Transcript Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership

Operationalizing
the Social Change
Model
Findings from a National Study
of Leadership
*
Association for the Study of Higher Education
November 2007
*
John P. Dugan, Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago
Kristan Cilente, Senior Coordinator, University of Maryland
Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs, University of Maryland, ACPA Educational Leadership
Foundation, & NASPA Foundation
 MSL/ NCLP, 2007
Abstract
This study examines college outcomes associated
with the social change model of leadership
development (Higher Education Research
Institute, 1996) using a representative sample of
more than 50,000 participants from 52 institutions
across the United States. Students report highest
scores on the leadership construct of commitment
and lowest scores on the construct of change.
Female students report greater levels of
competence than their male peers on seven of the
eight leadership measures. Additional results are
examined by race and sexual orientation.
Theoretical Framework:
The Social Change Model
Change
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual model for the study was an adapted
version of Astin’s (1991) IEO college impact model.
Inputs controlled for what a student brings to college
(e.g., demographics, pre-college experiences, precollege attitudes) and environments examined
aspects of the collegiate experience (i.e., distal
aspects such as the type of institution as well as
proximal aspects such as amount of involvement,
leadership training, mentoring, and discussions of
socio-cultural issues) that predicted theoretically
grounded leadership outcomes. An adapted IEO
format was used given the research was crosssectional with retrospective questions capturing data
for pre-college variables.
Research Questions
This study specifically addressed the
following questions:
 How do students score nationally on eight
theoretically grounded measures of
leadership designed to operationalize the
social change model?
 What is the relationship between various
demographic variables (e.g., race, gender,
sexual orientation) and student scores across
the eight leadership measures?
Method
• Web-based survey administration
• Instrument draws largely on a
revised version of the Socially
Responsible Leadership Scale
(Tyree, 1998)
• Alphas ranged from high of .83 on
Commitment to a low of .76 on
Controversy with Civility
Final Sample
The final sample for this study is comprised
of 50,378 cases with a return rate of 37%
Descriptive features of the sample include the following:
•Even distribution across class standing
•24% transfer students (n = 12,300)
•15% first generation college students (n = 7,181)
•Mean age was 21 years old (SD = 4.78)
•28% identified as students of color (n = 14,262)
•Females (62%, n = 30,960) slightly overrepresented
compared to males (38%, n = 19,183)
•3% identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (n = 1,700)
•43 identified as transgendered
Overall findings
Students reported high scores on the value of Commitment
(m = 4.24) and low scores on the value of Change (m = 3.75).
Participants reported neutrality approaching agreement (i.e.,
scores hovered around a four which is the equivalent of
agreement) across the majority of the SCM values.
Differences by Gender
The MANOVA with gender as the independent variable revealed
statistically significant mean differences. Independent sample t
tests showed statistically significant mean differences across all of
the dependent variables with women reporting higher scores than
their male peers on all scales except Change. Men scored
significantly higher than women on the Change scale although the
effect size was trivial (np2 = .001). Effect sizes indicated a
magnitude of difference worth consideration for the following:
Congruence (F = 397.28, p < .01, np2 = .01), Commitment (F =
545.10, p < .01, np2 = .01), Collaboration (F = 396.13, p < .01, np2 =
.01), Common Purpose (F = 355.91, p < .01, np2 = .01), and
Controversy with Civility (F = 459.08, p < .01, np2 = .01).
Differences by Race
Follow-up tests showed statistically significant mean differences across
all of the dependent variables. The following scales show a magnitude of
difference worth consideration: Consciousness of Self (F = 110.180, p <
.01, np2 = .01), Congruence (F = 68.64, p < .01, np2 = .01), Commitment
(F = 62.04, p < .01, np2 = .01), Controversy with Civility (F = 63.52, p <
.01, np2 = .01), Citizenship (F = 45.89, p < .01, np2 = .01), and Change (F
= 69.71, p < .01, np2 = .01). Highlights from these results include:
 African American/ Black students reported significantly higher
mean scores than White students on Consciousness of Self,
Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change.
 Asian Americans scored significantly lower than all racial
categories on Consciousness of Self. They scored significantly lower
than peers in all categories except Native Americans on:
Congruence, Commitment, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship,
and Change.
Differences by Sexual
Orientation
The sexual orientation variable was collapsed into
the following categories: Heterosexual, Gay or
Bisexual, and Rather Not Say. The analysis revealed
statistically significant mean differences based on
sexual orientation. However, follow-up tests were
not conducted given the effect size was determined
to be trivial and significance likely a result of power
(Cohen, 1988).
Implications
Overall
– The descriptive data collected from this
study provide a national normative database
representing theoretically derived outcomes
useful for institutional benchmarking.
– Descriptive scores across leadership
outcomes suggest ample room for student
development that can be targeted by
institutional interventions.
Implications
Gender
– Findings related to gender support previous
research on women and leadership (Astin &
Leland, 1991; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, &
van Engen, 2003; Eagly, Karau, &
Makhijani, 1995; Helgesen, 1990) that
suggest a female “leadership advantage.”
– Findings may also be useful in the process of
refuting persistent stereotypes regarding
women’s capacity for leadership (Eagly &
Carli, 2003).
Implications
Race
– Efficacy research notes the importance of
meaningful experiences and affirmations in
establishing realistic self-efficacy for any
phenomena (Bandura, 1997). Results for African
American and Black students can be used to
combat persisting, negative stereotypes
regarding leadership capacity.
– Future research should focus on both
disaggregating data by ethnicity to examine
findings and conducting conditional analyses to
examine if influences associated with race hold
in the presence of control variables. Conditional
analyses also provide opportunities to examine
unique predictors for individual populations.
Implications
Sexual Orientation
– Although significant differences were not
found based on sexual orientation, this data
contributes to establishing a body of
literature for a population that is historically
understudied (Longerbeam, Inkelas,
Johnson, & Lee, 2007).
– Future research should examine within
group differences for LGB students, given
existing studies typically treat the
population homogenously.
For
Further Information
Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership
http://www.nclp.umd.edu
John P. Dugan, [email protected]
Kristan Cilente, [email protected]
Susan R. Komives, [email protected]