President's Emerging Leaders Program

Persistent link for this collection

Historical note:

Administered by the Office of Human Resources, the primary goals of the President's Emerging Leaders program were to identify, prepare, and support new leadership within the University of Minnesota; to create a larger pool of candidates to fill open positions and/or leadership assignments; and to create an organizational expectation whereby all administrators assume responsibility for identifying and nurturing potential leaders.

Each year, the President's Emerging Leaders program offered a cohort of selected high potential P & A, Civil Service, and Bargaining Unit staff structured but flexible development opportunities to further prepare them to provide significant leadership at the University. Individuals were nominated by University leaders and selected by a special review committee to participate in the 12-month program featuring educational and experiential components aimed at fostering a broad perspective of the University as an enterprise and promoting skill development to enhance effectiveness.

Collection description:

Collection includes final reports, summaries, and presentations from 2004 to 2012.

Search within President's Emerging Leaders Program


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 20 of 45
  • Item
    Master Gardener Program
    (University of Minnesota, 2012) Allen, Andrew; Goracke-Postle, Cory; Jones-White, Daniel; Overtoom, Michelle; Schultz, Amber
  • Item
    An Initial Assessment of Intercultural Competency Work at the University of Minnesota
    (University of Minnesota, 2012) Auzenne, Vikki; Blodgett, Jayne; Blomster, Alison; Long, Maureen; McDaniel, Michael
  • Item
    Development of an Enhanced Marketing Plan for The Aurora Center: Final Report
    (University of Minnesota, 2012) Anderson, David; Aro, Matthew; Foster, Sara; Mason, Anne; Nelson, Heather
  • Item
    Innovation Framework: A way to advance ideas that make an impact
    (University of Minnesota, 2012) Bentrim, Jennifer; DeVriendt, Rod; Geller, Susan; McElvain, Jean; Noran, Rebecca; Schnell, Eric
  • Item
    Cultivating the Art of Hosting at the University of Minnesota
    (University of Minnesota, 2012) Carriere, Brenda; Freeman, Ellen; Jetter, Mary; Nelson, Chris; Straub, Terry
  • Item
    A More Inclusive U: A look at the prevalence of bullying, relational aggression, and exclusion among undergraduate students--and what we can do about it
    (University of Minnesota, 2011) Andre, Susan; Ellsworth, Chad; Saunoi-Sandgren, Emily; Spanks, Jamie; Xenos, Stephanie
  • Item
    A Planning Toolkit for the University of Minnesota
    (University of Minnesota, 2011) Fisher, Meredith; Peifer, Amber; Rohman, Paige; Semrow, Chuck; Vetter, Brian J.
  • Item
    The Sophmore Year Experience Final Report
    (University of Minnesota, 2011-06-20) Casper, Jeremy J.; Khoury, Aron J.; Lashbaugh, Kristy D.; Reusch, Alyssa M.
  • Item
    Graduate School Transition Communications Plan: Stakeholder Analysis
    (University of Minnesota, 2011-04-22) Dussault, Erik; Eklund, Eric; Germain, Jennifer; Petersen, Christina; Rogers, Lisa
  • Item
    Managing Disruptive Innovation at the University of Minnesota
    (University of Minnesota, 2011) Goenner, Faith; Karki, Apeckchya; Merrill, Andrew; Storey, Larry; Sullivan, Melissa
  • Item
    Teaching 21st Century Literacies
    (University of Minnesota, 2010) Bunn, Holly; Christy, Justin; Jenkins, Jeremy; Marchiafava, Jason; Porter, Amy
  • Item
    Student Social Platform Initiative
    (University of Minnesota, 2010) Butler, Ted; Carlson, Keith; Isensee, Beth; Jones, Alissa; Leeth, Toni; Werner, Michael
  • Item
    Multimillion-Dollar Interdisciplinary International Scholarship: Issues and Recommendations
    (University of Minnesota, 2010-06) Gandrow, Kristen; Kampsen, Amy; Massel, Sandy; Shultz, Joseph; Silvera, Deanne
  • Item
    The Family Friendly Workplace
    (University of Minnesota, 2010) Coon, April; Dana, William; Levi, Ginny; Schwab, Barbara; Wagner, Heidi
  • Item
    NCAA Certification Self Study
    (2008) University of Minnesota: President's Emerging Leaders Program
    The NCAA began a program of certification for all Division 1 institutions in 1993 and now conducts certification reviews of each institution every ten years. The University of Minnesota was last certified in 1999 and is now beginning its second certification cycle. The NCAA certification process has three primary components: 1) a comprehensive self-study performed by the institution; 2) an external peer review conducted by representatives of peer institutions; and 3) the actual certification decision by the NCAA. The entire process takes 18 months to complete. The NCAA views the certification process as a key component in demonstrating its fundamental commitment to integrity in intercollegiate athletics by: * opening the affairs of athletics to the university community and the public; * setting standards for the operation of Division 1 programs; and * putting tough sanctions in place for institutions that fail to conduct a comprehensive self-study or to correct problems. The University's self-study will assess our program in the areas of academic integrity, equity, student-athlete well being, and governance and rules compliance. Sub-committees have been established to complete the self-study in each of these respective areas. Our stated goals for this effort are to: * Affirm the alignment of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics with the University of Minnesota's mission and its commitment to uncompromising integrity. * Affirm that the activities of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics are consistent with NCAA, Big Ten, and University principles, rules, and policies. * Inform the University and broader public communities about the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics' processes, goals, and purposes. * Provide a comprehensive, public, and transparent dialogue about the role of intercollegiate athletics in the University experience. * Identify opportunities to improve the operations of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, the University (where appropriate), and the overall experience of our student-athletes. * Develop specific action plans to act upon the opportunities identified. * Identify areas of excellence and best practices for broader adoption. * Receive an unconditional certification from the NCAA Certification Committee.
  • Item
    Toward Implementation of Administrative Metrics
    (University of Minnesota, 2008-06-30) Beyer, Jessica; Gillard, Steve; Howe, Andy; VanSteenbergen, Julie
    The Best Practice Management Tools Task Force/Administrative Service and Productivity Steering Committee was charged by the U of M president in 2005 to identify key outcome-based measurements by which the University could assess administrative functions' performance and benchmark their activities. This system is intended to be in direct alignment with and supportive of the University's overall metrics and strategic management systems. These metrics are specifically intended to measure the performance of common administrative/operational activities that occur at a variety of organizational levels throughout the institution in order to allow for information-based decision making about the University's administrative functions. These metrics are positioned in the context of other measures such as: the University's top-level metrics, Academic Units' Compact Scorecard metrics, unique unit metrics, and strategic initiative measures. This has been an evolving body of work that is now being driven by the University Administrative Team as a part of Transforming the U. The University Administrative Team has refined and endorsed an administrative metrics system that primarily utilizes a “scorecard approach” that will be cascaded into the organization. An underlying premise of this system is that administrative operations should be assessed holistically to get at the idea that operations are marbled throughout the institution (i.e., central administrative units and colleges). Metric categories and suggested measures have been defined for each quadrant of the scorecard. Discussions have begun about data sources for the suggested measures and the scorecards are currently being piloted in three management systems – IT, HR, and Space/Facilities. Administrative leaders are counting on this system to be a critical information source for assessing the performance of their respective disciplines throughout the Institution.
  • Item
    HIPAA and Research
    (2008-06-30) University of Minnesota: President's Emerging Leaders Program
    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) contains provisions that have significant implications for University researchers who use health information in their research. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, effective April of 2003, defined the types of organizations that are subject to HIPAA and the concept of Protected Health Information (PHI). The Privacy Rule specified that PHI could be used, created, or disclosed for research purposes only if authorized by a signed authorization, or waiver of that authorization by an Institutional Review Board or Privacy Board. The HIPAA Security Rule, effective April 2005, defines electronic PHI and establishes required and addressable administrative, physical, and technical safeguards that must be implemented to protect the privacy and confidentiality of PHI in electronic format. Most research data is maintained locally by investigators using a variety of technologies that may range from Personal Digital Assistants and laptop computers to multi-user shared data repositories. The use of personal workstations running simple single-user database or spreadsheet programs is common in research settings. Compliance with the Security Rule for these types of systems will vary widely depending on the data and how it is created, used, shared, or stored. As a practical matter, many researchers may not possess the skill set or have the resources to fully implement the safeguards required by HIPAA. Information technology groups that do possess the requisite skills may have limited resources to support the hundreds of researchers who work with health data. In addition, some widely used computer technologies are not compliant with the Security Rule. Examples include workstations with no login security (e.g., Windows98) and data management and analysis applications used to store PHI that have no ability to generate audit trails. A common example would be the use of Excel spreadsheets containing ePHI, for which there is no technical capability to generate an audit trail, which is one of the required Technical Safeguards. There are know compliance risks associated with health data and many common security needs in research. The University needs to develop a strategic response to the challenges of securing private data in research. The response needs to allow for the various and important needs for access to and sharing of research data while ensuring that the data is safeguarded in a method that meets compliance requirements and institutional expectations.
  • Item
    Collaborative Leadership Development
    (2008-06-26) University of Minnesota: President's Emerging Leaders Program
    The University's Strategic Positioning process recognized the University's need and capacity to successfully engage in interdisciplinary inquiry as essential to realizing the institution's goal of becoming a top three public research university. Many of the skills required to effectively lead collaborative teams engaged in interdisciplinary teaching, research, scholarship, or artistic work are not routinely taught within the academic and professional curriculum. The objective of the Collaborative Leadership Development Project is to define the competencies, learning outcomes, assessment strategies, training modules, and resources needed to develop a comprehensive program designed to prepare University faculty, staff, postdocs, and graduate students to successfully lead collaborative teams engaged in interdisciplinary inquiry.
  • Item
    Aligning and Delivering Research Metrics That Support the University's Goal of Becoming a Top Three Public Research University
    (2008-06-30) University of Minnesota: President's Emerging Leaders Program
    As the University seeks to become one of the top three public research universities in the world within the next ten years, it will become more and more important that we have appropriate and sustainable ways to measure our success, particularly, as it relates to research. So the question is how do we measure excellence in research activity? As Tim Mulcahy, Vice President for Research, noted in his December 2006 status of Research report to the Board of Regents: “No single research metric is reflective of overall quality or prominence.” His report showed that the university remains one of the top public research universities and has a growing, well-balanced research portfolio that is seeing notable increases in research funding and technology commercialization. However, competition among research universities for declining research dollars is increasing significantly; therefore, the University must continue to work aggressively through its strategic positioning efforts and initiatives to compete successfully for research dollars. For many years, the Office of the Vice President for Research had collected statistics on the level of research activity at the University, such as numbers of proposals and awards and the level of expenditures for research activity. In addition, reports from entities such as the National Science Foundation and The Center for Measuring University Performance, provide data on comparable institutions across the country. This project will review the various metrics collected by the institution and external organizations and after careful analysis will determine what additional information related to research activity is needed in order to demonstrate that the institution is making progress toward our goal.
  • Item
    Implementing Student Development Outcomes
    (University of Minnesota, 2009) Abuzzahab, Jeff; Garibaldi, Korey; Huesman, Ron; Peterson, Heather; Sutter, Gwen
    In 2007, the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities adopted Student Learning and Development Outcomes to frame the undergraduate experience. These outcomes are intended to define a common vision across campus regarding the types of skills and characteristics we expect of our graduates. This project specifically looks at ways to integrate the Student Development Outcomes (SDO) into various programs and activities across campus and to develop a strategy for significantly expanding the number of students having the opportunity to reflect upon their experiences through the framework of the SDO. In brief, the Student Development Outcomes include the following: responsibility and accountability,goal orientation, resilience, tolerance of ambiguity, independence and interdependence, self awareness, and appreciation of differences. We talk about these outcomes as characteristics which we expect students to both demonstrate as they participate in our academic environment and to develop further as they engage in learning experiences in and outside of the curriculum. Students, of course, come to our campus with these characteristics already developed to some extent – they would not have been successful students in high school without some of these characteristics. We also know that the maturation we (often) see in students during their undergraduate years is related to growth in these areas. The PEL project will create a range of tools that are adaptable by faculty and staff to fit the variety of ways in which they interact with students, including setting expectations for student performance in the classroom, advising student organizations, supervising student employees/lab assistants, and working on research projects or mentoring students.