THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP
ORIENTATION AND GROUP PRODUCTIVITY
AND SATISFACTION: THE RESIDENCE HALL
SECTION ADVISER AND HIS SECTION

By
DAVID ALEXANDER MACDONALD

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1968

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

l 3 1262 08552 3925lllllI IIIIM
3 1262 08552 3925

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express appreciation to

Dr. Ben Barger for his guidance and support in the

design and completion of the present study. The members

of .his supervisory committee, Drs. Harry A. Grater,

Sam A. Banks, Audrey L. Schumacher, and Marvin E. Shaw,

also deserve thanks for their constructive criticisms

and recommendations for this study.

The Tolbert Area residence hall staff, including

the Section Advisers, Resident Assistants, and especially

Mr. Donald D. Mott, Mr. Donald Cline, and Mr. Robert

McBride, all deserve recognition for the time and

effort they spent participating in the study. Their

work, under the auspices of the Division of Housing

at the University of Florida, made this study both

feasible and possible. Mr. David A. DeCoster, also of

the Division of Housing,was most helpful in clarifying

many aspects of leadership and group functioning within

the residence hall setting.

The author also wishes to thank Mrs. Darlene Davis

for her assistance in scoring questionnaires and in the

preliminary typing of the study.

Finally, my family is thanked many times over for

their patience, understanding, and ability to absorb

ii

the stresses generated during this research project.

Throughout this experience, from inception to final

typed copy, my wife has been directly involved as

editor, tabulator, and typist. Her dedication has

gone far beyond the demands of the situation and made

it possible to complete the work in the best of order.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . ... . . .. ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION. .. . . . . . .
The Residence Hall Leader and His Group . . 5

CHAPTER II, METHOD . . . . . . . . 12
Subjects . . . . . . . . 12
Instruments . . . . . . . . 16
Procedure . . . . . . . . 18
Concluding Remarks. .. . ..... . 25

CHAPTER III, RESULTS . . . .... . 27
Leadership Orientation and Group Productivity 27
Group Ability Scores and Group Productivity . 30
Leadership Orientation and Group Satisfaction 32
Group Productivity and Satisfaction . . .. 35
Ancillary Correlation . . . . . .. 37
Concluding Remarks. ....... . . . 37

CHAPTER IV, DISCUSSION ........... .. 39
Leadership and Group Productivity . . 39
Leadership Orientation and Group Satisfaction 44
Group Productivity and Satisfaction . . . 50
Ancillary Correlations. . . .. .. . 53
Recommendations for Research and Programming. 54

CHAPTER V, SUMMAR . . . . . . . . 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . 66

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . 68

APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . 75

APPENDIX 3 . . . . . . . . . . 80

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Rank Order Correlations (rs) Obtained Between
Judges' Rankings of Section Advisers on Task
and Social-Emotional Leadership Orientations. 22

2. Rank Order Correlations (r ) Between Judges'
Independent Rankings and tie Judges' Composite
Social-Emotional and Task Leadership Rankings 22

3. Correlations Between Section Adviser
Leadership Orientation and Group Productivity
as Measured by Sections' Mean Grade Point
Averages. . . . . . .. . . . 28

4. Intercorrelations Between Methods of
Leadership Measurement. . . . . . . 28

5. Intercorrelations Within Methods of
Leadership Measurement. . . .. . . . 28

6. Correlation Between Mean Ability Scores
(S.C.A.T. Total Percentile) and Mean Grade
Point Averages for Sections Studied . . . 31

7. Correlations Between Measures of Section
Adviser Leadership Orientation and Mean
Academic Satisfaction Ratings for Sections. . 31

8. Correlations Between Measures of Section
Adviser Leadership Orientation and Mean
Social Satisfaction Ratings for Sections. . 31

9. Correlations Between Mean Grade Point
Averages and Academic and Social Satisfaction
for Sections. . . .. . . . . 36

10. Correlation Between Ratings of Academic and
Social Satisfaction on the Section Rating
Scale . . . . . . . . . . 36

11. The Task Oriented Leader. . . . . . 68

12. The Social-Emotional Oriented Leader. . . 69

13. Housing Research Project, Men's Residence
Halls, University of Florida. . . . 70

14. Section Adviser Rating Scale. . . . 71

15. Section Rating Scale. . . .. . . . 73

16. Supervisors' (Judges') Individual and
Composite Rank Orders on Section Adviser
Task (T) and Social-Emotional (S-E)
Leadership Orientations . . . .. . 75

17. Means and Standard Deviations for Section
Grade Point Averages (G.P.A.) and Ability
Scores (S.C.A.T.) . . . . . . .. 76

18. Means and Standard Deviations for Social
and Academic Satisfaction on the Section
Rating Scale . . . . .. . . . 77

19. Means and Standard Deviations for Task and
Social-Emotional Leadership Orientation on
the Section Adviser Rating Scale. . . . 78

20. Section Adviser Primary Ranked Leadership
Orientation, Ranked Ability Scores (S.C.A.T.),
and Ranked Mean Grade Point Averages
(G.P.A.) for Sections . . . . .. . 79

21. Rank Order Correlations (Tau) Between Section
Mean Grade Point Average Ranks and Section
Adviser Leadership Ranks and Section Mean
Ability Score (S.C.A.T.) Ranks (Pilot Study). 80

22. Section Adviser Primary Ranked Leadership
Orientation, Ranked Mean Ability Scores
(S.C.A.T.) and Ranked Mean Grade Point
Averages (G.P.A.) for Sections (Pilot Study). 81

TABLE

PAGE

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Within the field of social psychology there has

been as much concern for evaluating various dimensions

of group functioning as there has been with defining

and measuring various aspects of leadership. For

some time in the past, there had been inquiries which

focused primarily upon either the group or the leader

without adequate theory or methodology to consider

the possible interactive effects of one upon the

other. In recent years, however, as advances have

been made in theoretical models of group functioning

and the statistical tools with which to evaluate these

models, leadership and group process have been increas-

ingly considered as interactive dimensions of overall

group effectiveness (Bales, 1953, Bass, 1960, Hare,

1963).

Gibb (1947) laid the groundwork for this sort

of research in his proposal that leadership and group

dynamics are interactive processes rather than the mere

sum of particular "traits" of the appointed leader

and the goals of the group he was to lead. Carter

(1953) went on to suggest that a behavioral definition

of leadership which took into account both the specific

2

demands which the group situation places upon a leader

and the particular "act" which the leader must per-

form ip order to lead that group lends itself to

greater accuracy of evaluation than did previous research

models which focused on the generalizability of results

from one group-setting to another.

Balesf (1953) interaction process analysis is

a further refinement of the behavioral model for the

evaluation of groups and leadership. He suggested

that there were two fairly stable categories of group

functioning, namely the task or goal-directed behavior

and social-emotional or tension reducing behavior with-

in the group. Through process analysis one may not

only identify the frequency of occurance of these

various behaviors but also the individuals who serve

as specialists or leaders in the facilitation of these

behaviors in a group setting. Most frequently the

formal or appointed leader serves in the role of task

leader or specialist, somewhat aggressively controlling

and directing the group toward its goals. On the other

hand, the best liked person in the group, while not

necessarily appointed to a formal leadership position,

serves initially to facilitate group processes and

continues on in a social-emotional role, enhancing

individual and group satisfaction.

Research subsequent to Bales' (1953) study has

tended to identify somewhat similar aspects of group

functioning and leadership. For example, the refine-

ments of initial investigations by Stogdill and Coons

(1957) by Halpin and Winer (1957) designate two primary

leadership roles as Consideration (warmth, friendship)

and Initiating Structure (structure, organization).

They, in turn, found Consideration to be positively

related to group satisfaction and Initiating Structure

to be positively related to effectiveness (productivity)

of bomber crews studied. Where one person, the air-

craft commander, was placed in the position of having

to fulfill both roles, it was found that over all

effectiveness of the crews was highest when the commander

was rated above average on both leadership dimensions

(Halpin, 1957; see also Bass, 1960, for further discussion

of these dimensions).

Fiedler (1954, 1957, 1958) studied several situ-

ations in which the formally designated leader of a

group had the responsibility for both group productivity

and satisfaction, e.g., basketball team captain, sur-

veying team leader, aircraft commander. Through eval-

uating the relative psychological distance a leader

maintained between himself and group members, Fiedler

(1958) was able to demonstrate that a leader who could

remain moderately distant and "work oriented" in his

relationships facilitated higher productivity and

efficiency in his group than a leader who tended

to be psychologically close, friendly, and involved

4

in the personal lives of his group. (However, group

satisfaction tended to be higher for these latter groups.)

Hare (1963) suggests that group productivity

is maximized when a leader is able to facilitate be-

havior in both the task and social-emotional inter-

personal categories. Further, the leader "is a major

determinant in establishing the point at which the

group will reach equilibrium along each dimension of

interaction" (Hare, 1963, p. 294). This point of

equilibrium may be influenced in part by expectations

of the group. For instance, leaders in military sit-

uations are expected by the members to be rather author-

itarian, while group members in educational settings

tend to expect more democratic (social-emotional ori-

ented) leadership. (Hare, 1963, p. 309,). On the

other hand the relative size of the group will tend

to influence the task/social-emotional equilibrium

according to a study done by Hemphill (1950). Leaders

of large groups (31+ members) rated as superior tended

to emphasize leader-centered behavior while deempha-

sizing social-emotional concern for the group members.

These findings were in contrast to small group leader-

ship (30 or fewer members) where far fewer demands

were placed directly on the leader.

This present research is designed to evaluate

the relationship of two defined leadership orientations

to group productivity and satisfaction. The focus of

5

the study is within a residence hall area at the

University of Florida where students are grouped in

living units (Sections) that are the immediate respon-

sibility of designated student leaders (Section Advisers).

The leadership orientations employed are adaptations

of Bales' (1953) conceptualization of task and social-

emotional specialists in small group settings. Group

productivity is measured in terms of the mean grade

point average obtained by a Section during an academic

term. Group satisfaction is operationally defined

within two major categories: academic and social sat-

isfaction. The specific definition and evaluation

of these categories will be more fully described in

Chapter II.

The Residence Hall Leader and His Group

There have been relatively few attempts to date,

to evaluate the relationship of residence hall leader-

ship to the functioning of living unit groups. The

bulk of information now available has been concerned

primarily with methods of screening candidates for

these leadership positions (Murphy and Ortenzi, 1966),

the relative frequency with which such leaders are

employed in residence hall settings (Crane, 1961,

Murphy, 1964) and the most common characteristics of

these leadership positions (Murphy, 1964). In general,

these leaders are in their second or third year of

studies (no particular curriculum specified); most

6

often applied for the job by personal interview and

written application; were generally judged according

to their maturity, scholarship; "personality", and

"leadership ability"; and were assigned to living units

housing usually 37 to 49 men (Murphy, 1964).

It has been observed (Macdonald, 1966, DeCoster,

1967) that the residence hall leader at the University

of Florida is hired by the Division of Housing to ful-

fill both task and social-emotional responsibilities

on his particular living unit. One might characterize

his task role as basically that of facilitating good

study conditions through enforcing quiet hours, con-

trolling student behavior through discipline, and setting

an example of disciplined studiousness himself. His

social-emotional role might be described in terms of

expectations placed upon him by his supervisors to

facilitate social interaction, individual and group

satisfaction, and being available for informal coun-

seling of students on his section. (see especially

the Guidebook for Section Advisers and Resident Assistants,

1966).

A pilot study designed to evaluate the relation-

ship between leadership orientation and group product-

ivity in the residence hall setting was run in the

Spring of 1966.(Macdonald, 1966). Using the description

of task and social-emotional oriented leadership

employed by Bales (1953) the Area supervisors (the

7
author and his immediate superior) rank ordered each

of 20 Section Advisers along each dimension of leader-

ship in relation to the other Section Advisers in their

Area. It was predicted and confirmed that there was

a high positive correlation between task orientation

rank of a Section Adviser and the mean grade point

average for his Section ( L..01, Appendix 3, Table 21).

By contrast, it was predicted and substantial support

found for the hypothesis that there was a high negative

correlation between the social-emotional orientation

rank of a Section Adviser and the mean grade point

average for his Section (p L.06, Appendix 3, Table 21).

Finally, it was predicted and confirmed that there

was only a low positive correlation between the mean

grade point average and the mean ability scores (S.C.A.T.

Total percentile) for a Section (p =.476, Appendix 3,

Table 21).

The present research project represents an attempt

to both replicate and add some important modifications

and controls to the research cited above. Among the

important modifications is the addition of ratings

by Section residents of their Section Advisers on

leadership dimensions as well as ratings of their

Sections on what is designated as social and academic

satisfaction. (It is important to note that ranking

will refer to the supervisor evaluations of the Section

Adviser while ratings will refer to the residents'

8

evaluations of their Section Adviser and Section through

the use of questionnaires.)

The first two hypotheses emerge from a major

question posed by the pilot study which might be form-

ulated as follows: "Is there a significant relationship

between the leadership orientations displayed by Section

Advisers and the productivity of the students living

on his Section as measured by the mean grade point

average of that Section?" Using operational definitions

of task and social-emotional leadership orientations

(see Chapter II) the following hypotheses are proposed:

I. It is predicted that there is a high
positive correlation between the task orien-
tation rank and rating of a Section Adviser
and the mean grade point average for that
Section.

II. It is predicted that there is a negative
correlation between the social-emotional
rank and rating of a Section Adviser and
the mean grade point average for that Section.

Another question arising from that pilot project

may be stated as follows: "Is there a significant

relationship between mean ability scores (S.C.A.T.

Total percentile) and the mean grade point average

for a Section?" In the light of previous results ---,

III. It is predicted that there is a low
positive correlation between the mean abil-
ity scores and mean grade point averages
for residence hall Sections.

As indicated by research related to leadership

and group function, the satisfaction of individuals

within a group has been characterized as important

9
a consideration as group productivity. The research

of Halpin and Winer (1957) and others tends to suggest

that there are some measurable relationships between

group satisfaction and leadership orientation. Satis-

faction, in turn, is usually found to be most highly

related to the social-emotional leadership offered

within a group setting (Bales, 1953; Bass, 1960).

Within the context of the residence hall setting at

a University one might suggest that there would be

as much concern by students for the commonly identified

social satisfaction as for what might be termed aca-

demic satisfaction on their Section. In order to

further delineate these terms for the purposes of

this study, satisfaction is operationally defined as

"the expressed attitude of a student that his Section

provides a good opportunity for social interaction,

e.g., there is a congenial atmosphere where students

can comfortably form friendships, express their feelings,

and obtain some degree of tension release through

interpersonal interaction'." Academic satisfaction,

on the other hand, is operationally defined as"the

expressed attitude of a student that his Section is

conducive to academic performance, e.g., order and quiet

are maintained so that good study conditions are gen-

erally in force'." This second dimension of satisfaction

would presumably be dependent upon the effectiveness

of task oriented leadership on a Section.

10

Emerging from these considerations of group sat-

isfaction on a residence hall Section, the question

might be raised: "Are there some significant, measurable

relationships between group social and academic satis-

faction and task and social-emotional leadership

orientation of Section Advisers in the residence halls?"

As a means of evaluating this question, the following

hypotheses are proposed:

IVa. It is predicted that there is a high
positive correlation between task leadership
ratings of Section Advisers and mean academic
satisfaction ratings for residence hall
Sections.

IVb. It is predicted that there is a low
negative correlation between social-emotional
leadership ratings of Section Advisers and
mean academic satisfaction ratings for
residence hall Sections.

Va. It is predicted that there is a high
positive correlation between social-emotional
leadership ratings of Section Advisers and
mean social satisfaction ratings for resi-
dence hall Sections.

Vb. It is predicted that there is a low
positive correlation between task leadership
ratings for Section Advisers and mean social
satisfaction ratings for residence hall
Sections.

The data for these hypotheses are collected from

students through the use of a questionnaire which

contains an equal number of items regarding academic

and social satisfaction and a questionnaire containing

an equal number of items regarding social-emotional

and task oriented leadership. (See Chapter II.)

Finally, one might raise the question "Are there

11

significant relationships between social and academic'

satisfaction ratings and the mean grade point average

for residence hall Sections?" The following hypotheses

are proposed to examine these relationships:

VI. It is predicted that there is a positive
correlation between mean academic satisfaction
ratings and mean grade point averages for
residence hall Sections.

VII. It is predicted that there is a low
negative correlation between mean social
satisfaction ratings and mean grade point
averages for residence hall Sections.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

The judges. Tolbert Area men's residence halls

at the University of Florida serve as the setting

for the present research. At the time of the collec-

tion of data (Eall, 1966), the judges employed were

three professional staff persons responsible for this

Area, one of whom served as a full-time Area Coordin-

ator (administrator-counselor), and two who served as

half-time Counselors to Residents (counselors-

advisers). The terms judge and supervisor will be

used interchangeably in reference to these staff persons

throughout this study. Each of these men had a master's

degree in Guidance and Counseling (or its equivalent).

The Area Coordinator had served Tolbert Area for 4

years, and the Counselors were newly appointed Staff

persons involved in further graduate studies at the

University. The Area Coordinator had participated in

the pilot study during the previous year (Macdonald, 1966),

and was familiar with the returning student-staff leaders

(Section Advisers). The three men shared responsibil-

ities in the training and supervision of Section Ad-

visers although there was no formal assignment of a

13

supervisor to train particular Section Advisers in

this Area. Rather, availability of a supervisor in

terms of his schedule and the Section Adviser's schedule

determined to some extent the amount of contact between

supervisor and Section Adviser, with the full-time Area

Coordinator having the greatest opportunities for

contact with these staff persons. The Counselors were

hired to be available to individual students requesting

academic, personal, or vocational counseling, and a

certain portion- of their time was spent in this re-

sponsibility. The Area Coordinator, on the other hand,

worked closely with other administrators in the Di-

vision of Housing, with the Dean of Men's office,

and with individual students presenting disciplinary

problems in the Area (although at times he did some

personal counseling with students). Finally, the Area

Coordinator served as both supervisor to the Counselors

as well as administrative head of the Area.

The students and their Sections. Within the

Tolbert Area there were 20 Sections each composed

of 35 to 50 male students. The majority of the stu-

dents (59%) were freshmen who were required to live

in the residence halls during the first year of studies.

Of the remaining students, 22% were sophomores and

19% were upperclassmen. One Section in the Area

(N4) had been designated as an upper-division Section,

and the majority of the students living there were,

14

coincidentally, Junior College Transfers, Data per-

taining to this Section will necessarily be interpreted

in light of its homogeneous population.

The Area had 5 residence halls, the largest of

which housed some 213 students, with a total of about

865 students living in the Area. Students could have

requested housing assignment based on either roommate,

Section, or Area preference, with no guarantee that

the student's first preference would be fulfilled.

The resultant assignment of students to Sections was

somewhat randomized, with returning students (soph-

omores, etc.) having most assurance of their first

preferences.

For the most part, therefore, a Section was a

rather heterogeneous group of individuals who had little

opportunity to choose to be in that particular group

and no opportunity to select the other members of that

group. The students represented a wide range of socio-

economic and religious backgrounds as well as a mul-

tiplicity of motives for attending the University of

Florida. Once a student had been assigned to a par-

ticular Area, Section, and room, he had to remain in

that assignment until the end of the term unless there

were extenuating circumstances (roommate conflict,

personal problems) which required a change of assignment.

The Section Advisers. The Section Adviser was

usually in his second or third year of college and

15

was appointed to that position by the Area Coordinator.

His appointment was contingent upon a recommendation

by another Section Adviser, a satisfactory interview

with the Area Coordinator, a minimum grade point average

of 2.0 (C) and obtaining scores on a personality

inventory (the Stern Activity Index) within acceptable

limits. In most instances the candidate for the

Section Adviser position had been recognized by staff

persons as acceptable for the position, and quite

often tended to emulate the leadership roles demon-

strated by his former Section Adviser. It had been

found most advisable to assign a new Section Adviser

to a Section other than the one he previously resided

on due to difficulties experienced by new Section

Advisers in the past, adapting to changing role ex-

pectations.

As indicated in the introductory chapter, the

Section Adviser was explicitly hired to fulfill two

general roles on the floor: behavioral control (or

discipline) and facilitation of group and individual

satisfaction. In addition to these responsibilities,

two of the Section Advisers studied also had adminis-

trative responsibility for the residence hall to which

they were assigned and hence officially had the title

of Resident Assistant. (The other 3 Resident Assistant

positions, at the time of this study, did not include

responsibility for a Section in addition to their Hall

16

administrative duties.) The Section Adviser is paid

a salary which covers his room rent and a small margin

of extra expense monies. A Section Adviser who remains

on the staff may receive additional monies according

to seniority, while the rank of Resident Assistant

carries with it substantial salary increases as well

as more comfortable living arrangements.

Instruments

The judges' ranking information. Specimens of

the actual information presented to each judge regarding

the task and social-emotional leadership characteris-

tics used in ranking the Section Advisers can be found

in Appendix 1, Tables 11 and 12. The information

sheet included (1) instructions regarding the procedures

for ranking the Section Advisers, (2) an operational

definition of the specific leadership orientation

dimension along which the Section Advisers were to be

ranked, and (3) a list of adjectives which was intended

to complement the operational definition of leadership

as well as give further information regarding the

orientation under consideration. The actual ranking

process will be described under Procedure.

The Section Adviser Rating Scale. This Likert- .

type scale (Appendix 1, Table 14) was composed of 20

statements representing behavioral acts which a Section

Adviser might observably perform in the process of

fulfilling his leadership responsibilities. The odd-

17
numbered items were intended to describe characteris-

tically social-emotional oriented behaviors, while the

even-numbered items were intended to describe character-

istically task oriented behaviors. Each student on a

particular Section was asked to rate his Section Ad-

viser on all items in terms of the frequency with which

the Section Adviser displayed these behaviors, using

a five-point scale which ranged from (1) Practically

Never to (5) Almost Always. A student was urged to

rate all items even though he may not have had specific

information to support his rating, e.g., "If you have

not observed your Section Adviser performing one of

these functions, rate how you think he would fulfill

the function." Several of the statements used were

modifications of items used in some previous research

by Miller (1962). The present questionnaire yields

two total raw scores, one for task leadership and one

for social-emotional leadership ratings.

The Section Rating Scale. This Likert-type scale

(see Appendix 1, Table 15) was composed of 20 statements

which enabled a student to rate his own experiences

while living on a Section. (Six of these items were

modified from previous research by DeCoster, 1966.)

The odd-numbered items were intended to describe exper-

iences related to what has been operationally defined

as social satisfaction, while the even-numbered items

refer to experiences related to the operational defini-

18

tion of academic satisfaction (see Introduction).

Students were requested to rate their Section in terms

of the frequency with which events appeared to occur

on his Sectionusing a five-point scale ranging from

(1) Practically Never, to (5) Almost Always. The

questionnaire, therefore, yielded two total raw scores,

one for academic satisfaction and one for social satis-

faction.

Section ability scores and grade point averages. The

percentile scores on the total scale of the School and

College Ability Test (S.C.A.T.) were used as indicators

of academic ability for the students sampled. The norms

of the entering class with which each student entered

the University served as the basis for his percentile

designation. This instrument is administered to all

incoming lower-division students, and the information

was made available through the Office of the Registrar.

The mean grade point average for each Section was

generated from grades obtained by the individual resi-

dents on each Section. This information was also made

available by the Office of the Registrar.

Procedure

The judges' ranking procedure. This procedure

consisted of two separate operations in which the judges

(Area Coordinator and Counselors) were asked to inde-

pendently rank the 20 Section Advisers (with 1 as highest,

20 as lowest rank in order) first along the dimension of

19.

task oriented leadership and then, one week later, along

the dimension of social-emotional oriented leadership.

The ranking process was initiated three weeks before

the end of the academic term (November 10, 1966) with

a training session led by the author in which the basic

concepts of task oriented leadership were discussed

in detail with the judges. They were each given infor-

mation sheets (see Instruments above and Appendix 1,

Tables 11 and 12, for specimen)-'which served as a

focus both for the training session and for their own

independent ranking following the session. They were

asked to complete the ranking as soon as possible (within

2-3 days). On November 17, these rankings were collected

and a training session was initiated similar to the

previous one, with the focus being the social-emotional

leadership orientation. Again, these rankings were

to be completed as soon as possible.

Finally, on November 24, all three judges were

brought together with the intended purpose of generating

a composite rank ordering along each leadership dimen-

sion which was to reflect the combined opinions of all

three judges. This was accomplished by first presenting

to each judge a listing which contained the rank order

designations (in parallel columns) of each judge for

each Section Adviser for the task oriented leadership

dimension. At this time, an open discussion was generated

regarding each judges' reasons for applying a particular

rank to each Section Adviser. Agreement was reached

as to a final.rank order based upon what judges felt

was the most accurate information available to them

regarding each Section Adviser. (Levels of information

regarding each Section Adviser varied across each judge

and seemed dependent upon the amount of contact they

had had with a Section Adviser.')

A similar procedure was followed later that same

day in order to generate a composite rank order along

the social-emotional dimension of leadership. (making

sure that there was no immediate information available

regarding the composite task oriented ranking completed

earlier that day). (See Appendix 2, Table 16, for the

composite lists.) The composite rank order lists were

then used in testing Hypotheses I and II regarding the

relationship between Section Adviser leadership orien-

tation ranks and Section productivity (mean grade point

average). Pearson r (Walker and Lev, 1953) was the

statistic employed in obtaining correlations for these

hypotheses with p/L.05 designated as the acceptable

level of significance.

It was decided that several measures of interjudge

reliability needed to be done in order to describe

the ranking procedure, and that Spearman ,s, with /.05

set as the acceptable level of significance,would be

used as the statistic for each interjudge correlation.

In order to evaluate the overall interjudge reliability,

21

Kendall's W (see Siegel, 1956) was used to generate

rsav, with p. .05 set as the acceptable level of sig-
nificance for this study. The results are shown in

Tables 1 and 2, are briefly described below, and are

evaluated in terms of each relevant hypothesis in the

Discussion chapter.

Table 1 indicates that the highest interjudge

correlation occurred on task ranking between judge M

and judge Mc (r =+.66, /.O01) while the lowest oc-

curred between judge M and judge C (rs =+.26, p \.05)

on the social-emotional leadership dimension. On

the other hand the highest correlation (,s =+.73, L.01)

occurred between judges' C and Mc social-emotional

rank orders, and one of the lowest correlations occurred

between these two judges' task rank orders (rs =+.30,

p _.05). Finally, the average rank order correlation

between all judges' ratings (generated from Kendall's

W) were both positive and significant for the task

leadership orientation (rsay =+.44, p L.05) and the social-

emotional leadership orientation (rsav =+.50, 2/.05).

These correlations would tend to suggest that there

was adequate although not impressive agreement between

the judges' independent rank ordering of Section

Advisers along each leadership dimension.

A second consideration regarding the judges' rank

ordering of Section Advisers is the relationship between

an individual judges' rank order and the final composite

22

Table 1

Rank Order Correlations (rs) Obtained Between Judges'

Rankings of Section Advisers on Task and Social-Emotional

Leadership Orientations

Judges Leadership Orientation _s p

M/Mc Task +.66 L.01
Social-Emotional +.60 /.01

C/Mc Task +.30 _.05
Social-Emotional +.73 L.01

M/C Task +.36 N.05
Social-Emotional +.25 _.05

M/Mc/ C(rsav) Task +.44 .05
Social-Emotional +.50 L.05

Table 2

Rank Order Correlations (rs) Between Judges' Independent

Rankings and the Judges' Composite Social-Emotional and Task

Leadership Rankings

Judge Leadership Orientation rs 2

M Task +.82 L.01
Social-Emotional +.82 L.01

Mc Task +.69 L.01
Social-Emotional +.32 _.05

C Task +.46 /.05
Social-Emotional +.61 /.01

M/Mc/C(rsav) Task +.66 L.01
Social-Emotional +.58 L.01

'23
rank order generated by all of them together. Table 2

indicates that judge M's rank order on the task (rs =+.82,

2 L.01) and social-emotional (rs =+.82, 2 .01) leader-
ship dimensions had the highest relationship of all to

the composite rank orders generated by the judges.

Only in the case of judge Mc's ranking of Section

Advisers along the social-emotional leadership dimension

did a correlation with the composite rank order not

reach significance (rs =+.32, p \.05). Finally, Table

2 indicates that the average rank order correlations

generated from Kendall's W (rsav) for both task (rsav=+.66,

2p /.01) and social-emotional (rsav =+.58, L.O01)
orientations are both positive and significant. These

correlations would suggest that there is moderately

good overall agreement between the judges' independent

rankings and the composite rankings they generated

together.

The students' rating procedure. The Section

Adviser Rating Scale and the Section Rating Scale were

distributed to the students on each Section by their

Section Adviser three weeks before the end of the aca-

demic term. The Section Advisers had been given a

training session by the author in which they were

instructed as to the intent of the research. They also

had an opportunity to discuss difficulties they might

encounter in distributing the questionnaires. It was

stressed that items were all positively worded, that the

student rating was to remain anonymous, and that the

information given by students would in no way affect

his status as a Section Adviser. He in turn was to

stress these aspects of the questionnaires with his

students (see Appendix 1, Table 13). The Section

Advisers agreed that the easiest means of distribution

and instruction was through group meetings, and in all

cases the Section Adviser used this method to intro-

duce the questionnaire. The majority of students

completed the questionnaires immediately following the

instruction period, placed them in sealed envelopes,

and returned them to the Section Adviser to be returned

to the author. The remaining students completed the

questionnairesat their own convenience during the

following week and returned them in sealed envelopes

to their Section Advisers.

Once the questionnaires had all been returned,

they were scored and then tabulated by Sections, so

that group totals and means on each scale could be

computed. Pearson r, with p /.05 set as the acceptable

level of significance, was the statistic used to dem-

onstrate the correlations between the obtained leadership

ratings and the student's productivity and satisfaction

(Hypotheses IVa through VII). The validity of these

scales is based upon the assumption that the items

comprising each scale represent operational statements

of the leader and group behaviors under consideration.

25

Section ability scores and grade point averages.

While the bulk of information necessary for the present

study was readily available from the Office of the

Registrar, several additional steps were needed in order

to establish the accuracy of the information given.

First of all a check was run on the print-out of Section

grades against the actual Section rosters for the Tolbert

Area, and then appropriate additions and corrections

were made. Secondly, a good number of upper-division

and transfer students had not taken the S.C.A.T. so

that it was necessary to find ability scores for them

(ie., Florida Twelfth Grade Placement Test) and inter-

polate them to give estimations of general academic

ability comparable to the S.C.A.T. total. Thirdly,

Hypothesis III which predicted a low positive corre-

lation between mean grade point average and mean ability

scores for the Sections was tested using the Pearson r

statistic, with p Z.05 set as the acceptable level of

significance. This test was performed on corrected

data sheets using only those students for whom both

the grade point average and the ability score were

available.

Concluding Remarks

Choice of hypotheses and procedures. The procedures

designed and chosen for this study were selected for

their relevance to the questions and hypotheses set

forth in Chapter I. It is clear, however, that there

26

are many other dimensions of leadership and group effect-

iveness as well as many other dimensions of the resi-

dence hall situation which could have been focused upon

as important considerations. The specific hypotheses,

and the procedures employed to evaluate them stand as

potentially significant ways of observing and measuring

aspects of the residence hall setting at a large uni-

versity. It is expected, finally, that new questions,

problems, and hypotheses will be raised in the very

process of this study which will point to other fruitful

areas for research in this type of setting.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

In this chapter the correlations necessary to test

the specific hypotheses set forth in Chapter I will

be displayed and described. Wherever relevant, ad-

ditional correlations will be presented, beyond the

several predictions originally made, in order to more

fully describe the relationships found between the

variables under consideration. The actual means from

which the correlations were computed are to be found in

Appendix 2, Tables 17-19.

Leadership Orientation and Group Productivity

Hypothesis I. It was predicted that there would

be a high positive correlation between the task orien-

tation rank and rating of a Section Adviser and the

mean grade point average for that Section. As can be

seen from Table 3 there was found a low positive cor-

relation between task orientation rank and mean grade

point average (2 _.05),' a result which suggests that

there is no significant relationship between the judges'

composite rank order for Section Advisers on this di-

mension of leadership and the mean grade point averages

for Sections in the Area. On the other hand, Table 3

shows that there was a high negative correlation (z =-.68,

28

Table 3

Correlations Between Section Adviser Leadership Orientation

and Group Productivity as Measured

by Sections' Mean Grade Point Averages

Leadership Measure r t .
Orientation

Task Judges' Rank Order +.13 .60 \.05
Rating Scale* -.68 3.92 L.01

Social-Emotional Judges' Rank Order -.37 1.38 1.05
Rating Scale* -.26 1.18 5.05

*Section Adviser Rating Scale

Table 4

Intercorrelations Between Methods of Leadership Measurement

Leadership Measure Measure r 2
Orientation 1 2

Task Judges' Section Adviser +.36 \.05
Rank Order Rating Scale

Social-Emotional Judges' Section Adviser +.50 L.05
Rank Order Rating Scale

Table 5

Intercorrelations Within Methods of Leadership Measurement

Measure Orientation 1 Orientation 2 r 2

Section Adviser Task Social- +.66 Z.01
Rating Scale Emotional

Judges' Task Social-
Rank Order Emotional +.40 /.05

29'
. /.01) between the students' ratings (Section Adviser

Rating Scale) of Section Advisers on task orientation and

the mean grade point average for Sections in the Area.

This finding would tend to suggest that as students

rated their Section Adviser as more frequently perform-

ing task oriented leadership functions on their Sections

(limiting, structuring, disciplining) the mean grade

point average for that Section would be lower. The

obverse would also find support in that the Section

Adviser receiving student ratings indicating he per-

formed fewer task oriented behaviors, the higher would

be the mean grade point average for that Section.

These contrasting results are interesting to note

in light of the positive and moderately high correla-

tion between the two different means of measuring

task oriented leadership (Table 4, r =+.36, p. .05).

Hypothesis II. It was predicted that there would

be a negative correlation between the social-emotional

rank and rating of a Section Adviser and the mean grade

point average for that Section. It can be seen in

Table 3 that in both instances of measurement (judges'

ranking, students' rating) of social-emotional orien-

tation that this hypothesis was given some support.

There was a higher negative correlation found between

these variables using the judges' rank order method of

evaluation (r =-.37, p 1\.05) than for the students'

rating of the Section Advisers on this dimension (r =-.26,

30

S_\.05). These results could be interpreted to suggest

that as a Section Adviser was ranked or rated higher

on the social-emotional dimension of leadership (psych-

ologically close, liked, friendly) the lower would be

the mean grade point average for his Section (although

neither correlation reached significance). It is

interesting to note that there was a high positive

correlation between the two measures of this leader-

ship orientation (Table 4, r =+.50, p L.05).

While no hypotheses were formulated regarding

the relationship between task and social-emotional

leadership, Table 5 indicates that high positive

correlations were found between these leadership

dimensions within each methodology used (judges'

ranking; Section Adviser Rating Scale). This would

tend to indicate that as a Section Adviser was given

a higher rank or mean rating on task orientation he

would tend to be given a higher rank or mean rating

on social-emotional orientation.

Group Ability Scores and Group Productivity

Hypothesis III. It was predicted that there would

be a low positive correlation between the mean ability

scores and mean grade point averages for residence

hall Sections. As can be seen in Table 6, this pre-

diction was supported by the data (r =+.24, p X.05).

These results would tend to suggest that the ability

scores of students living in residence hall Sections

31

Table 6

Correlation Between Mean Ability Scores

(S.C.A.T. Total Percentile) and Mean Grade Point Averages

For Sections Studied

r t P
S.C.A.T. Total .Percentile +.24 1.04 \.05

Table 7

Correlations Between Measures

of Section Adviser Leadership Orientation

and Mean Academic Satisfaction Ratings for Sections

Leadership Measure r t 2
Orientation

Task Rating Scale* +.42 1.94 Z.05
Judges' Rank Order -.10 .58 \.05

Social-Emotional Rating Scale* +.15 .74 \.05
Judges' Rank Order -.19 .84 ..05

*Section Adviser Rating Scale

Table 8

Correlations Between Measures

of Section Adviser Leadership-Orientation

and Mean Social Satisfaction Ratings for Sections

Leadership Measure r t 2
Orientation

Social-Emotional Rating Scale* +.53 2.67 /.01
Judges' Rank Order +.20 .89 N.05

Task Rating Scale* +.39 1.81 L.05
Judges' Rank Order +.09 .38 N.05

*Section Adviser Rating Scale

32

are somewhat limited predictors of the actual grade

point averages they obtained during the particular

academic term under consideration. However, one could

say that there was a trend which suggests that the

higher the ability scores of students the higher their

actual grades tended to be.

Leadership Orientation and Group Satisfaction

Hypothesis IVa. It was predicted that there would

be a high positive correlation between task leader-

ship ratings of Section Advisers and mean academic

satisfaction ratings for residence hall Sections.

The correlation reported in Table 7 indicates that

there was a high positive correlation between task

leadership ratings and academic satisfaction ratings

for the sections studied (r =+.42, p /.05). This

would suggest that as a Section Adviser was rated by

students as more frequently performing behaviors which

were controlling, limit-setting, and disciplining of

student behavior on a Section, the Section was rated

by students as more frequently being a good place to

study and fulfill academic responsibilities. On the

other hand, there was a very low negative correlation

between the judges' ranking of Section Advisers on this

leadership dimension and the mean academic satisfaction

ratings by students of their Sections (Table 7, r =-.10,

p. \.05) although no specific prediction was made of

this relationship.

33
Hypothesis IVb. It was predicted that there would

be a low negative correlation between social-emotional

leadership ratings of Section Advisers and mean academic

satisfaction ratings for residence hall Sections.

The data found in Table 7 do not support this predic-

tion. Rather, there was a slight trend (r =+.20,

p N.05) indicating that as students rated their Section

Advisers higher on this leadership dimension they rated

their Sections as more frequently academically satis-

fying. Although no prediction was made regarding the

relationship of the judges' social-emotional ranking

of Section Advisers and student academic satisfaction

on the Sections studied, there was found a low neg-

ative correlation between these two variables (r =-.19,

p N.05). This would tend to suggest that as the judges'

ranked Section Advisers higher.on the social-emotional

leadership dimension, there was a trend for students

to rate their Sections as less frequently academically

satisfying.

Hypothesis Va. It was predicted that there would

be a high positive correlation between social-emotional

leadership ratings of Section Advisers and mean social

satisfaction ratings for residence hall Sections. The

results reported in Table 8 give strong support to this

prediction (r =+.53, pg .01). This would suggest that

as students rated their Section Adviser as more fre-

quently performing social-emotional leadership behaviors

34

(informal counseling, social facilitation, friendly

concern), they rated their Section as more frequently

socially satisfying (more enjoyable place to live,

more sympathetic concern of students for one another

etc.). While no prediction was made regarding the

relationship of the judges' ranking of Section Advisers

on the social-emotional dimension and Section social

satisfaction ratings, Table 8 indicates that there

was a positive correlation between these two vari-

ables. The correlation did not, however, reach the

predetermined level of significance for this study

(r =+.20, p \.05). This would tend to suggest (as

above) that as the judges ranked the Section Advisers

higher on the social-emotional dimension of leadership

their Sections were rated by students as more socially

satisfying.

Hypothesis Vb. It was predicted that there would

be a low positive correlation between task leadership

ratings for Section Advisers and mean social satis-

faction ratings for residence hall Sections. Table 8

indicates that there was actually a positive and sig-

nificant correlation between these variables (r =+.39,

SZ. 05). These results suggest that as Section Ad-

visers are rated as more frequently performing task

oriented behaviors (disciplining, enforcing quiet hours,

etc.) that the Section is rated by students as a more

socially satisfying place to live. Table 8 indicates

35

also that there was essentially no relationship between

the judges' ranking of Section Advisers on task oriented

leadership and the students' rating of their Section

in terms of social satisfaction (r =+.09, \. 05).

This result neither supports nor contradicts the hy-

pothesis and was not specifically predicted for this

study.

Group Productivity and Satisfaction

Hypothesis VI. It was predicted that there would

be a positive correlation between mean academic satis-

faction ratings and mean grade point averages for

residence hall Sections. Results reported in Table 9

indicate that there was virtually no relationship

between these sets of data, (r =-.09, 1..05). Thus,

there seems to be little relationship between students'

rating of conditions on a Section which would appear

to depress or facilitate academic achievement and

measures of actual mean academic achievement of that

Section. The Section which obtained the highest mean

grade point average for example, .S2i had one of the

lower mean ratings for academic satisfaction in the

Area. (Appendix 2, Table 18.)

Hypothesis VII. It was predicted that there would

be a low negative correlation between mean social sat-

isfaction ratings and mean grade point averages for

residence hall Sections. The results found in Table 9

give some support to this predicted relationship (.=-.28,

36

Table 9

Correlations Between Mean Grade Point Averages

and Academic and Social Satisfaction Ratings for Sections*

Satisfaction Rating Scale r t

Academic Satisfaction -.09 .38 _.05

Social Satisfaction -.28 1.25 A.05

*Section Rating Scale

Table 10

Correlation Between Ratings of Academic and Social

Satisfaction on the Section Rating Scale

r
Academic Satisfaction / Social Satisfaction +.36 \.05

37

p_ .05), thus suggesting that as student ratings of

social satisfaction on their Section are higher the

mean grade point average tends to be lower. The trend

in the predicted direction would tend to indicate that

the more frequently socially facilitating behaviors

occur on a Section the less productive a Section is

likely to be in terms of its mean grade point average.

Ancillary Correlation

Academic and Social Satisfaction. It is interest-

ing to note that there was a moderately positive cor-

relation between student ratings of academic and social

satisfaction on Sections in the Area (Table 8, =+.36,

p _.05). This would tend to suggest that as students

rated academic satisfaction higher, they tended to

rate social satisfaction higher on their Section.

However, they are evidently able to discriminate between

manifestations of these variables.

Concluding Remarks

The primary correlations as well as some secondary

ones related to the specific hypotheses set forth

in Chapter I have been described in terms of their

essential characteristics. It has been noted in several

instances that some of the predictions made have been

supported as expected, while several others have not.

Also, it has been indicated that different methods

of evaluating leadership orientation have at times

yielded somewhat different results when correlated

38

with Section productivity and satisfaction. In the

next chapter, we will discuss the questions raised by

these findings,- in an attempt to clarify their meaning

for research into the relationships between leadership

orientation and group productivity and satisfaction.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

It was indicated at the close of the previous

chapter that the concern of this chapter is to inter-

pret the results of this study in such a way as to

give further clarity and meaning to the relationships

under consideration. For these purposes it is planned

that the hypotheses will be discussed in relationship

with one another as well as to previous relevant re-

search. At appropriate points the discussion will

move beyond the limits of this study to consider pro-

posals for further research and programming within

the residence hall setting.

Leadership and Group Productivity

Hypothesis I. As was indicated in the Results

chapter there was found a low positive correlation

between supervisors' ranking of Section Advisers on

the task leadership dimension and Section mean grade

point average. This served as moderate support to

the hypothesis and to the previous pilot study (Mac-

donald, 1966; see Appendix 3, Tables 21 and 22).

On the other hand, there was a high negative (signi-

ficant) correlation between students' rating of Section

Advisers on this dimension and the students' mean

40

grade point average. As one attempts to account for

the marked differences in results obtained through

the use of these two measures, one might first consider

the methodological differences between them, especially

in terms of the kinds of information which they appear

to have depended upon.

It is apparent from the description of the super-

visors' task ranking procedure (Chapter II) that a

supervisor could be influenced by both his direct con-

tacts with the Section Adviser and his indirect im-

pressions of the Sections in terms of how well these

seem to be functioning, e.g., minimum of behavioral

problems, low noise level, good social experience for

the students, etc. One might suggest that if most

students on a Section were highly motivated toward

academic achievement, and tended to be rather mature

and responsible, these behaviors would no doubt lead

to good productivity,while the Section Adviser may have

had little or no responsibility for this. The correla-

tion obtained under the supervisors' ranking method could

thus be a result of the Section Adviser appearing as

a fairly competent task leader while his Section made

few disciplinary demands upon him as they individually

strove for good achievement. The low positive correla-

tion may well be a function, finally, of the lack of

consistent feed back regarding Section behavior to the

supervisors. (Note obtained interjudge reliability,

41

Tables 1 and 2, as well as discussion below under

Ancillary Correlations.)

As one turns to the results found on the Section

Adviser Rating Scale, one finds that as Section Advisers

were rated as more frequently performing task oriented

behaviors the mean grade point average tended to be

lower. One could interpret this to suggest that as

students on Sections demanded more structure and dis-

cipline by a Section Adviser because of poor academic

motivation their grade point average tended to be

lower. A high rating on this task oriented measure

would seem, therefore, to be reflecting the high fre-

quency with which demands are placed upon and met by

the Section Adviser, whereas a high ranking by the

supervisors would seem to reflect the relative low

frequency of disciplinary demands placed on the Sec-

tion Adviser by his students. (The moderately high

positive correlation between these measures did'not

reach significance, Table 4, p. .05.) It would be of

great value, in light of this discussion, to include

in future research some indicators of student academic

motivation as well as need for discipline or control

by an authority figure in order to more fully clarify '

the questions raised by the disparity of these results.

Hypothesis II. The correlations obtained between

the measures of social-emotional leadership and mean

grade point average were both negative and moderately

42

high as predicted. (although neither reached signifi-

cance, see Table 1). In the case of the supervisors'

ranking of Section Advisers along this dimension one

might propose, as above, that their information involved

both direct impressions of the Section Advisers as well

as indirect data regarding the behavior on their

Sections. In this situation, one may suggest that the

supervisors ranked Section Advisers higher on this

dimension as they were perceived as either less con-

cerned for or less capable of providing structure and

discipline on a Section. However, it may well be that

the more disruptive students on some Sections would

have been relatively unmanageable under any Section

Adviser, and the high ranking on this dimension could

reflect the supervisors' perception of the Section as

being disrupted and lacking discipline. The high neg-

ative correlation could then be attributed to the dis-

ruptive and poorly motivated students producing lower

grades as well as interfering with the performance

of other students on a Section.

As one turns to the data emerging from the stu-

dents' ratings of the Section Adviser on this leadership

dimension one finds that the correlation was in the

expected direction (r =-.26, p \.05, Table 3) and

that this rating has a high positive correlation with

both the judges' rank order on this dimension (r =+.50,

p L.05, Table 4) and the students' rating of task

43

orientation (r =+.66, p Z.01, Table 5). Therefore,

as a Section Adviser was rated as more frequently per-

forming social-emotional functions on the Section, the

mean grade point average tended to be somewhat lower.

As in the discussion of the task ratings by students,

one might suggest that while the social-emotional

behaviors would appear to be positively oriented on

the part of the Section Adviser, they may at the same

time have been performed in response to student dis-

turbance on a Section which demanded some sort of

intervention, whether it consisted of informal coun-

seling or organizing some activity to occur outside

the residence halls.

Here again, one must attempt to account for the

lower grade point averages on Sections whose leader

was rated as more frequently involved in personal

relationships with Section members. One finds it quite

plausible that Sections which made more demands on

Section Advisers to intervene, whether with task or

social-emotional behaviors, could have been the more

disruptive and less academically motivated Sections in

the Area which in turn had lower grade point averages

than other Sections. This proposal, in conjunction

with the discussion regarding the supervisors' ranking

of Section Advisers along this dimension of leadership

gains further support through the finding of the high

positive correlation between the two measurements of

44
social emotional leadership (r =+.50, p L.05, Table 4).

Again, one would wish to pursue this proposal in further

research with some indices which would tap individual

academic motivation as well as some indication of group

demands upon the Section Adviser, for example, in terms

of orderliness versus disruptiveness of students on

a Section.

It is interesting to note that as a Section Adviser

was ranked by supervisors higher on the social-emotional

dimension, his Section obtained a lower rank grade point

average than the mean ability score rank. (Appendix 2,

Table 20). On the other hand, as a Section Adviser

was ranked higher on the task dimension, his Section

tended to obtain a higher ranked grade point average

than the mean ability score rank (Appendix 2, Table

20). These results were quite similar to those found

in the pilot study (Appendix 3, Table 22), with fewer

exceptions to these observed relationships. Here again

one may suggest that the supervisors' higher task ranking

tied in closely with Sections having minimal disturbances

(leading to a positive correlation with mean grade point

average) while a higher social-emotional ranking tied

in somewhat with Sections having a higher degree of

disturbance with subsequently lower mean grade point

averages.

Leadership Orientation and Group Satisfaction

Hypothesis IVa. This hypothesis which predicted

45

that there would be a high positive correlation between

the students' ratings of academic satisfaction and

task orientation of the Section Adviser was supported

by the data (r =+.42, p Z.05, Table 7). It has been

suggested (Chapter III) that this correlation indicated

that as Section Advisers were rated as more frequently

performing task oriented behaviors that the Section

was rated as more frequently academically satisfying.

However, the discussion of the high negative correla-

tion between task rating and mean grade point averages

for Sections would tend to temper or modify the inter-

pretation of the meaning of this correlation. One

might suggest that this correlation may reflect the

relatively high satisfaction of students on Sections

who are not as concerned with academic achievement

and who, in turn, receive relatively low grades in

relation to other students (see especially correlations

under Hypotheses VI, VII:). There has been some sug-

gestion from informal interviews with students that

those students who are especially interested in high

academic achievement tend to do most of their studying

in places other than the residence hall Section eg.,

the library, student union, etc.
o
It may be noted briefly that the supervisors'

ranking of task orientation seemed to have little or

no relationship with Section academic satisfaction

ratings (r =-.10, \.05, Table 7). The slight negative

46

correlation is so low as to suggest that the supervisors'

rankings did not tap elements which the student ratings

were evaluating.

Hypothesis IVb. The prediction that there would

be a low negative correlation between social-emotional

leadership orientation and academic satisfaction was

not supported by the student ratings (r =+.15, p 1.05,

Table 7) but was supported by the supervisors' rank

order evaluations (r =-.19, p N.05, Table 7; although

not used as a predictor). One would need to interpret

these results very cautiously due to the very low

correlations in both instances. However, it would

appear that as a Section Adviser was rated as parti-

cipating more frequently in social-emotional oriented

behaviors, students perceived the Section as more

frequently academically satisfying to them. One might

propose that this positive correlation reflects in some

way the generally positive relationship between the

frequency of any leadership behavior and student

satisfaction with living in the residence halls,

especially as one notes the high positive correla-

tions between Section Adviser ratings on both leader-

ship dimensions (r =+.66, L/.01, Table 5) and between

the two satisfaction rating scales (r =+.36, p 1.05,

Table 10).

The results obtained through the supervisors'

ranking procedure (above) were in the direction pre-

dicted (although quite low). Within the framework

suggested for interpreting the supervisors' ranking

on this dimensi-on (Hypothesis II) one may propose in

a very guarded way that Section Advisers ranked high

on this dimension of leadership may tend to inhibit

student academic behavior which in turn was reflected

by lower ratings on the academic satisfaction scale.

Hypothesis Va. The prediction that there would

be a high positive correlation between social-emotional

leadership orientation and social satisfaction was

strongly supported by the student ratings (r =+.53,

p Z.01, Table 8) and minimally supported by the super-
visors' rankings (r =+.20, _.05, Table 8). One may

assume with confidence that as a Section Adviser was

rated by students as more frequently performing social-

emotional behaviors the Section was rated as more fre-

quently socially satisfying. One may suggest further

that a Section Adviser's social-emotional behavioral

acts seem to have the most impact upon facilitation

of social interaction on a Section.

This facilitation, of course, may be at the expense

of inhibiting the academic productivity of the students,

e.g., the Section may become so much a setting for tension

releasing behaviors that individuals tend to see it

as less of an academically oriented learning situation.

This contention gains support from the findings under

Hypothesis VII where there was a moderately negative

48

correlation between social satisfaction ratings and

the mean grade point averages for Sections (r =-.28,

S_\.05, Table 9). Should a Section Adviser be a sig-

nificant contributor;to social satisfaction, and these

behaviors in turn were detrimental to academic motivation

and productivity, there would be good cause to reassess

his purpose and goals as a leader on a Section. On

the other hand, it may be contended that social learn-

ing is as important as academically oriented learning

experiences, and that the lower productivity of a

Section under the conditions of a social-emotional

oriented leader may be of great value in the life of

the students.

The fact that the supervisors' ranking produced

a positive (though low) correlation with social satis-

faction ratings (. =+.20, a \.05, Table 8) would sug-

gest that the information the supervisors used to rank

these leaders included some feed-back regarding the

social experience of students on the Sections. Whether

this behavior was facilitated or inhibited by the Sec-

tion Adviser is not clear. However, from the discussion

above, one might assume that the Section Adviser can

be considered as having a significant impact upon this

dimension of group experience. One might further suggest,

the supervisors' ranking on the social-emotional

orientation was influenced heavily by the "likability"

of a Section Adviser, and that the behaviors associated

49

with the supervisors' evaluations may have carried over

in their leadership behavior on a Section. This gains

additional support from the finding of a high positive

correlation between the two measures of social-emotional

leadership (r =+.50, p Z.05, Table 4).

Hypothesis Vb. The high positive correlation

between students' task leadership ratings and social

satisfaction ratings (r =+.39, p L.05, Table 8) might

suggest that as a Section Adviser performed more lim-

iting, structuring behaviors the students perceived

their Section as more frequently socially satisfying.

Such a proposal could be further interpreted to suggest,

in conjunction with Hypothesis Va, that the more fre-

quently the Section Adviser is involved with the stu-

dents on his Section whether this be to discipline

or to facilitate social interaction students per-

ceive the Section as a more enjoyable Section on which

to live. There may be, in fact, some optimal level

of structure and discipline necessary on a Section

to facilitate this aspect of group satisfaction, and

the Section Adviser as a group leader may be the person

most instrumental in providing these conditions for

social satisfaction. The corrolary to this point of

view would be the suggestion that the less frequently

a Section Adviser is involved with group functioning,

the less students perceive their Section as an inte-

grated, satisfying group a condition which appears

50

to be important for member satisfaction in any group

(Bass, 1960).

When interpreting the resultant low positive

correlation between supervisors' task leadership

ranking and student-rated social satisfaction (r =+.09,

p \.05, Table 8) one may propose that the supervisors'

task leadership ranking had little relationship to the

student rating of social satisfaction on Sections.

That the correlation was positive may give support

to the contention that there is some congruence between

the aspects of task leadership reflected by both the

supervisors' and students' evaluation procedures (see

Table 2).

Grouo Productivity and Satisfaction

Hypothesis VI. The low negative correlation found

between academic satisfaction ratings and mean grade

point averages for Sections (r =-.09, p ,.05, Table 9)

indicates that there is little (or a slightly negative)

relationship between these variables in contrast to

what had been predicted. Thus the factors relevant

to individual productivity in this group situation

(mean grade point average) do not seem to be tapped

by this rating scale which has focused upon specific

behaviors in this group situation. As proposed in pre-

vious discussion (Hypotheses I and II) such factors as

individual motivation for achievement as well as the

relative disruptiveness of individuals (or small groups)

51

on Sections may be more predictive of the productivity

of a Section. In this same vein one may suggest that

the correlation obtained for this hypothesis could be

the result of more highly motivated students being

dissatisfied with the study conditions on a Section

and the less highly motivated students being quite

satisfied with the conditions for studying on a Section.

Further, the more highly motivated students who

might be dissatisfied with conditions for good achieve-

ment on a Section may choose to study outside the res-

idence halls and hence their academic achievement

may have little to do with group behavior on their

Section. It would be important in future research

to make some evaluation of the relationship between

achievement motivation and satisfaction on a Section

in order to clarify reasons for this low negative

correlation between what would appear to be academically

facilitating group behaviors and academic performance.

Hypothesis VII. As indicated in Table 9, there

was a negative (although not significant) correlation

between mean social satisfaction scores and mean grade

point averages for Sections (r =-.28, p 1.05). This

strong trend in the predicted direction would seem to

indicate that the more frequently a Section is rated

as socially satisfying the lower the mean grade point

average tended to be (and vice-versa). One might pro-

pose that students who tended to rate social interaction

52

behavior high may have been somewhat less concerned

with academic achievement than students who rated this

behavior somewhat lower. In conjunction with Hypothesis

VI, it may be that students who were concerned with

academic achievement left the Section in order to ful-

fill these responsibilities, and would tend to give

only moderate ratings to the social behaviors on their

Section. On the other hand, the students who were less

academically motivated may have stayed on the Section

more consistently for both academic and social pursuits,

and tended to rate their Section higher on these dimensions

of satisfaction.

In light of the questions raised by Hypotheses

VI and VII, it appears that some further indices of

student behavior would be helpful in clarifying the

results reported in this study. One would be inter-

ested in evaluating, (1) the amount of time student

spends on his Section, (2) what proportions of his

homework he completes on and off his Section, (3)

what proportions of socially rewarding experiences he

has on and off the Section and, (4) where he actually

goes off the Section to study or interact socially,

e.g., library, student union, fraternity, etc. This

information would give a fuller picture of patterns of

student behavior in and out of the residence hall setting

as these may in turn relate to motivation, achieve-

ment, and satisfaction on a Section. (A comprehensive

53

study, such as the one done with fraternities by

Gardner and Thompson (1956), would yield the kinds

of information necessary to answer these questions.)

Ancillary Correlations

Intercorrelations of judges' rankings. The average

rank correlation coefficients between the judges' inde-

pendent rankings (Table 1) would suggest that there

was adequate (although not exceptional) agreement in

the ways in which they ranked Section Advisers on both

task and social-emotional leadership orientations. The

limitations of this means of evaluating leader behavior

have been discussed under each relevant hypothesis.

These results could indicate that, on one hand, the

information and instructions (Appendix 1, Tables 11

and 12) upon which they were making their judgements

were adequate to provide some common reference points

for each leadership dimension. On the other hand it

may also indicate that concepts of leadership under

consideration were readily workable ways of measuring

some dimensions of leader behavior.

The average rank correlation (rsav, Table 2)

between independent rankings and the composite ranking

indicate that there was adequate agreement between

supervisors in the process of generating the composite

rankings. It will be noted, of course, that the highest

rs occurred between the rankings done by judge M and

the composite rankings. One may understand this as

54

reflecting the fact that judge M was the Area Coordin-

ator who was recognized by the other judges as, (1)

having had more contact with the majority of the Section
Advisers (both new and returning from previous years),

(2) having participated in the pilot study and possibly

more knowledgeable of the ranking process and, (3) being

their immediate supervisor (to whom they may have tended

to be somewhat deferential). In comparing Table 1

with Table 2, it would appear that the composite rank-

ings on both leadership dimensions represented higher

agreement with the judges' independent rankings than

between their initial independent rankings.

Recommendations for Research and Programming

Research. Throughout this chapter there have been

several proposals made for future research which would

both clarify the present results, and serve as steps

toward increasingly valuable information regarding

group effectiveness in the residence hall setting.
At this point it would seem useful to briefly recap

some of these proposals and then turn to some additional

ones suggested by the data.

First, in regard to the leadership orientation

measures, it was indicated that there is a need to
clarify, (a) what kinds of information the judges were

relying upon in their rankings, e.g., personal impression

of the Section Adviser and/or the student behavior

on a Section and, (b) what differences there were in

55

the information used by supervisor and students in their

evaluations of the Section Adviser. Secondly, there

seemed to be a need for clarification of information

regarding the students living in the residence halls,

such as, (a) individual motivation for academic achieve-

ment and needs for social satisfaction, (b) proportion-

ate amounts of studying and socialization accomplished

on and off the Section as well as, (c) the settings

students choose outside the residence halls for these

activities. Thirdly, in terms of the Sections studied,

it would have been valuable to have some indices of the

level of orderliness/disruptiveness maintained and

the quantity and quality of the demands students made

upon the Section Adviser for discipline and structure or

informal counseling and friendly concern. One might

propose that measures of conformance and nonconformance

with rules and regulations might give some indication

of the kinds of demands students would put on Section

Advisers.

Turning now to additional questions and problems

posed by the present research, the following proposals

are suggested as new directions in research which might

be profitable.

1. In the interests of designing an experimental

model within the residence hall setting, it would be

most informative to study the shifts in academic and

social satisfaction which might occur on a Section

56
once individual grades as well as the mean grade point

average for the Section were made known to the students.

This, of course, would have to be preceded by a reli-

ability study of the instruments used and analysis of

shifts in satisfaction which occur throughout each

academic term. The value of this proposal would be

in measuring individual changes in attitudes towards

the group as well as toward one's own academic goals

and performance.

2. It would seem quite feasible to develop a

multiple regression equation which would be designed

to predict individual academic performance on a Sec-

tion. Such an equation could include such factors as

an individual's ability scores, an index of his aca-

demic motivation, academic and social satisfaction on

his Section, a measure of Section orderliness/disrup-

tiveness, and some input regarding leader behavior

as rated by the students on his Section. Under con-

trolled conditions and after several trial measurements

of a sample of students, one would be able to accurately

assign beta weights to each of these dimensions and

give some indications of both the predictability of

academic performance as well as the relative impact

of each one of these variables upon performance.

3. One question which was implied throughout

this study was that of the differences in value ori-

entations of students, Section Advisers, and supervisory

57

staff in a residence hall Area. An assessment of this

critical area may reveal some important conflicts

between values of these three target groups which in

turn effect their expectations regarding leadership,

academic performance, group goals, etc., in this setting.

Such a study would also attempt to focus upon the

difficult question of the relative value assigned by

them to productivity and satisfaction, with some attempt

made to relate this to values held by contemporary

American society, especially other young adults, parents,

etc.

Residence hall programming. It is clear from

the description of the residence hall setting that

a Section represents a rather unique group situation

which severely limits the applicability of most gen-

eralizations regarding group leadership, productivity,

and satisfaction. One receives the strong impression

from the discussion of results of this study that

leader behavior may be quite heavily determined by

behavior of the students on a Section rather than

being the result of an optimal interaction between

a leader's own decisions regarding group goals and

the students' proposals regarding their goals. One

may attribute this to such factors as the lack of

choice students have regarding group membership, the

rather large size and heterogeneous nature of the group,

the appointment of a non-member as leader to the group

58

by external authority, lack of actual responsibility

of students for the physical plant or social welfare

of others except as regulated by external authority,

and the students' lack of power in determining their

own rules for behavior and their consequent ineffec-

tualness in changing the relative orderliness/disrup-

tiveness of their group setting save through the Section

Adviser or other Area staff.

The programs proposed at this point are attempts

at modifying one or several of these above-mentioned

conditions so that some more formal and effective

group functioning might occur in this setting. It

must be understood, of course, that any changes made

may have secondary consequences which must be care-

fully anticipated and weighed against the gains that

might be made through these changes.

1. Using the present Section structure, it is

proposed that a consultant experienced in sensitivity

training methods be present at a number of Section

meetings with the purpose of facilitating group inter-

action and clarifying the role of the Section Adviser.

One would be interested in evaluating changes in

group cohesiveness, academic and social satisfaction,

group productivity as well as the range and effective-

ness of leader behavior possible following these sessions.

It appears that such a program would make it possible

to evaluate the maximum group effectiveness that can

59'

be facilitated under present conditions and point

subsequently to changes which might be made in the

setting to continue this level of effectiveness.

(This would be similar to what has been characterized

as "action research" in other settings.)

2. In a much more experimental vein, it is pro-

posed that a comprehensive program intended to change

many of the conditions of group experience on a Section

be attempted under well controlled conditions. This

would include, (1) selection of group members via a

carefully designed compatibility screening device

similar to ones popularly used for matching students

of the opposite sex for dating, (2) limit the group to

25 students, (3) with some structure provided by Area

staff, allow the students to elect their own group

leader and other relevant officers and, (4) with only

general guide-lines set down by the Area supervisors,

allow the students to generate their own rules for

behavior on the Section which they all agreed to follow,

with appropriate penalties meted-out by appointed

members serving in a judiciary capacity. The impact

of these changes, either one at a time or as a total

unitwould be to facilitate both the conditions for

group interaction as well as for member responsibility

within this group setting. On the other hand, the

leadership role would effectively become an integral

aspect of group functioning rather than remain a secondary

60

role which lacks at present both power and effective-

ness within the group process.

It appears that with the rapid growth of univer-

sities across the nation and increasing pressure

from students and university personnel alike for mean-

ingful changes in the context of higher education,

there are more reasons than ever before for attempting

experimental programs in the residence hall setting.

If the residence halls are to truly become "living-

learning centers", there must be s.-me impressive

changes in current structures with careful research

and follow up to evaluate these changes in order

that the ideals set forth by educators for these

residence halls may be approximated in actual fact.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

This study was designed to evaluate the relation-

ships between leadership orientations, group produc-

tivity and group satisfaction within a men's residence

hall Area at the University of Florida. The task and

social-emotional leadership orientations were opera-

tionally defined modifications of Bales' (1953) con-

ceptualizations of leader-specialists within small

groups. The leaders studied (Section Advisers) were

evaluated in relation to these two orientations both

by judges (Area supervisors) using a rank order method,

and by students using a Section Adviser Rating Scale.

These methods yielded moderately high inter-correlations

within and between each method on both leadership

dimensions (Tables4 and 5, Chapter III).

Group productivity was defined in terms of the

mean grade point average obtained by each group (Section)

at the end of the Fall, academic term, 1966. Satis-

faction was operationally defined in terms of academic

and social satisfaction in order to evaluate aspects

of group experience most relevant to a university set-

ting. There was only a low (r =+.24, N.05, Table 6)

though positive relationship between Section mean ability

62

scores and Section mean grade point averages.

It was predicted that there would be a high pos-

itive correlation between task oriented leadership and

mean grade point average for residence hall Sections.

There was no significant relationship between the judges'

composite task rank order and Section mean grade point

averages. However, there was a negative and signifi-

cant (r =-.68, 2 01, Table 3) correlation between

student ratings on this dimension and Section mean

grade point averages. In discussing these results it

was suggested that the student ratings may have been

reflecting the frequency with which demands were placed

on their Section Adviser to provide structure and dis-

cipline. A Section which was composed of students who

tended to be poorly motivated for academic achievement

and were quite disruptive to the Section would thus

have rated their Section Adviser high on this task

dimension of leadership while receiving lower grade

point averages as individuals (and vice-versa).

A second major hypothesis predicted a negative

correlation between social-emotional leadership rank-

ings and ratings and mean grade point averages for

Sections. Both methods of evaluation yielded negative,

although not significant ( A_.05, Table 3) results.

The relatively high intercorrelations (r =+.50, g L.05,

Table 4) between measures indicated some commonalities

in information tapped by the evaluations. In both

63

instances the resultant correlational trends were

interpreted as reflecting the relative lack of order

and structure on some Sections, with higher ranking

and rating on social-emotional orientation given to

Section Advisers whose Sections were less ordered and

disciplined. Members of those Sections may have tended

to be less academically motivated, more disruptive,

and individually achieved lower grades than other

students, thus leading to the predicted negative cor-

relations.

There was, as predicted, a high positive correla-

tion (r =+.42, p Z.055 Table 7) between task oriented

leadership ratings and the ratings of academic satis-

faction for Sections. In light of the negative relation-

ship between task orientation and section mean grade

point averages, and the lack of relationship between

academic satisfaction and mean grade point averages

for Sections, it was suggested that this positive cor-

relation reflected the satisfaction of students who

were not concerned with academic achievement and who

rather enjoyed conditions as they were in the residence

halls.

There was, as predicted, a high positive correla-

tion (r =+.53, p Z.01, Table 8) between social-emotional

leadership ratings and social satisfaction ratings for

Sections. This relationship was interpreted to suggest

that the Section Adviser's most effective role may be

64
that of facilitating social interaction and tension

release on a Section. However, one must bear.:.in

mind that there was a moderate negative correlation

between social satisfaction and mean grade point average,

as well as a moderate negative correlation between

social-emotional leadership and mean grade point

average. These relationships tend to indicate that

the Section Adviser may be most effective in promoting

social satisfaction through his interaction with

students; however, these leader and group behaviors

may occur at the expense of high academic performance.

These results pointed to several proposals for

additional measures to clarify aspects of group be-

havior on a Section which appear to be necessary in

order that the present results might be more accurately

interpreted. These measures would include indices of

student motivations for academic achievement, student

needs for social satisfaction, students' proportionate

use of their Section and other settings for academic

and social pursuits, level of orderliness/disruptive-

ness found on Sections, and some measure of the quality

and quantity-of actual demands placed by students

upon the Section Adviser as a leader. Several new

directions were then suggested for research in this

particular setting, including one experimental para-

digm for the study of shifts in student satisfaction

ratings following the return of academic grades. Finally,

65

some proposals for changes in residence hall program-

ming were set forth moving from minimal changes

within the present structures to some rather radical

innovations which would change the character of the

Section by progressive steps. The final steps of

the latter program would incorporate changes which

would facilitate group functioning through shared

responsibilities and maximize the impact of the leader

through the use of group selection procedures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bales, R.F. Interaction process analysis. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University Microfilms, Inc., 1953.

Bass, B.M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational
behavior. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1960.

Carter, L.F. On defining leadership. In Group relations
at the crossroads. New York: Harpers, 1953, 262-265.

Crane, W.J. Administrative practices in men's housing.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1961, 3, 70-76.

DeCoster, D.A. Housing assignments for high ability
students. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1966, 7, 19-22.

DeCoster, D.A. The effects of leadership orientation
on group productivity and subgroup formation in
residence halls for men. Unpublished paper, University
of Florida, 1967.

Fiedler, F.E. Assumed similarity measures as predictors
of team effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1954, 49, 381-388.

Fiedler, F.E. A note on leadership theory: the effect
of social barriers between leaders and followers.
Sociometry, 1957, 20, 87-94.

Fiedler, F.E. Leader attitudes and group effectiveness.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1958.

Gardner, E.F. and Thompson, G.G. Social relations
and morale in small groups. New York: Appleton
Century Crofts, 1956.

Gibb, C.A. The principles and traits of leadership.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947,
42, 267-284.

Halpin, A.W. The leader behavior and effectiveness
of aircraft commanders. In R.M. Stogdill and A.E.
Coons, (eds.), Leader behavior: its description
and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,
1957, 65-68.

Halpin, A.W., and Winer, B.J. A factorial study of
the leader behavior descriptions. In R.M. Stogdill
and A.E. Coons (eds.), Leader behavior, its description
and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,
1957, 39-51.

Hare, A.P. Handbook of small group research. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.

Hemphill, J.K. Relations between the size of the group
and the behavior of "superior" leaders. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1950, 32, 11-22.

Macdonald, D.A. Prospectus: leadership orientation
and student productivity: the residence hall Section
Adviser and his Section. Unpublished paper, University
of Florida, 1966.

Men's Residence Staff (eds.). Guidebook for Section
Advisers and Resident Assistants. (mimeo). University
of Florida, June, 1966.

Miller, J.K. An analysis of critical personality
factors in helping and non-helping relationship
behavior in a residence hall situation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1962.

Murphy, R.O. Administrative practices in utilizing
students as staff in residence halls. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1964, 5, 109-113.

Murphy, R.O. and Ortenzi, A. Use of standardized
measurements in the selection of residence hall
staff. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1966, Z, 360-363.

Siegel, Sydney. Nonparametric statistics for the
behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1956.

Stern, G.G. Stern activity index. Syracuse, New York:
Syracuse University, 1963.

Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. Leader behavior: its
description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University, 1957.

Walker, H.M. and Lev, Joseph. Statistical inference.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953.

Appendix 1

Table 11

The Task Oriented Leader

The following is a description of the "task-
oriented leader". This is just one of many ways in
which a leader might be evaluated or characterized.
You are being asked to take all 20 Section Advisers
(or R.A. if he is Section leader) and rank them from
highest (1.) to lowest (20) on this continuum. You
will be evaluating the S.A. as to how much he seems
to fulfill this model description in relation to other
S.A.'s in the Area.

You will find that your rating will be based
for the most part on information you have gathered
over the past trimester regarding the way in which an
S.A. seems to lead his Section. As you begin to
rank these leaders, you will find that you will be able
to fill in the two ends of the continuum fairly rapidly,
but will then find the middle of the ranking is more
difficult.

As a means of facilitating your ranking, it has
been found somewhat time-saving to place the name of
each leader on a separate slip of paper, and then any
shifts in ordering can be done by simply moving slips
of paper. When you have finished, make out a listing
of your final order from 1 20.

It is understood that your ranking will be done
completely independent of the other 2 judges' rankings.

A Task Oriented Leader is defined as the Section
Adviser who perceives his prime responsibility as main-
taining student discipline and order, striving to
maintain quiet study conditions in order to provide
opportunities for maximal student productivity. In
general, he maintains a somewhat detached and distant
relationship with most students on his Section, holding
personal and social contacts to a minimum. He uses
discipline in a very effective way, however, and is
able to command the student's respect through his firm
handling of student behavior on the Section.

The following adjectives might be helpful in des-
cribing this model of leadership: firm, disciplinarian,
structuring, limit-setting, psychologically distant,
emotionally rather uninvolved with other students on
the Section, studious, "runs a tight ship", etc.

.69

Table 12
The Social-Emotional Oriented Leader

The following is a description of the "social-
emotional oriented leader". This is just one of many
ways in which a leader might be evaluated or character-
ized. You are being asked to take all 20 Section
Advisers (or R.A. if he is a Section leader) and rank
them from highest (1) to lowest (20) on this continuum.
In other words, you will be evaluating each S.A. accord-
ing to how much he seems to fulfill the model descrip-
tion in relation to the other S.A.'s in the Area.

You will find that your rating will be based for
the most part on information you have gathered over the
past trimester regarding the way in which an S.A.
seems to lead his Section. As you begin to rank these
leaders, you will find that you will be able to fill
in the two ends of the continuum fairly rapidly, but
will then find the middle of th.e ranking is more dif-
ficult.

As a means of facilitating your ranking, it has
been found somewhat time-saving to place the name of
each leader on a separate slip of paper, and then
any shifts in ordering can be done simply by moving
slips of paper. When you have finished, make out a
listing of your final order from 1 20.

It is understood that your ranking will be done
completely independent of the other 2 judges' rankings.

A Social-Emotional Oriented Leader is defined as
the Section Adviser who perceives his primary responsi-
bility as facilitating student emotional satisfaction,
with a premium placed upon interaction with his students,
sensitivity to student needs and feelings, and tension
release through informal counseling and social acti-
vities. In general, he is emotionally involved with
most of his students, showing concern for them on a
personal level, being helpful and supportive in his
contacts with them.

The following adjectives might be helpful in des-
cribing this model of leadership: friendly, sympathetic,
understanding, flexible, "good listener", emotionally
involved with others, helpful, sensitive, and empathetic.

Table 13

Housing Research Project University of Florida
Men's Residence Halls

The following rating scales are part of a research
project being conducted in men's residence halls here
at the University of Florida. As a continuing interest
in student life here at the University, this research
project is one of many such projects which will lay the
groundwork for more effective residence hall programs in
the future.

Please fill out the rating scales, seal them in the
accompanying envelope, and return them to your Area office
at your earliest possible convenience. The return of all
forms is essential for the successful completion of this
study.

The information which you place on these scales will
be completely confidential and anonymous so that you may
feel free to be as accurate and honest in your evaluation
of both your Section Adviser and your Section. This in-
formation, in turn, will be analyzed by personnel who
have no connection with your Area, but who are ultimately
interested in having as accurate a picture as possible
regarding life in the residence halls. In no case will
any of this information be available to Housing officials,
or will it have any effect on your Section Adviser.

Reminders for completing these scales:

1. Rate every statement.
2. Be as accurate as possible in your ratings.
3. Your ratings will be kept in complete confidence.
4. Read and understand all instructions before
you begin.
5. Do not sign your name to this booklet.

PLEASE FILL-IN THE FOLLOWING

Hall Section

1. Number of months you have lived on this Section_

2. How well do you feel you know your Section Adviser?
(Circle one)

Slightly Fairly well

Hardly at all

Very well

Table 14

Section Adviser Rating Scale

The following 20 statements are designed to des-
cribe the various ways in which your Section Adviser
(or Resident Assistant, if he leads your Section) behaves
as leader of your Section. Rate every statement in
light of what you know and have observed concerning your
Section Adviser. If you have not observed your Section
Adviser performing one of these functions, rate how you
think he would fulfill this function.

RATING SCALE

For each of the following statements, please rate your
Section Adviser's behavior as (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5)
according to these criteria:

1. PRACTICALLY NEVER 3. SOMETIMES 5. ALMOST ALWAYS
2. RARELY 4. OFTEN

1. My S.A. shows a real interest in the social acti-
vities of the residents.

2. My S.A. is firm and tactful in handling noise and
disturbance on the Section.

3. My S.A. leads the section in such a way that he
is liked by the residents.

4. My S.A. sets a good example for the residents to
observe and follow (good study habits, lives by
the rules).

5. My S.A. is a sensitive person who tries to under-
stand a student in trouble before disciplining him.

6. My S.A. lets the residents know what his job is,
and what they can expect of him.

7. My S.A. attempts to get to know each resident on
the Section personally.

8. My S.A. uses his authority wisely and intelligently.

9. My S.A. volunteers his help to students willingly.

Table 14 (Cont.)

10. My S.A. attempts to help students understand
their responsibilities toward each other,
Section property, and Section behavior.

11. My S.A. tries to understand the residents' prob-
lems and concerns.

12. My S.A. can be relied upon to keep the Section
under control.

13. My S.A. helps residents get to know each other.

14. My S.A. uses discipline effectively to keep
quiet and order.

15. My S.A. knows, and finds out, where residents can
go for help if they have a special problem or
concern he personally cannot help solve.

16. My S.A. uses discipline whenever necessary to
keep good study conditions.

17. My S.A. makes himself available and is willing
to talk with residents about their problems.

18. My S.A. leads the Section in such a way that
he is respected by the residents.

19. My S.A. acts in a friendly and considerate way
toward all Section residents.

20. My S.A. attempts to clarify the rules we must
live by in the residence halls.

73

Table 15

Section Rating Scale

The following 20 statements are designed to
describe some aspects of life on your Section. Please
rate each of these statements as accurately as possible
in light of your own experiences on the Section.
---------------------W--------------------- M -- ----------

RATING SCALE

For each of the statements please rate your Section (1),
(2), (3), (4), or (5), according to the following scale:

1. PRACTICALLY NEVER 3. SOMETIMES 5. ALMOST ALWAYS
2. RARELY 4. OFTEN

1. This is an enjoyable Section on which to live.

2. This Section is a place where one can study.

3. My roommate is an easy person to get along with.
4. Informal "talk sessions" on this Section are
meaningful and educational.

5. There is a good "group spirit" on this Section.

6. One is influenced by students on this Section
to do better in studies.

7. There are many friendships on this Section.

8. One is able to find help on this Section when
one is having difficulty with a course.

9. There are opportunities to socialize on this
Section.

10. The study conditions on this Section are helpful
in getting good grades.

11. There are sympathetic persons on this Section to
whom one can talk whenever one feels "down".

12. The students on this Section are considerate
and respectful to others.

_13. This Section is a place where one can "blow off
steam".

74

Table 15 (Cont.)

14. This Section is more interested in academics
than other Sections.

15. The students on this Section are concerned
about each other.

16. When the pressure from tests is on, the Section
settles down to study.

17. Students on this Section plan social activities
together.

18. This Section adheres to residence hall regulations.

19. This Section is a place where one can learn to
get along with other students.

20. This Section complies with quiet hours when
they are in force.

Appendix 2

Table 16

Supervisors' (Judges') Individual and Composite Rank Orders

on Section Adviser Task (T) and Social-Emotional (S-E)

Leadership Orientations

Supervisors' Rank Orders
Section Adviser M C Mc Composite
Code T S-E T S-E T S-E T S-E

Tg&l
T2
T3
T4
T5

Sg&l
52
S3
S4

Nl& 2
N3
N4

Wg&l
W2
W3
W4

1
6
. 5
11
8

2
20
4
13

2 15
19 19
18 18

4 19
12 17
8 18

Table 17

Means and Standard Deviations for Section Grade Point

Averages (G.P.A.) and Ability Scores

(S.C.A.T.)

Section G.P.A. S.C.A.T.
Code N Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Tg&l
T2
T3
T4
T5

N1&2
N3
N4

Sg&l
S2
S3
S4

Wg&l
W2
W3
W4

2.382
2.235
2.274
2.392
2.283

2.302
2.365
2.315

2.309
2.596
2.588
2.255

2.286
2.398
2.318
2.223

2.474
2.436
2.237
2.402

.624
.864
.312
.608
.779

.622
.735
.925

.688
.767
.714
.631

.736
.735
.748
.791

.941
.709
.699
.806

57.77
51.58
48.48
49.50
54.21

46.52
44.19
50.55

55.22
58.70
52.05
57.13

54.48
48.67
47.31
51.84

58.98
51.51
53.76
52.73

29.21
35.44
21.99
28.31
30.45

29.01
29.72
19.32

27.91
29.23
29.82
26.01

28.61
29.25
26.03
25.43

25.57
25.57
25.65
31.44

Table 18

Means and Standard Deviations for Social and Academic

Satisfaction on the Section Rating Scale

Section Social Academic
Satisfaction Satisfaction
Code N Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Tg&l
T2
T3
T4
T5

Nl&2
N3
N4

Sg&l
S2
S3
S4

Wg&l
W2
W3
W4

El
SE2
E3
E4

36.00
35.46
33.93
34.00
30.11

35.83
30.82
32.71

34.00
34.50
33.33
38.91

34.36
33.61
33.35
33.55

31.76
34.63
39.68
33.44

6.29
7.21
4.35
7.13
6.46

7.49
6.69
5.44

5.82
6.47
6.19
5.33

5.76
6.12
4.91
6.97

4.52
9.21
5.38
6.08

31.73
28.32
28.62
31.52
25.48

31.38
25.79
37.21

28.76
26.20
32.18
31.80

29.23
25.46
31.71
25.57

24.32
28.80
30.94
32.05

7.66
8.41
6.71
7.39
8.23

9.15
7.79
7.03

6.38
5.47
6.48
5.81

5.49
5.02
6.11
6.59

6.30
5.88
6.95
7.30

Table 19

Means and Standard Deviations for Task and

Social-Emotional Leadership Orientation on the

Section Adviser Rating Scale

Section Social Task
Emotional
Code N Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Tg&l
T2
T3
T4
T5

N1&2
N3
N4

Sg&l
S2
S3
S4

Wg&l
W2
W3
W4

El
E2
E3
E4

39.04
42.18
37.28
31.89
32.95

38.20
34.30
31.76

41.53
32.80
38.15
39.74

33.07
38.21
37.11
33.00

33.76
37.07
43.68
37.17

8.01
5.46
5.17
11.26
7.92

7.17
6.76
5.53

4.82
5.94
6.42
5.06

7.58
5.75
6.89
7.32

6.91
8.11
6.46
7.94

41.58
42.11
38.86
35.52
37.14

42.90
37.85
39.38

43.44
25.90
41.12
48.34

38.27
40.79
42.97
36.32

38.95
39.15
42.19
42.85

5.90
5.66
5.15
11.53
6.48

6.13
8.18
5.47

5.52
8.43
4.93
5.24

6.96
6.67
4.73
8.32

5.47
6.91
8.09
6.24

Table 20
Section Adviser Primary Ranked Leadership Orientation,

Ranked Mean Ability Scores (S.C.A.T.), and Ranked Mean Grade

Point Averages (G.P.A.) for Sections

Section Primary** S.C.A.T. G.P.A.*** Rank
Orientation Mean Rank Mean Rank Difference
(S.C.A.T.-G.P.A.)
S2 (Tied) 2 1 +1
S3 T 10 2 +8
El T 1 3 -2*
E2 T 13 4 +9
E4 (Tied) 9 5 +4
W2 T 16 6 +10
T4 T 15 7 +8
Tg&l S-E 3 8 -5
N3 Tied 20 9 +11
W3 Tied 18 10 +8
N4 Tied 14 11 +3
Sg&l S-E 5 12 -7
Nl&2 T 19 13 +6
Wg&l S-E 6 14 -8
T5 S-E 7 15 -8
T3 S-E 17 16 -1
S4 S-E 4 17 -13
S3 S-E 8 18 -10
T2 T 12 19 -7*
W4 S-E 11 20 -9

*Reverse of expected sign.
**Determined as highest ranked orientation (task CT)-
social-emotional CS-EJ ) for Section Advisers accord-
ing to judges' rankings in Table 16.
***Arranged-in descending order from high (1) to low (20).

Appendix 3

Table 21

Rank Order Correlations (Tau) Between Section Mean Grade

Point Average Ranks and Section Adviser Leadership

Orientation Ranks and Section Mean Ability Score

(S.C.A.T.) Ranks (Pilot Study)

Rank Order Tau z

Task Orientation .421 2.55 L.01

Social-Emotional
Orientation -.250 -1.55 L.06

S.C.A.T. Mean .01 .06 =.476

81

Table 22

Section Adviser Primary Ranked Leadership Orientation,

Ranked Mean Ability Scores (S.C.A.T.) and Ranked

Mean Grade Point Averages (G.P.A.) for

Sections (Pilot Study)

Section Primary** S.C.A.T. G.P.A.***-
Orientation Mean Rank Mean Rank

E2
W4
W2
S2
N4
El
Nl&2
E3
S3
Sg&l
N3
W3
Wl
Tl
'T4
T3
S4
T2
T5
E4

T
T
T
T
T
T
S-E
S-E
S-E
T
S-E
T
T
S-E
S-E
S-E
S-E
S-E
S-E
S-E

5
3
8
10
13
6
19
7
16
4
1
15
17
9
20
2
12
11
14
18

Rank
Difference
(S.C.A.T.-G.P.A.)

+4
+1
+5
+6
+8
0
+12*
-1
+7*
-6*
-10
+3
+4
-5
+5*
-14
-5
-7
-5
-2

*Reverse of expected sign.
**Determined as highest ranked orientation (taskCTJ-
social-emotional [S-E. ) for Section Advisers accord-
ing to judges' rankings.
***Arranged in descending order from high (1) to low (20).

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

David Alexander Macdonald was born October 2, 1938,

in South Orange, New Jersey. In June, 1956, he graduated

from Columbia High School, Maplewood, New Jersey. In

June, 1960, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts

with a major in Psychology from the College of Liberal

Arts, Drew University. In June, 1963, he received the

degree of Bachelor of Divinity, cum laude, from the

Theological Seminary, Drew University. In September,

1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University

of Florida, and began employment as a Counselor to

Residents with the Division of Housing. He received

a Master of Arts degree with a major in Psychology in

June, 1965. From September, 1965, until the present time

he has pursued his work toward the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy. In June, 1966, he began employment with

the Georgia Seagle Trust as Resident Director of Georgia

Seagle Hall, a men's cooperative living organization. He

is currently an intern in Clinical Psychology at the

J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida.

David Alexander Macdonald is married to the former

N. Elizabeth Walter and is the father of two children.

He is a member of the American Psychological Association,

and an ordained Deacon in the Methodist Church.

This dissertation was prepared under the direction

of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee

and has been approved by all members of that committee.

It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and

Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved

as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

June, 1968

Dean, Colleg 6/of/Ar. s and Sciences

Dean, Graduate School

Supervisory Committee:

Chairman

, -
I, ifm.