest that there is a nexus between leadership and networking and that leadership training should emphasize networking.

Discussion and Recommendations

One topic that is not incorporated in the community leadership training program literature is networking. The findings reported of this exploratory case study demonstrate that networking is an outcome of the training either because it was planned for or just happened. Networks should be an important component of course curricula because they are the medium through which a variety of information is disseminated, issues are addressed, relationships are built, and change can occur.

Networks are necessary for an organization's functioning, and they are a necessary component of leadership. As a result, leadership programs typically provide and develop networks. This is especially true for the programs studied.

As noted in the results, a difference in contact numbers and frequency of contact occurred between the state and the county programs. The county program appears to provide fewer contacts, 1 to 2 people, which for some issues are used less often than the state counterpart, 3 to 5 people. This is due in part to the proximity aspect of maintaining a network. Movement out of a county is seemingly easier than out of the state. Thus county contacts have a greater tendency towards entropy than do state contacts.

Political and personal issues within the statewide program was rated differently than the state and business issues. Here the alumni agreed more that the program provided networks for political and personal issues, rather than state and business issues. However, the number of contacts and the frequency of contacting did not increase in comparison. Perhaps the contacts for political and personal issues provide enough information, are trustworthy, and are seen as more beneficial thus there in no necessity to increase the number and frequency.

Once again, the county-wide program exhibited differences with regards to political and personal issues. Here the alumni use their contacts less frequently than for county and business issues. Just opposite of the state-wide program, these county-wide contacts may be seen as less trustworthy and less beneficial with personal and political issues than with state and business issues.

These results support Rogers and Kincaid's (1981) findings that links occur when they are physically close. Thus when participating in the program, networks occur. The links seem to lessen as the participants are physically distant or are not actively participating in the program. As both tables demonstrate, alumni use a few amount of contacts infrequently. This is especially true for the county-wide program where alumni contact fewer people than the state-wide program. A particular interviewee exclaimed that: "Connection is established by classmates who are interested in a particular adventure or issue." And that this connection does not happen frequently because "we all have our own lives, and distance is a major factor." Furthermore more contact is not maintained because there are "not many opportunities to make contacts. Nor, reasons to initiate contacts."

The belief that these programs do at least create networks is exhibited in one participant's comment; "It is a network, and if you don't respect the networking opportunities, you have nothing left of the experience." As alumni view it, networking and the possibility to network is a key element in the program's experience otherwise "you have nothing left of the experience." This also supports Leadership Huntington' s attitude that networking opportunities missed through the cocktail party and fund raising circuit are provided through the program (Winzelberg, 2001). Thus one recommendation is to make networking an explicit goal where it is not only created but maintained by the leadership training programs.

The findings from this study suggest that it is increasingly difficult for leaders to maintain their established networks outside of the program. This supports Rogers and Kincaid's (1981) theory that "more informationally valuable links require more effort to form and maintain" (p. 324) and Bass and Krackhardt's (1999). This is especially true for the leadership programs studied here because the nature of information is considered highly valuable for the state and county.

While networking occurs, the frequency of contacts and scope of involvement is not what advocates of leadership training in the state-wide program report as ideal. From this perspective, networks are used infrequently and involve only a few people. This is evident among both programs but more so with the county-wide program. Both programs should increase their efforts in establishing and maintaining network links by building trust, showing the benefits, and nurturing the relationship (Durant & Warber 2001).

The existence of limited networks, bridges and liaisons within these leadership programs ensures that communication is impeded and that social capital is limited (Day, 2000). Additionally, some individuals appear to exist in isolation within each program because of their small number of contacts, usually one to two people or three to five people, depending upon the issue and context. As Farace, Taylor, and Stewart's (1992) research indicated, the more isolates that exist, the less the communication effectiveness. And, the more transient the organizational members, the less likely there will be stable communication effectiveness. Therefore, both programs are most likely functioning with limited communication effectiveness insofar as it is not taking full advantage of their alumni or is not offering alumni continued leadership development. That is, people who need to receive information regarding how to become more involved are not receiving it due to the lack of bridges, liaisons, links, and networks. Essentially, these alumni are not receiving information about the next step from this program; i.e. what potential participatory opportunities are available from programs throughout the state and county in general, what impact do these opportunities have on the state or county, and what can be done to become an active participant.

Illustrating this point of the lack of communication effectiveness through missing bridges, liaison, links, and networks include interview comments regarding how contact is made: "bump into each other;" "just happens;" and "run into them throughout state." These comments, and the results of the survey, demonstrate a lack of formalized connection among the alumni. Contact is made by accident, by working in similar industries, or by working towards common goals such as fundraising. Continuous contact among the alumni is informal at best. Thus the third recommendation is that there needs to be continuous opportunities for the alumni to stay in contact with each other.

These programs should view alumni as a resource, as human resource brokers (Bass & Krackhardt, 1999, p.179) In fact, some alumni believe that neither their voices are being heard nor that their active participation is being sought by these programs. By not using more alumni, communication effectiveness is lessened, links that were established are diminished, and an increase social capital and collective leadership are impeded.

Implications and Conclusion

The state-wide and county-wide programs have definite positive aspects. Many alumni believe that these programs created a networking structure, it educated them about state-wide and county-wide issues, and it was a wonderful experience that met all of its stated goals. However, there are suggestions that could enhance leadership training programs and help them remain viable in an ever changing environment.

The issue of networking as it applies to leadership development and to community leadership programs is significant. Brungardt and Seibel (1995) summarized many community leadership programs, claiming "they are interested in creating an 'active network of informed, concerned citizens to guide the furore growth of their communities" (p.3). Thus, networking is an important goal of community development as well as leadership development.

The establishment of networks is also an expectation of participants, and it is an expectation that most alumni believe was met. As one interviewee claimed about the entire program; "It is a network and if you don't respect the networking opportunities, you have nothing left of the experiences." In both programs, networks are created and maintained by participants. But the idea that networking as an explicit part of the program was not recognized. These programs should accept their role in the establishment and maintenance of networks and adopt this aspect as a primary goal of the program. Secondly, these programs need to maintain these networks by building trust, helping alumni see the benefits of these networks, and increasing the trust among participants. And third, these programs need to provide a medium for the contacts to occur through additional opportunities for alumni.

Appendix 1

Survey Questions

                      Strongly   Agree   Somewhat   Disagree   Strongly
                       Agree              Agree                Disagree
I continue to            1         2        3           4          5
communicate with
program contacts
regarding county
issues.

Of my program
contacts, I
communicate
regarding county
issues with the the
following number of
people.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-10
5)   11-15
6)   16+
I communicate with
program contacts
regarding county
issues the following
number of times a
year.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-8
5)   9-12
6)   13+
I continue to            1         2        3           4          5
communicate with my
program contacts
regarding business
issues.

Of my program
contacts, I
communicate
regarding business
issues with the
following number of
people.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-10
5)   11-15
6)   16+
I communicate with
program contacts
regarding business
issues the following
number of times a
year.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-8
5)   9-12
6)   13+
I continue to            1         2        3           4          5
communicate with my
program contacts
regarding political
issues.

Of my program
contacts, I
communicate
regarding political
issues with the
following number of
people.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-10
5)   11-15
6)   16+
I communicate with
program contacts
regarding political
issues the following
number of times a
year.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-8
5)   9-12
6)   13+
I continue to            1         2        3           4          5
communicate with my
program contacts on
a personal basis.

Of my program
contacts, I
communicate on a
personal basis with
the following number
of people.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-10
5)   11-15
6)   16+
I communicate with
program contacts on
a personal basis the
following number of
times a year.
1)   0
2)   1-2
3)   3-5
4)   6-8
5)   9-12
6)   13+

Appendix 2

Interview questions for state-wide leadership training program

1) Do you have contact with [state-wide program] classmates?

a. For what purpose?

b. How was the connection established?

c. Why not more contact?

2) Do you have contact with other individuals you met through [the state-wide program], for example presenters or alumni from other classes?

3) Have you had opportunities to remain involved in [state-wide program] activities, for example planning sessions in your community or attending alumni events?

a. If not why not?

b. On a scale of 1 to 5 with I being strongly satisfied and 5 strongly dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with your level of involvement with [the state-wide program]?

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for state-wide leadership program

                         Analysis of   Mean of
             Mean of     continue to     # of
Issue       agreement    communicate   contacts

State       2.58         Somewhat      3.017
                         Agree

Business    2.57         Somewhat      2.707
                         Agree

Political   2.44         Agree         2.763

Personal    2.37         Agree         3.003

                          Mean of #
                         of times a
Issue        Analysis       year        Analysis

State       3-5 people   3.026         3-5 times a
                                       year

Business    3-5 people   2.801         3-5 times a
                                       year

Political   3-5 people   2.628         3-5 times a
                                       year

Personal    3-5 people   3.179         3-5 times a
                                       year

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for county-wide leadership program

                         Analysis of
             Mean of     continue to    Mean of #
Issue       agreement    communicate   of contacts

County      2.9216       Somewhat      2.4423
                         Agree

Business    2.8000       Somewhat      2.3269
                         Agree

Political   3.1961       Somewhat      1.9615
                         agree

Personal    3.0784       Somewhat      2.0577
                         agree

                         Mean of #
                         of times a
Issue        Analysis       year        Analysis

County      1-2 people   2.6735        3-5 times a
                                       year

Business    1-2 people   3.5882        3-5 times a
                                       year

Political   1-2 people   2.0784        1-2 times a
                                       year

Personal    1-2 people   2.2941        1-2 times a
                                       year

Table 3
Themes Developed from the Interviews

Diverse contacts

Contact not planned

More contact not needed

Limited opportunities for contact

Importance of networking

References

Albrecht, T. L. & Ropp, V. A. (1982). The Study of networking structuring in organizations through use of method triangulation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 162-178.

Babbie, E. R. (1998). The Practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Barge, J. K. (1994). Leadership: communication skills for organizations and groups. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Bass, D. J. & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of twenty-first century leaders. In J.G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-bob leadership: Transforming the Twenty-first-century army and other top-performing organizations (pp. 179-194). Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Brungardt, C. L. (1996). The making of leaders: a review of the research in leadership development and leadership education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 81-95.

Brungardt, C. L. & Crawford, C. B. (1996). A comprehensive approach to assessing leadership students and programs: preliminary findings. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 37-48.

Brungardt, C. L. & Seibel, N. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of community leadership programs. Kansas Leadership Forum Publication Series.

Daniels, T. D. & Spiker, B. K. (1991). Perspectives on organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown Publishers.

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

Durant, R. R. & Warber, A. L. (2001). Networking in the shadow of hierarchy: public policy, the administrative presidency, and the neoadministrative state. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31, 221-244.

Erickson, B. H. (1982). Networks, ideologies, and belief systems. In P. V. Marsden 7 N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 159-172). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Farace, R. V., Taylor, J. A., & Stewart, J. P. (1978). Criteria for evaluation of organizational communication effectiveness: review and synthesis. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2 (pp.271-292). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

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

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (1991). Leadership a communication perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc.

Heath, M. R. & Bekker, S. J. (1986). Identification of opinion leaders in public affairs educational matters and family planning in the township of Atteridgeville (Research Finding Comm. N-142). Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.

Hickson III, M., & Stacks, D.W. (1998) Organizational communication in the personal context. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hosking, D. M. & Morley, I. E. (1988). The skills of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 80-106). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Johnson, J. D. (1992). Organizational communication structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager's network or relationships. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 37-52.

Klenke, K. (1993). Leadership education at the great divide: crossing in to the 21st Century. The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 1, 112127.

Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness for managers. In C.L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior. Volume 3. (pp. 159-173) New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Krackhardt, D. & Kilduff, M. (1999). Whether close of far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 770-782.

Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1982). Networking: the First report and directory. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Moore, C. M. (1988). A colorful quilt: the community leadership story. Indianapolis: National Association of Community Leadership Organizations.

National Association for Community Leadership. (December, 1995). A profile of community leadership programs.

Posner, B. Z. & Kouzes, J. M. (1996). Ten lessons for leaders and leadership. The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 3, 3-11.

Rogers, E. M. & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new Paradigm for research. New York: The Free Press.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, S. J. (2001). Smoothing the way. HR Magazine, 46, 52-58.

Winzelberg, D. (2001, July 29). A Course for those not born to lead. New York Times, p. 7.

Wofford, J. C., Gerloff, E. A., & Cummins, R. C. (1977). Organizational communication: The keystone to managerial effectiveness. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

S. M. Fredricks, Penn State University--Delaware County, Media PA