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.
|