Understanding college student leadership development : a longitudinal examination of the impact of campus-based leadership trainings

Transcription

1 University of Iowa Iowa Research Online Theses and Dissertations 2015 Understanding college student leadership development : a longitudinal examination of the impact of campusbased leadership trainings Mark Andrew Baccei University of Iowa Copyright 2015 Mark Andrew Baccei This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: Recommended Citation Baccei, Mark Andrew. "Understanding college student leadership development : a longitudinal examination of the impact of campusbased leadership trainings." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons

2 UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF CAMPUSBASED LEADERSHIP TRAININGS by Mark Andrew Baccei A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Higher Education and Student Affairs) in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa May 2015 Thesis Supervisors: Assistant Professor Cassie Barnhardt Professor Ernest T. Pascarella

3 Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of PH.D. THESIS Mark Andrew Baccei has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Higher Education and Student Affairs) at the May 2015 graduation. Thesis Committee: Ernest T. Pascarella, Thesis Supervisor Cassie Barnhardt, Thesis Supervisor Michael Paulsen Andrew Beckett Carol Coohey

4 To my students who inspire the work I do, and my wife who supports the steps I take. ii

5 It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best in the end the triumph of the high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt iii

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout the dissertation process I have been struck by the irony of the journey. This is supposed to be the greatest individual academic achievement of my life, however this has been anything but an individual process. The following study was made possible due to the generous time and patience of such amazing mentors such as Dr. Ernie Pascarella. Ernie, you have guided me through the profession since my time as a master s student. Thank you so much for Wabash! You allowed me to research a topic of interest and passion on a national scale for my doctoral thesis, without taking me the better part of a decade. Thank you! Dr. Cassie Barnhardt Thank you for your amazing mentorship! You have helped me connect my ideas and words, which has often been easier said than done. You have helped make me a stronger writer. Enabling me to express my ideas and passions with greater clarity. Finally, a special thank you to the members of my committee, Dr. Michael Paulsen, Dr. Carol Coohey, and Dr. Andrew Beckett. Thanks to HESA community for being amazing! Teniell Trolin, thank you so much for all your assistance with STATA coding, insights into Greek Life, and being a generous friend. My writing partners Angie Reams and Jeremy Reed! You two are beyond amazing. No matter where I was and what I was going through you two are what I use to define true friendship. Jeremy, I cannot begin to tell you how proud I am that you are done, and how much you helped me. I would not have made it without you. Reams/Grandma why do we keep doing this to ourselves!? Masters and now PhD if we were students having conversations, with ourselves, we would really ask why we keep engaging in such selfdestructive behaviors? iv

7 To the Oswald Family: Thank you for welcoming me into your family and all the support throughout this process. We could not have done this without you. To the Baccei Family Circus: To my siblings, thank you for your support, while I have continued to stay in college for a few extra years. Now you can tell your kids that Uncle Marky has finally graduated. Mom, thank you for instilling in me the drive to learn, and better myself. Thank you for supporting, encouraging me, and just being an amazing mom (also sorry for most of the teenage plus years). Grampy, thank you for giving me the drive to be a professional and a scholar. Also thank you for being a role model for me throughout my life. Andy/Jr, thank you for being awesome and I love you! This paper represents not only the completion of a major project, but the life changes you have gone through. When I started the program you were barely crawling, and soon you will be starting kindergarten. If you ever read this paper, or at least this opening, just know the love, pride, and compassion I will always have for you. Also remember three things: Take a moment to breath, be kind, and Go Broncos! Amy, I have been thinking for the last five years about how to thank you. How can I possibly encompass all that you have done to help me along the way? You have been so supportive and encouraging. I realize that any words I may put down in this section are not nearly adequate, but I hope you know that there is no other person I would want to go through this with other than you. Also know that I plan to spend the rest of my life enjoying quality time with you making up for all of this. All my love, affection, and respect. v

8 ABSTRACT Colleges and universities continually seek to foster the leadership development of undergraduate students through curricular and cocurricular opportunities and experiences. This study examined the effects and potential contributions of participation in campusbased leadership trainings on college students leadership development with special consideration for gender and racial background. To better understand the relationship between campusbased trainings and leadership development, data from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (WNS) was utilized. The WNS was a multiinstitutional, longitudinal dataset made up of 47 fouryear colleges and universities from 21 states throughout the United States. This study mark s one of the first multiyear, multiinstitution longitudinal studies to investigate the relationship between campusbased leadership trainings and leadership development. The results of the study pointed to several overarching themes. The first theme was that a student s background and leadership experience prior to college matter. Next, a student s curricular success matters, and influences their leadership gains throughout all aspects of the SCM. The interactions students have with peers who are different from themselves matters. Leadership development opportunities need to be intentionally designed. Finally, campusbased leadership trainings offer a potential programmatic option for institutions to help develop their students as socially responsible leaders, regardless of backgrounds and other experiences. vi

9 PUBLIC ABSTRACT Colleges and universities continually seek to foster the leadership development of undergraduate students through extracurricular opportunities and experiences. This study examined the effects and potential contributions of participation in campusbased leadership trainings on college students leadership development with special consideration for gender and racial background after four years of undergraduate involvement and education. Most research and existing literature focuses on shorttime frames or the first year of college, which can result on a distorted view of how college students, and the nations future leaders truly develop. The current study utilized a data from a national, multiyear study, the Wabash National Study (WNS). The WNS allowed for a longterm study to investigate the relationship between campusbased leadership trainings and leadership development. The results of the study pointed to several overarching themes. The first theme was that a student s background and leadership experience prior to college matter. Next, a student s curricular success matters, and influences their leadership gains. The interactions students have with peers from different background matters. Additionally, leadership development opportunities need to be intentionally designed. Finally, campusbased leadership trainings offer a potential programmatic option for institutions to help develop their students as socially responsible leaders, regardless of backgrounds and other experiences. vii

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... x LIST OF FIGURES... xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION... 1 Definition of Terms... 3 Research Purpose and Questions... 6 Research Questions... 6 Overview of Methods... 7 Significance of the Study... 8 Assumptions and Limitations Conclusion Preview Of Remaining Chapters CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The Relationship between Higher Education and Leadership Modern Perspectives on Leadership Conceptual Framework Empirical Research on College Leadership Development Precollege Leadership Experiences Institutional characteristics InCollege Influences Conceptual Framework of College Student Leadership Development Summary CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Research Design Research Variables Data Analysis Limitations Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Descriptive Statistics General Effects Conditional (Interaction) Effects Summary of Results CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Discussion of Findings Limitations viii

11 Implications Insights for Future Research Conclusions References ix

12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 The 8 Cs or Core Components of The Social Change Model Of Leadership Table 2 Variable Definitions Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for All Variables Table 4 Correlation Matrix Table 5 Individual Leadership Scale Regression Equations Table 6 Group Leadership Scale Regression Equations Table 7 Community Leadership Scale Regression Equations Table 8 Change Component Regression Equations Table 9 Overall Leadership Scale Regression Equations Table 10 CBLT x Student Background Conditional Effects Table 11 Summary of Significance for CampusBased Leadership Trainings on SRLS Measures x

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Twentieth Century Changes to Higher Education Access and Leadership Perspectives Figure 2 Social Change Model Figure 3 General Effects Model Figure 4 Combined Model Figure 5 Conceptual Framework of College Student Leadership Development xi

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Leadership is both an act and a quality that helps bind our Republic together. Our republic is predicated on the notion that its citizens will serve as its leaders. As citizens we look to our leaders for guidance, answers, and support (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). When there is a lack of positive leadership, we often observe a stagnancy or lack of progress on the issues and concerns that our nation faces. Politicians, educators, and employers regularly note the importance of establishing a diverse group of future leaders for our nation (National Association of Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2013). These constituencies recognize that leaders need to be properly prepared as the United States becomes increasingly diverse and socially complexity as a nation (Astin & Astin, 2000; Campbell, Smith, Dugan, & Komives, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Eich, 2008). These complex issues lead to the question about who should educate and prepare the nations future leaders. The United States has various social institutions, churches, businesses, and community groups, which may aid in the development of young leaders. However, these social institutions are unable to influence leadership development on a national scale due limited resources and purposes (Greenleaf, 1978). The nations institutions of higher education represent a logical entity for the challenge. Thus, the responsibility to educate and develop the nation s leaders often falls to the colleges and universities (Astin and Astin, 2000; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Eich, 2008; Greenleaf). Higher education has taken 1

15 ownership of this responsibility and assumed the charge to educate aspiring leaders (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education [CAS], 2009). The educational environment of higher education allows young leaders the opportunity to learn and develop their leadership skills. Colleges and universities have the resources to actively implement leadership programs, resources, trainings, and additional opportunities that can positively contribute to the development of future leaders from diverse backgrounds (Campbell et al., 2012; CAS, 2009). Additionally, a review of institutional mission or value statements reveals that leadership development is a commonly stated outcome of higher education (Ehrlich, 2000; Eich, 2008; Roberts, 2007; ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999). Leadership development programs and trainings throughout the United States have become an integral component of holistic studentdevelopment over the last several decades (Association of American Colleges & Universities [AACU], 2007; Astin, 1991; Campbell et al., 2012; CAS, 2009; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Salisbury, Pascarella, Padgett, & Blaich, 2012). Higher educations holistic goal of developing student leaders is in part supported via diverse learning opportunities. Colleges serve as the vehicle for social change and education that society could not otherwise provide (Dewey, 2012). The combination of curricular and cocurricular leadership education is what truly sets higher education leadership development apart from other social institutions (CAS, 2009; ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999). Higher education provides emerging leaders the opportunity to develop a cognitive understanding of leadership, while also gaining the experiential 2

16 aspects of leadership. Educationally this is often explained as the transition between the concrete and abstract. Dewey (1991) explained concrete as directly connected with our common social life and abstract as the theoretical, not immediately associated with the practical concerns (p. 137). Through leadership education and development, higher education can facilitate this process for students. The concrete is represented in the cocurricular leadership experiences, such as organization memberships, where students are engaged as leaders. The abstract occurs during the course and programmatic opportunities where students are challenged to connect the practical to the theoretical (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Dewey, 1958). The process often provides an enriching educational experience that helps students learn valuable lessons, skills, and knowledge needed to be effective leaders for the nation. Definition of Terms Throughout this dissertation I used specific words, phrases, and models that are often defined in various manners throughout the literature on leadership development. To avoid confusion, I have defined the following terms. Leadership. Leadership as viewed through the Social Change Model is a purposeful, collaborative, valuesbased process that results in positive social change (Komives, 2011). Social Change Model. A valuesbased model of leadership with three perspectives (Individual, Group, Community) made up of values that interact to promote leadership for social change (HERI, 1996). Throughout this study the Social Change Model is referred to by its acronym, SCM. The SCM consists of eight 3

17 primary components, and often referred to as the 8C s. The values are: Consciousness of Self, Commitment, Congruence, Common Purpose, Collaboration, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change (HERI, 1996). The three perspectives and 8C s are capitalized throughout this dissertation to help identify them when used in context as a value of the Social Change Model. Additionally, I used the composite scores associated with the three perspectives as outcomes in my research. The Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) developed by Tyree (1998) was used to measure each component. Leadership Development. Leadership development will be the common phrase used to express the socially responsible leadership outcomes identified through the Social Change Model of Leadership. CampusBased Leadership Trainings. Programmatic opportunities are intentionally designed and carried out on college campuses to aid in the development of individual or group leadership skills, knowledge, and/or abilities. Leadership programs typically represents an overarching set of experiences spanning multiple platforms of delivery (Dugan et al., 2011; ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999). Gaps In Empirical Literature There is a continued need to further examine the influence and impact of postsecondary leadership programs on leadership development (Black & Earnest, 2009; Campbell et al., 2012; Cress et al., 2001; Dugan, 2006a; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Haber, 2011; Shim, 2013). The lack of research was particularly evident when looking at whether women and underrepresented 4

18 minority groups benefit differently from these programs (Dugan; Dugan & Komives; Shim; Soria, Lepkowki, Fink, & Snyder, 2013; Whitt et al., 2001). For example, prior research demonstrated that women tend to favor relationallyoriented and democratic styles of leadership models (Dugan, 2006a; Dugan & Komives, 2010). Overall, there was a dearth of research on historically underrepresented groups (Armino et al., 2000; Dugan & Komives, 2007/2010; Dugan, Komives, & Segar These preferences may influence what and how much women and minority students gain from leadership programs and trainings based on the pedagogical focus. Additionally, students leadership development is positively influenced through leadership experiences during college, such as membership in student and Fraternity/Sorority organizations, holding a formal leadership positions, community service, and particularly campusbased trainings (Astin, 1991; Cress et al. 2001; Dugan, 2006b; Dugan & Komives, 2007). However, the findings for these factors were inconsistent making it difficult to draw conclusions about the influences of cocurricular involvement on individual leadership development (Astin, 1991; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). These inconsistencies became amplified when the interaction of gender and racial background were considered alongside other factors of leadership development, such as campusbased leadership development trainings. The resulting inconsistencies produced an incomplete understanding of the factors that influenced college and university students leadership development. 5

19 Research Purpose and Questions This dissertation sought to investigate the relationship between undergraduate students participation in campusbased leadership trainings and their overall leadership development, while taking into consideration student precollege leadership and involvement experiences, student background characteristics, student collegiate experience (e.g., organizational membership and community service) and institutional environments. In the study I answered the following research questions: Research Questions Does participation in a campusbased educational and/or experiential leadership training result in significant gains in leadership development above and beyond other student, institutional, or environmental factors? a. Does an individual's gender or racial background have an effect on their overall leadership development? b. Is there an effect of cocurricular involvement (such as student organization membership, leadership position, Fraternity/Sorority membership, community service) on overall leadership development? c. Is there an effect of curricular influences (GPA, academic major) on overall leadership development? d. Are students leadership development affected by interaction (i.e. conditional) effects between a students gender or racial background, and campusbased leadership trainings? 6

20 Overview of Methods This study used data from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (WNS). The WNS is a multiinstitutional, longitudinal dataset made up of 47 fouryear colleges and universities from 21 states throughout the United States. As noted above, this study sought to better understand the relationship between a dependent variable (socially responsible leadership, or college student leadership development) and studyrelated independent (campusbased leadership trainings) and control variables. The focus of this study allowed for the use of regression analysis to examine and determine the relationship between leadership development and participation in campusbased trainings. I used ordinary least squares multiple linear regression, or multiple regression, as the primary statistical method for my study. Multiple regression is a commonly used method for studying potential relationships between dependent and multiple independent variables (Allison, 1999; Fox, 2008; Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Neter, 2004). The dependent variable was leadership development as described by the Social Change Model (SCM) (HERI, 1996). A valuesbased model of leadership with three perspectives (Individual, Group, Community) made up of values that interact to promote leadership for social change (HERI, 1996). The outcome was measured through the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) (Tyree, 1998). The SRLS is a 68item instrument intended to measure the eight components of the Social Change Model (SCM) (HERI, 1996). The SRLS instrument has eight scales that correspond to each of the eight components of the SCM. The SCM and its accompanying literature regarding college student leadership development has 7

21 been fully discussed in chapter 2. My conceptual framework, described in Chapter 2, contains the different categories of independent variables I used in my study. The categories are (a) student characteristics (b) precollege leadership ability (c) institutional characteristics and (d) curricular and cocurricular incollege influences. Significance of the Study My study contributes to the greater scholarship on college student leadership development in multiple ways. The study (1) expanded the current body of empirical research on college student leadership development, (2) used a large national, longitudinal, pretestposttest design versus the dominant crosssectional design to account for changes in students leadership development during their undergraduate years, (3) explored the interaction, or conditional, effects of gender and racial background and their impact on leadership development, and (4) provided practitioners with practical information to improve the programs and services for students from diverse backgrounds. As previously noted, the topic of college student leadership development needed additional research considering the broad range of leadership experiences available to undergraduate students (Black & Earnest, 2009; Campbell et al., 2012; Cress et al., 2001; Dugan, 2006a; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Haber, 2011; Shim, 2013). This study sought to contribute to the larger understanding of college student leadership development through the examination of the effects and potential contributions of participation in campusbased leadership trainings on leadership development. 8

22 The large, national, longitudinal, pretestposttest design of the WNS provided a more reliable and statistically sound explanation of college student leadership development, as compared to commonly used crosssectional studies. Crosssectional designs dominate the current body of empirical literature (Dugan, 2006a/2006b; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007, 2010; Komives & Dugan, 2005; Dugan et al., 2008). Crosssectional designs provide convenient and less resource intense methods for researchers, but require the use of various statistical techniques. The result is often a decrease in internal reliability and less accuracy in approximating the extent of college experiences on students development (Astin & Lee, 2003; Pascarella, 2001). Pascarella (2006) commented on crosssectional data by noting, If the data are a frog, don t expect some statistical magic wand to transform that frog into a prince (p. 510). By using a longitudinal design, this study provides a stronger statistical basis for existing research on college student leadership development. The current study examined the interaction effects of gender and racial background and their impact on undergraduate leadership development. The demographic composition of higher education in the United States is continually changing. Therefore, it is prudent that research into college experiences properly considers the changing undergraduate population (Astin & Astin, 2000; Pascarella, 2006). Much of the current literature broadly looked at experiences associated with the development of college students leadership abilities, skills, and knowledge. However the literature suggests that consideration of interaction effects could further explain how college leadership experiences impacted individuals, 9

23 particularly from specific racial backgrounds (Whitt et al., 2001). This study sought to better understand how the interaction effects of gender and racial background influenced the potential impact of participation in campusbased trainings on leadership development. Finally, the information gained from this study aids student affairs practitioners and other college personnel in providing a wellrounded college experience. Institutions can programmatically develop intentionally designed leadership opportunities, specifically campusbased trainings, for all students. Assumptions and Limitations From the onset of a study the researcher holds a set of assumptions that influence the story he or she strives to tell (Hanson, 2013). Assumptions are often the components of the study that one takes for granted. I acknowledge that I brought my own set of assumptions to this study. First and foremost, I needed to acknowledge my assumption that all prior models and research reviewed and used produced accurate and valid results. The models and research I utilized for this study significantly influenced the decisions I made as I told my own story. Additionally, by choosing to use an existing dataset, the WNS, I worked with the assumption that the previously developed instruments and resulting data were reliable and accurate (see chapter 2). I also assumed that the participants who completed the WNS did so in an honest and knowledgeable manner, so that the results were accurate reflections of their collegiate experience and development. Finally, I assumed the data would abide by the basic assumptions of linear regression (see Chapter 3). 10

24 Beyond personal assumptions, it is important to recognize that no research is without complicating factors and potential issues that are beyond the researcher s control (Creswell, 2003; Creswell & PlanoClark, 2011). For the current study, my use of a secondary dataset, particularly the WNS, results in some potential limitations. The first limitation relates to the primary study variable, campusbased trainings. The item is a dichotomous variable based off a single question asking if students have participated in a campusbased training. The yes/no response results in a limited understanding into the nature of the leadership experience of that particular individual. It is prudent to recognize that not all leadership programs are created equally, or follow similar guidelines (Cress et al. 2001; Guthrie & Jones, 2012; Haber, 2011; Russon & Craig, 2004; Scroggs, Sattler, & McMillian, 2009). Additionally, with the WNS, it is important to recognize that the study was primarily concerned with outcomes associated with a liberal arts education. Therefore, liberal arts colleges were intentionally oversampled, and my results may not be able to be generalized to all colleges and universities across the United States. The use of selfreported, studentlevel data also presents a potential limitation to the study. First, selfreported data is a commonly used in higher education as a measure for leadership development. However, fields, such as business, have utilized thirdparty observers to assess changes in leadership abilities and behaviors (de Vries, Vrignaud, FlorentTreacy, 2004; Testa, 2002). Additionally, studentlevel data may result in a selection bias based on a student s decision to participate or not participate in a leadership experience, and what 11

25 experience they have chosen. As a result participants selfselected and were not randomly assigned into groups. Conclusion Higher education is uniquely placed within American society to wield a powerful influence on the development of future leaders. In order to develop and implement trainings, programs, and other developmental opportunities, institutions need reliable research to understand what influences college students leadership development. Currently, the available research does not provide a clear picture of how different leadership experiences are influenced by an individual s gender or race. There is a clear need within higher education research to better understand how college students develop as leaders throughout their college experience, and how their background influences their development. Preview Of Remaining Chapters I divided this study into five chapters. The first chapter served as a general introduction to the topic and issue of leadership development in higher education, and framed the issue of why colleges and universities in the United States need to pay attention to how they are preparing their students as the future leaders. Chapter 2 dove deeper into the literature of leadership development within higher education. Specifically, it framed the historical context that produced the current theoretical perspectives, as well as described the conceptual framework and reviewed the empirical research on leadership development. Chapter 3 details the methodological approaches used to collect and analyze the data for this study. 12

26 Chapter 4 covers the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the results, implications, and conclusions of the study. 13

27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of Chapter 2 is to review the relevant literature related to college student leadership development. I begin with the historical comparison of the development of higher educations enrollment alongside the larger changes to modern leadership perspectives. These parallel stories help explain how higher education views leadership development, and the perspectives commonly used by different institutions. This review provides the justification for the use of the Social Change Model (SCM) of Leadership Development (HERI, 1996) and its accompanying outcome measure, the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) (Tyree, 1998). Next, I examine different college outcome models to help the reader understand how students precollege characteristics, and the college environment may influence leadership development. From this overview, I develop my own framework to help organize and review the empirical research related to college student leadership development. This section has been broken into three subsections: Student Characteristics, Institutional Characteristics, and InCollege Influences. The review of the empirical research enabled me to identify specific gaps in the current literature, and provide the foundation for the research questions guiding this study. The Relationship between Higher Education and Leadership The history of college access and college student leadership development represents parallel journeys. Both areas had historical occurrences of restricted access, which transformed into greater opportunities for people from diverse backgrounds. 14

28 Higher Education Enrollment Changes The history of higher education showed that until the mid 20th century, many American colleges had a limited enrollment of women and minority individuals (Karabel, 2005; Rudolph, 1990). It was not until the era of the GI Bill, post World War II, that American institutions saw a large influx of individuals from diverse backgrounds resulting from multiple different causes (Thelin, 2003). The GI Bill, designed to assist veterans and relieve stress on the labor market, set a standard for federal aid availability, and decreased the gap between low income and middle/upper income groups resulting in increased access to higher education for those previously unable to afford or access higher education (Horowitz, 1987; Serow, 2004). Additionally, higher education underwent expansion and growth leading to social stratification (Horowitz, 1987) and the distinction between prestige and purpose in pursuing a college education (Thelin, 2003, p. 12). Community and junior colleges emerged, normal schools and teacher s colleges increased, and admissions became competitive (Horowitz, 1987; Levine, 1986; Thelin, 2004). Admissions policies created to address the growing student enrollments, also enabled institutions to exclude students on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and religion. Simply put, the twentieth century saw a large diversification of the college population. Evolution of Leadership Perspectives The nation has changed how it views and develops its future leaders, which is parallel to the path of change for college enrollment and student diversification. Leadership scholars have noted key changes between the 19 th and 20 th century 15

29 (Burns, 1978; Rost, 1993). During the late 19 th century, being a leader was seen as a privileged opportunity for a few individuals. Burns and Rost noted how this leadercentric perspective dominated the national perspective until the mid20 th century. According to this perspective, the focus of leadership development was based on the individual. This focus on established leaders resulted in two groups being largely ignored from the conversation, developing leaders and group members or followers. Burns was the first to put forward the concept of leadership as a relational experience that occurred between leaders and followers. If leaders and followers shared similar core values and beliefs then they could come together for multiple, common causes. Burns used this perspective to introduce the idea of values basedleadership, which he described as groups of people working on multiple, different, but common, causes based on their shared values and beliefs. Using this viewpoint of values based leadership, Burns was able to offer a leadership perspective that was inclusive of broader moral and ethical issues. The uniqueness of this perspective was highlighted when compared to prior leadership perspectives that focused more on singleissue relationships. Unfortunately, his work was not initially recognized and did not take hold until the late 1980 s and early 1990 s. At this point, scholars recognized his contribution and started to articulate conceptions of leadership development based on his work. In particular, the work of Joseph Rost (1993) was noted as an important addition in college student leadership development. Rost (1993) built upon Burns work and suggested that as a nation we had entered a postindustrial paradigm of leadership. The postindustrial paradigm 16

30 views leadership as a relational process that included both leaders and followers (Rost). In his seminal work Leadership for the TwentyFirst Century, Rost builds upon the earlier work of Burns (1978) by clarifying the role of higher education in developing postindustrial leaders. Rost claimed leadership education was needed due to the increasing complexity of issues, problems, and values our nation and its leaders faced. His answer to the increasing complexity was a greater reliance on the relationships between leaders and followers. In his paradigm leaders would work with their followers, and empower their followers to become leaders themselves. The educational process would focus on the essential nature of what leadership is, the process whereby leaders and followers relate to one another to achieve a purpose (Rost, p. 4). According to Rost, institutions of higher education were and are properly positioned within the nation social and organizational setting to support the education of future leaders. Higher Education Leadership Education The work of Burns (1978) and Rost (1991) helped promote ideas of leadership education throughout the nation, but particularly in higher education. Since the late 1980 s colleges and universities across the nation started to offer programmatic leadership development education for college students (Astin, 1991; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). Leadership development has been a commonly stated outcome of institutional mission statements, strategic plans, and value statements for several decades (Ehrlich, 2000; Eich, 2008; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Roberts, 2007; ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999). The offering of leadership development curricular and cocurricular opportunities was a natural 17

31 method to accomplish the intended outcome. As institutions worked to educate the nations future leaders, the relationally based, postindustrial perspective has taken firm root (Dugan et al., 2011). The postindustrial perspective helped influence the development of multiple modern perspectives and frameworks for college student leadership development. Figure 1 (see below) shows the parallel path of development between the higher educations changes in access and enrollment, along side the changes in leadership perspectives. The next section will examine several of the more prominent perspectives, and identify potential uses and limits for each. Figure 1 Twentieth century changes to higher education access and leadership perspectives 18

32 Modern Perspectives on Leadership The ideas and perspectives put forward by Burns (1978/2003) and Rost (1993) have coalesced into an overarching approach known as reciprocal leadership (Haber, 2006). Reciprocal leadership emphasizes that leaders and followers should engage in a mutually beneficial, valuesbased, and inclusive relationships (Day, 2013). This approach represents a combination of Burns views on the leader/follower relationship and valuesbased leadership, as well as Rost s postindustrial leadership paradigm. The following section introduces several of the more modern and broadly utilized models in higher education based on the reciprocal approach. The models are briefly introduced in order to demonstrate the current landscape of available models, and also demonstrate key limitations with some existing models. Followership. The Followership model provided a key argument to Rost s (1993) postindustrial perspective on the value of followers within an organization (Haber, 2011; Kelley, 1995). Developed by Kelley, the central argument centered on the empowerment of followers to affect change similar to an individual leader. He argued effective followers often exhibit the following essential qualities, self management, commitment to an organizational purpose, driven to self improvement, and are valuedriven (Kelley). These considerations are important, and have close links to the work of Burns (1978) and Rost. It is important to note, that Kelley was writing in large part to a corporate business audience versus a higher educational audience. Colleges and universities are concerned with aspects 19

33 of social and individual development that are not directly addressed from his particular point of view (Northouse, 2001). Rather, Kelley focuses mainly on the individual follower and their ability to succeed and contribute. This is similar to past scholars who focused on individual leaders and their individual contributions. Relational Leadership Model. The relational leadership model (RLM) was developed by Komives and is a modern model to help individual college students in their process of leadership development (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998). RLM was built on the concept that leadership is inherently a relational, communal process (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005, p. 74) intended to bring about positive change. The model is comprised of five components that guide the relationships between members of an organization and/or social movement. These components are inclusion, empowerment, ethics, purpose, and process. RLM has been widely used for teaching college students about and guiding their individual leadership development (Haber, 2011; Komives, et al., 2005). However, it has also been criticized for proving to be difficult for individuals and groups to put into practice. Students have found it difficult to take the five components from a hypothetical discussion and put them into practice (Komives, et al.). The review of literature for this study was unable to locate any scholarly research directly using this model as part of or a basis for a study. The dearth of scholarly research combined with its practical application brings up concerns about the models overall effectiveness. Social Change Model of Leadership. The Social Change Model (SCM) was developed as a resource and framework to aid in the education, training, and 20

34 development of college students as future leaders (HERI, 1996). The SCM was created to be consistent with the postindustrial paradigm, and emphasize individuals capacities to engage in a collaborative leadership process with other members of their community (Shim, 2013). The model was primarily developed for three audience s student affairs practitioners, college students, and higher education researchers (Komives, 2011). The model provides practitioners with a programmatic framework for introducing concepts and helping with skill development associated with leadership. Students are afforded the opportunity to better understand of themselves as leaders as well as members of groups and communities. The SCM is able to broadly serve these groups due to collaborative design, which emphasizes a group process over individual leaders. This process will be described in greater detail below. The ultimate goal of the SCM is found in its definition and view of leadership, which is positive social change (HERI p. 15). The Social Change Model is a collaborative approach to leadership comprised of three different perspectives, and differing values within each perspective. As represented in Figured 2 the three perspectives of the SCM are Individual, Group, and Community. The Individual perspective represents the personal qualities and values that contribute to group development (HERI, 1996). This perspective is made up of three components, which are Consciousness of Self, Congruence, and Commitment. The Group perspective takes into account the collaborative nature of the model, which establishes goals and actions for social change. The Group perspective is made up of the components of Collaboration, Common Purpose, and Controversy with Civility. Table 1 (see below) provides a description for each 21

35 individual component associated with the SCM. Finally the Community perspective provides the environment for leadership activities to be directed. Its sole component is Citizenship. Through the value of Citizenship, service activities are focused at producing positive outcomes to change particular aspects of an individual s and a group s community. The model positions Change as the central, or core component, as it represents the ultimate goal of the creative process of leadership to make a better world and a better society for self and others (HERI, p. 21). Table 1 The 8 Cs or core components of the Social Change Model of Leadership Components Definition (Perspective) Consciousness of Self Being aware of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and (Individual) emotions that motivate one to take action Congruence Thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency, (Individual) genuineness, authenticity, and honesty toward others Commitment Investing time and physical and psychological energy (Individual) in the leadership development process Collaboration Working with others towards a common goal, and is (Group) the central value of the model due to the group focus Common Purpose (Group) Working with others within a shared set of aims and values Controversy with Civility Recognizing conflict is inevitable in social interactions, (Group) but valuing solutions found by listening to different points of view Citizenship (Community) Engaging the group and individual, who are civically responsible to the broader community Change The ultimate goal and culmination of all values resulting in positive change, i.e. making society and the world better for one s self and others Note. From A Social Change Model of Leadership Development, HERI, 1996, College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. 22

36 The collaborative nature of the model is represented through the interconnecting arrows of the model (HERI, 1996), represented in figure 1. Generally the external arrows (a, c, f) represent the direct influences that each of the perspectives can have on each other. Conversely, the internal arrows (b, d, e) represent the feedback portion that the perspectives provide to each other. Arrow a denotes how the group process is influenced by aspects, especially values, of individual leaders. Arrow b is the effect the group can have on the individual leader. Together the a & b loop signifies a continuous feedback or the giveandtake between individual leaders and a group. Arrow c signifies the action, potentially a community service activity, of the group where the group focuses its energies in an effort to effect positive change in something outside itself (HERI, p. 19). Arrow d characterizes the community s response to the groups efforts. The feedback loop of c & d indicates the secondary interaction between the Group and Community as the Group gains an improved understanding about how the proposed action, or social change, would be and is received by the larger Community. Arrow e characterizes individual leaders direct involvement in their community via engagement and/or community service. Arrow f indicates how individuals may be influenced through their community service. The feedback loop for e & f shows the interaction between individuals and their community, and how responsible citizenship is based on selfknowledge, congruence, and commitment (HERI, 1996, p. 26). Through this final feedback loop, the model shows the collaborative nature towards change. 23

37 One cannot accomplish the values of Citizenship without the Individual values of Consciousness of Self, Congruence, and Commitment. Simply put the Community perspective is not complete without the Individual, and vice versa. Figure 2 Social Change Model Note. From A Social Change Model of leadership development guidebook, by A. W. Astin, H.S. Astin, K. C. Boatsman, M. BonousHammarth, T. Chambers, L. S. Goldberg, et al., 1996, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Within higher education the Social Change Model is one of the most widely used models of leadership development by both practitioners and researchers (Komives, 2011). Student affairs professionals use it as a foundational model for curricular and cocurricular programs. Colleges and universities across the country 24

38 have incorporated the Social Change Model into their programmatic and curricular structure at a greater rate then other models of leadership development (Komives; Soria et al., 2013). Additionally the development of the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale, or SRLS, (Tyree, 1998) has provided a depth of research that is not present with other leadership models. The SRLS has been used as the primary instrument in two national studies, the MultiInstitutional Study for Leadership (MSL) and Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (WNS), which have produced multiple scholarly, peerreviewed articles and dissertations (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan et al., 2008; Hynes, 2009; Haber, 2006; Haber, 2011; Haber & Komives, 2009; Komives & Dugan, 2005; Pascarella & colleagues, 2007; Salisbury et al., 2012; Shim, 2013). The Social Change Model was utilized as the foundational model of college student leadership development for the study. This choice was due to the models sound theoretical foundation for both the transformative and postindustrial leadership perspectives, as wells as its practical applications for higher education. Additionally, the model has a robust body of scholarly research associated with it. Finally, from a methodological perspective, the Wabash study utilized the SRLS as its primary instrument for the leadership outcome (dependent variable), which further aligns with the research decision to use this model. Conceptual Framework The Wabash National Study (WNS) is a robust data set which allows for the consideration of longitudinal data, students precollege characteristics, the influences of college environmental influences, among many other things. Therefore 25

39 the conceptual framework for the study needed to take these aspects into consideration. The conceptual framework for this study was developed by combining the work of Astin s (1993) IEO and Pascarella s (1985) General Effects Model. The following section briefly introduces the two outcome models and the merged conceptual framework developed for this study. Astin IEO Astin s (1970a/1970b/1993) inputenvironmentoutcome (IEO) model is one of the foundational conceptual models for higher educational research (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The purpose of the model is to assess the impact of various environmental experiences by determining whether students grow or change differently under varying environmental conditions (Astin, 1993, p. 7). The model is made up of three elements inputs, environment, and outcomes. Inputs reference student background characteristics and precollege experiences/ability. Environment considers the different programs, policies, individuals, cultures, and experiences students confront at college. Lastly outcomes refer to students postcollege characteristics, specifically their skills, abilities, knowledge, values, and behaviors of the student. Pascarella s General Effects Model Pascarella s (1985) model is similar to Astin s in that it provides a model for better understanding the direct and indirect effects that student background characteristics, institutional structures, and environment play on the impact of college on students. The General Effects Model (see figure 2 below) allows for a theoretical foundation for a multiinstitutional study, and allows for the estimation 26

40 of the direct effect and effect size of the independent variables and potential mediating variables on the dependent variable of leadership development. The model suggests that initially student background and precollege characteristics, along with institutional structure, influence an institution s environment. All three then influence student interactions with faculty and peers on campus. Pascarella notes the next set of variables, quality of effort, is shaped by a students background, the institutional environment, and by peer and faculty influences. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) note that change is a function of students background characteristics, interactions with major socializing agents, and the quality of effort investing in learning and developing (p. 57). Figure 3 General Effects Model Adapted from Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review of synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1, p. 164). New York, NY: Agathon. 27

41 Conceptual Framework for the Current Study Both Astin s IEO and Pascarella s general effects model are regularly used in higher education research (Borst, 2011; Dugan, 2006a/2006b; Hansen, 2013; Haber, 2006; Loes, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The conceptual model for the current study combined the two previous models into one model. There was evidence to suggest that students background, precollege characteristics, institutional environment and incollege influences (includes both curricular and cocurricular aspects) were related to overall leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini; Dugan, 2006a/2006b; Posner, 2009; Haber & Komives, 2009). Figure 3 (see below) represents the combined model, and represents the major areas that influence leadership development. Figure 4 Combined Model 28

42 The remainder of this chapter was dedicated to reviewing what is empirically known about the relationship among leadership development and factors associated with students background and college environments (institutional and human). The review of the empirical literature helped identify potential variables, and establish their relationship to leadership development. Empirical Research on College Leadership Development In the following section I reviewed the existing, empirical research connected to students background and precollege characteristics and leadership development. This section focused mainly on how leadership development influenced the background student characteristics of gender as well as race and ethnicity. Additionally, precollege characteristics were reviewed since researchers commonly use them as control variables in studies on leadership development. Student Characteristics: Gender The question of gender s influence on college student s leadership development has been examined over the last several decades, and multiple studies have shown differences in outcomes based on gender (Astin, 1991; Dugan, 2006a; Dugan et al., 2008; Dugan & Komives, 2010). The results of these studies have called into question potential bias of instrument design to favor a particular gender over another, based on a particular leadership paradigm utilized by a researcher (Dugan). The following section will review the results of empirical studies looking at the influences of gender on leadership development, and how the instrument implemented designs influenced study outcomes. 29

43 In general researchers have found a relationship between gender and leadership development. In his preeminent, longitudinal study, Astin (1991) analyzed the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) national data set between The multiinstitutional study measured six outcomes of personality characteristics, Scholarship, Social Activism, Hedonism, Status Striving, Artistic Inclination, and Leadership. Astin found in his pretest posttest design that men showed greaterthanaverage increases in leadership during the college years (p. 124) than women. Men were found to be more likely to become committed to life goals, such as civic programs and other leadership oriented activities, than women. Finally, Astin found that women were less confident in their leadership abilities. Additional studies have reconfirmed these findings (Smith, Morrison, & Wolf, 1994; Keezar & Moriarty, 2000). The findings on the relationship between gender and leadership development have potentially been influenced by the use of different leadership paradigms. Paradigms, such as industrial or postindustrial leadership, utilized in the design of different instruments have been shown to produce biased results (Dugan, 2006a; Dugan & Komives, 2007). Measures reflecting industrial (leader centric) paradigms tend to show that men score higher on leadership (Astin, 1991). Conversely, women tend to score higher on instruments that use a postindustrial or transactional (leader and follower considered) paradigm (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan, 2006a; Rost, 1993). The shifts from industrial to postindustrial designs of research instruments appear to parallel the changes in leadership perspectives over the last several decades. As previously noted prior to the 1980 s, leadership 30

44 paradigms were dominated by industrial and authoritative styles (Burns, 2003; Rost, 1993). Since the early 1980s, paradigms have utilized a postindustrial or democratic style (Dugan). In general, prior research suggests that males tend to develop industrial or authoritative styles of leadership, while women embrace a more postindustrial or democratic style of leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Dugan). Studies have examined differences in leadership styles and preferences using the SCM as the foundational model to explore gender, and using the SRLS (Tyree, 1998) as the primary outcome measure. In general studies using the SRLS have noted a female bias in their results (Shim, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan et al., 2008). The biased findings can be explained due to the SCM s view of leadership as a collaborative, inclusive, and transformative relationship between people (HERI, 1996). Dugan (2006a) examined the relationship between gender and leadership development through a single institutional study at a large, public, doctoralgranting, western institution. Participants were selected at random from a sample of 100 undergraduate courses with a total poll of nearly 900 respondents. The study s assessment instrument was the SRLS, a 103item instrument intended to measure leadership development and change across the eight constructs of the SCM (Tyree, 1998). Women scored significantly higher on all but two components of the SCM then men (Dugan, 2006a). The only two women s mean scores not found to be statistically significant were Collaboration and Controversy with Civility. The 31

45 results of this study, overall, support the argument that women perform better than men when being evaluated using a postindustrial paradigm, such as the SCM. One interesting note from Dugan s (2006a) study was men s relatively high score for the component of Collaboration. Dugan anticipated men s scores to be lower due to an inclination towards the industrial paradigm. He speculated the smaller gap between men and women was due in part to the educational and programmatic efforts men are being exposed to as developing leaders. The result was not significant and Dugan did not offer any further justification beyond the simple speculation. MultiInstitutional Study of Leadership. The MultiInstitutional Study of Leadership (MSL) provides further support for the argument that gender influences leadership development. The study developed by Dugan (2006a/2006b/2006c) was the basis for the MSL. The study itself is a multiinstitutional, crosssectional study (Dugan & Komives, 2007). This study also used the SRLS as the primary instrument, however they used a revised 68item version of the instrument (Dugan, 2006c). Fiftytwo institutions from across the United States participated in the study with an initial sample pool of over 23,0000 participants. Data were collected during a single point as students from participating institutions were surveyed via a web survey (leadershipstudy.net). The results from various MSL related studies demonstrate that women commonly outperform men in most aspects of the SCM (Dugan et al. 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007/2010; Dugan et al., 2008; Haber & Komives, 2009). The MSL has produced a rich data set that higher education and 32

46 leadership researchers have utilized. MSL studies will be cited at regular intervals throughout the remainder of my dissertation. However, Dugan et al. (2008) found women had on average statistically higher scores for seven out of eight scales of the SCM. The only item which men scored higher was Change, however they noted that effect size of the difference was only marginal. Dugan and Komives (2010) included gender in their model of investigating the influences of campus environments on students leadership development. Being a woman was found to be a positive and statistically significant predictor across all components of the SCM except for Citizenship and Change (Dugan & Komives, 2010). The result for Change was concurrent with earlier work from Dugan et al. (2008) that found men s higher Change scores to be negligible and also nonsignificant. The additional item of Citizenship went unexplained by Dugan and Komives (2010). Low scores. An important point to note was the consistently low scoring areas for both genders, such as Controversy with Civility. Several studies (Dugan, 2006a; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan et al., 2008) found that both male and female scores in the Group domain (Controversy with Civility, Collaboration, and Common Purpose) were lower then the Individual domain (Consciousness of Self, Congruence, and Commitment). This suggested either an underdevelopment of Group leadership skills, knowledge, and/or abilities, or an overemphasis of students Individual outcomes. It is interesting that both men and women demonstrated similar trends, such as lower scores for Controversy with Civility. Added to the discrepancy was a regular occurrence of traditionally aged college 33

47 students selfreported higherlevels of valuing community service than actual participation in service activities, which will be reviewed in greater detail later in this chapter. Student Characteristics: Race and Ethnicity Researchers have found that race and ethnicity are related to leadership development (Armino et al., 2000; Oaks, Duckett, Suddeth, & KennedyPhillips, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2007/2010; Dugan et al., 2008). Individuals from different racial and ethnic groups score differently on quantitative measures of leadership development. Students from minority and underrepresented groups scored notably different on components of the SCM than their white peers (Dugan & Komives; Dugan et al.). Broadly speaking, minority groups such as African Americans, Latino(a) s, and Asian/Pacific Islanders commonly have leadership gains that differ from white, majority students. Individual racial and ethnic minority group membership has been found to uniquely influence leadership development. AfricanAmerican students often report greater interest in leadership as a mechanism for social change (Oaks et al., 2013). AfricanAmerican students in several MSL studies have exhibited significant, positive gains in multiple components of the SCM, including Consciousness of Self, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan et al., 2008). Identifying as a Latino(a) or an Asian/Pacific Islander was positively associated with the Collaboration component (Dugan & Komives). Those positive gains for all three aforementioned groups were higher then their white peers. 34

48 However, Asian students scored lower then peers from other racial groups on Consciousness of Self (Dugan & Komives; Dugan et al.). Additionally, the presence of individuals from minority groups has also been found to aid in the leadership development for students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds, particularly white students (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Students from white, majority backgrounds reported higher gains in their individual leadership development when they were exposed and interacted with a diverse group of peers (Cole & Zhou, 2013). The value of diversity in leadership development goes beyond individual members of different underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. Precollege Leadership Experiences Research has shown that precollege experiences and influences can account for larger portions of the variance in students leadership development (Astin, 1991; Cole & Zhou, 2013; Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991/2005). Precollege experiences include high school extracurricular involvement (leadership activities and community service), parental factors (education and income), and academic ability (Cole & Zhou, 2013; Haber & Komives, 2009; Haber, 2006; Oaks, et al, 2013). Inclusion of precollege experiences serve as control variables that aid in more accurately identifying the growth and change that occurs in students leadership development during their college years. 35

49 Institutional characteristics The conceptual framework and accompanying literature (Pascarella, 1985; Astin, 1993) guiding this dissertation operated under the assumption that environmental factors impact student leadership outcomes. An example of these environmental factors was the influence that institutions play the study outcome of socially responsible leadership development. In this study, the institutional characteristics considered included size, selectivity, and institutional type/classification. The following section covers the existing literature that was related to each aspect of an institution and the relationship these aspects had with college students leadership development. The existing literature did not suggest that institutional size impacted or influenced leadership development. In their hallmark review of literature, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) did not find institutional size to hold much predictive value. Astin s (1993) research on institutional size supported Pascarella and Terenzini s findings. When controlling for precollege characteristics, including high school involvement and community service, the influence of institutional size on leadership development was not significant (Astin). Institutional selectivity was also not been found to influence leadership development. Kuh and Pascarella (2004) explained institutional selectivity as, a primary measure of quality (p. 53) for admitting new students to colleges and universities. In their study using data from National Study of Student Learning (NSSL) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), they found selectivity to be a weak predictor for college outcomes. Additionally, Pascarella and 36

50 Terenzini (2005) noted an interesting trend between institutional selectivity and the area of leadership development. Graduates of less selective institutions were more likely to take leadership roles in youth and educational groups. Graduates from more selective institutions were more likely to take leadership roles within cultural, alumni, social, and/or community groups/organizations. The authors noted students incollege experiences are more powerful predictors of leadership development than an institution s structural or organizational characteristics (Pascarella & Terenzini, p. 236). The literature did not suggest that institutional type and/or classification influences leadership development. Martin (2013) used data from the WNS to examine firstyear college students growth in leadership development. She did not find that institutional type had any significant relationship to changes in the measure of socially responsible leadership development during the students firstyear. Martin s findings correspond with other studies that did not find that institutional type and/or classification influenced leadership development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Astin, 1993; Dugan, 2006a/2006b). Based on the existing literature, I did not expect institutional characteristics to significantly predict leadership development. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted that any predictive value institutional characteristics had for measuring change in leadership development were nullified when studies adjusted for precollege characteristics. If the institutional characteristics of colleges and universities were not significantly influencing leadership development, than it was important to expand the scope of this review. Thus, it was imperative to look at how 37

51 college student leadership experiences affect leadership development, and specifically the measure of socially responsible leadership. InCollege Influences In this section, I reviewed empirical research on the relationship between incollege influences, mainly students curricular and cocurricular involvements, and leadership development. Curricular Influence Research on the influence of curricular factors on leadership development focused primarily on aspects of academic performance and academic major (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Teasley, Tyson, & House, 2007). The following subsection reviewed the current empirical literature regarding the relationship between curricular influences and leadership development. Academic performance. The influence of a student s academic performance on leadership development was unclear. Researchers repeatedly shown that higher academic performance, often indicated through grade point average (GPA), was a strong predictor of broader academic goals (such as degree completion) (Astin, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). While the overarching relationship between college success and a good GPA were clear, the relationship between GPA and leadership development was not as clear. Astin found student s GPA was negatively related to identification as a leader. However, women who reported higher levels of academic selfesteem (the belief in their ability to succeed academically) reported greater gains in leadership development (Teasley, Tyson, & House, 2007). The 38

52 inconsistency in findings made it difficult to draw clear conclusions regarding the extent academic performance influenced leadership development. Academic major. The information that was available suggests their academic major minimally influenced a student s overall leadership development. However, the overall research investigating the influence of academic major was limited. The available literature suggested that majoring in the sciences or in leadership studies positively influences leadership development (Astin, 1993; Hamid & Krauss, 2013; Scroggs, Sattler, & McMillian, 2009). These findings were not always consistent and academic major was not always related to significant leadership development across studies. Majoring in the sciences was shown to positively influence overall leadership development. Students who major in the sciences have reported higher gains in leadership abilities (Astin, 1993; Hamid & Krauss, 2013). Specifically, Astin found that majoring in the physical sciences was positively related to selfreported growth in leadership abilities. However, he did note that a large population of military service academy participants, which may have potentially influenced the finding. The United States service academies have a higher proportion of students majoring in the physical sciences, and have a stated purpose of developing future military leaders. A study of Malaysian universities also found that science majors scored higher on leadership development then social sciences majors (Hamid & Krauss, 2013). However, the findings applicability to American colleges and universities may be limited due to focus the US bias towards Western cultural and values (Hamid & Krauss). 39

53 Not surprisingly majoring or minoring in leadership studies has been attributed to significant increases in leadership development (Cress et al., 2001). Cress, et al. (2001) found student s leadership studies majors scored significantly higher scores then other majors. Scroggs et al. (2009) noted the value of providing a creditbased leadership minor on students leadership development. Both studies noted the significant, positive findings however, they did not provide any detailed outcome information regarding the content, organization, or learning outcomes associated with these majors and minors. Finally, to complicate the discussion in a recent national study using MSL data, academic major and minor were not related to any significant changes in leadership development. Dugan, et al. (2011) examined MSL data to determine the influences of multiple leadership experiences on the four major SCM domains (Individual, Group, Community, and Change). Their study did not find either academic major or minor to have a significant relationship to any SCM domain or component. Academic major and minor actually had slightly negative influence on SCM domains, but as the results were nonsignificant, they could not be generalized beyond the study sample. CoCurricular Influence Throughout, the empirical literature, student involvement in cocurricular activities and opportunities was regularly noted as positively contributing to students leadership development (Astin, 1993; Cress et al., 2001; Kezar & Moriarity, 2000; Posner, 2009; ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999). Cocurricular involvement includes activities, organizations, and events, in which students 40

54 participate in outside of formal classroom settings (Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). Particular types of involvement, such as student organizations, holding leadership positions, Fraternity/Sorority letter organizations, and community service, were commonly noted as significantly contributing to leadership development (Astin, 1993; Dugan, 2006b; Haber & Komives, 2009). The following sections reviewed the existing literature regarding the influence of different types of cocurricular involvement on college students leadership development. Student Organization Membership In general participating in student organizations had a positive influence on students leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan, 2006b; Soria et al., 2013). As part of the MSL, Dugan and Komives found that students who participated in organizations with other students scored higher for the SCM components of Collaboration, Commitment, and Citizenship. Dugan also found that participation in student organizations resulted in significant gains in Common Purpose and Citizenship. Soria, et al. used the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey, which is a national survey examining major themes of academic engagement and student. Their study looked at the impact of participation in student organizations on engagement in social change as defined by the SCM. They found that participation in at least one student organization had a positive influence in engagement in social change as compared to students that were not involved in any student organizations. There were limited instances when involvement was a negative influence on leadership development. Organizational type appeared to be the factor associated 41

55 with negative gains (Soria et al., 2013). For example organizations such as recreational groups tended to have a negative influence in engagement aspects of leadership development. Additionally overinvolvement was found to negatively influence leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Students who reported being involved in two or more organizations, while a small proportion of the larger population, were found to have negative gains in leadership outcomes. The negative results were generally the exceptions rather than the norms. Gender by participation in student organizations. Haber and Komives (2009) found that participation in student organizations contributed significantly to both women s and men s leadership development. Women had significant gains in the components of Consciousness of Self, Congruence, and Commitment. Men had significant gains in the component of Consciousness of Self and Commitment. Race and Ethnicity by participation in student organizations. Student organization membership had a different impact on leadership development for individuals from historically underrepresented populations than for their white peers. Sutton and Terrell (1997) noted that minority and racially diverse students found it difficult to relate to many campus organizations. Particularly at predominantly white institutions students of color felt a lack of opportunities. Armino, et al (2000) noted group membership proved to be an intriguing point of conflict for students from minority backgrounds. Students of color were confronted with the pressure to conform and assimilate into white organizations, but often said it meant loosing "a piece of themselves" (p. 501). The process of joining predominantly white organizations challenged minority students to retain 42

56 connections to their cultural and ethnic heritages. Minority students in white groups were less likely to actively participate, and said they felt put on the spot to speak as a race representative. However, joining student organizations focused on interests of minority students resulted in greater satisfaction (Sutton & Terrell). These groups included Black Student Unions, minority student business associations, and faith based groups. Interestingly Oaks, et al. (2013) noted that women from minority backgrounds felt pressure to overcome the burden of being a female and minority student. Suggesting a potential negative overlap between gender and race. Formal Leadership Positions The existing literature showed that holding a formal leadership position positively influenced a student s leadership development (Dugan, 2006b; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Soria et al., 2013). Students who assumed a leadership role, as compared to those who did not hold formal roles or were not members of any organization, showed a 0.13 positive increase in engagement in leadership development, using social change as the outcome measure (Soria et al.). Dugan (2006b) found that formal leadership roles significantly contributed to the SCM components of Commitment, Collaboration, and Citizenship. While Dugan & Komives specifically found that leadership roles had stronger influence on the SCM components of Common Purpose and Citizenship. Both suggest that serving as a leader of an organization influenced individuals understanding of group values and dynamics. Additionally, Soria, et al. found the type of organization also influenced gains in engagement. Organizations with a social focus, such as advocacy groups, 43

57 and Fraternity/Sorority letter organizations, political organizations, religious organizations, and community services organizations, had positive associations. Gender by holding formal leadership positions. The presence of gender appeared to play a role in how formal leadership roles influence leadership development. Women were found to benefit from formal leadership positions in the SCM components of Collaboration, Common Purpose, and Citizenship (Shim, 2013). However, Haber and Komives (2009) only found women to have significant increases for Consciousness of Self. Men were also found to have significant results from holding formal leadership positions. Men had significant, positive results for Consciousness of Self and Citizenship (Haber & Komives; Shim). These findings are consistent with the earlier research that found formal leadership positions aided individuals understanding of group values, but also reveals that men may learn more about themselves as individual leaders. Race and Ethnicity by holding formal leadership positions. Qualitative studies also found that minority students reported different experiences from collegiate leadership roles (Armino et al., 2000; Soria et al., 2013). For example, students of color resented the term "leader" and often associated it with a racially oppressed system (Armino et al.). As such, they refrained from describing themselves as leaders. Their motivation for helping and working with groups and organizations came from a sense of responsibility to other group members and the larger community (Soria et al.). These findings were consistent with previously noted research that students from AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, and Asian 44

58 backgrounds scored higher on the Group domain of the SCM then their white peers (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan et al., 2008). Students from minority backgrounds also reported negative gains from holding formal leadership roles. Leadership roles were reported to have negative impacts on relationships, privacy, and interdependence (Armino et al., 2000; Soria et al., 2013). The results have been attributed to a sense of being held to higher levels of expectations than white peers, and having to serve as campus role models at all times. In general formal leadership roles were associated with creating stressful feelings for students from nonmajority racial and ethnic backgrounds. Fraternity/Sorority Membership Membership in a Fraternity/Sorority letter organization brings a mixture of views and results regarding its influence on college students. Broadly speaking Fraternity/Sorority membership has been found to negatively influence many aspects of college student development, particularly cognitive growth (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996) and decisions regarding alcohol (Cashin, Presley, & Meilman, 1996). However, Fraternity/Sorority letter organizations traditionally have been identified as key players in the development of leadership skills among college student (Kimbrough & Hutchenson, 1998, p. 97). There is additional evidence to suggest that membership in a Fraternity/Sorority organization can positively influence leadership development. Studies have found that individuals in fraternities and sororities had largerthanaverage increases in scores for leadership abilities and personality measures then their nonaffiliated peers (Astin, 1993; Dugan & Komives, 2007). Additionally, Pike (2000) and Soria et 45

59 al. (2013) found Fraternity/Sorority members were more engaged in campus activities then nongreeks. The available literature generally noted that negative consequences and outcomes were associated more frequently with men than women (Cashin, et al. 1996; Pike, 2000; Terenzini, et al., 1996). However, as mentioned above, those findings are associated with outcomes such as cognitive gains versus leadership development. There was limited empirical research regarding the role that an individual s gender and racial background plays in Fraternity/Sorority members leadership development. Astin (1993) found that White male members gained in individual aspects of leadership development. While participation in Black Fraternity/Sorority organizations resulted in positive gains in leadership development and overall campus involvement for AfricanAmerican students (Kimbrough & Hutchenson, 1998; Sutton & Terrell, 1997). Particularly African American men reported their involvement in their Fraternity/Sorority organization helped them develop as leaders for their campus and community. On and Off Campus Employment During College The literature on the impact of employment during college was found to be inconsistent (King, 2006; Perna, 2010; Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, & Rude Parkins, 2006). The focus of much of the prior literature focused on the impact employment had on students academic performance (Astin, 1993), and an often assumed negative impact. Salisbury, Pascarella, Padgett, and Blaich (2012) used WNS data to examine the influence of work on socially responsible leadership. They found working 20 or more hours off campus resulted in positive for gains for the 46

60 Individual Perspective, Group Perspective, and Overall Leadership. However, the researchers did note that working more than 20 hours/week has been found to negatively affect cocurricular involvements. Prior literature has previously linked cocurricular involvements to positive gains in leadership knowledge and skills (Dugan, 2006a). Community Service Community service, particularly service learning, has long been noted as one of the most influential aspects on college students leadership development (Astin, 1993; Dugan, 2006b; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan et al., 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991/2005). Student s who participated in community service during college regularly reported significantly higher gains in leadership outcomes as compared to students who were not involved. Additionally community service has been found to influence all of the SCM components except for Consciousness of Self and Change (Dugan; Dugan & Komives). Findings in this area could have been influenced by conflicts in students selfreporting versus actual levels of community service. Dugan (2006a) noted college students often selfreport higher levels of social and community involvement than their actual participation. Dugan (2006a) suggests a lack of internal consistency between students appreciation for engaged citizenship and actual participation in it (p. 222). Students will often exaggerate how much they personally value community service. Gender by participation in community service. Involvement in community service and community organizations has been positively connected to 47

61 women s gains in components of Consciousness of Self and Commitment (Haber & Komives, 2009). Community service was not found to be significant for any Individual components for men. Part of this difference could be due to the relational aspects of community service, which as noted previously tend to favor higher returns for women. Cole and Zhou (2013) found that the effects of gender on leadership development for minority students were removed when service learning was included in their model. As noted earlier men and women have lower scores in the SCM components linked to community service, Controversy with Civility and Citizenship (Dugan, 2006a; Dugan et al., 2008). Male and female students scored lower on Controversy with Civility due mainly to a lack of appreciation for the potential value of conflicts. Students were found to avoid conflict with others and situations that could result in conflict. Dugan (2006a) attributes the lower scores for Citizenship to a lack of internal consistency between students appreciation for engaged citizenship and actual participation in it (p. 222). He found students volunteer within their community far less often then they claim, or less often considering an espoused value of service by students. These findings were important and show the potential influence that community service can have on college students leadership development. Interactions with Diverse Peers Numerous studies have noted the benefits of students interacting with individuals who come from backgrounds different from their own (Astin, 1993; Gurin, 1999; Milem, 2003 Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Additionally, Astin noted 48

62 the theme of peertopeer interactions being positively associated with leadership growth during college. His study noted that students who interacted most frequently with peers show a net increase of in the percentage of qualifying as leaders, whereas those who have the least degree of interaction with peers show a decrease of 3.6% (p. 123). The existing literature further suggests that interactions with diverse peers positively influences cultural awareness, community service, and political engagement (Gurin, 1999; Milem, 2003). In general college students are found to have positive experiences and richer learning environments when they interact with a more diverse group of peers. CampusBased Leadership Trainings The current research was split regarding how campusbased leadership trainings influences college student leadership development. Part of the split was due to the inconsistent nature of programmatic offerings on individual campuses. The design, content, and intended outcomes for programs is not standardized across colleges and universities (Cress et al., 2001; Dugan, et al, 2011; Russon & Reinelt, 2004). Prior research provided several key insights examined in greater detail below. The insights into the relationship between leadership development and campusbased trainings included positive and negative gains from programmatic participation, as well as the influences of gender and race on individual students. Despite the inconsistency in findings, the current literature provided a foundational perspective regarding the influence of campusbased trainings. The influence of participation in campusbased leadership trainings on leadership development was generally mixed. Multiple studies found participation 49

63 in these trainings to positively effect overall leadership development (Black & Earnest, 2009; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan, et al., 2011; Shim, 2013; ZimmermanOster and Burkhardt; 1999). One study found that students who participated in leadership trainings had an increased likelihood of demonstrating growth in civic responsibility, leadership skills, multicultural awareness and community orientation, understanding of leadership theories, and personal and societal values (ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt, 1999, p 63). Dugan and Komives found that formal leadership trainings held on campus for short and moderate durations were found to considerably develop SCM components of Collaboration, Common Purpose, Controversy with Civility, and Citizenship. The gains from the campusbased trainings may not be limited to those students who participated in the trainings. ZimmermanOster and Burkhardt (1999) identified a spillover at institutions that offered leadership development programs. Meaning students who did not participate in leadership training still reported greater gains in the areas of leadership abilities and sense of civic responsibility versus students at institutions, which did not offer any type of leadership development training (ZimmermanOster & Burkhardt). This suggests that students, at institutions with leadership development programs, are influencing their peers in such a manner to cause statistically significant results. The result is very important and connects to research on the benefits of peer interactions (Astin, 1993; Chickering and Reisser, 1993). Conversely there is evidence that leadership trainings can also negatively influence leadership development. Campusbased leadership trainings designated 50

64 as long durations conversely were found to have a negative impact on the components of Consciousness of Self, Congruence, Commitment, and Controversy with Civility (Dugan & Komives, 2010). Black and Earnest (2009) also found negative results after participants participated in a leadership training aimed at adult, nontraditional, rural students. The nontraditional students in their study reported reduced participation in their local communities after program participation. The negative results can be connected to several potential explanations including poor curricular design of the trainings themselves, prior leadership training of the student leaders, and dedication of students, staff and faculty participants. Gender by participation in campusbased trainings. The gains in leadership development from participation in campusbased leadership training also seem to be influenced by gender. Dugan (2006a) found that an individual s gender potentially confounds the gains a student may attain from participation in a campusbased leadership program. Oaks, et al. (2013) noted differences in genderbased, role performance. Men were found to be more focused and direct in their peer interactions, while women more relationally based in their interactions. Shim (2013) focused on leadership growth and changes during the first year of college. The study found that campusbased trainings were positively correlated with women s value of Citizenship, but had no significant influence on men s leadership values. Additionally, a study using a singleinstitution, longitudinal design followed business majors over four years, and found participation in a leadership training resulted in positive gains in leadership abilities, skills, and knowledge (Posner, 51

65 2009). The study additionally found by the fourth year any gender differences (between females and males) were no longer significant (Posner, p. 559). Race and Ethnicity by participation in campusbased trainings. Research regarding the relationship between leadership development and campusbased trainings also reveals some important effects when considering race and ethnicity. In a qualitative study Oaks, et al. (2013) interviewed AfricanAmerican males and found that participation in leadership development programs resulted in positive experiences in social engagement, selfawareness, personal development, and professional development. Teasley, Tyson, and House (2007) found similar results in their exploratory study of African American men s participation in leadership programs. The majority of leadership development programs were predicated on the idea that individuals are working to individually improve themselves; however, minority students often reported feeling a sense of responsibility to their group and/or community (Armino et al., 2000). This is in direct conflict to traditional assumptions made in literature that the overarching goal for leadership development was personal gains. This reinforces earlier findings that students from historically underrepresented backgrounds scored higher on certain Group and Community domains, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dugan et al., 2008). The existing literature provided insights into the relationship between leadership development and campusbased leadership trainings. Unfortunately, the literature did not provide a consistent, unified understanding of this relationship. 52

66 Further research into the relationship between leadership development and campusbased leadership trainings needs to occur within higher education with specific attention to the effects of sex and race. Conceptual Framework of College Student Leadership Development The review of existing empirical literature provided a better understanding into the characteristics, conditions, and experiences that contribute and influence college student leadership development. The review of the empirical literature helped complete and fill in the study s conceptual framework. As noted previously, Astin s (1991/1993) IEO and Pascarella s (1985) General Effects model were used to develop an integrated framework for the current study. The study framework, shown in figure 5, provided an opportunity to better understand college student leadership development by considering various influencing factors, such as student s precollege characteristics, institutional characteristics, and incollege experiences. For example, the literature review showed a student s precollege characteristics of gender and racial background influence student s leadership development during college. 53

67 Figure 5 Conceptual Framework of College Student Leadership Development The framework for this study looked at environmental factors in two main perspectives, institutional characteristics and incollege experiences. Both Astin (1991/1993) and Pascarella (1985) noted that collegebased environmental factors also influence outcomes, such as college student leadership development. The existing empirical literature did not demonstrate leadership development was significantly influenced by institutional size, type, or selectivity. Researchers commonly use the institutional characteristics of type and selectivity. Therefore the two factors were include the framework. Incollege experiences both curricular and cocurricular experiences were shown to influence student s leadership development. The framework, as represented in figure 5, shows the various influences that can potentially influence college student leadership development. 54