**3.4 The proposal is named a finalist**

By the October 4 deadline, 49 proposals had been submitted. A few days later, all were posted on the College web site. Over a period of roughly two weeks, more than 3,500 interested parties reviewed the proposals and shared their likes. Their preferences, as well as the scores assigned by members of the Panel during their first reading, narrowed the field to twenty.

In the final weeks of October, Panel members more carefully reviewed the top twenty proposals. On October 25, members met, talked about those twenty, and then voted to reduce the proposals still under consideration to eight. For a few more hours, the Panel engaged in further detailed conversation and then voted again. Although the author did participate in conversation about various proposals, as agreed in late summer, in neither round did the author vote for the Leadership Proposal. Nevertheless, it was named one of the four finalists selected. Two of the other finalists respectively called for a new academic major and construction of a new facility. The fourth, a Foresight Thinking Proposal, also a bit radical, called for development of skills among students, such as systems analysis and scenario planning.

#### **3.5 The author takes on new responsibilities**

Guidelines for the Challenge called for (1) submission of written implementation plans to the Panel by mid-April, and (2) a public pitch to a live audience on May 2, 2020. Near the end of the meeting, members of the Board of Trustees stepped forward to respectively serve as mentors for one of the four finalist proposals. As well, faculty or administrators who were members of the Panel volunteered to serve as facilitators among Panel members, mentors, and one of the four sets of originators.

Of note, of the four finalists selected, the Leadership Proposal was the only one that had been originated by alumni. Therefore, unlike other originators, who were

*The Imperative—and the Challenges—of Introducing a Citizen-Leader Development Program… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100002*

staff or faculty, the two alumni could not, for logistical reasons, directly engage on a regular basis with members of the internal college community for the purpose of converting their Proposal into an implementation plan (Leadership Plan or Plan). Therefore, given the investment already made, the author agreed to serve both as facilitator and internal coordinator for the Plan. The author understood there was much work ahead.

#### **3.6 From proposal to implementation plan**

### *3.6.1 Efforts to understand context*

Over the winter months, the author took some important steps. First, he talked at length with staff in the Division of Student Life who explained the scores of opportunities for student leadership at the College. As well, he heard for the first time about the Social Change Model of Leadership Development developed by Komives, Wagner, and Associates [7]. He also learned the Model was strongly advocated by many members the Division, and that it was the foundation of a national survey. In fact, every two years, staff administered the survey to the Dickinson student body and forwarded information to a national clearing house, and in return received the national survey results for internal use.

The author also spoke with several other members of the College community and heard impressive and fascinating ideas. For team building, coaches had student-athletes complete community service projects prior to a season; or engage in self-reflection and then share personal stories with teammates. Faculty in the performing arts asserted the importance of teamwork and leadership by students in department endeavors. The Director the College's renowned Center for Global Study and Engagement described opportunities and activities to help students cultivate intercultural competency and life skills.

As the weeks passed, some parties with whom the author spoke admitted they did not know about leadership approaches used by colleagues in other domains of the College, and sometimes, not even by colleagues in their home department. The absence of general awareness within and across domains suggested to the author the existence of silos and an opportunity for the Leadership Plan to add value to the College community.

Furthermore, the author was encouraged, as many of those with whom he spoke agreed they had the time and interest of serving on an Implementation Team (Team) to shape the Implementation Plan. By the start of the semester, twelve members of the community, representing the offices of admissions, development, student life, athletics, and academic disciplines had agreed to serve.

#### *3.6.2 A senior seminar*

While contemplating the focus of his spring 2020 senior seminar about Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the author decided that conversion of the Leadership Proposal into a Plan would provide an important example of an initiative intended to create social value. Influenced by conversations over the winter months and to gain greater insight about leadership theories, among other readings such as the Strategic Plan of the College and material related to the Challenge, the author included in the syllabus the books by Komives et al. [7] and Kouzes and Posner [12]. As well, the author required students to write reflective essays about their personal values and growth over four years, even as they engaged in their individual commentary about the Plan.

### *3.6.3 Managing the team*

During the spring 2020 semester, the Implementation Team met on a bi-weekly basis. The central topic was the content of the Proposal and the notion of leadership as it pertained to their respective domains. The most significant intellectual challenges were (1) translating the emphasis in the Proposal on participation in projects to development of leadership characteristics, and (2) imagining the appropriate organizational structure needed for having community members shape a common vocabulary. As end of the semester neared, the author heard words of frustration among members of the Team: e.g., "What are we trying to accomplish?" The author now recognizes that the question and implied criticism were justified. The Team had spent most of its time, without resolution, on task (1) and much less on task (2).
