Howell, Robert E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

FOUR  KELLOGG  FOUNDATION-ASSISTED
LEADERSHIP  DEVELOPMENT  PROGRAMS  -
AN  ASSESSMENT
Robert E. Howell
Extension Sociologist
Washington State University
This  question  now faces educational  policy makers  with  inter-
est in leadership development:  What unique  effects can be attribut-
ed to  the four  Kellogg  Foundation-assisted  leadership  development
programs?  One  specific  program effect,  changes  in participant  in-
volvement  in  instrumental  organizations,  will  be  the focus  of  this
presentation.
In  1976, the Department  of Rural  Sociology, Washington State
University,  undertook  a  comparative  impact  assessment  study  of
the  four  leadership  development  programs.  The  purpose  of  the
study  is  to  furnish policy  makers  at the  Kellogg  Foundation,  edu-
cators,  and interested  leaders  with a systematic  assessment of  the
types  of  changes which  may have occurred  in the participants  and
the  educational  institutions  involved,  as  a  result  of the  leadership
development  programs.
The study  has three areas  of emphasis.  First,  the  study will
provide an assessment of whether or not there has been more active
participation  in public affairs.  An assessment will  also  be  made to
determine  whether  involvement  in the program has lead  to greater
participation  in  economic  interest  grou)s  and professional  associa-
tions.  Second,  an assessment of each program's effect  upon the ed-
ucational  institutions  involved  will  be  made.  Finally,  project  man-
agers  in each  of  the four states  will  be asked to  document  ways  in
which  the  program  has  had  an  effect  upon  the  participants,  the
institutions involved, and  upon the development  of new and expand-
ed educational programs.
Data, Methods,  and Variables
The  study  utilizes  data  collected  at  two  points  in  time.  Pre-
program data pertinent to this presentation  were collected from two
sources - a  questionnaire  administered  to  participate  in  Montana
and  Pennsylvania  prior to  beginning  the educational  program,  and
similar data which were available  on the program applications  com-
pleted  by  participants  in  Michigan  and  California.  The  same
127questionnaire  used  in Pennsylvania  on a pretest-posttest  basis  was
administered  to a nonparticipant  Pennsylvania comparison group in
1973 and again in 1975. Identical questions used  in the Pennsylvania
study were then used as a basis for developing a postprogram  ques-
tionnaire which was  administered  in 1977 to most all participants in
the  Kellogg  Foundation-assisted  leadership  development  programs.
Differences  in  gain  scores from  pretest  to posttest  will  be  used  to
describe  any changes  in the Pennsylvania  program  groups  relative
to the Pennsylvania comparison  group.
There  are  no  comparison  groups  applicable  for assessing  pro-
gram effects in California, Montana,  and Michigan.  A dimension of
strength  is added to the design because  patterns  of change in Mon-
tana,  California,  and  Michigan  will  be  compared  to  patterns  of
change  in  Pennsylvania  where  the  stronger,  modified  version  of
quasi-experimental  comparison  group design  was  used.
The  dependent  variables  used  in  the  analysis  are  the  differ-
ences  between  pretest  and  posttest  scores  for one  measure of  ex-
tensivity  of  participation  in  organizations,  memberships,  and  two
measures  of  intensivity  of  participation  in  organizations,  officer-
ships  and  affiliations  in  nonlocal  levels  of  instrumental  organiza-
tions.  These  dependent variables  will  be calculated  for involvement
in government  and  quasi-government  public  service  organizations,
voluntary  public  service  organizations  (nongovernment),  economic
and professional  organizations,  and  political organizations.  To test
the magnitude of relationships  between groups when  using statisti-
cal  controls,  analysis  of  covariance  techniques  will  be  used,  with
program  effects  being the  covariate  and  sex,  socioeconomic  status,
age,  and level  of the pretest score  being the control variables.  This
technique  provides  a  rigorous  test  of  program  effects  which  are
independent  of factors  shown  in the literature to be related  to dif-
ferential  rates  of participation  in public  affairs  activities  and  or-
ganizations.
Preliminary Findings
Analysis  of the data strongly indicates  that behavioral  change
on the part of program participants has occurred.
There  are  statistically  significant  gain scores  from  pretest  to
posttest  in  membership  in the four types of instrumental  organzi-
tions for the Pennsylvania program groups  relative to  the Pennsyl-
vania  comparison  group.  The  Pennsylvania  comparison  group
showed  an overall  average decrease  in participation  in instrumental
organization,  while  the Pennsylvania  treatment  groups  showed  an
128overall  average  increase  of  3.41  memberships  in  instrumental  or-
ganizations.
When comparing  the  gain  scores  from  pretest  to  posttest be-
tween  the  Pennsylvania  program  groups  and  those  in  the  other
three states,  we find differences  in the absolute gains across states.
The  important  finding,  however,  is  that  all gains  are  positive,  and
the direction  of change  is similar  to that which  was established  be-
tween the Pennsylvania  program groups and the Pennsylvania  com-
parison  group.  The  finding  of  increased  memberships  in  instru-
mental  organizations  was  consistent  across  all  states,  while  the
Pennsylvania  comparison  group,  which  is  only  considered  to  be
equivalent  to the Pennsylvania  program groups, showed  a decline  in
membership  in instrumental  organizations.  These findings  of sta-
tistically significant differences  in gain scores from pretest to post-
test for the Pennsylvania  program groups  relative  to  the Pennsyl-
vania  comparison  group  held  up  when  statistically  controlling  for
age,  sex, and socioeconomic  status.
A  similar  program  effect  related  to  increased  officerships  in
instrumental  organizations  was  found  when  comparing  pretest  to
posttest  gain scores between  the Pennsylvania  program groups and
the Pennsylvania  comparison  group,  but the gains  were not  nearly
as great as those found for memberships.  Again, the pattern of in-
creased  gain scores  from pretest  to posttest for officerships  in in-
strumental  organization  was  found  to occur  across  all four states,
while the Pennsylvania  comparison  group showed a decreased  score
of officerships.  Thus, we found strong indications of more intensive
participation  in instrumental  organizations  as  a result  of involve-
ment  in  the leadership  development  programs.
A second measure of intensive involvement  in instrumental  or-
ganizations  refers  to  affiliations  in  nonlocal  levels  or  types  of  in-
strumental  organizations.  This measure  relates  to  involvement  in
organizations  such as regional planning groups or economic  develop-
ment associations  and  involvement  on  state  or  national  boards  of
farm  organizations  or  economic  interest  groups  and  professional
associations.  Again,  a  similar  program effect  related  to  increased
nonlocal  affiliations  in  instrumental  organization  was  found  when
comparing pretest  to posttest gain scores between the Pennsylvania
program  groups  and  the  Pennsylvania  comparison  group,  but  the
gains were not nearly as great as those found for membership.  The
pattern of  increased  gain scores from pretest to posttest was  found
across  all  four  states,  while  the  Pennsylvania  comparison  group
showed  a decreased  score.  These findings  provide  strong evidence
to  indicate  that  participants  are  becoming  more  involved  in
129organizations  that  may  have  an effect on  public policy  making and
actions  at regional  and  higher  levels  as  a  result  of  involvement  in
the  leadership  development  programs.
Caution  should  be  stressed  when  making  any four  state  com-
parisons.  The  Pennsylvania  comparison  group  consists  of  persons
from that state who, overall,  have characteristics  which  are similar
to the Pennsylvania  program groups.  Cross state comparisons have
only been  made between  the Pennsylvania  program groups and  the
program groups in the other three states to determine  if similar pat-
terns of change have occurred.
Discussion
Our first reaction when finding such increases  in gain scores for
participation  in instrumental  organizations  was: "The program par-
ticipants  were  selected  for their potential  for leadership,  therefore,
they  would  have  become  more  involved  over  time  without  having
taken the course.  The  program  only  speeded  up  the process."  We
were then led back to the rationale for conducting  the course in the
first place, that is, educators  at the sponsoring  educational  institu-
tions  were concerned that rural people  were not as  involved in pub-
lic  affairs  activities  as their urban counterparts.  The fact that we
found decreased  participation on the part of  the Pennsylvania  com-
parison  group supported this concern.  We  do not have measures  of
the quality  of involvement  in instrumental  organizations  or  knowl-
edge  change  as  a  result  of  taking  the  course.  If  doubts  about
whether  the program  really  had  an effect  upon  increasing  partici-
pation  in  instrumental  organizations  persist,  the  doubters  should
consider this concern  in the  context of expressed  needs  to  improve
the  quality  of public  decision-making  through  educational  efforts.
A  reviewer has raised an important concern,  "Are the pay-offs
to society  as  a result of  increased participation  in  instrumental  or-
ganizations  worth the costs ?"
In  seeking  answers  to  this  question,  several  factors  must be
taken  into  consideration.  First,  is  education  for  elective  and  ap-
pointive government  officials who make  decisions about major pub-
lic expenditures  any less important  than education for corporate  ex-
ecutives who  make major decisions in the private sector?  Corpora-
tions  spend large  sums of money  on  educational  programs for their
personnel with the intent  of fostering better interpersonal  relation-
ships and  enhancing the quality  of decisionmaking.  The four lead-
ership development  programs were  also intended  to further the de-
velopment  of agricultural  leadership,  particularly  in  Michigan  and
California.  We  can  ask  a  similar  question  with  regard  to  this
130objective,  "Is  the  training  of  agricultural  leadership  any less  im-
portant  than the  training of  leaders  in other  areas  of the  private
sector?"  In  California,  agricultural  industry  leaders  seem  to  feel
that  such  education  for farmers  and  other  agriculturalists  is  im-
portant  and  they  are  financially  supporting  the  program.  Hope-
fully, economists  will  shed some light on the  question of  costs and
benefits  to  assist educational  policymakers  and persons  who  may
be  considering  resource  investments  in  intensive  agricultural  and
public affairs  leadership  development  programs.
131

FOUR KELLOGG FOUNDATION-ASSISTED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS - AN ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics