Running head: LEADERSHIP’S EFFECT ON FRATERNITY AND ... MP 2011.pdf · Running head:...

Running head: LEADERSHIP’S EFFECT ON FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS 1

An Adlerian Analysis of Leadership’s Effect on Fraternity and Sorority Members:

Leadership’s Involvement in Engagement

A Research Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

In Fulfillment to the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Arts in

Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy

with emphasis in Management Consulting and Organizational Leadership

By:

Lesley Farnham

August 2011

LEADERSHIP’S EFFECT ON FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS 2

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………... 3

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………....4

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………………...5

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..5

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………..6

Student Involvement and Leadership……………………………………………...7

Measuring Student Leadership…………………………………………………..11

Involvement and Engagement……………………………………………………14

Summary………………………………………………………………………....18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….19

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………21

Chapter 4: Results…………………..……………………………………………………22

Table 1 BASIS-A Data…………………………………………………………………..23

Table 2 Social Motives in the Work Setting Data……………………………………….24

Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………25

References………………………………………………………………………………..27

Appendix A PowerPoint Presentation…………………………………………………...29

Appendix B BASIS-A Assessment………………………………………………………46

Appendix C Social Motives in the Work Setting Assessment…………………………...50


Abstract

The purpose of this research paper is to investigate how leadership opportunities

available in a sorority or fraternity create a stronger sense of engagement and increase

involvement. Areas addressed were student involvement and leadership, measuring

student leadership, and involvement and engagement. This was of key interest to this

researcher because there is little research on this subject matter and because this

researcher believes there is a correlation between fraternity/sorority leadership and

engagement.

Keywords: leadership, fraternity, sorority, engagement



Leadership’s Involvement in Engagement

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine if there is any

correlation between holding leadership positions within a fraternity or sorority and

student engagement within their institution. This is key as students who are engaged are

more likely to matriculate from the institution. The meaning of engagement for this

study is to show that by actively taking leadership roles in their organizations, students

will have a higher rate of matriculation.

Significance of study: To increase student matriculation, institutions will increase

their retention rates, as well as matriculation rates, by knowing that those who become

leaders in fraternities and sororities are more likely to matriculate. Fraternities and

sororities will be able to attract more students to their organizations, knowing they can

promote the fact that their leadership opportunities will assist their members in not only

gaining leadership skills, but in reaching their goal of matriculating from the institution.

Hypothesis: The more engaged a fraternity or sorority member is with their

organization will significantly increase their commitment to the organization and to the

institution.

Data Analysis Process: Tools used in this study were the BASIS-A Inventory

assessment and the Social Motives in the Work Setting scale from The Art of Leadership

book by Manning and Curtis. A subset of two national sororities from St. Cloud State

University was used: nine from the Delta Zeta Sorority and eight from the Delta Phi

Epsilon Sorority. The data will be analyzed by leadership style with the BASIS-A


Inventory, and Social Motives will be analyzed for Power, Achievement, and

Affiliation/Belonging.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

In most student organizations leadership positions are a normal part of making the

organization function. There may be formal elected or appointed positions as well as

informal leadership given to some members. Generally, there are requirements to be

fulfilled by those holding the various leadership positions.

For those involved in a fraternity or sorority (F/S) there are many leadership

opportunities available to the members. There are the formally elected positions, such as

executive board, judicial board, and chairmanship positions. In addition, there may be

appointed or volunteer positions, e.g. committees to which one may belong, or being a

mentor to a newer member of the group.

The various leadership roles that are available within a F/S are established by the

national organization for the F/S. The national organizations generally provide a specific

set of responsibilities that are required for each role, as well as training on how to achieve

those responsibilities. Most national organizations require that leaders report back on the

achievements they have made throughout their term in the role. To help the leaders of

their organizations succeed, the national organizations have various leadership training

opportunities for their members, ranging from position focused trainings, to regional

training sessions, to national gatherings (convention/conclave).

On college campuses, where there are at least two national fraternities, fraternity

members may also have the chance to be a leader on the campus governing body of the


fraternities, the Interfraternity Council. If there are at least two national sororities,

sorority members may also have the chance to be a leader in Panhellenic Council, the

campus governing body for all sororities. In addition to these two governing groups,

many college campuses also have a group that unites the men’s and women’s groups,

commonly called a Fraternity/Sorority Programming Council, or Greek Council, where

additional opportunities for leadership exists.

According to the North-American Interfraternity Council (NIC) website

(www.nicindy.org) the group currently has 75 organizations in its membership

representing 5,500+ chapters on over 800 campuses serving 350,000 collegiate men, and

the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) currently has 26 member organizations on

over 655 campuses and serves over 4 million women according to their website

(www.npcwomen.org). There is also the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) which

according to their website (www.nphchq.org) is the overseeing organization for nine

historically black fraternities and sororities. These national groups state that their

purpose is to advocate, promote values, collaborate, support, and provide guidance to

their member organizations.

With all of the F/S members studying at the various institutions, and all of the

leadership opportunities available to them, the question investigated in this literature

review was: How do the leadership opportunities available in a sorority or fraternity

create a stronger sense of engagement and increase involvement.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are related to leadership and involvement and are referred to

throughout this research paper.


Fraternity/Sorority (F/S) Member – a collegian who is considered by their

national organization to be a member.

Student Involvement – “refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy

that the student devotes to the academic experience” (Astin, 1984, p. 297).

Leadership – the effective performance of duties placed upon an individual who

has either been elected, appointed, or placed in a role with responsibilities while

providing motivation to those around them.

Engagement – commitment to something.

Student Involvement and Leadership

Much of the research that has been done on involvement and student leadership

has been done by A. W. Astin (1984, 1985, 1993). He stated that “a highly involved

student is one who, for example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends a lot of

time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently

with faculty members and other students” (Astin, 1984, p. 297). From his studies, Astin

concluded that involvement can lead to greater academic success, higher retention rates

as well as providing students with the development and enhancement of leadership skills

(Astin, 1984). In his later research, Astin concluded that higher levels of educational

attainment, and increased personal values, occur in students who are involved in

leadership activities versus those who are not (Astin, 1993).

Critical thinking is often seen as a key trait for leaders, and imparting this skill is

one of the main goals of higher education. In 2003, Alan Gellin did a meta-analysis of

eight studies from 1991-2000 to see if undergraduate student involvement had an effect

on critical thinking. The effects evaluated were from students involved in


fraternity/sorority life, clubs and organizations, out of the classroom interaction with

faculty and peers, as well as those who lived on campus or worked while going to school.

Gellin found that there was a .14 gain in the critical thinking abilities of those students

involved in these activities versus those who were not involved (Gellin, 2003).

In the longitudinal study on developmental outcomes of college students’

involvement in leadership activities, Cress, Astin, Zimmermann-Oster and Burkhard

found that there was “clear evidence of student gains from participation in leadership

development programs” (Cress, et al., 2001, p. 7).

The researchers surveyed 875 seniors at 10 institutions in 1997-98 with a

modified version of the College Student Survey (CSS). They added 20 additional

questions specific to leadership, including asking the students if they had participated in

any of the named leadership programs from their institution. The leadership examples

given included being in an elected leadership role, performing community service,

volunteering, being a peer mentor or tutor, participating in leadership development

workshops, or alternative spring breaks (Cress, et al., 2001). These 875 students, as

freshman, had completed a questionnaire that was incorporated into the Cooperative

Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education Research Institute

(HERI).

Those who had not selected any of the 20 items that had been added into the

survey were considered to be nonparticipants. Those who did select items from the list

were considered to be participants. Of the 875, 425 were classified as participants, and

450 as nonparticipants, with a majority of the total group being female (68%) and

Caucasian (78%) (Cress, et al., 2001).


The chi-square analyses of the data showed that for 10 of the 14 outcomes rated,

participants had a significantly higher rating than nonparticipants. Notable is the 72.3

versus 51.3 rating on developing leadership skills in others, as well as the 84.6 versus 71

on ability to plan and implement programs and activities (Cress, et al., 2001). The

researchers then decided to conduct an exploratory factor analysis on related items in the

CSS.

The analysis showed five clear composite measures: “(a) Leadership

Understanding and Commitment, (b) Leadership Skills, (c) Personal and Societal Values,

(d) Civic Responsibility, and (e) Multicultural Awareness and Community Orientation”

(Cress, et al., 2001, p. 4). Using an ANOVA test for significance showed that

participants had a significantly higher rating for all five measures over nonparticipants.

Mark Felsheim’s study for his dissertation, Pathways to Success: How University

Students Become Student Leaders, found that the five highly involved participants of his

study “see taking on a leadership role as simply a natural progression of their increased

and focused involvement” (Felsheim, 2001, p. 85). He also found that seniors who were

highly involved in their organizations saw their positions in leadership as playing a role

in their life after graduation (Felsheim, 2001).

The study on the impact of membership in Black Greek-letter organizations

(BGOs) on their involvement in collegiate activities and their development of leadership

skills by researchers Kimbrough and Hutcheson, looked to gain insight specifically into

BGOs. They surveyed 387 Black students from seven public predominantly White

institutions (PWI) and five public historically Black institutions (HBCU) in the


southeastern United States with the goal of reaching 50% as F/S affiliated and 50% non-

affiliated (Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998).

They had 183 students respond who were F/S affiliated (47%), with 60 percent of

them attending a PWI (110) (Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998). The researchers used

three instruments to collect their data: the Student Involvement and Leadership Scale

(SILS), the Competing Values Managerial Skills Instrument (CVMSI), and the

Leadership Assessment Scale (LAS).

The results of the MANOVA analysis of the data showed that those that belonged

to F/S were more involved in campus activities and organizations than non-affiliated

students. F/S members had higher participation that non-affiliated students in all areas,

though belonging to a Black student organization, being a Resident Hall Assistant, and

belonging to an academic club or honor society, had significant statistical difference

between F/S members and non-affiliated students, sixty-five percent versus 36 percent,

18.1 versus 4.9, and 53 versus 31.4, respectively (Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998). The

results from the SILS showed that significantly more leadership positions were held by

F/S members then non-affiliated students (Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998).

In the 1996 research study “Choosing to Participate or Not”, the researchers

McCannon and Bennett looked at reasons college students joined academic program

related student organizations. Their research was conducted at two colleges in Georgia

that had no more than 6,000 students on campus. There were 11 organizations at one

campus, and 30 at the other. The advisors of these organizations told McCannon and

Bennett that the ability to “hone their leadership and organizations skills” played a role in


a student’s success, not only in college, but in their career (McCannon & Bennett, 1996,

p. 1).

The findings from the survey conducted in the study showed that the top two

reasons that the 138 students joined organizations related to their major were 1) that the

student wanted to list their membership in the organization on their resume and 2) to

meet others who had similar interests (McCannon & Bennett, 1996).

Measuring Student Leadership

There are very few instruments that have been developed to measure student

leadership. The Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI) was created by Brodsky

in 1992 to measure specific behaviors used by student leaders when they are performing

at their best (Posner & Brodsky, 1992). The SLPI is one of the few accepted instruments

for specifically assessing college students (Posner, 2005). The SLPI is a 30 item

questionnaire which measures five leadership practices. There are six items in each of

the five practices, and a five-point Likert-scale is used for rating (rarely to very

frequently).

The five leadership practices are:

1) Modeling the Way – consistently practicing one’s own espoused values,

setting the example, and planning small wins.

2) Inspiring a Shared Vision – Envisioning an exciting future and enlisting others

to pursue that future.

3) Challenging the Process - Searching for challenging opportunities,

questioning the status quo, experimenting and taking risk.


4) Enabling Others to Act – Fostering collaboration, empowering and

strengthening others.

5) Encouraging the Heart – Giving positive feedback, recognizing individual

contributions and celebrating team accomplishments. (Posner & Brodsky,

1992)

There are two forms of the SLPI, the Self and the Observer, and the only

difference between the two is who completes the forms. The student leader completes

the Self form while those directly observing the leadership behaviors of the student leader

complete the Observer form.

As part of the initial study on the SLPI in 1992, presidents of a national fraternity,

with 100 collegiate chapters, were asked by their national headquarters to participate in

completing the SLPI. The presidents were asked to complete the SLPI-Self and to have

five members from their executive board complete the SLPI-Observer survey. The

results of this study confirmed that presidents who were effective varied from those who

were less effective. The multiple regression analyses done by Posner and Brodsky

showed that these leadership practices accounted for 65 percent of the variance in

assessments of the presidents’ effectiveness (Posner & Brodsky, 1992).

A second study two years later that involved sorority presidents from a national

sorority, paralleled the earlier study with the fraternity presidents. The variance in this

study was stronger: 80 percent (Posner & Brodsky, 1994). The results showed that those

sorority presidents who were most effective in the five leadership practices truly exceled

at each leadership practice.


Researchers Todd Adams and Marybelle Keim used the SLPI as a tool in their

study on leadership practices and effectiveness among Greek-affiliated student leaders.

They looked at what differences in leadership practices between men and women, as

found via the SLPI, and what differences existed in the perceptions of leader

effectiveness among F/S members (Adams & Keim 2000).

Two hundred and thirty-three college students from three mid-sized to large

Midwestern public universities, who were active fraternity (101) and sorority (132)

members, were the participants for Adams & Keim’s study. The respondents for each

selected group consisted of 21 presidents (nine men and 12 women), 105 executive

council members with five from each fraternity and sorority (45 men and 60 women), and

107 general F/S members (47 men and 60 women) (Adams & Keim, 2000). The groups’

advisors selected the executive council and general members who were to participate in

the study.

The results from a two-way ANOVA analysis of the results of this study showed

that for all five leadership practices, that sorority women rated their presidents higher

then fraternity men did theirs. For Challenging the mean score was 25.02 for women

versus 23.52 for the men, Inspiring 25.62 versus 24.36, Enabling 26.58 versus 24.78,

Modeling 25.08 versus 23.88 and Encouraging 25.68 versus 24.36 (Adams & Keim,

2000). The largest differences were seen in women presidents being seen as more

challenging of the process and more enabling of others to act.

The results also showed that fraternity president’s perceived they were making a

notable difference in their organization more than that of their membership (mean score

of 6.67 for presidents and only 5.36 for fraternity executive council members and 5.77 for


general members). On the other hand sorority presidents rated themselves lower than

their members did in this area (mean score of 5.58 for presidents and 5.82 from sorority

executive council members and 5.93 for general members) (Adams & Keim, 2000).

In 2002 a review of the SLPI instrument was done. Through the review process

one-third of the statements used in the SLPI were revised. Editing for clarification or

terminology was done to four statements and six statements were completely replaced

(Posner, 2004).

The revised SLPI was tested with the same national fraternity (one of the top five

national organizations for both numbers of chapters as well as for its overall membership)

that was used in the first study by Posner and Brodsky in 1992. Data was collected from

604 fraternity officers from over 200 campuses who attended a regional leadership

academy. The scale consisted of eight criteria using a sevenpoint Likert-scale. As in the

first study with the fraternity presidents over 12 years prior, the presidents reported

engaging more often in the five leadership practices then the other officers (Posner,

2004). The presidents had a statistically significant higher ranking for Modeling,

Enabling and Encouraging.

Both officers and presidents had the same rank order of using the various

leadership practices. “Enabling was most frequently engaged in followed by

Encouraging, Inspiring, Modeling, and Challenging” (Posner, pg. 7). The results from

the revised SLPI were compatible with those of the original SLPI (Posner, 2004).

Involvement and Engagement

In John P. Dugan’s 2006 descriptive analysis of socially responsible leadership

the results of the study showed that community service and leadership development have


a significant relationship. Dugan used the social change model to measure college

student’s leadership development in his study. The Higher Education Research Institute

(HERI) developed the social change model of leadership in 1996, specifically for college

students (Dugan, 2006).

The central principles associated with the social change model involve social

responsibility and change for the common good (HERI). These are achieved

through the development of eight core values targeted at enhancing students’ level

of self-awareness and ability to work with others (HERI). The values include

consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, common purpose, collaboration,

controversy with civility, and citizenship. (Dugan, 2006, p. 335)

The participants of Dugan’s study were undergraduates from 60 different classes

at a large western university. From this pool 859 completed instruments were used.

The Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) was used in the instrument to which

there were eight separate scales, each measuring a particular value in relation to the social

change model. The SRLS used a five-point Likert-scale ranking (strongly disagree to

strongly agree) for the 103 items presented.

The results of the MANOVA analysis of the data showed significantly higher

scores for those involved in community servers than those who were not. A 2.56

difference for consciousness of self, a 2.31difference for congruence, a 2.87 difference

for commitment, a 2.73 difference in collaboration, a 3.51 difference in common purpose,

and a 9.26 difference in citizenship (Dugan, 2006).


Additionally, those scores for commitment, collaboration, common purpose, and

citizenship, were significantly higher in those involved in positional leadership roles.

The differences were 2.11, 2.31, 3.09, and 6.06 respectfully (Dugan, 2006).

In Gary R. Pike’s research study involving 6,782 undergraduate students, from 15

American Association of University public research universities, who had completed The

College Student Report (CSR) by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

the results showed that membership in a fraternity or sorority did have small positive

relationship with engagement and learning gains of students (Pike, 2003). The sampling

requirements for the NSSE are that equal numbers of first-year students and seniors are

given the survey.

Of the 6,782 students who completed the survey in Pike’s study, 16% were

members of either a fraternity or a sorority on their campus, with just over 200 students

living in their fraternity or sorority house. Of the 3,390 first-year students, 15% were

fraternity or sorority members, while 17% of the 3,392 seniors were members. There

were more first-year women who were sorority members then the senior women, 62%

versus 58% respectively.

The ANOVA results of Pike’s study showed that membership in a fraternity or

sorority had a more significant effect on senior members than first-year members. The

study found that first-year fraternity/sorority (F/S) members’ mean score for personal-

gains was 18.24, whereas the nonmembers’ mean score was 17.49. In addition the F/S

members’ mean score regarding the perception of the campus as a supportive place was

22.59 versus a mean score of 21.75 for nonmembers. These were the only areas that

were statistically different among the member/nonmember first-year students.


For senior F/S members, the mean scores on the Active and Collaborative

Learning, Student Interaction with Faculty Members, and Supportive Campus

Environment, had the most notable difference over nonmembers. With F/S members

having the following mean scores: 16.26 versus 15.70 for nonmembers, 12.64 versus

12.25, and 21.17 versus 20.41 respectively. F/S members made greater gains in both

academic development (21.85 versus 21.03 for nonmembers) and personal development

(19.53 versus 18.20 for nonmembers).

The results of this research showed that overall, F/S members are engaged as

much, if not slightly more, then nonmembers. Senior F/S members are “significantly

more involved than seniors who were not members of a fraternity or sorority” (Pike,

2003, pg. 6).

With F/S members being highly engaged while in school, researchers Deborah

Abowitz and David Knox wanted to find out more about the life goals F/S members.

They surveyed 96 F/S members from Bucknell University in 2001 on 19 life goals, via a

questionnaire, utilizing a five-point Likert-scale, where 1 represented the highest of

importance and 5 the least important (Abowitz & Knox, 2003).

The goal with the highest level of importance was being happy, with a score of

1.03. The next two highest goals were tied with scores of 1.29 each, being in love and

having close friends. The fourth and fifth ranking life goals were having a life

partner/spouse with a score of 1.30, and having relatives held a score of 1.36 (Abowitz &

Knox, 2003). All of the top five life goals are relationship/emotional goals. In

comparison, the materialistic goal of having nice things in life ranked at only 2.21. The


last of all the goals ranked was a role in public politics, with a mean score of 3.39

(Abowitz & Knox, 2003).

Summary

The findings of the literature reviewed for this research paper has shown that

there is a positive relationship between the leadership F/S members assume and their

increased involvement. There was limited research that has been done on engagement

and the F/S community, but what was found did show that being a part of a F/S did have

a positive impact on continued commitment to the organization and the university.

The research showed that over time the effects of membership in a F/S are more

significant. Senior F/S members were more collaborative in their learning efforts, saw

their campus as more supportive, and interacted more with their professors (Pike, 2003).

This was not a surprise to the researcher. In addition, the research showed that senior F/S

members also realized how they could use the leadership roles they held to give them an

advantage in their post-graduation ambitions (Felsheim, 2001). This was in line with the

findings from McCannon and Bennett as they found that one of the top reasons students

joined an organization was to be able to list it on their resume. Again, this was not of a

surprise to the researcher as leadership skills are often desired.

The results from Dugan’s 2006 study showed that those in the top leadership roles

in organizations are more committed, collaborate more, work toward a common purpose,

and felt they had strong citizenship. His findings showed a strong correlation between

community service and leadership. It is important to note that one of the key priorities

for nearly all fraternities and sororities is philanthropy. Each national organization has at

least one, if not a few, philanthropies toward which they devote their energies.


In addition to giving a direction for areas of community service, national

organizations also give much direction and many opportunities for leadership

development. Through the individual officer trainings, to regional sessions, to national

gatherings, members of these organizations have several opportunities to hone their

leadership skills. As the results from the Cress, et al. study showed participating in

leadership development will give a student a stronger sense of personal & social values,

civic responsibility, multicultural awareness & community orientation, leadership

understanding & commitment, and a stronger set of leadership skills (Cress, et al., 2001).

Gellin’s research showed that there was a slightly higher level of critical thinking in

students who were involved, versus those who were not involved (Gellin, 2003).

From the above statement it is clear that leaders see themselves as gaining in

skills and abilities as they go through training, but what are the opinions of those they

lead? The studies by Posner and Adams & Keim addressed this issue. Both the studies

conducted by Posner (Posner & Brodsky, 1992 & Posner, 2004) showed that fraternity

presidents had a statistically significant higher ranking for Modeling the Way, Enabling

Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart. The Adams and Keim study compared

sorority and fraternity leaders, and the study showed that, for all five leadership practices,

sorority women rated their presidents higher then fraternity men did theirs. Clearly those

that are being lead by fraternity and sorority presidents see many talents in their leaders.

Conclusion

Based upon the findings from this research, it is this researcher’s opinion that the

leadership opportunities available to F/S members will have a positive effect on a

member, if they choose to take on a leadership role. Not only will it give them the


chance to develop their leadership skills and abilities, it will also give them a stronger

sense of commitment to the organization.

As a leader, they will not only be adding to their talents that they can use in their

own future, they will also be helping to guide and shape those that follow in their

footsteps. They will be setting an example for others. They will step out and try new

things. They will motivate and encourage others to make a difference and will recognize

the achievements of their fraternity brothers/sorority sisters.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Primary research was conducted in the in November 2008 using participants from

two national sororities at St. Cloud State University (SCSU), Delta Zeta (DZ) and Delta

Phi Epsilon (DPE), both with approximately 40 active members. Delta Zeta has 160

collegiate chapters, was founded in 1902, has 220,000 members, and has been on the

SCSU campus since 1966. Delta Phi Epsilon has 75 collegiate chapters, was founded in

1917, has 50,000 members, and has been on the SCSU campus since 1992.

To get a cross-functional representation of the sorority members, three Executive

Board members, two chairwomen members, and three DPE and four DZ general

members were surveyed. The assessments utilized in this research were: the Social

Motives in the Work Setting scale from The Art of Leadership by Manning and Curtis to

determine the social motives of the sorority members, and the BASIS-A Inventory to

determine the self-directed leadership style of the members.

For additional information on the assessments and groups see PowerPoint

presentation under Appendix A.


Chapter 4: Results

The results for the Social Motives in the Work Setting showed Delta Zeta, with

both their executives and general members striving for purposeful help that is useful, and

their chairs wanting to help, though less purposefully and more cause related, to be more

consistent toward useful help. Delta Phi Epsilon’s results for the Social Motives in the

Work Setting with their executives wanting to help, but more cause related than truly

purposeful, and their chairs with an unhealthy use of their desires to help, and only the

general members being purposeful with their help, to be in a state of disparity with their

goals.

The analysis for the BASIS-A Inventory assessment results for Delta Zeta showed

that the general members and chairs are less defined in their actions but want to make an

impact and are transactional in their actions, and the executive board members are

situational leaders. For Delta Phi Epsilon the analysis of their assessment results showed

that the general members were more focused on their own interests and would lead with

more of a doctorial leadership style, while the general members are looking for

reciprocation and transactional in their leadership style, and the executive board members

are influenced by outside pressures therefore situational leaders.

For additional information on the results from the assessments taken by the

members of Delta Zeta and Delta Phi Epsilon see PowerPoint presentation under

Appendix A.


TABLE 1

Data gathered from the BASIS-A Inventory assessment given to nine Delta Zeta

members and the eight Delta Phi Epsilon members from St. Cloud State University.

Membership Level Highest Middle Lowest

General Member –DZ Going Along Taking Charge Being Cautious

General Member – DZ Taking Charge Wanting Recognition Being Cautious

General Member – DZ Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest Being Cautious

General Member – DZ Being Cautious Going Along Wanting Recognition

General Member – DPE Belonging - Social Interest Wanting Recognition Being Cautious

General Member – DPE Being Cautious Going Along Belonging - Social Interest

General Member – DPE Going Along Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest

Chairman – DZ Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Chairman – DZ Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest Being Cautious

Chairman – DPE Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Chairman – DPE Taking Charge Going Along Being Cautious

Executive Board – DZ Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Executive Board – DZ Wanting Recognition Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board – DZ Going Along Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board – DPE Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Wanting Recognition

Executive Board – DPE Wanting Recognition Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board – DPE Going Along Wanting Recognition Taking Charge

Modality Highest Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Modality Lowest Being Cautious

Taking Charge

For Executive group no significance Being Cautious Taking Charge

For Chairman Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

For General Members no significance Wanting Recognition Being Cautious

Color Key: Delta Zeta Delta Phi Epsilon


TABLE 2

Data gathered from the Social Motives assessment given to nine Delta Zeta members and

the eight Delta Phi Epsilon members from St. Cloud State University.

Membership Level Power Achievement Human Welfare

General Member – DZ 15 32 25




General Member – DPE 24 28 22



Chairman – DZ 17 24 31


Chairman – DPE 25 22 25


Executive Board – DZ 14 32 26



Executive Board – DPE 14 28 32



Combined Avg. 17.35294 28.17647059 26.76470588

DZ Avg. 16.22222 29.44444444 26.44444444

DPE Avg. 18.625 26.75 27.125

Modality 14 28 25

Color Key:

Delta Zeta Delta Phi Epsilon


Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion

From the literature review it is clear that leadership opportunities fraternity and

sorority members become involved in has a positive effect on them. Additionally, by

becoming leaders F/S members become more committed to their organization. It is the

researchers believe that given the stronger commitment to their organization there will

also be a stronger commitment to the institution as well.

With some of the base tenants of a fraternity or sorority being to bring together

individuals of similar mind to increase their potential and better their community, it is

this researchers belief that the leaders of these organizations desire to ensure the purpose

of their organization continues on by leaving a legacy and helping to build-up those we

will continue on in the F/S after they matriculate.

The women of Delta Zeta are more aligned and have a more purposeful direction

that is useful in supporting their creed. This researcher feels this is a result of the DZ

being a larger national organization which provides more support through training and

leadership opportunities, with more regional sources to turn to for guidance, in addition

to more local alumnae support given their longevity at SCSU.

The women of Delta Phi Epsilon are in a state of disequilibrium and are vertical

striving resulting in useless actions. It is this researcher’s opinion that given the relative

newness of this organization to the SCSU campus, as well as to their national

organization, they are still defining themselves. They have few local alumnae and few

chapters in the region to support them, so there are limited resources to from which to

glean guidance.


This researcher recommends that continued research on this topic be done. One

area that could be looked at would be to gather data on men from the fraternity side of the

Greek system. Additionally, a longitudinal study on the correlation of F/S leaders and

their rates of matriculation compared to other students engaged in different school groups

as well as to those not engaged would be an area that could also be studied.


References

Abowitz, D. A. & Knox, D. (2003). Life goals among Greek college students. College

Student Journal, 37(1), 96-100.

Adams, T. C. & Keim, M. C. (2000). Leadership practices and effectiveness among

Greek student leaders. College Student Journal, 34(2), 259-271.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4), 35-39.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Corts, D. P. & Stoner, A. 2011. The college motives scale: Classifying motives for

entering college. Education, 131(4), 775-78.

Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., Burkhardt, J. C. (2001).

Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership

activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 15-28.

Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially

responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 335-344.

Felsheim, M. J. (2001). Pathways to success: How university students become student

leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin – Madison). ProQuest

Information and Learning. (UMI No. 3012601, 176)

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking:

A meta-analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student

Development, 44(6), 746-763.


Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the

lessons of experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jaswal, F. & Jaswal, T. M. (2008). Tiered mentoring to leverage student body expertise.

New Directions for Community Colleges, 144, 55-61.

Kimbrough, W. M. & Hutcheson, P. A. (1998). The impact of membership in Black

Greek-letter organizations on black students’ involvement in collegiate activities

and their development of leadership skills. The Journal of Negro Education,

67(2), 96-106.

Kern, R. M., Gormley, L., & Curlette, W. L. (2008). BASIS-A inventory empirical

studies: Research findings from 2000 to 2006. Journal of Individual Psychology,

64(3), 280-309.

Kuh, G. D. & Umbach, P. D. (2004). College and character: Insights from the national

survey of student engagement. New Directions for Institutional Research,

2004(122), 37-54.

McCannon, M. & Bennett, P. (1996). Choosing to participate or not: A study of college

students’ involvement in student organizations. College Student Journal.

Marcketti, S. B. & Kadolph, S. J. (2010). Empowering student leadership beliefs: An

exploratory study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher

Education, 22(2), 131-139.

Manning, G. & Curtis, K. (2005). The art of leadership. (1st Edition). New York:

McGraw-Hill.


Markulis, P., Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. (2006). The impact of leadership modes

on team dynamics and performance in undergraduate management classes.

Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 145-150.

Miles, J. M. (2011), Reflections of student government association leaders: implications

for advisors. College Student Journal, 45(2), 324-332.

Morris-Conley, C. M. & Kern, R. M (2003). The relationship between lifestyle and

conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(4), 475-487.

Peluso, P. R., Stoltz, K. B., Belangee, S., Grey, M. R. & Pelus, J. P. (2010). A

confirmatory factor analysis of a measure of the Adlerian lifestyle, the BASIS-A

Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(2), 152-165.

Pierce, J. L. & Newstrom, J. (2005). Leaders & the leadership process. (3rd

Edition).

New York. McGraw-Hill.

Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and

educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College

Student Development, 44(3), 369.

Posner, B. Z. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated.

Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 443-457.

Posner, B. & Brodsky, B. (1992). A leadership development instrument for college

students. Journal of College Student Development, 33(4), 231-237.

Posner, B & Brodsky, B. (1994). Leadership practices of effective student leaders:

Gender makes no difference. NASPA Journal, 31(2), 113-120.


Teams and Teamwork. In Encyclopedia of management. (6th

ed., 929-934). (2009).

Detroit, MI: Gale. Retrieved August 21, 2011 from Gale Virtual Reference

Library, www.gale.cengage.com/gvrl/

Trigg, M. K. (2006). Educating women leaders for the twenty-first century. Liberal

Education, 92(1), 22-27.

Wheeler, M. S., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. (Version 1.3). BASIS-A: Inventory.

North Carolina: TRT Associates, Inc.


Appendix A

PowerPoint Presentation Slides

Methodology


Leadership’s Involvement in EngagementAn Experiential Project

Presented toThe Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

Presented byLesley Farnham

Research Focus

• Primary research was conducted in the Fall term of 2008 using two national sororities at St. Cloud State University –Delta Zeta and Delta Phi Epsilon both, with approximately 40 active members.

• Delta Zeta has 160 collegiate chapters, was founded in 1902, has 220,000 members, and has been on the SCSU campus since 1966.

• Delta Phi Epsilon has 75 collegiate chapters, was founded in 1917, has 50,000 members, and has been on the SCSU campus since 1992.

• To get a cross functional representation of the sorority members, 3 Executive Board members, 2 Chairwomen members, and 3(DPE) & 4(DZ) General members were surveyed.


Assessments Utilized

• To determine what were the social motives of sorority members, the Social Motives in the Work Setting Assessment was used.

• To determine the self-directed leadership style of the members, the Basis-A Assessment was used.

Social Motives in the Workplace Setting

• This assessment was chosen to determine the self-motivation of the sorority members.

– Ranks Achievement, Power and Human Welfare


Raw Data CollectedMembership Level Power Achievement Human Welfare








Chairman -- DZ 17 24 31










Combined Avg. 17.35294 28.17647059 26.76470588

DZ Avg. 16.22222 29.44444444 26.44444444

DPE Avg. 18.625 26.75 27.125

Modality 14 28 25

Goal Directedness of Delta Zeta

Executive Members1)

Achievement

2) Human Welfare

3) Power

With Achievement being the highest and Human Welfare as their second priority, this shows the executive members of Delta Zeta strive for purposeful help that is useful and makes an impact.


Goal Directedness of Delta Phi Epsilon

Executive Members1) Human Welfare

2) Achievement

3) Power

With Human Welfare being the highest, and Achievement as their second priority, this shows the executive members of Delta Phi Epsilon strive to help but that help may not necessarily be useful or with purpose. Their help is driven by causes that benefit the majority.


Chair Members1) Human Welfare

2) Achievement

3) Power

With Human Welfare being the highest and Achievement as their second priority shows the Chair members of Delta Zeta strive to help but that help may not necessarily be useful or with purpose. Their help is driven by causes that benefit the majority.


Goal Directedness of Delta Phi Epsilon Chair Members

1) Human Welfare

2) Power3) Achievement

With Human Welfare being the highest, and Power as their second priority, this shows the chair members of Delta Phi Epsilon have an unhealthy use of a desire to help. It is directed toward their own wants and own causes.


General Members1)

Achievement

2) Human Welfare

3) Power

With Achievement being the highest, and Human Welfare as their second priority, this shows the general members of Delta Zeta strive for purposeful help that is useful and makes an impact.


Goal Directedness of Delta Phi Epsilon

General Members1)

Achievement

2) Human Welfare

3) Power

With Achievement being the highest, and Human Welfare as their second priority, this shows the executive members of Delta Phi Epsilon strive for purposeful help that is useful and makes an impact.

Comparison of Results

• Delta Zeta, with both their executives and general members striving for purposeful help that is useful, and their chairs wanting to help, though less purposefully and more cause related, shows a stronger consistency toward useful help.

• Delta Phi Epsilon, with their executives wanting to help, but more cause related than truly purposeful, and their chairs with an unhealthy use of their desire to help and only the general members being purposeful with their help, shows a large disparity of goals.


Basis-A

• This assessment was chosen to determine the self-directed leadership preferences of the sorority members.

– Ranks Going Along, Taking Charge, Being Cautious, Wanting Recognition, and Belonging & Social Interest

Raw Data Collected

Membership Level Highest Middle Lowest

General Member - DZ Going Along Taking Charge Being Cautious

General Member - DZ Taking Charge Wanting Recognition Being Cautious

General Member – DZ Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest Being Cautious

General Member - DZ Being Cautious Going Along Wanting Recognition

General Member - DPE Belonging - Social Interest Wanting Recognition Being Cautious

General Member - DPE Being Cautious Going Along Belonging - Social Interest

General Member - DPE Going Along Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest

Chairman - DZ Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Chairman - DZ Wanting Recognition Belonging - Social Interest Being Cautious

Chairman - DPE Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Chairman - DPE Taking Charge Going Along Being Cautious

Executive Board - DZ Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Being Cautious

Executive Board - DZ Wanting Recognition Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board - DZ Going Along Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board - DPE Belonging - Social Interest Going Along Wanting Recognition

Executive Board - DPE Wanting Recognition Being Cautious Taking Charge

Executive Board - DPE Going Along Wanting Recognition Taking Charge


Self-Directed LeadershipDelta Zeta

Executive Members ?

Taking Charge

With Taking Charge being the lowest leadership preference, and the pivotal middle preference as Being Cautious, and no mode preference for the highest, this shows that the executive members of Delta Zeta are situational leaders.

Being Cautious

Self-Directed Leadership

Delta Phi EpsilonExecutive Members ?

Taking Charge

With Taking Charge being the lowest leadership preference, and the pivotal middle preference and highest preferences being without a mode, this shows that the executive members of Delta Phi Epsilon are situational leaders.

?


Analysis of Executive Results

• Given TC is lowest shows that these leaders realize the many external pressures and rules they face dictate more of what they do.

• For leaders with BC as the pivotal element, outside pressures will dictate even more so which way they go, most often making them situational leaders


Chair Members ?

Being Cautious

With Being Cautious being the lowest leadership preference, and the pivotal middle preference and the highest preference without a mode, this shows that the chair members of Delta Zeta are transactional leaders.

?



Delta Phi Epsilon Chair Members ?

Being Cautious

With Being Cautious being the lowest leadership preference, and the pivotal middle preference as Going Along, and the highest preference without a mode, this shows that the chair members of Delta Phi Epsilon are transactional leaders.

Going Along

Analysis of Chairwomen Results

• With GA as the pivotal element for these leaders, outside pressures will dictate which way they go most often – hence a transactional leadership style.

• As transactional leaders they are looking for reciprocation and often negotiate. Often seen as being utilitarian.

• The chairs with BSI as highest are currently in a transactional state, but about half-way to becoming transformational leaders.



General Members ?

Being Cautious

With Being Cautious being the lowest leadership preference. and the pivotal middle preference, and the highest preference without a mode, this shows that the general members of Delta Zeta are transactional leaders.

?


Delta Phi EpsilonChair Members ?

Belonging and

Social Interest

With Belonging & Social Interest being the lowest leadership preference, and the pivotal middle preference as Wanting Recognition, and the highest preference without a mode, this shows that the chair members of Delta Phi Epsilon are dictatorship leaders.

Wanting Recognition


Analysis of General Member Results

• The DZ members with BC lowest are transactional and want to make an impact with their actions.

• The DPE members with BSI lowest and WR as their pivot want to make their mark & stand out. They are more focused on their own interests.

Conclusions from Data re: DZ

• The general members of Delta Zeta are less defined in their actions, but with BC as their lowest point, there is confidence in this group that problems can be solved.

• The chairs are transactional, and with BC as their lowest element, they feel solutions to problems can be found as well.

• With the external pressures upon the executives, BC as a pivot, and TC as low, this shows that these leaders take each situation as it comes.


Conclusions from Data re: DPE

• The general members with a directorial leadership style are very self-focused.

• The chairs are transactional, and with BC as their lowest element, they feel solutions to problems can be found.

• With no common pivot or high element, their executive members lack clarity of purpose and vision.

Comparison of DZ & DPE

• With the members being more diverse in their goals throughout DPE, there would be less purposeful and unified efforts in this organization.

• DZ being more aligned with the purpose of their organization would indicate that useful, purposeful action is more likely to occur here (6 of 9 had BC as lowest).


Summary of Data Analysis

• The women of Delta Zeta are more aligned and have a more purposeful direction that is useful in supporting their creed.

– This researcher feels this is a result of the DZ being a larger national organization which provides more support through training and leadership opportunities, with more regional sources to turn to for guidance, in addition to more local alumnae support given their longevity at SCSU.

Summary of Data Analysis (cont.)

• The women of Delta Phi Epsilon are in a state of disequilibrium and are vertical striving resulting in useless actions.– It is this researcher’s opinion that given the

relative newness of this organization to the SCSU campus, as well as to their national organization, they are still defining themselves. They have few local alumnae and few chapters in the region to support them, so there are limited resources to from which to glean guidance.


Discussion

• Literature Review Conclusions:

– Leadership opportunities for F/S members will have a positive effect on a member.

– Leadership will give them a stronger sense of commitment to the organization.

– Leadership roles allow for guidance, through their actions, to those who will continue on in the organization after a member graduates.

Discussion (cont.)

• Primary Data Conclusions: The organization who’s members had the most useful and purposeful members was the one that had the larger national organization, and who had over twice the history on campus to glean from.


Appendix B





Appendix C


Date post:	24-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	14 times
Download:	0 times

Running head: LEADERSHIP’S EFFECT ON FRATERNITY AND ... MP 2011.pdf · Running head:...

Documents