1. So What Matters in the Development of Leadership Capacity? More Findings from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership * International Leadership Association Conference November 2007 * John P. Dugan, Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago Susan R. Komives, Professor, University of Maryland Julie E. Owen, Assistant Professor, George Mason University Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, University of Maryland, ACPA Educational Leadership Foundation, & NASPA Foundation  MSL/ NCLP, 2007

2. O utline Study Design & Methodology Findings –General –Predictors of Leadership Outcomes –Conditional Analyses Recommendations for Practice Future Directions

3. R ationale for the MSL 1.A significant gap between theory and practice as they relate to college student leadership 2.An unclear picture of the leadership development needs of college students 3.Uncertainty regarding the influence of the college environment on theoretically grounded leadership development

4. Theoretical Framework: The Social Change Model Change

5. Conceptual Framework: College Impact Model (I-E-O) Inputs : students' pre-college characteristics Environment : programs, experiences, relationships, and other factors in the collegiate environment Outcomes : students' characteristics after exposure to the college environment Social Change Model Values Leadership Efficacy Understanding Diversity Cognitive Development Leadership Identity Development

6. M ethodology 52 Participating Institutions: –Geographically diverse, Variety of institutional types, Differing levels of leadership programming Total Sample Size = 165, 701 Respondents = 63,095 Return Rate = 38% Sampling Strategy

7. M ethodology Description of Sample Gender: Male: 38.3 % Female: 61.5 % Transgender: 0.1 % Class Standing: Freshman: 23.3 % Sophomore: 21.7 % Junior: 26.3 % Senior: 28.8 % Race/Ethnicity: White: 71.8 % Black / African American: 5.2 % Asian / Asian American: 7.9 % Latino/a: 4.4 % Amer. Indian: 0.3 % Multiracial: 8.2 % Not Included: 2.3 %

8. M ethodology Instrument created by MSL research team –SRLS-R2 used to measure SCM –Pilot tested to verify reliability and validity –Web-based administration –Average completion time = 20 minutes Survey Instrument

9. F indings

10. Overall findings

11. Change over Time

12. Predictors of Leadership Demographic Characteristics Block 1 Pre-College Experiences Block 2 Leadership Quasi-Pretest Block 3 Class Standing Block 4 Indirect Effects Block 5 Stepwise Direct Effects Block 6 Leadership Outcome

13. Predictors of Leadership Models generally explain between 27 – 42% of the overall variance. What students come in with largely explains how they do in college (quasi- pretests explain largest portion of the variance). The college environment explains between 7% - 14% of the variance depending on the outcome variable.

16. Conditional Analyses- Gender

17. Conditional Analyses- RACE

18. Socio-Cultural Discussions Sample items from the NSLLP scale: Talked about different lifestyles Discussed major social issues such as peace, human rights, and justice Discussed your views about multiculturalism and diversity Held discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from your own Held discussions with students whose personal values were very different from your own

19. Socio-Cultural Discussions

20. Formal Leadership Programs Short, moderate, and long-term programs Academic majors and minors

21. recommendations 1. Discuss Socio-Cultural Issues Everywhere 2. Get Students Involved in at Least One Organization 3. Get Students to at Least One Leadership Program

22. Recommendations 4.Decentralize Leadership Programs 5.Focus on Members not Just Positional Leaders 6.Discourage Too Much Breadth in Involvement 7. Develop Mentoring Relationships

23. Recommendations 8. Design Distinct Programs for Specific Groups 9. Align Students’ Self- Perceptions of Leadership Competence and Confidence 10. Build Bridges with K-12 Educators

24. What’s Next… MSL Institutional Survey RESEARCH QUESTION What is really known about how the design and delivery of leadership development programs effects student learning? LEADERSHIP PROGRAM ELEMENTS Institutional Context & Mission Congruence Program Philosophy/ Theoretical Orientation Common Program Elements Intentionality/ Planning & Evaluation Access to resources Collaboration/Partnerships ANALYSES Developing a typology of collegiate leadership programs Document and website content analyses Regressing typology on student leadership outcomes Creation of program evaluation instrument to complement CAS, etc.

25. What’s Next… National Report & Issues of Concepts & Connections –Available via NCLP web site MSL-2 –Schools selected between April – June 2008 –Data collection January 2009 –Longitudinal component –New sub-studies/ scales

26. For Further Information Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership http://www.nclp.umd.edu John P. Dugan, jdugan1@luc.edujdugan1@luc.edu Susan R. Komives, komives@umd.edukomives@umd.edu Julie E. Owen, jeowen@umd.edujeowen@umd.edu