1. Undergraduate Student Leader Perceptions of
Leadership
Charles Geoffrey Norbert
B.A. Gettysburg College
Master’s Thesis Presentation
Department of Educational Specialties, Educational Leadership
Loyola University Maryland
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Educational Leadership
May 15, 2012

2. Purpose
The purpose of this study was to conduct a
mix method study to see if gender plays a role
in how undergraduate student leaders
perceive leadership.

3. A Review of the Literature on Leadership
Gender and leadership
Traditionally associated with male characteristics
Historically women have experienced gender bias that has limited their
opportunity to advance to leadership position (Eagly & Carli, 2001).
Society and further research has lead to shift in leadership perspective
There has been increase in leadership studies based on gender
Women have benefited from the paradigm shift in leadership perspectives
that incorporated “feminine” skill and behaviors consistent with female
gender roles (Eagly & Carli, 2001, 2003; Komives, 1994).
Leadership has grown to include new traits like, relationship building,
contentedness, ethics of care and concern (Eagly & Carli, 2003).

4. A Review of the Literature of
Undergraduate Student Leadership
Student learning is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of
involvement (Astin,1995)
Leadership development is as a major outcome for most higher education
institutions (Astin & Astin, 2000).
Leadership development, has been linked to growth in several areas
of personal development: civic, social, and political awareness and
efficacy, commitment to service, communication skills, personal and
social responsibility, self esteem, vision, and ethics
The major limitation in past studies was the lack of a theoretical
framework on how leadership was viewed (Dugan et al. 2008; Haber &
Komives, 2009).

5. Social Change Model of Leadership
The Social Change Model (SCM) (HERI, 1996) was designed specifically
for use with college students (Dugan et al., 2011).
The SCM serves as the foundation of the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership
(MSL) the largest study of college leadership.
The SCM is regarded as the most widely used model of student leadership
in higher education (Dugan et al., 2011; Haber & Komives 2009).
The SCM has played a prominent role in shaping curricula, programs, and
leadership education for undergraduates (Haber & Komives 2009).
The Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) was developed as a means to
measure the constructs of the SCM (Tyree, 1997; Haber & Komives 2009).
The current version of the SRLS is the SRLS-R2

6. Social Change Model of Leadership
(HERI, 1996)

7. Research Questions
Does gender play a role in how undergraduate student leaders perceive
their leadership competencies?
Sub-questions:
1.
Using the SCM how do female undergraduate student
leaders perceive their leadership competencies?
2.
Using the SCM how do male undergraduate student leaders
perceive their leadership competencies?
3.
If differences do exist from the eight constructs of the SCM,
in which constructs do they exist?
4.
Are these differences significant?

8. Sample
A small catholic university
Located in the Mid-Atlantic
Sample consisted of 379 student leaders identified
230 female students
149 male students
A wide range of campus leadership opportunities
represented

9. Methodology
Permission was granted to use the SRLS-R2
68 Likert scale question
Example question: I am comfortable initiating new ways of looking at things
Demographic questions were added (gender, race, class year, leadership position)
Survey Instrument was sent to 379 student leaders
Survey was open for one month
After completion of survey portion three focus groups were conducted
Participation was voluntary
Ten total questions were asked
One question for each of the eight constructs of the SCM
Two questions about perceptions of gender on leadership

10. Qualitative Results
146 students completed the instrument in its entirety
(39%)
Female participants n=106, 72.60%
Male participants n=40, 27.39%
Once data was collected mean scores were analyzed by
gender
Independent Sample t-test was done to see if
difference in mean scores was statistically
significant (p≤.05)

11. Mean Comparisons by Gender and
Constructs
SCM Constructs Females Males t df
Consciousness of 144
4.21 (.41) 4.02 (.63) -2.14*
Self
144
Congruence 4.49 (.40) 4.24 (.73) -2.52*
144
Commitment 4.67 (.31) 4.40 (.66) -3.2*
Collaboration 2.58 (.29) 2.55 (.37) -0.43 144
Common
4.43 (.35) 4.22 (.62) -2.57* 144
Purpose
Controversy with 4.05 (.38) 3.94 (.47) -1.5 144
Civility
Citizenship 4.57 (.39) 4.27 (.66) -3.43* 144
Change 4.31 (.50) 4.16 (.62) -1.52 144
*p≤.05

12. Qualitative Results
Three focus groups were conducted (n=16)
9 female participants
7 male participants
Data was transcribed and analyzed for themes
Focus group data helped to support survey findings
Female participants showed a greater depth of response when compared to the males
Female leaders clearly articulated that they felt gender had an impact on leadership
Forced to adapt to male traits
Felt pressure to do well because they were female
Felt since males were so underrepresented on campus that they had an
advantage
Males felt that leadership was trait based and gender had little impact

13. Implications and Further Research
Female undergraduate student leaders demonstrated a higher self-perception of
their leadership abilities
Females still felt a lack of confidence based societal stereotypes of leadership
Males as the traditional majority group in leadership did not feel gender
impacted leadership
Males being under represented in leadership positions has created more
competition among females
Why are men under represented in higher education, and in campus
involvement?
Is there a need for more gender specific leadership training?
Further research should be conducted on why the differences in self-perception
exits between females and males.

14. Limitations
Study limited to a small catholic institution
Social change is large focus of the mission
What would results be at a large public
institution or single sex institution
Majority of the sample group was females
Survey sample almost identical to university
demographics

15. Conclusions & Questions

16. Conclusions & Questions
Thank You!

17. References
Dugan, J. (2006). Explorations using the social change model: Leadership development among college men and women. Journal of College
Student Development, 47(2), 217-217-225.
Dugan, J. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(3), 335-335-343.
Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Gebhardt, M., Hofert, M., Wilk, E., & Cooney, M. A. (2011). Influences of leadership program participation
on students' capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(1), 65-84.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students' capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College
Student Development, 51(5), 525-549.
Haber, P., & Komives, S. (2009). Predicting the individual values of the social change model of leadership development: The role of
college student’s leadership and involvement experiences. Journal of Leadership Education, 7(3), 133-151.
Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park,
Md: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.