Leadership training programs: a five year impact study.

Dale, Larry R.

INTRODUCTION

In 1985 the local government and Chamber of Commerce of Jonesboro, Arkansas contracted with the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) in Kansas City, Missouri to identify key factors that needed to be strengthened in Jonesboro to expand economic development. MRI identified the need for a broad based leadership-entrepreneurship training program as a critical requirement for continued progress. Arkansas State University, designed such a program in 1988 with the cooperation of the Greater Jonesboro Chamber of Commerce. This successful series continues to the present having trained 1,256 citizens to become successful entrepreneurs and community leaders.

Over 100 major cities (MSA's) have leadership programs designed to develop future community leaders and identify community social and economic issues. Leadership Jonesboro's mission is to identify, educate and motivate potential leaders to become better entrepreneurs and to become actively involved in the future direction of the community. The Leadership Jonesboro program uses ASU faculty and current community leaders as resources to examine the dynamics of the economic and social chances effecting the community and business performance.

PURPOSE OF THE STATISTICAL RESEARCH

The purpose of this research was two fold to:

1. discover if the group of leaders selected for the program did have a basic understanding of economics and economic issues, relative to other groups, and if that understanding developed as a result of attending the program events. This is important since these citizens have been classified as individuals who will play a major role in the progress of the Jonesboro area and the entire region of the Arkansas Delta, since Jonesboro is a regional leader in marketing, education, medicine and manufacturing.

2. determine if the training had any effect on the entrepreneurial performance of the group after one year. In addition we came back 5 years later to see what changes had taken place with this class.

The ten month program is designed to provide entrepreneurship skills training, to enhance the understanding of economic development concepts and provide opportunities for future leaders to interfaces with the current local and state leadership. The participants attend three overnight training sessions and meet twice each month to discuss an array of topics.

Table I provides a schedule of the 1995 topics as a sample of the program, which did vary from year to year. During the program, participants are grouped into teams to identify economic and social issues that face the community. At the end of the program year the teams present their problem solving solutions. A second grouping relates to the formation of a successful business, with an emphasis on leadership skills and problem solving.

During the past nine years the graduates of Leadership Jonesboro have become actively involved in the community. They serve as officers and board members in a variety of civic, professional, religious and community organizations. They have also served on task forces related to economic development and social issues. Several have run for school board, city council and other government offices, many of them volunteer positions. The knowledge and experience they gained from the leadership program not only helped them do a better job in those offices, but proved to be a motivating force behind greater success in their business.

RESEARCH MODEL

The investigator first examined if the entrepreneurship group had developed a better understanding of basic economic principles. The entrepreneurship group's performance (sample size, n = 101) on a standardized test of economic understanding. The Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) developed by the National Council on Economic Education, was compared to a control group of private citizens selected at random (sample size, n = 352). A series of Chi Square tests of independence were run, at the .01 level of significance, to determine if there was any significant difference between the groups. A comparison of the difference in the mean scores on the pre-test versus the post-test was used to determine if the difference, if any, for the entrepreneurship group was due to the leadership training experience or other factors.

Further a regression analysis was run to determine what factors were significant determinants of success on the test including these dependent variables: sex, age, education complete, occupation, number of courses in economics and number of course taken in business (non-economics courses).

Phase II of the research was designed to determine if the entrepreneurship group had obtained an understanding of economic development issues, as a result of the program. The Community Inventory Survey (CIS) was used to explore this factor.

Phase III looked at this same group five years later in 2000 to see if they had improved their knowledge and to determine it the group had remained active in community development.

SURVEY RESULTS

A preliminary examination of the raw data indicates that the entrepreneurship group had a post-program mean score of 39, out of a possible 46. This is well above the national average for the standardized test. The pre-test mean of 29, was still above the national average, and showed significant improvement as a result of the program experience. We used a chi-square test of the difference of the means to determine that the experience of the program did result in improved knowledge that was significant. We came back in 2000 to this same group of 33 people. We were able to catch up with 25, seven had moved from the area and one was unavailable at the time of the survey. Those remaining agreed to retake the standardized test. Their mean score was 39.42, indicating a slight gain from their post experience test, which was not statistically significant. Considering the 5 year passage of time that indicates that the group had retained their interest in economic knowledge and were using that in their community efforts.

A Chi Square test comparing the general population, with a mean score of 21, with the entrepreneurship -roups indicated that the test groups performed significantly better than the control group, the null hypothesis was rejected. Interestingly enough the entrepreneurship group did about as well on the standardized test of economics as students who had just completed a course in economics. The TEL score was used, as the independent variable, in a regression analysis of the data on each of the following factors; sex, age, occupation, degree, previous courses in economics and previous courses in business. After econometric testing for possible adverse effects of multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation, a simultaneous multiple linear regression analysis was established.

VARIABLES

TELS = bo + B1LE + b2SX + b3PEC + b4AGE + b5OCC + b6PBC

TELS = Score on the Test of Economic Literacy (independent variable)

LE = Highest educational decree earned

SX = Sex

PEC = Previous courses taken in economics

AGE = Age

OCC = Occupation

PBC = Previous courses taken in business other than economics

The results of the regression are included in Table IV. The following were found to be significant factors in determining one's score on the TEL:

Level of Education. As would be expected the most significant predictor in the regression equation was the general level of education with college graduates outperforming high school graduates. Since only one high school graduate had ever taken a course in economics that factor should have also been significant.

Sex. 64% of the respondents were female. In all groups tested sex was the second most significant predictor of success with males scoring significantly higher than females on the test. This reflects data collected from a variety of sources over the years and demonstrates a significant difference in the interest level toward economics between the sexes. Interestingly the difference in levels of performance held for both groups. Male entrepreneurs out performed females and male in the general population also out performed females in that group. Females in the leadership group outperformed their female counterparts and males in the general population on both pre and post test in business and economic issues.

Previous Courses completed in Economics. As would be expected, the more college level courses one has completed in economics the better their performance on the TEL.

Occupation. The fact that occupations was found to be a significant predictors is not surprising. This factor distinguish the entrepreneurship group from the general population. In general, business leaders, professionals and students outperformed service and manufacturing laborers from the control group.

The other factors were not significant including previous business courses taken and age. The CIS was used to determine if there was any difference between the groups understanding of economic development issues. The CIS was administered as a post-program survey to all groups. The entrepreneurship group outperformed the control groups in their understanding of basic economic development issues as well as an understanding of specific local development issues. This is not truly surprising since the leadership group had attended 40 sessions specifically designed for the purpose of creating that awareness while none of the other groups had ever participated in such an activity. The importance of this significant difference, as presented by Chi Square statistical analysis, is that the Leadership Jonesboro program did meet one of it's major goals of helping improve the performance of community leaders by creating a better understanding of community relationships and economic development needs.

This group's statistics were run through the same analysis again in 2000 and the following statistics proved to be statistically significant:

Level of Education. This was significant both in the first run and the second run 5 years later. It would be assumed that the most significant predictor in the regression equation was the general level of education with college graduates outperforming high school graduates. Since only one high school graduate had ever taken a course in economics that factor should have also been significant.

Sex. While still significant, with females (mean score 36.91) doing worse than males (mean score 40.44) after five years the females shoed greater improvement on the test (mean score in 95 was 32.45 almost 2.5 points less than in 2000), an indication that they had increased their interest and knowledge of economic development issues. If it had not been for the improvement of females the groups mean score would have actually slipped a few point on the 2000 test.

Previous Courses completed in Economics. As would be expected, the more college level courses one has completed in economics the better their performance on the TEL.

Occupation. The fact that occupations was found to be a significant predictor is not surprising. This factor distinguish the entrepreneurship group from the general population. In general, business leaders, professionals and students outperformed service and manufacturing laborers from the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The leadership program had a significant effect on the members understanding of basic economic concepts and vocabulary. The entrepreneurship group had a higher than normal understanding of basic economic concepts, as indicated by the difference between the mean scores of the control group and the entrepreneurship group. A time lapse in the interval between college graduation and current activity ranged from 3 to 29 years. The economic knowledge of the leadership group came from general interest and practical experience as much as formal training.

The level of economic knowledge helped the entrepreneurship group focus on economic development issues in general and local development problems in particular. These knowledgeable leaders developed additional tools that would make it possible for them to cope with economic development problems and prospects of their own home region.

An Entrepreneurship Survey was given at the end of the year long program. The group was asked to rate the sessions as to their development of entrepreneurial leadership skills. The group mean rating, on a ten point scale with 10 representing Invaluable, was 8.32. Most participants identified the development of leadership and training skills as the most valuable parts of the experience. Twelve months later the same survey was mailed to the group to determine the long lasting effects of the experience on entrepreneurship. The groups mean rating, with a 96.32% return of surveys, indicated an improved perception of the value of the experience relative to the development of entrepreneurial skills to a mean of 9.07. Participants provided numerous concrete examples of the effectiveness of this program. Nearly one-third mentioned the importance of networking contacts as a critical skill. Others pointed out that the training helped them develop greater efficiencies, skills as employee trainers and skills in developing additional networking contacts as important benefits of the program.

Time strengthened this groups interest in economic development issues. A new survey indicated that the leadership experience had made them more active in Chamber of Commerce and community activity than before, with 87% saying they were very active and only 3% responding they were inactive.

The Leadership Program had both the short term and long term impact that it had hoped for in its design. Jonesboro has had significant growth in the presents of new industry and the expansion of old interest. There is no doubt that this leadership program and the growth in the general economy were both factors is our sustained growth in this region. Leadership programs can play an important role in progress. At least three other communities in the Northeast corner of our state have since adopted leadership programs model on the Jonesboro program.

REFERENCES

Brown, R. (1988). Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Cawley, R. (1989). From the participants' viewpoint: A basic model of the community development process. Journal of the Community Development Society. 20(2),101-111.

Davidson, W.S., Redner, R. & Saul, J. A. (1983). Research modes in social and community change. In E. Seidman (ed.), Handbook of Social Intervention. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 99-118.

Levin, E. & Denenberg, R.V. (1984). Alliances and Coalitions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ravitz, M. (1982). Community development: Challenge of the eighties. Journal of the Community Development Society. 13(l),1-10.

Ryan, V. D. Research on Regional Economic Development Efforts in Iowa's Rural Counties. Iowa City, IA: Legislative Extended Assistance Group.

Shaffer, R.E. (1989). Community Economics: Study of the Economic Structure and Change of Smaller Communities. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Tait, J. & Foley, M. E. (1989). Cluster Action Plan. TLT 12. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Larry R. Dale, Arkansas State University

TABLE I

Leadership Jonesboro Schedule

Orientation Breakfast

Leadership Training Retreat
Lake Norfork Inn

Entrepreneurship Seminar: "History, Trends & Issues"

State Government Retreat
Little Rock

Quinstate Economic Development Conference

Networking Breakfast: "Local Government Structures"

Networking Breakfast: "Jonesboro Traffic Plan"

Leadership Seminar: "Local Government"

Entrepreneurship Seminar: "Industrial"

Entrepreneurship Seminar: "Industrial Tours"

Transportation & Distribution Retreat

Leadership Seminar: "Social Issues"

Networking Breakfast: "Quality of Life"

Entrepreneurship Seminar: "Working with the Media"

Networking Breakfast: "Healthcare"

Leadership Seminar: "Education"

Networking Breakfast: "Education"

Entrepreneurship Seminar: "Team Presentations"

Program Summary

TABLE II

Leadership Jonesboro Demographics, 1987-1991

Occupation:

 Education 8.04%
 Healthcare 8.31%
 Finance 21.98%
 Manufacturing 12.71%
 Social Services 3.81%
 Retail 14.71%
 Public Utility & Government 12.51%
 Professional 15.91%
 (Lawyer, Architect, Accountant)

Sex:

 Male 35.7%
 Female 64.3%

Education:

 High School Graduate 47.01%
 College Graduate 48.90%
 Post Graduate 4.09%

TABLE III

Comparison of Post-test TEL Scores Using X2 for
Control and Experimental Groups

Group A: Control Group
Group B: Leadership Group

Group [chi square] Significance
A/B 0.0075 Significant

TABLE IV

A Multilinear Regression Analysis
Using the TEL as the Independent Variable

 Control Group Experimental 2000
Included Only Groups

Degree Earned .8712 (1) .2732 (3) .8812
Sex .8334 (2) .9192 (1) .8454
Previous Economics Course .8211 * .0211 *
Age .2337 * .2776 * .2212 *
Occupation .8001 .9042 .8802
Business Courses Taken .4312 * .1311 * .5111 *

* Not significant contribution