Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 1
Running head: Personal Leadership for Design Innovation
Personal Leadership in Practice: A Critical Approach to Instructional Design Work Innovation
Marcia L Ashbaugh, PhD
University of the People
MLA Instructional Designers
[email protected]
970-214-2686
442 Gardner Street
Castle Rock, CO 80104
Keywords: innovation, leadership, instructional design, theory and practice, approach to
innovation
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 2
Abstract
In this article, an argument is made for a link between leadership—in terms of the characteristics
and attributes exhibited by instructional designers—and innovation, when innovation is an
outcome of the work approaches and practices that underpin academic course designs. At the
present time, the practice of instructional design (ID) is being challenged to rethink its
conceptualization of academic course designs, especially for web-based affordances, to release
designers to new processes that more align with the modern use of communication devices and
networks. Posited in this paper is that it is time for ID to leave non-adaptive, linear thinking
behind, not only in how and when to prescribe certain technologies, but in how a practitioner
approaches the future of educational change with an adaptation of personal leadership that drives
innovation. While exploring the issues, this study revisits the characteristics of leadership put
forth by Ashbaugh (2012) as critical to the practice of ID so that innovation for education may
proliferate to keep pace with advancing technologies.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 3
Introduction
In this article, an argument is made for a link between leadership—in terms of the
characteristics and attributes exhibited by instructional designers—and innovation, when
innovation is an outcome of the work approaches and practices that underpin academic course
designs. Often when discussing a notion such as innovation, the focus is on people; people
innovate while innovation is an outcome of a person’s work effort. Likewise, when referring to
leadership, the focus is on people and the characteristics they display in diverse situations.
For educational technologists or instructional designers, tasks and processes, objectives
and assessments, strategies and structures are ‘friendly’ constructs and, as such, are usually
manageable. People and the organizations they are attached to, on the other hand, can be difficult
and may impede innovative outcomes. Often these are the leaders who operate in the complex
domain of future, change and new, and are tasked with strategizing for and controlling outcomes
(Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008). In positional roles the function of leadership is commonly
viewed as more of a regulator of work outcomes (McFarlane, 2011). This perspective is
problematic as it suggests a deterministic control approach to the processes and people within the
organization or institution.
When applied to educational programs, attempts at control of learning results ignores the
reality that we live and work in an unpredictable and fluid world, one that demands versatility in
instructional designer thinking. For example, a deterministic academic design strategy may
include specified objectives with single outcomes and structured learning activities, with little
room for the learner creativity and control that have been shown to increase engagement and
bring satisfaction to the learning experience (Sims, 2009). Toward this end, flexible thinking is
needed for alternatives to pre-determined learning outcomes and to align innovation with modern
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 4
learner demands. Inherent in these demands is the underlying urgency for creating something
fresh and new, and for leading in education’s “rapidly occurring, unpredictable, nonlinear
change” (Fullan, 2001, p. v) evolution. The task of creating innovative course materials that will
hold relevance into the future requires a prescient mindset. A leader sees and interprets trends
and changing learner needs (Scott et al., 2008). By responding decisively and appropriately to
rapid and unknown changes, an instructional designer has the opportunity to lead with innovation
in the complex ethos of education that didactic exploration has become. The assumption of
leadership’s potential in this context is based on an ability to survey the landscape of education,
as well as on the rigorous training undergone by educational technologists and designers.
Instructional design (ID), as a professional field, subsumes a set of principles, standards
of practice and ethical conduct codes that, together, set a moral tone for quality, successful and
values-based course designs (AECT, 2012; IBSTPI, 2000; Larson & Lockee, 2009). Leadership
enhances success when a similar set of guidelines are applied, in particular, to one’s individual
approach to work (Ashbaugh, in press). Fullan (2001) addressed the complicated work of
educational leaders and concluded that “having a moral purpose is critical for sustainable
success” (p. vii). Towards a moral outcome, ID has historically focused on a way of thinking and
acting on general design principles for creating excellent teaching opportunities. Conversely, in
view of modern perplexities, it is increasingly important to adopt a way of thinking and acting
based on creating excellent learning opportunities. By looking at the efficacy of a design with its
potential shortcomings or barriers to learning demonstrated by solutions that may or may not
align with learning goals, an instructional designer assesses future learning potential. Therefore,
when equipped with the mindset of moral leadership, an instructional designer’s interventions
offer a democratic approach which frees students to make reflective choices; to explore complex
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 5
theories and new technologies; as well as, to ideate a ‘new thing’ or idea. Hence, when activated,
embodied leadership promises to impact innovation for improving learning opportunities.
Contextualized for ID, Beaudoin (2007) defined leadership as “a set of attitudes and
behaviors that create conditions for innovative change, enable individuals and organizations to
share a vision and move in the appropriate direction, and contribute to the management and
operationalization of ideas” (p. 519). At the same time, he questioned most designers’ ability to
lead and foreshadowed Fullan and Scott’s (2009) warning to higher education to pay attention to
the leadership skills needed to manage its particular changes. The researchers’ concerns echo
those of others, that an instructional designer is trained to a minimal degree in leadership
techniques with more emphasis on project management skills (Ashbaugh & Piña, 2012).
However, Ashbaugh and Piña (2012) found that, in addition to leading and managing design
creations, instructional designers drive changes in learning needs through applied innovations—
in methods, affordances, and digital deliveries—to align with evolving learner preferences and
habits. Consequently, this study revisits the characteristics of leadership found by Ashbaugh
(2012, 2013) to be critical to the practice of ID, so that innovation for education may proliferate
to keep pace with advancing technologies.
Theoretical Framework
A literature review spanning multiple disciplines provided a coherent framework for an
argument in support of a new approach to design practice. Considering that theory drives
practice and practice tests theories (Argyris & Schӧn, 1974; Reay, 1986), it has become
generally accepted that linking both instructional and learning theories to practice is an essential
approach to efficacious educational design work (Tennyson, 2010). This is important since
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 6
history shows that theories of learning change over time and influence new technologies (Dede,
2008); vice-versa, technologies influence new ways of learning (Beaudoin, 2007; Dede, Dieterle,
Clarke, Jass-Ketelhut & Nelson, 2007; Dede & Bjerede, 2010); and, both are driven in varying
degrees by vision and innovation. For example, results from a study of leadership characteristics,
with a concomitant influence on the quality of practice, linked learning through new technologies
with a demand and need for visionary leadership from instructional designers (Ashbaugh, 2012).
Early in the new millennium—an epoch characterized as having advanced a digital paradigm of
education and instruction, Spector (2001) pointed out that learning theory and design is about
“how to facilitate and support effective learning, especially with regard to new technologies” (p.
27). The ‘how’ of supporting both new learning theories and new technologies involves
innovative thinking during practice implicated by Spector when he invoked the adjective ‘new’,
a characteristic of innovation. In turn, facilitating new ideas is a leadership activity toward
creating new interventions in support of knowledge creation (Hong & Sullivan, 2009). That both
concepts inform something new does not necessarily indicate causality although a link is likely.
Given that innovation and leadership are both theoretical concepts, as well as practical
behaviors when acted upon (Northouse, 2012), it is conceivable that the two phenomena are
populated with similar properties that may interact. Borrowing from neuroscience theory, if a
coherent co-variation exists between central shared properties, one concept may be linked to the
other (McClelland & Rogers, 2003). For example, leadership as a mindset develops a vision of a
‘new thing’ (Odom, Boyd & Williams, 2012) while innovation involves ideating and envisioning
a ‘new thing’ (Innovation, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2008). Although the two
concepts differ somewhat componentially, the co-variable ‘new thing or idea’ links leadership
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 7
and innovation in a unique way. Figure 1 maps the properties or characteristics of each to
demonstrate this and other ways that leadership and innovation share similarities.
FIGURE 1 SHOULD BE PLACED ABOUT HERE
Leadership
Leadership, as a role, may be positional or non-positional (Gressick & Derry, 2010) and
is exhibited by certain characteristics common to both roles. While leadership is often
understood as a position held by a person, it is also a concept of behavior, one that is complex
and an enigma to most (Scott et al., 2008). Difficulty in parsing its layered nature has impelled a
plethora of scholarship and spawned an array of how-to-act and how-to-be publications. The
corpus of literature on leadership, estimated by Zenger and Folkman (2002) at over 10,000
studies and articles as well as 1,000 books published on the topic in the past 100 years, yielded
numerous sources which were distilled to construct a list of characteristics critical to this
discussion—mindset, vision, communication, collaboration, strategy, and character.
Leadership is a mindset (Ashbaugh, in press), a choice of who to be and what to do in a
work setting. Leadership emanates from a personal approach, a way of seeing others and meeting
their needs. Recently, Odom, Boyd and Williams (2012) linked personal leadership development
with one’s identity and self-awareness. From a global perspective, Scott et al. (2008) regarded
leadership as having a capacity to see the big picture and to “read and respond to a continuously
and rapidly changing external environment” (p. 11). Ashbaugh (in press) interpreted the
characteristic has having prescience and comprehending the future in a way others may not, or,
cannot. With this advantage, leaders influence and exert power over others and tasks (Carnegie,
1936/2009; Howard & Wellins, 2008). Leaders are challenged to enlist and to empower others to
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 8
believe in the value of an organization’s stated vision, to develop systemic understanding of its
purpose (Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Mill, 2010). This is accomplished through communication as
vision is disseminated with a commitment by leaders to understand and provide meaning for
work. A shared vision serves to transcend difficulties and defines the reasons for the group’s
effort as well as one’s personal effort (Geldart, 2012). Some have considered communication to
be the linchpin of all leadership (Sergiovanni, 1984/2007).
Closely related to communication, collaboration is an activity that reaches across
divisions to extrapolate and expand on ideas, and encourages others to express notions that are
“different and better” (study participant’s quote, in Ashbaugh, 2012). In this way, a leader is free
to, and frees others to, create and explore possibilities toward a shared outcome (Archer &
Cameron, 2013; Scott et al., 2008) by participating actively in potentially innovative results. To
implement innovation, leaders develop a strategy with plans and choices that align with the
vision (Kotter, 2008), that begin with a purpose and turns purpose into reality (Montgomery,
2012). At the same time, leadership strategizes for what Senge (2006) called the gap between
vision and reality—that space where innovation takes form. Moreover, it releases self and others
to employ innate talents and to pursue personal ambitions within the framework of the
organization’s mission (Scott et al., 2008). Finally, leaders possess character and a high level of
value. Values define one’s character through self-imposed constraints. In this way, leaders
exhibit integrity, are trustworthy; they show up on time and work hard at duties and tasks (Chen
et al., 2008). Underpinned by these stabilizing attributes, a leader displays strength of will and
purpose (Campbell et al., 2009; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991), particularly within an environment
of constant change.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 9
Innovation
Innovation is defined in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2008) as a new thing,
idea, method, device; to introduce; to do something in a new way. More often innovation means
to create something new within various degrees of effectiveness (Sun & Yao, 2012) to meet a
specified need. In this discussion, innovation is conceptualized through the notions of ideation,
envision, expression, collaboration, outcomes and value.
Ideation means to imagine change, what can be, while envision is to take an idea to the
next level, to foresee a new invention for improving a situation or existing state. It follows that a
mindset for innovation is one that is free to explore new avenues and will flourish in a flexible
environment. Conversely, without flexibility in a constantly changing world, innovation is
hindered and unlikely to occur (Bolman & Deal, 2008). For example, changing technologies
inspire new solutions to problems and drive innovation in adapting to changes through a new
expression. Expression can take the form of play, a behavioral activity that encourages people,
especially in a work group or team, to find an outlet for innovation, to communicate ideas and to
“explore alternatives, encouraging experimentation, flexibility, and creativity” (Bolman & Deal,
2008, p. 269).
When in a group setting, innovation is enhanced by collaboration. A modern day
evolution of collaboration is one in which co-creation with stakeholders transitions into coinnovation and is accomplished through “engagement, collaboration, and compelling
experience” (Lee, Olson & Trimi, 2012, Abstract). What is produced, then, are realized
outcomes, which either result in failures or big successes (Scherer & Harhoff, 2000). An
innovation may culminate in an intervention, new application of a previous model, or an
upgraded version of a system, process, or technology. Last, when successful, potential value is
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 10
added from innovation—to the organization, institution or design. However, to create value, a
validation process may be needed to determine an innovation’s necessity, or its appropriateness
for the perceived or stated need.
The Study
The definitions presented for innovation and leadership thus far offer a suitable
framework within which to explore ID practice in terms of a leadership approach critical to
releasing others or self for innovative work. Borrowing from an unrelated discipline, a backdrop
to this study is provided through a story of worker apathy and organizational rigidity that
combined to stymie personal creativity in one’s daily work. The story highlights the problem of a
lack of leadership on both organizational and personal levels that, ostensibly, prevented
innovation. Moreover, the story is used to explicate the under-discussed notion of leadership
from instructional designers. In the ensuing sections, various theories are interwoven with an
analysis of issues drawn from the story, followed by implications for ID. In this way, a case is
made for the criticality of innovation as a natural outcome of practice for an empowered course
designer who, ultimately, influences (leads) the modern learner and learning through innovative
designs.
Methodology
Stories from clients provide conceptual frameworks for instructional designers while
provoking ideas for innovative solutions to educational problems. Connelly and Clandinin (1990)
posited that “stories function as arguments in which we learn something essentially human by
understanding an actual life or community as lived” (p. 8). For these reasons, in addition to a
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 11
review of relevant literature, a story is told and analyzed in this paper. It is a tale of an actual
work experience which adds authenticity, a human dimension, to a discussion of the influence of
innovation, or lack thereof, on work and people.
Philip’s Story
Philip’s story spans a three-month period near the end of his work tenure in an
accounting department of a non-profit organization whose mission was to provide resource
services and counseling for families (fictitious names and dates have been used to protect the
participants). Philip’s work had been suffering of late; in fact, late (to work) was his usual modus
operandi. In addition, he left work early, missed deadlines and left others to finish reports needed
to meet the requirements of the department’s work cycle.
Philip commanded a confidential domain—the daily cash reconciliation; only a few were
privy to what his job entailed. Under his control were the receipts, the donations and other
income of the corporation. In the compartmentalized system, the expenditures of the organization
were managed by others who submitted a summary figure to him with which to complete his
daily report. Along with each other department member, the clerk additionally prepared a
monthly report on discrete data. This delimitation of data analysis and reporting afforded a check
and balance on individuals handling highly sensitive information. While important, the daily and
monthly reports were the sum total of Philip’s job purview. Leaving no room for creativity or
change at the personal level, the accounting processes in place were inflexible. In the
organization’s top-down management style with its prescribed methods and lock-step routines,
creativity and collaboration were discouraged. There was no ‘suggestion’ box.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 12
Philip was well-liked by most of the staff in the department. It seemed, on the surface,
that Philip was an asset and a supporter of the department and organization as a whole; however,
he had a habit of gossiping and firing off negative barbs at some of his co-workers. With a few
ill-chosen words from Philip, the spirits and motivation of the department would sometimes
plummet. Eventually, a new manager observed the clerk’s unprofessional behavior and over
several months had multiple, albeit, unfruitful discussions with the young man. Making no
progress, another missed deadline prompted a memo to the director. The manager outlined her
concerns and recommended that the director have a talk with Philip. Perhaps the young man
could be re-inspired to the mission of the organization and reminded of the reasons he sought the
current position over eight years before. On the other hand, there could be an unknown problem
with the job that called for a resolution. At the least, Philip needed to be admonished for his
verbal assault on the people that partnered with him in a common goal. The memo to the director
regarding Philip’s hindrance to this goal mentioned that the consequence of an unrecognized,
uncaring or unrepentant response might include dismissal, at the discretion of the director. A
discussion between Philip and the director ensued, during which he did, indeed, fire the young
man on the spot.
Analysis and Discussion of Work Innovation Issues
This story is not one of success rather one of failure by both leadership and worker. In it,
a picture emerged of how personal satisfaction is often prevented in an environment that lacks
creative opportunities or a change in routine. Additionally, the tale prompted the notion that, in
the absence of good positional leadership from an organization, applied personal leadership may
be an important conceptual framework by which to inspire one’s work within a restrictive
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 13
system. It further suggests that freedom to innovate may be more than desirable but necessary for
satisfying and successful work. Therefore, the story of Philip’s work failure can be summarized
in two overarching problems: a lack of provision by an organization’s leadership for innovation
and a lack of maximizing one’s efforts to innovate through personal leadership. Both imply an
erroneous mindset that stifles creativity and growth as discussed in the next sections. This is a
critical issue for ID given its nature as a creative process which must be fostered by both the
individual designer as well as the institution. Other critical issues extracted from this case are lost
vision, stifling systems, and strategies that impede innovation.
Mindset for innovation
The story suggests that the degree to which one is free to choose to apply a leadership
mindset to self and work, whether in a positional or nonpositional role (Gressick & Derry, 2010),
determines the potential for innovation. This was exampled by Philip when he accepted the
organizational leadership’s limited view of his capabilities. Demonstrating a lack of personal
leadership characteristics, Philip espoused no personal vision or strategy for developing one,
lacked a hard work ethic, and conveyed a diminished sense of integrity. His daily work provided
no ideation beyond the given tasks, no communication or collaboration with others for new
ideas, and no expression of what could be better. Moreover, he had not elevated his position or
effectiveness along what Covey (1989) called a Maturity Continuum—dependence to
independence to interdependence. The vacuum Philip found himself in had become a vortex of
boredom in which no one else existed; hence, he operated from an egocentric and stilted mindset.
Hence, Philip added little or no innovation to his work.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 14
Vision is critical to innovation
Another observation from the story of Philip is that an assumed original motivation by
the organization’s vision had been lost; his work motivation was no longer intrinsic. The duty to
perform an essential function in the organization had taken a secondary position to personal
concerns. In other words, an early glimpse of the vision had faded for Philip, perhaps, because it
had not been adequately shared or passed down (Howard & Wellins, 2008) by the organization’s
leaders. Howard and Wellins’ (2008) mega study of leaders found that junior leaders fail at their
jobs at an alarming rate and cited as the main reason a failure in passing on the vision of
leadership. This suggests that Philip may have been inadequately trained by the positional
leaders to fulfill his potential for personal leadership in terms of how to envision new ideas for
work.
Systems stifle innovation
Philip functioned in¸ and had adapted to, an inflexible organizational culture also known
as a closed system (Argyris & Schӧn, 1974)—a model of management that fosters static methods
in spite of its operations situated in a dynamic working world. According to Argyris and Schӧn
(1974), a closed system is one in which decisions are made, in this case from the top, for reasons
that “satisfy existing governing variables” (p. 19), which translates to suppressing rather than
welcoming competing interests or ideas. Consequently, the system prevented Philip from
maximizing his efforts. Constrained by a lack of power to express an innate need to change the
stifling work conditions, Philip demonstrated an inability to make free and informed choices.
Argyris and Schӧn suggested such a person may be frustrated by an inability to make decisions
within his capacities, or lacks opportunity to take responsibility for his choices based on a lack of
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 15
valid information. In addition, he had been given tasks but not the “values of the variables
relevant to his decision [s]” (p. 88). Because of this lack of communication from leadership,
Philip was disallowed the freedom to objectify his tasks. Argyris and Schӧn commented on this
state, “Freedom of choice depends on one’s ability to select objectives that challenge one’s
capacities within a tolerable range” (p. 89). In his case, Philip’s capacity for personal leadership
was not challenged hence ideation for innovation was prevented.
Strategies control innovation
Two strategic barriers to innovation taken from the story are fostering a less collaborative
environment and routine. Unlike the strategy employed by the organization in Philip’s story,
some organizations have learned that satisfaction and meaning emanate from high involvement,
when all have a voice. Bolman and Deal (2008) analyzed a successful venture between New
United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. and General Motors in which teams and collaboration were
stressed. They posited that “taking the time to hear people’s ideas and concerns and to make sure
that all involved have the talent, confidence, and expertise necessary to carry out their new
responsibilities is a requisite of successful innovation” (p. 382). In Philip’s story, one or a few in
positions of leadership controlled work outcomes with predicted personal achievement levels for
the staff. Without the ideas of a collective unit to ignite new thoughts from engaging in
collaboration , innovation was thwarted.
Second, routine is a deterrent to innovation, and may be instigated by positional leaders
(Bolman & Deal, 2008), which was evident in Philip’s case. Philip’s position was necessary but
not particularly difficult. He was a cog in a wheel; his work, routine. The organization’s human
resource utilization strategy had marginalized him and quelled his passion by relegating him to a
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 16
‘worker bee’ role (Ashbaugh & Piña, 2012). Discouraged with what seemed to be a dead-end
job, Philip’s performance waned and, as a result, he was less useful to the cause. However, the
new manager recognized a long-neglected problem, an uninspired employee unchallenged by
routine. In this condition, Philip’s work standards had diminished.
Innovation often precedes an increase in standards however Bolman and Deal (2008)
claimed that “A manager may sacrifice quality to avoid changing a well-established routine” (p.
27). The machinery of the accounting department had long ago dictated rote processes to be
followed without variation. The routine imposed on Philip had created a regressive state in his
problem-solving skills as the goals of his work no longer required learning. A close relative to
routine is sameness. George Buckley, CEO of 3M remarked that “when you value sameness
more than you value creativity, I think you potentially undermine the heart and soul of a
company…” (Hindo, 2007, p. 9). In contrast to approaches that prevent innovation, successful
organizations thrive on a smooth, continuous flow of operations through strategies that build
cohesive teams yet inspire individual creative expression toward innovation.
Implications for ID
Several implications for ID may be drawn from the story and analysis presented, of
which focusing on the vision of the institution and its mission is foremost. From an educational
leadership mindset, the learner and learning embody that mission; for the instructional designer,
the academic course design fulfills it. Conceptualized for ID, leadership resists doing the
traditional (Ashbaugh, 2012b; Naidu, 2003) and envisions a better solution while embracing
change (Campbell et al., 2009) for quality and depth of learning (Parrish, 2009). In this way,
leadership extends the role of designers toward guiding innovative solutions for online learning.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 17
One of the pillars of ID practice is to assess a target, and to aim for the need. In the story,
Philip had lost sight of the target, the group he was helping to serve although not because they
were illusive. In contrast, an instructional designer is challenged by a continually moving target
in a fast-paced, changing world. The needs of learners yesterday are not the same as those today
and will certainly change by tomorrow. A mindset open to new things and ideas is critical to
formulating effective designs that will carry education into the future for the undulating
population of students in this modern era.
Ultimately, an expectation of design is to ensure better outcomes for a diverse learning
group, which often demands envisioning effective solutions (Ashbaugh, 2013) in the face of
uncertainty or nonsupport from others. The designer has a choice: to look to someone else’s
work or mandates for inspiration—for example, an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution—or to create
something new, to innovate for added value to learner outcomes. However, positional leadership
assesses what is required to fulfill the organizational or institutional vision with sustainable
affordances. Meanwhile, the onus to demonstrate a potential increase in engagement, retention,
and learning through a new affordance rests on the instructional designer or technologist. Not
unlike the character in Philip’s story, often course designers acquiesce to management in lieu of
pursuing appropriate solutions. This demonstration of powerlessness was observed by Campbell
et al. (2009) who found instructional designers in moral conflict with client epistemologies but
lacked a sense of power to make changes. The suggestion is that if one has an idea that does not
fit into a rigid mold or the ‘model’ followed by the institution, an innovative thought may be
repressed before it is given life.
In response, activation of personal leadership characteristics empowers one to resist an
inflexible mandate in lieu of voicing a vision and strategy for a ‘better or new idea’ toward
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 18
satisfying learner needs. How many instructional designers or technologists are suppressed by a
positional leadership model that stifles invention with a prescribed path, as did the worker in the
story? If one in this situation speaks up to identify a flaw in the design or a potential hindrance
to learning, are they listened to or encouraged to innovate a solution? Frequently, from an
intractable position, the institution declares, ‘This is the way we have always done it’ (Ashbaugh
& Piña, 2012) and rebuffs change. In contrast, from a more democratized approach, the concepts
of rigid and routine can be disrupted through ID leadership when applied to design work, with a
potential for flexible, sustainable and adoptable options for the institution.
In Philip’s story, the organization resisted change which translated to an attitude of
change was not necessary, that the old ways were sufficient for modern day operations. For
academic institutions, a barrier to new ideas may be framed by the question, ‘Is innovation
always necessary to lead in provisioning change for contemporary learning’? One objection to
the significant effort spent in mapping out ways and means to keep up with the pace of
technological advances lies in the notion of decreasing scientific advances. Some have projected
that technology’s computing capacity will outpace the power of the human brain by 2020
(Moravec, 1998). At the same time, Moravec (1998) argued that the limits of technology would
reach a pinnacle and slow down within 30 years.
At present, a prediction of technological slowdown seems unlikely, as the literature is
replete with reports on the advances and benefits of new technologies. However, if a decrease in
technological capacities and complexities does occur, a form of critical mass, how much more
innovation will be required? Fullan (2001) discussed “pell-mell innovation” and summarized
leading in an unpredictable environment,
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 19
This is the leader’s dilemma. On the one hand, failing to act when the environment
around you is radically changing leads to extinction. On the other hand, making quick
decisions under conditions of mind-racing mania can be equally fatal. (p. v)
Consequently, strategic leadership is required from instructional designers to develop new and
more accurate ways of assessing the trends in technologies as well as conducting diligent
research on corresponding learner needs.
Innovations hold the potential to express and promote added value to a learner, to the
institution, and to society. In spite of the often myopic approaches of organizations and
institutions, within each individual exists leadership potential, the ability and capability to lead
others, especially when he or she first pays attention to and leads oneself (Geldart, 2012;
Maxwell, 2008). Geldart (2012) maintained in his primer on self-leadership that an investment in
self is ultimately an investment in the group and its efforts. This suggests that an opportunity for
innovation exists as an outcome of personal leadership toward the work group—team,
organizational, or institutional—goals.
Taken together, these ideas suggest an instructional designer will exhibit leadership as
she understands and motivates herself to inspire and communicate new ideas through innovative
technologies appropriately assigned to the design; to provide leadership for the planning,
development, and delivery of exemplary academic products; and, will work collaboratively with
colleagues to ensure a unified approach for high-quality, innovative standards in the learning
industry. Moreover, an instructional designer will lead by example with character built on values,
including a duty to learners to provide the optimal learning environment and affordances.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 20
Conclusion
The story in this study activated a discussion of how to approach the work of
instructional designers or educational technologists with innovation framed by leadership, both
positional and personal. At the same time, more questions have been raised that need to be
addressed with further research. They include the following: How do we inspire and elevate
designers to create from a place of personal leadership? How do we develop strategies for ID that
will ensure appropriate innovations are implemented to keep pace with modern technologies and
learning connections? And, how do we ensure institutions release academic course designers to
innovate, to do what they are trained to do?
Perhaps, the greatest challenge for instructional designers as leaders of cultural change
(Fullan, 2001) is whether to promote innovation with changing technologies or to slow the
search for new ways and means. Framing the choices for current and future learners in this way,
in itself, is a leadership level decision requiring prescience and deep, reflective thought. While
critically examining the value of enduring instructional and learning theories, the designer offers
additional value when she transcends the fray and centers her practice on an abiding moral
purpose that underpins personal leadership. That moral purpose will include incorporating
current learning theory and an accurate assessment of what is necessary and appropriate for
sustained learning throughout one’s lifetime of work. This argument resonates with Stephen
Covey’s statement that "personal leadership is not a singular experience. It is, rather, the ongoing
process of keeping your vision and values before you and aligning your life to be congruent with
those most important things” (Covey, 2004, p. 132). For ID practice, the learner is that most
important thing.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 21
References
Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2012, July). Newly
adopted AECT standards. -News Flash!, 9-12. Retrieved from http://aect.siteym.com/resource/resmgr/Newsletters/Current.pdf
Archer, D. & Cameron¸ A. (2013). Collaborative Leadership: Building Relationships, Handling
Conflict and Sharing Control (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ashbaugh, M. L. (in press). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies
critical to global practice and quality learning designs. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education. Available from personal website: www.DRMLAshbaugh.com
Ashbaugh, M.L. (2013). Leadership from ID (instructional design) for Web 2.0 adoption:
Appropriate use of emerging technologies in online courses. In C. Wenkel & P.
Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention in e-learning
environments: Web 2.0 and blended learning technologies, Cutting edge technologies in
higher education, (Vol. 7). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2012). Online pedagogical quality questioned: Probing instructional
designers' perceptions of leadership competencies critical to practice. [Dissertation]
Capella University. ProQuest: 3460621.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 22
Ashbaugh, M. L. & Piña, A. (2012). Conceptualizing instructional design processes through
leadership competencies and modeling. Paper presented at the AECT July 2012 Research
Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Available at www.DRMLAshbaugh.com
Beaudoin, M. F. (2007). Distance education leadership: An appraisal of research and practice. In
M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 391-402). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, K., Schwier, R. & Kenny, R. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional
design in higher education: an emerging model of change agency. Educational
Technology, Research & Development, 57(5), 645-663. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6
Carnegie, D. (1936/2009). How to win friends and influence people (Reissue edition). New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Chen, C. J., Wu, J., Yang, S. C. & Tsou, H-Y. (2008). Importance of diversified leadership roles
in improving team effectiveness in a virtual collaboration learning environment.
[ELECTRONIC VERSION] Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 304-321.
Retrieved June 30, 2010 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_1/22.pdf
Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
[ELECTRONIC VERSION]. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14. Retrieved March 12,
2013 from
http://web.utk.edu/~cdavis80/documents/qual/Connelly%20and%20Clandinin.pdf
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 23
Covey, S. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal
change. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in
teaching and learning. In Springer International Handbook of Information Technology in
Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20, pp. 43-62). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-733159_3
Dede, C. & Bjerede, M. (2010). Mobile wireless devices that empower engagement, learning,
and assessment. Presented at the ISTE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 27–30,
2010, Denver, CO.
Dede, C., Dieterle, E., Clarke, J., Jass-Ketelhut, D. & Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning
styles. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 339-352).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Geldart, P. (2012). Lead yourself, lead others. Eagle’s Flight, Creative Training Excellence, Inc.
[ELECTRONIC VERSION]. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from
http://eaglesflight.sites.hubspot.com/lead-yourself-lead-others-download
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 24
Gressick, J. & Derry, S. J. (2010). Distributed leadership in online groups. [ELECTRONIC
VERSION]. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 211-236. Retrieved
February 1, 2011 from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11412-010-9086-4
Hindo, B. (2007). (2007, June). At 3M, A struggle between efficiency and creativity.
[ELECTRONIC VERSION]. Business Week. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from
http://msubillings.edu/BusinessFaculty/larsen/MGMT321/3M%20Innovations/3M%20str
uggle%20between%20efficiency%20and%20creativity%20BW%206-11-07.pdf
Hong, H. & Sullivan, F. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to
support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 57(5), 613-627. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9122-0
Howard, A. & Wellins, R. S. (2008). Global leadership forecast 2008|2009: Overcoming the
shortfalls in developing leaders. [REPORT]. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/globalleadershipforecast2008-2009_globalreport_ddi.pdf
Innovation (2008). In Miriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster, Inc.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI). (2000).
Instructional design competencies report. International Board of Standards for Training,
Performance and Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.ibstpi.org/downloads/InstructionalDesignCompetencies.pdf
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 25
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? [ELECTRONIC
VERSION]. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60. Retrieved June 15, 2010
from http://journals.aomonline.org/amp
Kotter, J. P. (2008). What leaders really do. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership: A
Jossey-Bass reader (2nd ed., pp. 5–15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Wiley.
Larson, M. B. & Lockee, B. B. (2009). Preparing instructional designers for different career
environments: A case study. Educational Technology, Research and Development 57, 124. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9031-4
Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L. &Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and
co-creation for organizational values. [ELECTRONIC VERSION] Management
Decision, 50(5), 817–831. Retrieved March 21, 2013 from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17031947&show=abstract
Maxwell, J.C. (2008). Leadership gold: Lessons I've learned from a lifetime of leading.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
McClelland, J.L. & Rogers, T.T. (2003).The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic
cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 310-322. [ELECTRONIC VERSION].
Retrieved March 18, 2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn1076
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 26
McFarlane, D.A. (2011). The leadership roles of distance learning administrators (DLAs) in
increasing educational value and quality perceptions. [ELECTRONIC VERSION].
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,4(1), Retrieved March 26, 2013
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring141/McFarlane141.html
Mill, W. C. (2010). Training to survive the workplace of today. [ELECTRONIC VERSION]
Industrial and Commercial Training, 42 (5), 270-273(4). Retrieved March 1, 2013 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197851011057573
Montgomery, C. (2012). The strategist: Be the leader your business needs. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Moravec, H. P. (1998). When will computer hardware match the human brain? [ELECTRONIC
VERSION Journal of Evolution and Technology, 1. Retrieved from March 1, 2013
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Odom, S. F., Boyd, B. L. & Williams, J. (2012). Impact of personal growth projects on
leadership identity development. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 49-63.
Retrieved March 13, 2013 from
http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources/Documents/jole/2012_Winter/JOLE%201
1%201%20 (Winter%202012).pdf#page=61
Reay, R. (1986). Bridging the gap: A model for integrating theory and practice. British Journal
of Social Work, 16, 65-77.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 27
Scherer, F.M. & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed
outcomes. [ELECTRONIC VERSION]. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 559-566. Retrieved
March 30, 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873339900089X
Scott, G., Coates, H. & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic
leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. [Report]. University of Western
Sydney and Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from
http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/UWSACER_CarrickLeadershipReport.pdf
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984/2007). (Eds.). Leadership and excellence in schooling: Excellent schools
need freedom within boundaries. In T. Sergiovanni (Ed.), Rethinking leadership: A
collection of articles. (pp. 5-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Sims, R. (2009). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online
teaching and learning environments. In J. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist instructional design
(C-ID): Foundations, models, and practical examples (pp. 379-391). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Spector, J.M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology.
Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, 27−37. [ELECTRONIC VERSION]. Retrieved
on May 15, 2011 from
http://moodle.asw.waw.pl/pluginfile.php/69313/mod_resource/content/0/39-142-1PB.pdf
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 28
Sun, G. & Yao, S. (2012). Investigating the relation between cognitive load and creativity in the
conceptual design process. [ELECTRONIC VERSION] Proceedings of The Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting – 2012, 308-312. Retrieved March
21, 2013 http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/308.full.pdf+html
Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 2010, 1(1), 1-16. [ELECTRONIC VERSION].
Retrieved on May 15, 2011 from http://cedtech.net/articles/11/111.pdf
Zenger, J. & Folkman, J (2009). The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into great
leaders (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 29
Figure 1. Components of leadership and innovation compared and linked to a new thing or idea.
Personal Leadership for Design Innovation 30