THESIS MANUSCRIPT

CHARACTERISTICS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENT LEADERS
by
CHRISTINE KAY ANDERSON, B.S. (Northern Illinois University) 2012
EMILY SUZANNE APITZ, B.S. (Eastern Illinois University) 2012
JENNIFER ROSE CONTERIO, B.S. (Purdue University) 2010
COLLEEN ANNE GANDOLFI, B.S. (Benedictine University) 2012
KRISTIN PAGE LAWLER, B.S. (Northern Illinois University) 2012
CARLY MARIE SMITHERMAN, B.S. (Northern Illinois University) 2012
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SICENCE in NUTRITION AND WELLNESS
in the College of Education and Health Services,
Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois
Research Advisor:
Catherine Arnold, M.S., Ed.D.
November 2013

ii
A MIXED METHOD STUDY OF STUDENT LEADERS
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT
by
CHRISTINE ANDERSON
EMILY APITZ
JENNIFER CONTERIO
COLLEEN GANDOLFI
KRISTIN LAWLER
CARLY SMITHERMAN
The Research Manuscript submitted has been read and approved by the Research
Advisor. It is hereby recommended that this Research Manuscript be accepted as
fulfilling part of the Master of Science in Nutrition and Wellness graduate degree in the
College of Education and Health Services at Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois:
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Signature of Catherine Arnold, M.S., Signature of Karen Plawecki, M.S., Ph.D.
Ed.D. Director, M.S. in Nutrition and Wellness
Research Advisor APPROVED FOR BINDING
___________________________________
Signature of Catherine Arnold, M.S., Ed.D.
Chairperson, Nutrition Department
APPROVED COMPLETION OF
RESEARCH REQUIREMENT
___________________________________
Signature of Alan Gorr, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Dean, College of Education and Health
Services
_________________________________ December, 2013 __
Date of Oral Defense Intended Graduation Date (Month, Year)

iii
I authorize Benedictine University, 5700 College Road, Lisle, IL 60532, to lend this
Research Report, or reproductions of it, in total or in part, at the request of other
institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.
________________________________
Student Name (Print)_______________
_________________________________
Student Signature and Date___________
________________________________
________________________________
Student Name (Print) __________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Research Advisor Name (Print)_______
________________________________
Student Signature and Date__________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Research Advisor Signature and Date__

iv
© Copyright by
Christine Kay Anderson, Emily Suzanne Apitz, Jennifer Rose Conterio, Colleen Anne
Gandolfi, Kristin Page Lawler, Carly Marie Smitherman
2013: All Rights Reserved

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi
STRUCTURED RESEARCH ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Context of the Study 1
Purpose and Research Question 3
Methods 4
Definition of Terms 4
Hypotheses 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Leadership Theories by Jennifer Conterio 9
Leadership & Volunteerism by Christine Anderson 11
Family Dynamics/Environment & Leadership by Colleen Gandolfi 13
Leadership & Religious Affiliation by Emily Apitz 18
Self-efficacy & Leadership by Carly Smitherman 20
Gender & Leadership by Kristin Lawler 24
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 27
Research Study Design 27
Participants 27
Data Collection Methodology 28
Measurement Tools 29
Statistical Procedures 41
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS: IN-CLASS SURVEYS 42
Outliers Treatment of the Data 42
Descriptive Profile of Participants 42
Leadership & Gender (Hₒ1) by Kristin Lawler 44

vi
Leadership & Family (Hₒ15) by Colleen Gandolfi 52
Leadership & Family (Hₒ16) by Colleen Gandolfi 54
Leadership & Religion (Hₒ17) by Emily Apitz 56
Leadership & Religion (Hₒ18) by Emily Apitz 58
Leadership & Volunteerism (Hₒ19) by Christine Anderson 59
Leadership & Leadership Styles (Hₒ26) by Jennifer Conterio 65
Leadership & Self-efficacy (Hₒ34) by Carly Smitherman 81
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 87
Conclusions 87
Applications 87
Generalizability 89
Limitations 89
Recommendations 90
REFERENCES 91
APPENDIX A:Permission to use Leadership Self-Efficacy Scale 93
APPENDIX B:Leadership Survey plus SLPI (Pretest) 94
APPENDIX C:Leadership Survey plus SLPI (Posttest) 97

vii
APPENDIX D:Interview lead and follow-up questions 98
APPENDIX E: Letter of Consent 99

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Impact of Others……………………………………………………........ 30
2. Total Variance Explained……………………………………………….. 30
3. Rotated Component Matrix……………………………………………... 31
4. Cronbach’s Alpha……………………………………………………….. 31
5. Cronbach’s Alpha……………………………………………………….. 32
6. Reliability Statistics……………………………………………………… 32
7. Impact of Participation Before College………………………………….. 33
8. Total Variance Explained………………………………………………... 33
9. Rotated Component Matrix……………………………………………… 34
12. Impact of Previous & Current Experience……………………………….. 36
13. Total Variance Explained………………………………………………… 37
14. Rotated Component Matrix………………………………………………. 39
15. Reliability Statistics………………………………………………………. 39
16. Reliability Statistics………………………………………………………. 40
17. Gender Descriptives………………………………………………………. 43
18. SLPI Results between Males and Females………………………………... 45
19. Independent t-Test between Males and Females…………………………. 46
20. Leadership Self-efficacy Survey of Males and Females………………….. 49
21. Independent t-Test of Leadership Survey between Males and Females….. 49
22. Pearson Correlation-Mother/Father Education and SLPI………………… 53

ix
23. Pearson Correlation-Family Influence and SLPI…………………………. 54
24. Information from Interviews……………………………………………… 56
25. Pearson Correlation-Attendance of Religious Services and Pre-Test SLPI. 57
26. Pearson Correlation-Prayer/Meditation and Pre-Test SLPI………………. 58
27. Spearman-rho-Prayer/Meditation and Pre-Test SLPI…………………...... 59
28. Pearson Correlation-Before College Community Service/Events………... 59
29. Pearson Correlation-Before College and In College…………………….... 61
30. Correlations-SLPI…………………………………………………………. 66
31. Pearson Correlation-Leadership and SLPI………………………………... 68
32. Descriptive Statistics-GPA and SLPI……………………………………... 72
33. Grand Mean……………………………………………………………….. 72
34. Multivariate Tests………………………………………………………… 73
35. Paired Samples Statistics…………………………………………………. 74
36. Paired Samples t-Test……………………………………………………... 74
37. Paired Samples Statistics Male…………………………………………..... 76
38. Paired Samples Test Male………………………………………………… 76
39. Paired Samples Statistics Female…………………………………………. 78
40. Paired Samples Test Female……………………………………………… 79
41. Independent Sample Test-Variance……………………………………….. 82
42. Independent Sample Test-Comparison of Experimental and Match Group. 83
43. Pearson Correlation-Self-Efficacy and Age………………………………. 84
44. Pearson Correlation-Self-Efficacy Posttest and Age……………………... 84
45. Pearson Correlation-Pre and Posttest Self-Efficacy……………………… 85
46. Paired Samples Test-Pre and Posttest Self-Efficacy……………………… 86

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Gender……………………………………………………………………. 43
2. Ethnicity…………………………………………………………………... 44
3. Mother Education Level…………………………………………………... 51
4. Father Education Level……………………………………………………. 52
5. Model the Way…………………………………………………………….. 80
6. Challenge the Process……………………………………………………… 81

xii
ABSTRACT OF THE RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT
A Mixed Method Study of Student Learners
By
Christine Kay Anderson
Emily Suzanne Apitz
Jennifer Rose Conterio
Colleen Anne Gandolfi
Kristin Page Lawler
Carly Marie Smitherman
Master of Science in Nutrition and Wellness
Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois
November 2013 Research Advisor: Catherine Arnold
Objectives: To determine the qualities present in student leaders at a Midwestern
university and also the factors and traits that contribute to a person becoming a leader.
Design: A mixed method design using both quantitative and qualitative data was used.
Measures: Quantitative data was gathered using the Student Leadership Practice
Inventory (SLPI) and supplemental surveys. Analysis of the pretest and posttest SLPI
scores and self-efficacy were examined using SPSS. The qualitative data was gathered
through pair interviews examining multiple aspects of leadership.
Subjects: Forty-two undergraduate students identified as student leaders from a
Midwestern university were analyzed (24 females, 18 males).
Statistical Analysis: Pearson Correlations were calculated to determine correlations
between SLPI scores and factors such as family influence, religion, volunteerism and
self-efficacy. When comparing means between genders, between pre-test and posttest
SLPI scores and between experimental and match leadership groups, t-tests were used. A
Spearman rho correlation was calculated to determine the relationship between aspects of
religion and SLPI scores. A one-way MANOVA was calculated to determine the effect of
GPA on pre-test SLPI scores.
Results: Data collected showed that females were significantly higher than males in the
ability to, “enable others to act” and “modeling the way” (t(41) = 1.26, p = .02, d = .20.
No significance was found between parent education level or family influence on SLPI
responses. However, qualitative results support the role of family in leadership

xiii
development. There was a significant correlation found between frequency of attending
religious services and SLPI and for pray/meditation and SLPI. Significant correlations
were found between volunteerism before college and event participation before college.
Significant correlations were found between participation in external organizations,
events, college volunteerism and leadership. Community service before college had a
significant correlation with SLPI scores, and the leadership training program had a
significant effect on SLPI scores for “model the way” and “challenge the process”. There
was no significance between experimental and match groups in self-efficacy
characteristics. There was also no significance between self-efficacy pre and posttest
scores and age or pre and posttest self-efficacy characteristic scores.
Conclusions: Gender, religion and volunteerism appear to be major factors in
identifying leadership qualities and in determining who will become leaders. Further
research is needed, but these findings could play an important role in choosing students
for graduate programs as well as dietetic internship programs.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Context of the Study
The question of whether leaders are born or made has been assessed ten times
over by researchers and scientists alike. Originally, it was believed that individuals were
born with certain innate characteristics or traits favorable for leadership and that these
individuals would become successful leaders (1). Although the answer to this question is
still not definitive, a great deal has been discovered about specific traits and
characteristics that may be learned by individuals to become leaders and the factors that
contribute to leadership development (2, 3). The idea that leadership is a learnable skill
creates the possibility for anyone to obtain these traits and characteristics, opposed to a
select few leaders who are "born that way" (1). However, having these traits does not
automatically make someone a leader. It is known that one must make decisions and take
certain actions throughout their life in order to become an effective leader (2, 3).
There are various factors, or themes, associated with leadership discussed
throughout the length of this report. Prominent leadership theories, volunteerism, family
dynamics/environment, religious affiliation, self-efficacy, and gender play a role in
leadership development and therefore were included in the research for this study. This
study was meant to provide the research team with valuable information regarding
student leaders and how these specific themes contributed to their personal decisions to
lead.
Two main leadership theories were common amongst the literature; constructive
developmental theory and transformational leadership theory. These theories help us to
understand the processes involved in leadership development along with the
characteristics favorable for leadership, essentially providing a framework for success.
Leaders exhibit characteristics such as being proactive, being innovative, and being a
visionary. Volunteerism and leadership often go hand in hand. For many leaders,

2
volunteering allows them to utilize these characteristics in a way that not only benefits
themselves, but others as well. Family upbringing (including parental morals/values,
parental leadership styles, parental support, family conflict) and the social environment
one grows up in (socioeconomic status, parental support, parental conflict) have been
known to shape multiple aspects of an individual as well as influence their motivation to
lead and their leadership style. Religious affiliation is often an important characteristic
for many people. Religion and religious beliefs can be influential in the way one lives,
including their decision to lead. Self-efficacy strongly correlates with leadership as seen
in multiple studies. Further investigations regarding leadership and self-efficacy will
continue to divulge how the skills and attributes of one, impact the other. Gender
stereotypes have previously idealized males as a stronger leader than females and the
percentage of current female managers is shockingly low. Characteristics of feminine
personalities are associated with traits necessary for a transformational leader and
evidence that transformational leadership is effective in the management world continues
to accumulate.
The concept of higher education institutions and their role in developing socially
responsible leaders began gaining much attention in the early 1990's (3). Since then,
campus leadership practices have expanded from approximately 700 leadership
programs existing on college campuses to over 1,000 programs nationally today (3).
Research suggests that throughout colligate years, students are capable of, and often do,
hone their leadership skills (3). In fact, the findings from a national study conducted by
Dugan and Komives demonstrated that college experiences accounted for 7% to 14% of
the overall variance in leadership outcomes (3). Many factors are thought to contribute to
this phenomenon. Environmental factors such as living away from home, student-student
interactions, student-faculty interaction, campus involvement, intramural sports,
volunteer work, acting as a tutor, group projects, and class presentations are all thought to
positively impact leadership development (2). Background factors such as age, sex, grade
point average, and personality factors such as intelligence, self-efficacy, extroversion,
and self-confidence are also influential elements for student leadership development (2).
Colleges and universities aim to provide students with a variety of learning and service
opportunities in order to enhance their leadership abilities and qualities (1).

3
Dugan and Komives thoroughly examined the factors associated with leadership
development in college students using a multi-institutional national study involving 55
universities and over 165,000 students (3). One aspect of this study was to examine how
students' perceptions on leadership changed over time. The students' perceptions of
leadership positively increased for consciousness of self, congruence, collaboration,
common purpose, citizenship, change, and leadership efficacy; with the greatest
magnitudes of change being consciousness of self and leadership efficacy (3). Although
these changes occurred during the college years, it is difficult to say whether these
changes were the result of the college environment or other influences. This study also
assessed the role and degree to which demographics, pre-college experiences, and college
experiences such as mentoring, campus involvement, acts of service, holding positional
leadership roles, and formal leadership programs have on leadership development (3).
From this study, it was determined that short, moderate, and long-term leadership training
experiences all had significant effects on leadership efficacy (in comparison with no
training) (3).
Purpose and Research Question
Research has shown that leadership characteristics and traits are becoming
increasingly important for an individual to possess. The National Association of Colleges
and Employers’ Job Outlook 2012 survey, as cited in the IRB, noted that nearly 80
percent of respondents “search for evidence that the potential employee can work in a
team", and more than three-quarters indicated they "want the résumé to show the
candidate has leadership abilities.” Our study will be able to determine which qualities
are present in students currently identified as leaders by our university. Using the data
obtained, we may then be able to promote the development of leadership in
nutrition/dietetics students, as well as students of other fields. The purpose or goal of our
study is to explore the primary guiding question:
o How do university students develop as leaders?
Additionally, we will explore numerous variables that may impact development
and current leadership scores of the student leaders, to answer questions such as:
o Do males and females differ? Do leaders differ across other demographic
characteristics?

4
o Is there a relationship between self-efficacy and leadership?
o Is there a connection between campus involvement, volunteerism, and
leadership?
o Can past involvement activities (or pre-college participation in clubs, teams,
or activities), volunteerism, and/or leadership experiences predict leadership
attributes and/or leadership self-efficacy?
o What are common experiences prior to college that influence leadership?
o What is the influence of family or faith on leadership?
Methods
Our experimental group was comprised of current students from the selected
Midwestern University identified as leaders who participated in a leadership- training
program in April 2013 by invitation from the university's Director of Student
Engagement and Leadership. This leadership program targets the development of
leadership skills measured on the Student Leadership Practice Inventory (SLPI), and was
delivered by this director. Current university students identified as leaders who were not
participating in a leadership training program in April were the match group.
There was two types of data analyzed, qualitative and quantitative data.
Quantitative data was gathered using the Student Leadership Practice Inventory and
supplemental surveys. Analysis of the pretest and posttest SLPI scores and self-efficacy
were examined using SPSS.
The qualitative method used in our research was pair interviewing. This
qualitative method was used to gain a better understanding of participant's experiences in
life and why they chose to become a leader. Pair interviewing was used for increased
validity and word credibility. Interviews were also voice recorded by the interviewing
pair, or graduate students. Data was gathered encompassing multiple aspects of
leadership and comparison of data and methods was performed at several intervals during
data collection.
Definition of Terms
Several terms used throughout the study are described here so that the reader will
understand topics being referenced. The terms and their definitions are listed below.

5
Leadership:"the ability to inspire and guide others toward building and achieving
a shared vision. Association leaders shall model the way with a mindset for
transformation, innovation, invention, adaptability, empowerment and risk-taking. This
leadership mindset will enable the Association and its members to embark on a path
toward a successful future"(The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics).
Leadership Program:"college-sponsored experience with student participants who
attend in order to learn about and develop individual leadership traits and characteristics"
Transformation leadership: "leadership by empowerment. Comprised of four
components consisting of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration" (Walumbwa 2011, Zacharatos, 2000).
Leadership Role Occupancy: "the extent to which individuals have occupied or
are now occupying positions of formal leadership in organizational settings" (Zhang,
2009).
Socioeconomic Status (SES): "describes an individual's or a family’s ranking on
hierarchy according to access or control over a combination of valued commodities such
as wealth, power, and social status. This also serves as an overall measure of the level of
possible resources available to adolescents when they grow up" (Zhang, 2009).
Family Environments: "include the level of financial resources and the parental
support offered via emotional understanding, family involvement in the individual's
activities, and financial funding of interests of the individual" (Zhang, 2009).
Social Environments: "include neighborhood, school, peers, safety, and
availability of leadership programs and involvement opportunities" (Zhang, 2009).
Enriched Environments: "having a higher family socioeconomic status, higher
perceived parental support, and lower perceived conflict with parents or social
environments" (Zhang, 2009).
Inspirational Motivation: "the ability to inspire and motivate others to
demonstrate appropriate behavior" (Sahgal, 2007).
Supportive Parenting: "providing careful attention, guidance, and support which
instills and sets the foundation in children that they can be special and feel valued"
(Sahgal, 2007).

6
Self-efficacy: "defined as the belief in oneself to have the personal capabilities
and resources to meet the demands to perform specific tasks" (McCormick 2002).
Occupational self-efficacy: "reflects the belief of a person that he/she can execute
behaviors relevant to complete their own work" (Schyns 2010).
Gender: "male or female based on possession of male or female reproductive
organs"
Fortune 500 company: "yearly list of the largest 500 industrial companies in the
U.S
“Manager, Leader, and Boss will be used interchangeably in this report"
Hypotheses
Hₒ1: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “modeling the
way” between males and females based on the SLPI.
Hₒ2: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “inspiring a shared
vision” between males and females based on the SLPI.
Hₒ3: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “challenging the
process” between males and females based on the SLPI.
Hₒ4: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “enabling others to
act” between males and females based on the SLPI.
Hₒ5: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “encouraging the
heart” between males and females based on the SLPI.
Hₒ6: There is no difference between the percentile score for “modeling the way” between
males and females.
Hₒ7: There is no difference between the percentile score for “inspiring a shared vision”
between males and females.
Hₒ8: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “challenging the process”
Hₒ9: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “enabling others to act”
Hₒ10: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “encouraging the heart”

7
Hₒ11: There is no difference between the self-efficacy levels of ability to perform
managerial leadership tasks reported between males and females.
Hₒ12: There is no difference between the self-efficacy levels of the ability to perform
charismatic leadership tasks reported between males and females.
leadership tasks that require taking action reported by males and females.
personalization leadership tasks reported by males and females.
Hₒ15: Mother and father education level is not related to the ability to “model the way”,
“inspire a shared vision”, “challenge the process”, “enable others to act”, or
“encourage the heart” in terms of leadership.
Hₒ16: Family influence is not related to the ability to “model the way”, “inspire a shared
vision”, “challenge the process”, “enable others to act”, or “encourage the heart” in
terms of leadership.
Ho17: Attending religious services is not related to the ability to “model the way”,
“inspire a shared vision”, “challenge the process”, “enable others to act”, or
Ho18: Participating in prayer and/or meditation is not related to the ability to “model the
way”, “inspire a shared vision”, “challenge the process”, “enable others to act”, or
Ho19: There is no relationship between community service participation before college
and event participation before college.
Ho20: There is no relationship between community service participation in elementary
school and participation in college sports.
Ho21: There is no relationship between participation in external organizations in college
and participation in community service before college.
Ho22: There is no relationship between participation in external organizations in college
and community leadership in college.
Ho23: There is no relationship between participation in events (sports/activism) before
college and participation in college sports.

8
Ho24: There is no relationship between school-related community service and
community leadership in college.
Ho25: There is no relationship between school-related community service and
community leadership before college.
Hₒ26: There is no relationship between participating in community service activities
prior to college and SLPI response scores.
Hₒ27: There is no relationship between participating in sporting/activism events prior to
college and SLPI response scores.
Hₒ28: There is no relationship between frequency of seeking out leadership opportunities
and SLPI response scores.
Hₒ29: There is no relationship between frequency of acting as a group leader and SLPI
response scores.
Hₒ30: Individuals’ GPA does not have any effect on SLPI scores.
Hₒ31: The leadership training program will have no effect on pre-test to posttest SLPI
scores.
scores in males.
scores in females.
Hₒ34: There is no difference between Group 111 (experimental group) and Group 222
(match group) and self-efficacy scores.
Hₒ35: There is no relationship between the self-efficacy pre-test scores and age.
Hₒ36: There is no relationship between the self-efficacy posttest scores and age.
Hₒ37: There is no difference between the pre and posttest scores for SE1:
managerial/administrative in relation to leadership.
Hₒ38: There is no difference between the pre and posttest scores for SE2: charisma in
relation to leadership.
Hₒ39: There is no difference between the pre and posttest scores for SE3:taking action in
relation to leadership.
Hₒ40: There is no difference between the pre and posttest scores for SE4:personalization
in relation to leadership.

9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership Theories
As the definition of leadership continues to develop and change over time, so do
the theories and models used to describe and categorize leadership behaviors and
processes (4). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics defines leadership as, "the ability
to inspire and guide others toward building and achieving a shared vision. Association
leaders shall model the way with a mindset for transformation, innovation, invention,
adaptability, empowerment and risk-taking. This leadership mindset will enable the
Association and its members to embark on a path toward a successful future" (5). While
this definition provides ideal leadership characteristics, it does not identify the leadership
processes used to provide this end result. When looking at the literature, the amount on
leadership alone seems to be unlimited while leadership as it relates to the field of
dietetics is minimal. Through our extensive research, we were able to find two main
leadership theories that seem to be the most prominent within the dietetics profession;
Constructive Developmental Theory and Transformational Theory (4, 5, 6, 7).
Constructive Developmental Theory
Constructive developmental theory focuses on the mindset of the individual, not
specific traits or characteristics of the individual. Constructive developmental theorists
believe that "persons move through qualitatively different ways of knowing who they are,
how the world works, and how they know what they know" and that "leaders as
individuals develop over the life course and do so in predictable ways" (6). The origin of
the constructive developmental theory is Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development
(6). The process of how human beings "come to know" and the stages of mental growth
we travel through acquiring this ability of "abstract symbolic reasoning" is what this
theory is centered upon (6). Human development is both horizontal and vertical (6).
Horizontal growth is what we see most in adults and consists of learning new skills, new

10
methods, new facts, or pursuing advanced degrees (6). A person may grow horizontally
in knowledge acquisition, while their vertical development remains the same (6). Vertical
growth focuses on how people tend to reason and behave in response to their experiences.
Vertical development is illustrated as a spiral of developmental stages. An individual
lives through the earlier stages before progressing to the later stages and once one has
journeyed through a stage, it becomes part of that individual (6). However, most humans
do not grow through the entire spiral and will settle in the stage that is most comfortable
for them (6). Developmental psychologists agree that the stage of vertical development is
what differentiates leaders, rather than their personality or philosophy of leadership (6).
The stages of vertical development can better be described as Action Logics. The Action
Logics model is separated into three tiers, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional. The pre-conventional tier contains the earlier stages of change and the post-
conventional tier contains the later stages of change (6). In the field of dietetics,
individuals in the later post-conventional stages can provide proficient leadership to the
profession and serve as leadership mentors (6). Conventional leadership theory can
identify the stage of vertical development in leaders within the profession to help to
understand the factors that contribute to the movement from one stage to the next (6).
Transformational Theory
New leadership theories have begun to emerge within the last decade,
transformational theory being one of them. Transformational leadership does not replace
the well-known theory of transactional leadership, but enhances it (5). The characteristics
of a transformational leader are described as one who is inspiring, energetic, is
enthusiastic in nature, has a vision, and is passionate (4, 5, 7, 8). Charisma is another
known trait of a transformational leader. However, a charismatic leader is not always
transformational as they may not place emphasis on the development of their followers.
A transformational leader supports the development of self-reliance with the main goal of
transforming their followers and the organization itself (8). Avolio and Bass described
the skills of a transformational leader as the four I's: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (8). Idealized
influence represents the followers' confidence and appreciation which is necessary for the
acceptance of changes within the organization (8). Inspirational motivation is the ability

11
to inspire and motivate followers to demonstrate appropriate behaviors (8). Intellectual
stimulation is the process of stretching the followers' competencies in order to drive
change in their way of thinking about issues and their performance (8). Individualized
consideration is the leader's ability to observe, analyze and predict the needs and wishes
of followers (8). Although there is not much literature on leadership relating to the field
of dietetics, the existing literature shows that dietetic students as well as registered
dietitians exhibit many qualities of a transformational leader (4, 5, 7).
Leadership & Volunteerism
Volunteerism is a trait exhibited by many leaders. It is thought to be an important
factor both in determining what makes a good leader, and also in determining the types of
individuals who will take on leadership roles at some point in their lives. Many factors
can contribute to a person’s decision to become a volunteer, including their familial
influence, their religion, and the culture in which they live. It is important to note that
these factors are often introduced during childhood or adolescence and will continue to
influence a person throughout their entire life. Another thing that might influence a
person’s decision to become a volunteer is school. Many colleges and universities are
now requiring their applicants to have some volunteer experience to even be considered
for admission. A further look into some of these factors can help identify what leads to
volunteerism and how it is related to leadership.
Family Influence and Youth Volunteerism
Many studies have been done to help determine why a person makes the decision
to become a volunteer. According to studies conducted by Dunham et al., many people
who become volunteers were raised in a household where one or both parents were
volunteers. Therefore, the parents served as role models for youth volunteerism.
Oftentimes, these parents would participate in volunteer activities with their children.
This taught them at a young age to become community oriented (9, 10).
Many children and adolescents are involved in groups such as 4-H. Children who
are involved with these types of groups at a young age are more likely to take on
leadership roles and are more likely to be involved in volunteer activities as they move
into adulthood (11).
Religion and Culture

12
Cultural beliefs are often based on religion, and both are linked to volunteerism.
Some cultures are more egocentric, whereas others are more altruistic. Cultures that focus
more on the society as a whole tend to have ideals that are more in line with those seen in
volunteerism (12). People who are members of an organized religion are more likely to
become volunteers than people who are not affiliated with a religion. An article from
Louis Penner states that 80% of people who were organized religion members
participated in volunteer activities, while only 62% of people who were not members of a
particular religion participated in volunteer activities. Another interesting finding in this
study was that volunteers scored higher on a religiosity measure than non-volunteers,
meaning they considered themselves to be more religious.
Religion was also significantly correlated with other factors, such as the number
of organizations they volunteered for and also the length of time they spent volunteering
for these organizations. The higher a person scored on the religiosity measure, the more
organizations they tended to be involved with and the more time they spent at these
organizations. Religion, although not the focus of this particular study, showed the
strongest correlation with volunteer activities when compared with factors like
personality or socio-economic status. Therefore, it is noted that religion should continue
to be looked at in future studies involving volunteerism (13).
Demographics of Volunteers
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2012, there was little change in
the total number of volunteers for the year. Women continue to volunteer more than men
(29.5% vs. 23.2%) and this was true for all ages, levels of education, and other
demographics. The age group that is most likely to volunteer is the 35-44 year old group.
The group with the lowest volunteer rates was the 20-24 year old group. Also, after age
45, the volunteer rate began to taper off. When looking at race, whites volunteer at a rate
higher than blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, with little change in the rates of each group
over the year. Also interesting to note was that married people tend to volunteer at a
higher rate than those of other marital statuses (14).
Motivation
People tend to have particular motivators that play a role in their decision to
volunteer. A study by Clary and Snyder explored different motivators people have, and

13
how these motivators can impact the length of volunteerism. They broke it down into six
“functions” served by volunteering: values, understanding, enhancement, career, social
and protective. Some of these are based on the desire to help oneself, and some are based
on the selfless desire to help others. Based on responses to a survey asking people to
indicate their personal motivators, the researchers discovered that most people’s
motivators for volunteerism are multifaceted. People want to do something to help others,
but at the same time may be required to volunteer for school or may use it as an escape
from their own troubles. With this in mind, it is important for recruiters to target their
messages to people whose motivators are in line with the nature of the volunteer work.
The researchers also found that college students who felt that their volunteer work
fulfilled a particular motivation or function were more likely to continue volunteering
(15).
The Organization
The organization itself plays an important role in volunteerism. First of all, the
majority of volunteers are part of an organization. It is far less common for individuals
outside of an organization to engage in volunteerism that is sustained for a significant
amount of time. It is thought that as many as 85% of volunteers are part of an
organization, so how the organization is run has a huge impact on determining if and for
how long they will have volunteers (12). The recruitment process is only the beginning.
Motivators and functions, which were previously mentioned, are not concrete. They may
change over time, and an organization needs to be aware of this in order to maintain its
volunteers. It is also important for the organization to continuously encourage its
volunteers and to remind them that the goal of volunteerism is to better society as a whole
(16).
Family Dynamics/Environment & Leadership
Family structure and dynamics have been shown to shape the way a child grows
and matures throughout his or her life. However, do family dynamics and upbringing
specifically influence the child’s leadership skills or lack thereof? Several studies have
been conducted to address this issue by examining leadership skills as related to family
environment vs. genetic influences, the influence of parent’s leadership skills on the
child’s motivation to lead, and the influence of life experiences in shaping leaders today.

14
The first study conducted by Zhang et al., addresses the controversial question
surrounding the nature of genetic influences on leadership and whether the genetic effects
establish constraints on the effectiveness of leadership development efforts in
organizations and in earlier life. Specifically, it examines whether the heritability of
leadership at work is moderated by individuals’ developmental environment in
adolescence (17).
The study presented two distinct conceptual, yet opposite, arguments for the
moderating effects of the social environment on leadership. First, a more enriched
environment would allow greater influence of genetic differences in leadership capacity,
thus strengthening the heritability of leadership emergence. The second argument is
based on the leadership theory that links overcoming adversity and crises to leadership
emergence. Therefore, a more impoverished social environment, like those involving
interpersonal conflict, would allow the greater influences of genetic differences in
leadership capabilities.
The study examined three family social environmental variables; the first being
family socioeconomic status (SES) including wealth, power, and social status. Second
was perceived parental support (PPS), and last was perceived conflict with parents (PCP).
The subjects were male twins who completed three different surveys including a
background questionnaire, a parental environmental questionnaire, and a leadership
survey (17).
The study reported that the presence of adversity and conflict facilitates the
greater influence of genetic leadership potential. This is also true of individuals from low
SES families. Therefore, “leadership genes” that one is born with, will have a greater
influence on one’s leadership potential in an environment of low SES, negative parental
support, and greater parental conflict. The flip side of this result was also true in that
environments characterized by higher SES, higher levels of perceived parental support,
and lower perceived conflict with parents were associated with a lower heritability of
leadership role occupancy (17).
The study showed that the family economic and social environments experienced
by adolescents have important effects on the magnitude of genetic influences on
leadership exhibited later in life. When an individual came from a family with higher

15
SES, higher parental support or lower conflict with parents, his/her opportunities of
becoming a leader in the workplace were determined more by environmental factors
rather than genetic factors. Therefore, even those born without the “leadership genes”
have the opportunity to become leaders by experiencing an enriched family environment
during their adolescent years (17).
The next study conducted by Hartman et al. examined how parental influence
may shape the leadership process. The study emphasized the ideas offered by behavioral
modeling which suggests that children have the opportunity to observe their parents’
leadership style and adopt the style demonstrated by an admired parent, but reacts against
a parent who is not admired.
The study utilized 195 college students majoring in business administration from
two universities. Each completed the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire to
describe their management style. They then completed the same questionnaire to describe
their perceptions of the management style used by a nominated person as an important
early influence (i.e. parent). Finally, the nominated person (i.e. parent) completed the
questionnaire. Correlations among the completed questionnaires were examined. The
researchers hypothesized that students’ reported leadership styles will be positively
correlated with both their perceptions of the parents’ leadership styles and with their
parents’ self-reports of their styles. It was also hypothesized that the students’ perceptions
of their parents’ style will be more closely related to the students’ style than will parents’
self-reports of their own styles (18).
Correlations were positive, indicating that students’ scores were similar to
parents’ scores, supporting the first hypothesis. Correlations were higher between
parents’ perceived scores and students’ scores than between parents’ reported scores and
student’s scores, which supports the second hypothesis. Therefore, the results indicated
that parents’ leadership styles, especially their styles as perceived by their children, were
related to their children’s leadership styles. This suggested that the students learned at
least some aspects of leadership from their parents early in life (18).
A study conducted by Sahgal et al. used a developmental approach to examine the
life experiences that have shaped the lives of leaders who have successfully transformed
organizations. The study attempted to answer these questions: How do leaders develop?

16
Do life experiences or specific events/circumstances make a leader? What are leaders’
self-perceptions and the drivers for their success? (8).
The group consisted of 10 Indian leaders serving in various leadership positions.
Each individual was interviewed and an analysis of the qualitative data was conducted
and classified into nine broad areas (four of these areas being family related, including
supportive parenting, inspiration of the father, relentless pursuit of values, and rising
above adversity) (8).
For supportive parenting, the subject leader received encouragement and positive
reinforcement from parents and significant family members. There was relatively low
direction on achievement of long-term career goals and greater emphasis on family
values and discipline that seemed to have a lasting impact. There was a focus on building
inner strength and confidence. The warmth and support extended by family members
helped in developing respect for elders, tolerance and adaptability. The subjects did not
experience any family pressure to achieve academic excellence or a particular career path
(8).
Most of the subjects stated that their fathers played a key role in their upbringing
and the formation of their core values and principles. While the subjects closely held
humanistic values that had been ingrained in them either by their father or other family
members, there were other instances where early life experiences and hardships also
contributed to their code of values. The respondents shared early personal limitations
such as having to compete with others who were more educated than themselves, coping
with their village/small town background, overcoming family financial constraints, and
facing the trauma of losing loved ones early in life. The leaders were able to withstand
the pressures because of their inherent confidence, unwillingness to compromise with
injustice, and their belief in the value of hard work. All of these values they learned
through early personal experiences at home and contribute to the theme of rising above
adversity. This study concluded that life experiences play a significant role in the
development of leadership (8).
The aim of the study conducted by Zacharatos et al. was to further the
understanding of the development of leadership, transformational leadership in particular,
in children. It was the first stage of a research program to develop an understanding of the

17
origin, development, and emergence of adult leadership behavior. The hypothesis was
that adolescents perceive the extent to which their parents exhibit transformational
behaviors (namely, inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation
and individualized consideration) during parent-child interactions and adopt similar styles
themselves (19).
To test their hypothesis, the study focused on the leadership behaviors exhibited
by adolescents while participating on sports teams, which provided a naturalistic setting
for examining leadership behaviors. The subjects consisted of 112 athletes who
completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire’s (MLQ) sections pertaining to
transformational leadership. They completed the MLQ separately for their mothers’ and
fathers’ behaviors and completed evaluations of themselves and their teammates (19).
Results of this study confirmed that there were no sex differences with respect to
the perceptions of parents’ transformational behaviors or self, coach, and peer ratings of
transformational leadership. Also, perceptions of their fathers’ transformational
leadership affected the children’s transformational leadership, but not that of their
mothers’. Adolescents perceive the extent to which their fathers use behaviors consistent
with transformational leadership when interacting with them and, in turn, manifest these
behaviors themselves when interacting with peers. Adolescents exhibiting
transformational leadership behaviors appear to be capable of evoking effort from their
peers and of being perceived as effective leaders (19).
In conclusion, all of these studies confirmed that there were strong links between
early family experiences and ultimate leadership qualities and skills. Although these
studies indicated that family influence is not the only factor in the development of
leadership skills, it plays an important role. The results of the various questionnaires
completed in these studies demonstrate that there are strong links between parental
leadership styles and the leadership styles of their children.
Leadership & Religious Affiliation
Several studies have been accounted for regarding religious leadership, but the
question remains whether or not there is a connection between leadership and religious
affiliation. Scholars have previously focused their efforts into studying various types of
leadership styles, which can be based upon a person’s ethical and moral judgment. Webb

18
studied the leadership behaviors of presidents of Christian colleges in North America that
belonged to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). The degree to
which three different leadership styles were practiced by the presidents of these colleges
was considered as well as the degree of which these leadership styles promoted higher
job satisfaction. The styles considered included transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership (20). These leadership styles theoretically inspire
followers and enable them to create change within a system (20).
Transformational leaders embody the character of an individual who shows
confidence and positivity towards their followers’ capacity, provides a concise vision of
group goals, encourages creativity through assigning benefits, sets high expectations,
creates an environment that promotes meaning, and forms relationships with their
followers (20). This type of leadership led to the highest job satisfaction within the study.
Each leadership style was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Webb argued that transformational leadership involved motivating followers by
producing an exciting environment and persuading followers to act in the best interest of
the group, despite their own interests. In transactional leadership, leaders facilitated an
exchange of equal value to complete assigned duties regardless of the presence political,
psychological or economical motivators. In Laissez-faire leadership, Webb argues that
the leaders hold neither a negative nor positive attitude and avoid any direct personal
interaction or interference (20). These leadership styles were also studied to determine
any successful combination styles of leadership (20).
Webb’s results concluded that followers indicated more job satisfaction and
motivation when following leaders who demonstrated energy, high levels of self-
confidence, strong beliefs and ideals, assertion, and who promoted personal confidence
within their followers (20). It was found that a combination of transactional and
transformational leadership further enhanced satisfaction among employees (20).
Oh, a scholar who has studied the dynamics of leadership, looked closely at the
Motivation to Lead (MTL) concept. MTL assumes that individual traits and sociocultural
values are influential in the performance of leadership behaviors (21). A second concept
that Oh studied is Need for Closure (NFC). This is a person’s need for an immediate
answer rather than ambiguity about a certain topic (21). Oh states that a person with a

19
low need for closure will ponder over and discuss certain decisions. On the other hand, a
person with a high need for closure that will make a snap decision to ease stress and will
not abandon their decision (21).
One of Oh’s hypotheses came from his belief that a person with a higher need for
closure, one that prefers predictability and is uncomfortable with ambiguity, will be
highly motivated to accept a leadership role. He also believes this type of person will
assume a leadership role due to a strong need for structure and predictability, even though
most people look to avoid the responsibility accompanied with a obtaining a leadership
role (21).
In his study, Oh assigned 136 full-time, first year graduate students earning a
Master’s of Business Administration to 40 independent leaderless work teams. After two
months of working in these groups, the students took an online survey that was
comprised of MTL and NFC scales (21). The results showed positive relationships for
each of the variables measured in the study. A higher NFC was correlated with a higher
MTL (21).
An article review by Sweeney and Fry titled, Character Development through
Spiritual Leadership contained many arguments that showed a connection between
leadership and spirituality. The basis of the article inquired about the origin of a leader’s
characteristics (22). It is first noted that character is established through making moral
and ethical decisions in all types of situations. Secondly, it is noted that the actions of
leaders is used to infer values and beliefs of the followers. Thirdly, it was noted that the
groups’ beliefs about virtues and values has a direct effect on their perceptions and
judgments concerning moral and ethical issues. People use their moral values as a
foundation for establishing goals and rules on how to live their lives (22).
Self-efficacy & Leadership
A strong correlation exists between self-efficacy and leadership, as each has been
shown to directly impact the other. It seems what researchers have been characterizing as
effective leadership could also be known as high self-efficacy. Recent studies have been
conducted regarding the impact of self-efficacy and the role it has in leadership and vice

20
versa. Several issues were examined regarding self-efficacy and leadership including
motivation, persistence, goal orientation, resilience, cognitive abilities, resourcefulness,
problem solving, providing feedback, positive reinforcement, and the ability to work well
under pressure.
The first study reviewed by McCormick et al. addressed the concern that high
leadership self-efficacy was needed for leadership performance. The study argued and
discovered that leadership self-efficacy was a deciding factor to determine leaders from
non-leaders. It also addressed topics from prior leadership experience and behavior in
predicting future leaders. The last two decades have shown a consistent trend between
high self-efficacy and individual work performance. Efficacy theory suggests that
personal efficacy impacts the goals people pursue and therefore determines their
leadership capability (23).
Bandura first introduced the concept of self-efficacy in 1977. It was defined as
“the belief one has the personal capabilities and resources to meet the demands of a
specific task” (23). Efficacy theory has found that personal efficacy influences individual
goals based on aspirations, the amount of effort they put into a task, how much time and
effort were put into resolving the given difficulties, obstacles, and disappointments. One
can say that efficacious individuals are highly motivated, persistent, goal oriented,
resilient, and maintain clear and concise thoughts when under pressure. It was no
coincidence that individuals who are successful leaders have been described in similar
manners.
During investigations of effective leaders, characterizations of being committed,
determined, resilient, resourceful, an effective problem solver, and goal oriented were
commonly highlighted. McCormick stated that “regarding these leadership findings in
light of what is known about highly effective efficacious individuals suggest that what
leadership researchers have been describing for years is a person with high self-efficacy”
(23). All major reviews have self-confidence as an essential tool to being an effective
leader. This is also a needed trait in the transformational leadership theory.
While self-confidence and self-efficacy are not identical, self-confidence is a
generalized sense of competence, which is considered a personal trait. Self-efficacy is a
personal belief or self-judgment about one’s specific ability. This, in turn, makes these

21
characteristics closely allied with one another and related to some extent. This means a
highly confident person in a leadership role is influenced by their self-confidence and
thus possesses a high level of self-efficacy. While self-confidence does not guarantee a
successful leader, it is a belief in their ability to complete or perform in a leadership role
that is the key factor.
In his study, McCormick found that participants high in leadership self-efficacy
reported a much higher frequency of taking on a leadership role than participants
categorized as having low leadership self-efficacy. These results indicated that high self-
efficacy could be the key leadership factor. All participants were assessed using an eight-
item questionnaire to rate the self-efficacy with response options ranging from one (no
confidence) to seven (high confidence). They also confirmed the number of leadership
role experiences that had a positive effect on their leadership self-efficacy assessment
(23).
The second study by Walumbwa et al. examined the relationship between
transformational leadership and self-efficacy. The study used employees to gauge
individual’s willingness to take on challenges, ability to be creative, innovative, and
inspiring to achieve the goals of the organization. It specifically reviewed the mediated
relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy (23).
It has been found that transformational leadership is related to follower levels of
self-efficacy. The important aspect of this study was to determine the cause for the
followers of transformational leaders’ that show an increased level of self-efficacy. They
proposed that the effect of transformational leadership on follower performance is
realized through employees who come to identify with transformational leaders, and in
turn, show greater self-efficacy and an increase their performance (24). Transformational
leaders influence their followers by instilling and providing them with confidence to
perform beyond their implicit or explicit expectations.
This study hypothesized the relationship as follows: transformational leadership,
to rational identification, to self-efficacy, will affect the followers’ performance.
Transformational leadership consists of leadership by empowerment. It is conceptualized
that transformational leaders include four dimensions: charisma, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Bandura argued that individuals

22
increase self-efficacy through role-modeling (24). Rational identification comes into play
by enabling employees to enact behaviors that are consistent with their abilities, opposed
to mimicking supervisor behavior. Simplified, it allows them to learn from their leader
and acquire new skills, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy.
Previous studies have found a positive correlation between self-efficacy and work
related performance. The reason self-efficacy is positively related to important
organizational outcomes stems from the efficacy beliefs that influence individual’s goal
choices and goal-directed activities, reactions, and persistence in the face of challenges
and/or obstacles (24). This determines individual’s selection of a challenge they believe
they can accomplish. The higher the self-efficacy the more likely they will enter into a
situation in which performance expectation is high. Likewise, a low self-efficacy will
predict an individual’s performance into a lower performance expectation. Therefore,
transformational leaders expect followers with high self-efficacy to accept challenges as
they instill confidence and provide encouragement.
The study utilized 426 employees and their supervisors. Questionnaires and
assessments were utilized to gauge employees’ self-efficacy on a ten-point Likert scale.
The results showed that transformational leadership was positively related to self-efficacy
and performance. Transformational leaders enhanced efficacy by providing opportunities
to learn, providing feedback, delegating duties, and challenging followers to come up
with new solutions. This self-efficacy leads to better performance and supports the
leadership and self-efficacy relationship (24).
The next study by Anderson et al. involved the development of structured
leadership self-efficacy and the reactions to leadership effectiveness. The study derived
key leadership behaviors from executives to serve as a basis for measuring leadership
effectiveness. It was proposed that leaders with higher self-efficacy will enact key
leadership skills and engage more often and with greater effectiveness than those who
possess lower self-efficacy. This study is supported by recent studies conducted by Paglis
and Green that links self-efficacy to effective leadership. Findings in their literature
suggest that people with strong self-efficacy beliefs are likely to be more motivated,
contribute more towards actions, and preserve to a greater degree when faced with
difficulty (25).

23
The key behaviors were chosen from 44 senior to mid-level executives and
managers. A total of 251 participants were selected to participate in the current study.
The study showed the importance and effectiveness of a well-defined leadership self-
efficacy in expanding our understanding of leadership effectiveness. It was determined
that certain leadership measurements can predict and lead to leadership self-efficacy
performance. Such factors included innovation, creativity, problem solving, influential
leadership, and communication (25).
The last study, conducted by Schyns, was the exploration of the relationship
between leadership-relevant attributes and occupational self-efficacy. It is hypothesized
that leadership-relevant attributes are related to high self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy
has been widely applied in the organizational context and is believed to play a central
role to the organization’s performance. Occupational self-efficacy is extremely similar to
self-efficacy, except occupational efficacy behaviors are specific to one’s work (26).
Prior research has found that self-efficacy is positively related to a performance
increase. According to a study by Hannah, effective leadership requires high levels of
agency and confidence; therefore self-efficacy is important for becoming a successful
leader in the future (26). The study was interested in self-efficacy prior to job experience,
which is why the study targeted business majors. They believe that students higher in
occupational self-efficacy will find it much easier to succeed and achieve their desired
tasks. This suggests the development of self-efficacy is mainly linked to mastery
experience and would further support transformational leadership.
The study was composed of 136 students who were assessed for their leadership
attributes. A total of 34 attributes were tested on a four-point scale. Occupational self-
efficacy was then assessed using a self-efficacy scale. The results of the study confirmed
the hypothesis that leadership attributes are positively related to occupational self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy is an important personal resource, and plays a vital role in career
development. The study used self-description scales and assessments. These scales were
of the most importance to people who believed themselves to be confident and motivated
and were likely to rate themselves as highly motivated and confident (26).
The studies confirmed a positive relationship exists between leadership and self-
efficacy. Individuals who are high in self-efficacy will have higher leadership skills.

24
Several common skills or attributes were present in all the studies on the composition of
leadership self-efficacy. Common skills and attributes included motivation, innovation,
critical thinker, problem solver, accepted challenges, etc. (26). Leaders who are
efficacious will also produce and help their followers become more efficacious as well.
It seems apparent that self-efficacy and leadership run hand in hand, as one will directly
influence the other.
Gender & Leadership
Gender equality is a continued battle, even in contemporary America. Currently,
females represent a greater percentage in the workplace in comparison to men (27). It
could be said that the presence of women in the healthcare field is over-powering.
Women are 78% of the healthcare workforce; 92% of nurses, and 48% of physicians. A
staggering 81% of graduate degrees attained in the health fields are received by women
(27). The large number of women qualified to take on a leadership role is one of the
characteristics that strengthens the field (27, 28). Unfortunately, the percentage of
females in leadership positions in the healthcare field is not representative of the vast
majority of females currently working in the field. Research shows that women are more
likely to remain in a middle-management position, proven by the fact that in 2011 a mere
25% of women held chief executive officer (CEO) positions in hospitals (27, 28). This
disparity is not isolated to the healthcare profession; Fortune 500 companies’ executive
positions are comprised of 86% male (28). In fact, 60 Fortune 500 companies do not have
a single female on their board, and 136 do not have a female in their top five executives
(28). Bringing women to the top of the corporate ladder will require development of
leaders and a focus on women leaders (27, 28). Board studies have shown that health
systems perform higher in proportion to having women on the board of executives (27).
A study conducted by Elsesser and Lever found that 8% of women and 21% of men have
never reported to a female boss, in comparison to 3% of women and 1% of men who
have never reported to a male boss (29). Additionally, it is found that women who
achieve an executive position are more likely to mentor their colleagues and aide in
developing future leaders (27, 28, 30). A young woman with aspirations for leadership
should look for at least one mentor and develop leadership skills whenever possible, so
that she may be prepared to seize a leadership position when one arises (28, 30, 31).

25
Gender bias may be one large barrier to women gaining executive positions.
Stereotypically, men are direct, aggressive, assertive, and ambitious, which have
previously also been associated with desirable leadership characteristics (30, 31, 32). On
the other hand, women have personality traits associated with being communal,
nurturing, caring, and sensitive (29, 30, 32). Research shows that more time spent with an
individual results in less stereotyping, however hypothetical situations still show that a
gender bias stereotype exists (29). In a study conducted, there was minimal difference
between genders when workers were asked to rate the leadership skills of their own
bosses, however in a hypothetical situation; the male bosses were preferred (29). A cross-
gender difference was also found between male and female workers (29). Elsesser and
Lever found that women were more likely to prefer a male boss, and individuals who
have previously had a female boss are more likely to admit to preferring to have a female
boss (29). Essay responses to the question ‘why do you prefer a female boss?’ included
desiring an understanding boss that was easier to communicate with, whereas, common
reasons for desiring a male boss included negative adjectives for women opposed to
highlighting the quality of a male boss (29). Other themes that appeared from the study
included women who believed they could use their gender to attain sympathy from their
male bosses and workers and disliking bosses of the gender with which they compete in
their work (29). In the future, women will need to empower each other to climb the
corporate ladder and begin to take charge of leadership positions (27, 28, 29, 30).
Many leadership theories have arrived over the recent years, with
transformational leadership appearing as an effective approach for leaders of the future
(27, 32). Female characteristics fit this leadership style effectively, creating an open and
innovative work atmosphere for employees (27, 32). The leadership path for women was
previously thought of as a labyrinth, with many competing interests and stereotypes that
prevented a female from becoming a leader in her career (27, 28, 32). This labyrinth has
been reshaped into a circular model, where individuals may enter towards leadership
through characteristics of competence, connectivity, service, awareness, creation,
renewal, and wisdom, which have been identified as effective leadership qualities (27, 28,
32). This flattened model has allowed for females to balance their work-life priorities and
become an option for leadership positions that they have previously remained

26
unconsidered (27, 28, 32). The path for females into leadership positions allows for a
future of diverse leadership positions, which will promote creative thinking, innovation,
and improve patient care in the healthcare field in the future (27, 28, 30, 32).
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

27
Research Study Design
The research design utilized for this study was a quasi-experimental
pretest/posttest design. Tests were conducted before and after a four-week period, where
student leaders attended a weekly leadership program.
The Institutional Review Board Application was approved at an expedited level
with an informed consent in March of 2013. This expedited IRB was also qualified for
category 6 and 7. Category 6 allows for data collection from voice, video, digital or
image recordings made from the research process. Category 7 allows for research on
individual or group characteristics or behavior and research employing survey, interview,
oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality
assurance methodologies.
Participants
There were two groups involved in this study. The experimental group contained
current Benedictine University students that were identified as leaders. These students
participated in a leadership-training program in April 2013 by invitation from the
Benedictine Director of Student Engagement and Leadership. This leadership program
targets development of leadership skills measured on the Student Leadership Practice
Inventory (SLPI) and is delivered by the Director of Student Engagement and
Leadership. A posttest SLPI was administered to the experimental group following four
leadership training programs. The control group contained current Benedictine University
students identified as leaders who were not participating in a leadership-training program
during this time. The control group was not administered a posttest SLPI.
Student recruitment began with the Director of Student Engagement and
Leadership providing names and contact information for students willing to be involved
in this study. Selection was amongst those receiving leadership scholarships at
Benedictine University. Contact information was received during the last week of March,
where a time for data collection was selected. Students provided written consent prior to
responding to survey or interview questions. Qualitative interviewing and administration
of the quantitative surveys occurred at the beginning of the training sessions. A posttest
SLPI was administered following the fourth training session.

28
The role of students in the study consisted of completion of surveys and
interviews (refer to appendices for question sets). All participants were asked to complete
the self-administered pretest and participate in a semi-structured interview during weeks
1-3. The experimental group was asked to complete the self-administered posttest after
four leadership-training sessions. The SLPI and other items on the quantitative pretest
survey were estimated to take 18-20 minutes to complete. The interviews were estimated
to last for about 30 minutes, depending on the length of individual answers. The final
posttest was estimated to take 10-12 minutes to complete. Those in the experimental
group attended a leadership-training workshop on campus, led by the Director of Student
Engagement and Leadership. The theme was Five Practices of Exemplary Student
Leadership.
A consent form asking for the participant’s signature was provided and collected
before collecting data. Each student responded to the pretest SLPI and a survey
containing the Leadership Self-Efficacy scale developed by Ng, Ang, and Chan (2008)
and questions developed by our research team. Student interviews were conducted in
pairs. The interview times were coordinated between the student and interview pairs and
were offered in person or via Skype. Interviews were recorded and transcribed by the
research pairs.
Data Collection Methodology
Baseline data was collected from March 26, 2013 to April 8, 2013. At this time,
participants completed the SLPI and survey questionnaires. Students in the experimental
group began attending the weekly leadership-training program.
Interviews were conducted from April 9, 2013 through April 16, 2013. Pairs of
graduate students in the research group conducted interviews. All interviews were
completed in person and on the Benedictine University campus, with the exception of one
Skype interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by the interviewers.
The posttest SLPI was administered to the experimental group during the week of
April 30, 2013 following four leadership-training sessions.
The site for this study was the Benedictine University campus. Pre and posttesting
sessions took place in the leadership classrooms. In-person interviews took place in a
campus building and the Skype interview took place in the homes of the participants.

29
Confidentiality was maintained during the testing. Mobile phone communication was the
primary source of communication to confirm interview times between interviewers and
participants. Refer to appendices for interview, pre and posttest questions.
Measurement Tools
Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI)
The SLPI is a 30-item self-instrument which measures leadership practices in five
areas: (a) Challenging the Process (search for opportunities, experiment, and take risks);
(b) Inspiring a shared vision (envision the future, enlist others); (c) Enabling Others to
Act (foster collaboration, strengthen others); (d) Modeling The Way (set the example,
plan small wins); and (e) Encouraging the Heart (recognizing individual contribution,
celebrate accomplishments). The instrument contains six items in each category and uses
a 5-point Likert scale (rarely to very frequently). The reliability and validity is high,
including the predictive validity: “The results make sense to people and, over time, have
proven to predict high-performing leaders and moderate- and low-performing ones”
(source: http://wwww.studentleadershipchallenge.com/Assessment/assessment-
studentLPI-print.aspx). Permission was granted to use this instrument. The university had
purchased paper copies to utilize in this study.
For this data set, the KMO statistic is .47, which is considered an unacceptable
value (greater than 0.5 being acceptable). Further data should be collected.
For this data set, the Bartlett’s test is highly significant (p < .001), and therefore
factor analysis is appropriate (Table 1).
Table 1: Impact of Others
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
.47
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 60.93

30
Sphericity Df 28
Sig. <.01
After rotation the three components together account for 73% of the total variance
(Table 2).
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Compone
nt
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of
Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of
Squared Loadings
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
1 3.10 38.68 38.68 3.10 38.68 38.68 2.42 30.25 30.25
2 1.54 19.29 57.97 1.54 19.29 57.97 1.89 23.63 53.88
3 1.20 15.05 73.02 1.20 15.05 73.02 1.53 19.15 73.02
4 .753 9.413 82.44
5 .60 7.47 89.91
6 .40 4.98 94.89
7 .31 3.92 98.81
8 .10 1.19 100.00
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
This output allowed us to group these eight variables into three groupings: Group
1 = Teacher, Church, Work Supervisor; Group 2 = Family (Father, Mother, Siblings);
Group 3 = Significant Others, Friends) (Table 3).
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3
Positive impact of teacher .80 .35 .17

31
Positive impact of church,
religious, or spiritual leader
.80 <-.01 -.02
Positive impact of work
supervisor
.71 -.06 .06
Positive impact of father -.15 .91 -.06
Positive impact of mother .29 .79 .30
Positive impact of siblings .29 .30 .81
Positive impact of significant
others
.50 .29 -.74
Positive impact of friends .44 .38 .46
Reliability Statistics
Table 4: Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.81 .82 3
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 1 (Teacher, Church, Work Supervisor) is .81, which
indicates good internal consistency among the three items assigned.
Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha

32
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.78 .78 3
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 2 (Father, Mother, Siblings) is .78, which indicates
acceptable internal consistency among the three items assigned.
Table 6: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.21 .23 2
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 3 (Friends, Significant Others) is .21, which indicates
unacceptable internal consistency among the two items assigned.
For this data set, the KMO statistic is .78, which is considered a middling value
but still acceptable (> 0.5 = acceptable; 0.7 < KMO = middling).
For this data set, the Bartlett’s test is highly significant (p < .001, and therefore
factor analysis is appropriate (Table 7).
Table 7: Impact of Participation Before College

33
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
.78
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 128.44
Df 28
Sig. <.01
After rotation the two components together account for 67% of the total variance
(Table 8).
Compone
nt
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of
Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of
Squared Loadings
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
1 3.81 47.58 47.58 3.81 47.58 47.58 3.52 43.98 43.98
2 1.54 19.21 66.79 1.54 19.21 66.79 1.83 22.81 66.79
3 .69 8.64 75.43
4 .65 8.08 83.51
5 .44 5.46 88.97
6 .37 4.66 93.63
7 .30 3.72 97.35
8 .21 2.65 100.00
This output allowed us to group these seven variables into 2 groupings (Group 1 =
Amount of community service before college, Participation in clubs/groups/honor
societies before college, Leadership position in community before college, Leadership
position in school before college, Participation in community organizations; Group 2 =
Participation in varsity sports before college, Participation in intramural sports before
college, Participation in activism before college (Table 9).

34
Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2
How often before college did
you volunteer or community
service
.86 -.05
Before college how often did
you participate in student clubs,
groups, honor societies
.83 .14
you have a leadership position
in the community
.80 .08
Before college, how often did
you participate in leadership
positions at school?
.79 .13
you participate in community
organizations (choir, scouts,
youth group)
.73 .19
-
__________________________
____________
__________
____
__________
____
you play intercollegiate or
varsity sports
<.01 .88
you play intramural sports
.11 .82
you participate in activism
(petition, rally, protest)
.54 .55

35
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.89 .90 6
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 1 (Amount of community service before college,
Participation in clubs/groups/honor societies before college, Leadership position in
community before college, Leadership position in school before college, Participation in
community organizations) is .89, which indicates good internal consistency among the
thesix items assigned.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.68 .69 2
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 2 (Participation in varsity sports before college,
Participation in intramural sports before college, Participation in activism before college)
is .68, which indicates questionable internal consistency among the two items assigned.
For this data set, the KMO statistic is .61, which is considered a mediocre value
but still acceptable (> 0.5 = acceptable; < 0.5 < KMO < 0.7 = mediocre).

36
For this data set, the Bartlett’s test is highly significant (p < .001, and therefore factor
analysis is appropriate (Table 12).
Table 12: Impact of Previous & Current Experience
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .61
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 64.85
Df 21
Sig. <.01
After rotation the two components together account for 56% of the total variance
(Table 13).

37
Compon
ent
Initial
Eigenval
ues
Extracti
on
Sums
of
Square
d
Loadin
gs
Rotation
Sums of
Squared
Loading
s
Total % of
Varianc
e
Cumulat
ive %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulat
ive %
Tot
al
% of
Varian
ce
Cumulat
ive %
1 2.69 38.49 38.49
2.6
9
38.49 38.49
2.1
2
30.27 30.27
2 1.20 17.19 55.68
1.2
0
17.19 55.68
1.7
8
25.41 55.68
3 .96 13.69 69.37
4 .83 11.78 81.15
5 .62 8.88 90.02
6 .47 6.67 96.70
7 .23 3.30 100.00
Extracti
on
Method:

38
Principal
Compon
ent
Analysis
.
This output allowed us to group these seven variables into two groupings (Group
1 = Number of organizations, Number of volunteer experiences, Number of work
experiences; Group 2 = Number of leadership/professionalism training programs
attended, Number of professional organization/association meetings attended, Number of
courses taken requiring volunteerism, Number of awards/honors/scholarships
received (Table 14).
Table 14: Rotated Component Matrixa
Component

39
1 2
How many organizations have you been involved .84 .11
How many volunteer experiences have you been involved .83 .22
How many different work experiences have you obtained .50 .49
How many times did you attend leadership and/or professionalism training
programs
-.43 .72
How many times did you attend a meeting of a professional organization or
association
.25 .67
How many courses have you taken in which you completed a community
service or service learning component
.31 .51
How many awards, scholarships, and honors received .38 .50
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.72 .72 3
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 1 (Number of organizations, Number of volunteer
experiences, Number of work experiences) is .72, which indicates acceptable internal
consistency among the three items assigned.

40
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of
Items
.45 .51 4
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Group 2 (Number of leadership/professionalism training
programs attended, Number of professional organization/association meetings attended,
Number of courses taken requiring volunteerism, Number of awards/honors/scholarships
received) is .45, which indicates unacceptable internal consistency among the 4 items
assigned.
Leadership Self-Efficacy scale
The Leadership Self-Efficacy scale was established by Ng, Ang, and Chan (2008)
to assess leadership self-efficacy. Permission was received from the authors to use this
questionnaire. The questionnaire asked respondents to report their confidence in the
ability to perform several aspects of leadership on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7,
where 1 indicated ‘not at all confident’ and 7 indicated ‘extremely confident’. Examples
of leadership aspects included: planning, communicating, delegating, and leading a team.
Reliability for leadership self-efficacy mean score was .93.
Survey Questions
Our research group developed additional survey questions based on research
obtained from literature reviews. Questions were selected to highlight themes from
previous leadership research to determine if these themes were consistent amongst our
leadership participants and to uncover potential new themes. To increase the reliability of
the study, all surveys were collected while students were at the same level of completion
of the leadership-training program. All surveys were self-administered per instruction.
Statistical Procedures

41
Analysis of SLPI using SLPI scoring software was used to print reports providing
an interpretation of individual SLPI results. The statistical software utilized to compute
all statistical procedures was SPSS, including the analysis of pretest and posttest scores
(SLPI and self-efficacy) as well as analysis of variables against SLPI and self-efficacy
scales. The tests used for comparing leadership groups included a paired t-test, Pearson
Correlation, repeated measurement ANOVA, and one-way MANOVA.

42
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS: IN-CLASS SURVEYS
Outliers Treatment of the Data.
Before running in-depth analysis of the data collected, exploratory and descriptive
data analyses were run to look for errors and outliers. Descriptive statistics were
computed on variables such as ethnicity, age, gender, and the 30 questions of the SLPI
surveys. Examination of the frequencies and descriptive statistics tests that were
performed within the aforementioned parameters were mean, range, and standard
deviation. Some questions in the SLPI were missing pieces of information. These areas
were coded as “999”.
Descriptive Profile of Participants
These participants were all identified as student leaders at a selected Midwestern
university. The student leaders were placed into two separate groups, “group 111” and
“group 222.” An SLPI survey was administered to all participants in April 2013. The
SLPI was also administered four weeks later the experimental group received leadership
education. All participants were undergraduate students of various majors. There were
more females then males, a total of 24 (57%) and 18 (43%), respectively (Figure 1). The
age ranged from 18-56 years old(n= 43, m = 22.10, sd = 6.97). The mode for age was 18
years old (n = 10, 25.6%) and the mean age was 22.10 years old. There were 21 students
in the experimental and match groups. Of the 21 students in the experimental group that
filled out the original SLPI, a total of 9 post-SLPI surveys were returned four weeks
later.
Figure 1: Gender

43
Table 17: Gender Descriptives
N
Valid 41
Missing 2
Mean 1.56
Mode 2.00
Std. Deviation .50
The majority of the participants were identified as being of White and Asian
ethnicity (12 of 43, 27.9%). The remaining 19 participants considered themselves to be
either Hispanic (n = 2, 4.65%), Black or African American (n = 6,14%), White Middle
Eastern (n =12, 27.9%), American Indian, Alaskan Native (n = 1,2.33%), or of the mixed

44
minority (n = 3,6.98%) (Figure 2).There were no differences found in the responses of
the SLPI between ethnicities.
Figure 2: Ethnicity
Leadership & Gender
Hₒ1: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “modeling the
way” between males and females based on the SLPI.
An independent t-test was used to compare the mean score of modeling the way
scores between males and females. There was no significant difference between modeling
the way skills reported by males and females t(41) = .80, p = .13, d = 0.13. The mean for
females was non-significantly higher than males (Table 18). The null hypothesis is
accepted (Table 18 & 19).
Table 18: SLPI Results between Males and Females

45
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation
Self- Model the Way male 18 23.28 3.91
female 23 24.17 3.30
Self- Inspire a shared vision male 18 24.06 3.40
female 23 24.74 3.82
Self- Challenge the Process male 18 23.78 3.64
female 23 24.96 3.07
Self- Enable Others to Act male 18 25.50 3.24
female 23 26.09 1.78
Self- Encourage the heart male 18 24.61 3.76
female 23 25.39 3.19
Percentile Model the way male 18 54.72 32.82
female 23 66.17 25.59
Percentile Inspire a shared vision male 18 71.00 23.32
female 23 74.35 25.58
Percentile Challenge the process male 18 72.06 25.49
female 23 81.39 21.37
Percentile Enable Others to act male 18 66.56 30.17
female 23 75.43 15.96
Percentile Encourage the Heart male 18 62.22 27.88
female 23 67.61 26.31
Table 19: Independent t-Test between Males and Females

46
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F Sig. t Df
Self- Model the Way
Equal variances
assumed
2.45 .13 -.80 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.78 33.25
Self- Inspire a shared
vision
Equal variances
assumed
.47 .50 -.60 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.61 38.28
Self- Challenge the
Process
Equal variances
assumed
1.35 .25
-
1.13
39
Equal variances
not assumed
-
1.10
33.22
Self- Enable Others to
Act
Equal variances
assumed
7.65 .01 -.74 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.69 24.92
Self- Encourage the
heart
Equal variances
assumed
.07 .80 -.72 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.70 33.35
Percentile Model the
way
Equal variances
assumed
6.18 .02
-
1.26
39
Equal variances
not assumed
-
1.22
31.51
Percentile Inspire a
shared vision
Equal variances
assumed
.16 .69 -.43 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.44 38.03
Percentile Challenge
the process
Equal variances
assumed
2.16 .15
-
1.28
39
Equal variances
not assumed
-
1.25
33.11
Percentile Enable
Others to act
Equal variances
assumed
8.63 .01
-
1.21
39
Equal variances
not assumed
-
1.13
24.36
Percentile Encourage
the Heart
Equal variances
assumed
.02 .89 -.63 39
Equal variances
not assumed
-.63 35.59

47
Hₒ2: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “inspiring a shared
vision” between males and females based on the SLPI.
An independent t-test was used to compare means between the self-reported skills
of modeling the way between males and females. There was no significant difference
between inspiring a shared vision between males and females, t(41) = .60, p = .50,d = .10.
There was a non-significant higher mean score for females (Table 18). The null
hypothesis is accepted (Table 18& 19).
Hₒ3: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “challenging the
process” between males and females based on the SLPI.
An independent t-test was used to compare means between the skills of
challenging the process between males and females. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for challenging the way between males and females, t(41) =
1.13, p = .25, d = .18. There was a non-significant higher mean score for females than
males (Table 18). The null hypothesis is accepted (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ4: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “enabling others to
act” between males and females based on the SLPI.
An independent t-test was used to compare means between skills reported for
enabling others to act between males and females. There was a significant difference
between the ability of males and females to enable others to act, t(41) = .74, p = .01, d =
.12. The mean score for males and females (Table 18). The null hypothesis is rejected
(Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ5: There is no significant difference between self-reported skills of “encouraging the
heart” between males and females based on the SLPI.
An independent t-test was used to compare means between skills of encouraging
the heart between males and females, t(41) = .72, p = .80,d = .11. There was no
significant difference between scores for encouraging the heart between males and
females. There was a non-significant higher mean score for females than males (Table
18). The null hypothesis is accepted (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ6: There is no difference between the percentile score for “modeling the way” between
males and females.

48
An independent t-test was used to compare means between percentile scores of
modeling the way between males and females. There was a significant difference
between the percentile scores of modeling the way between males and females, t(41) =
1.26, p = .02,d = .20. The mean score was higher for females than males (Table 18). The
null hypothesis is rejected (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ7: There is no difference between the percentile score for “inspiring a shared vision”
An independent t-test was used to compare means between the percentile scores
of inspiring a shared vision between males and females. There was no significant
difference between the percentile scores between males and females, t(41) = .43, p = .69,
d = .07. There was a non-significant higher mean score for females than males (Table
18). The null hypothesis is accepted (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ8: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “challenging the process”
An independent t-test was used to compare means between percentile scores for
challenging the process between males and females. There was no significant difference
between the percentile scores for challenging the process between males and females,
t(41) = 1.28, p = .15,d = 0.2. There was a non-significant higher mean score for females
than males (Table 18). The null hypothesis is accepted (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ9: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “enabling others to act”
An independent t-test was used to compare the means between the percentile
scores for enabling others to act between males and females. There was a significant
difference between the percentile score for enabling others to act between males and
females, t(41) = 1.21, p = .01,d = .19. The mean score was higher for females than males
(Table 18). The null hypothesis is rejected (Table 18 & 19).
Hₒ10: There is no difference between the percentile scores for “encouraging the heart”
An independent t-test was used to compare means between the percentile scores
for encouraging the heart between males and females. There was no significant difference
between the percentile scores between males and females, t(41) = .63, p = .89,d = .10.

THESIS MANUSCRIPT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to THESIS MANUSCRIPT

Similar to THESIS MANUSCRIPT (20)

THESIS MANUSCRIPT