University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting

LEADER COURAGE WHEN ADDRESSING PROBLEM BEHAVIORS IN AGRICULTURAL FRATERNITIES

JACK CAUSSEAUX

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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2020

To my friends, colleagues, family, and above all, to my future husband, Justin

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Conducting and completing this dissertation has been an exciting, educational, and challenging project. I must acknowledge and thank many people that supported me along the way. I had several mentors, teachers, and cheerleaders throughout my education and particularly throughout my pursuit of this PhD.

First I would like to thank the University of Florida as my employer for affording me the opportunity to pursue this degree. Very special gratitude goes to my boss, my colleague, my mentor, and my friend, Dr. Nancy Chrystal-Green. She gave me unwavering grace and patience as I worked full-time while also working to achieve this goal. Her frank, yet astute guidance and perception of me has always been welcome and enlightening.

I want to thank my parents, Kevin and Annette, for raising me in an environment in which education was valued. They supported me emotionally and financially through this process, and they kept me grounded in knowing that this, too, could be achieved.

My brother Alec, my sisters Kelly and Katie, my sister-in-law Amanda, and my brothers- in-law Cody and Alex all deserve my thanks, as well. They have been a loving and supportive family, especially through the years it has taken me to finish this dissertation and degree.

My colleagues and fellow students, particularly Dr. Carolynn Komanski, Dr.

Austin Council, Cam Outlaw, and Peyton Beattie, were all especially instrumental in helping me to complete this project. They deserve my gratitude and respect. They all helped me to better understand the mechanics essential for good research.

I would also like to thank my work team and colleagues for putting up with my stress and outward processing that accompanied my research. They have always shown the best in student involvement and engagement, and for that I am thankful.

I must thank the man that encouraged me to start my PhD program and helped to funnel my research ideas that would become my dissertation. Dr. Anthony Andenoro infused into his teachings an eternal optimism that gave me the excitement not only to start, but to continue.

Special thanks must be given to my advisor, and constant lighthouse, Dr. Nicole

Stedman. She adopted me as her student in the middle of my research, and she fully embraced me and provided knowledge, wisdom, and humor. I owe her a great debt.

She was always there to talk me up, and just as important, talk me down. Thanks also go to my committee, Dr. J.C. Bunch, Dr. Cliff Haynes, and Dr. Matt Sowcik. They provided me with their authenticity, their knowledge and wisdom, and their collegiality.

I must also thank the participants of this study for sharing with me their time, feelings, and perspectives on the fraternity experience. They truly showed us what courageous leadership is and how it is practiced.

Lastly, I would like to thank my fiancé, Justin Donnelly. He has been the light of happiness that I needed. Justin provided endless patience, support, and encouragement throughout my entire PhD pursuit. He endured many hours of my absence that I dedicated to the classroom and to my research. I only hope to be able to pay back those many hours.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 10

ABSTRACT ...... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13

Background for the Study ...... 13 Research Problem ...... 20 Purpose and Research Questions ...... 21 Significance of the Study ...... 21 Definitions of Terms ...... 23 Limitations ...... 25 Assumptions ...... 25 Chapter Summary ...... 25

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 27

Overview ...... 27 Theoretical Framework ...... 27 Leader-Follower Relationship ...... 27 Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership ...... 29 Conceptual Model ...... 31 Review of Supporting Literature ...... 33 Problem Behaviors ...... 33 Hazing ...... 33 Alcohol abuse ...... 36 Sexual misconduct ...... 40 Courageous Leadership ...... 41 Moral Action ...... 44 Moral Development in Fraternities ...... 48 Chapter Summary ...... 52

3 METHODOLOGY ...... 56

Overview ...... 56 Qualitative Approach...... 57 Researcher Subjectivity ...... 59 Methodology ...... 63

Characteristics of Case Study Methods...... 63 Participants ...... 65 Data Collection ...... 67 Data Analysis ...... 69 Measures of Validation ...... 69 Chapter Summary ...... 71

4 FINDINGS ...... 72

Overview ...... 72 Case Study Overview ...... 72 Participant Overview ...... 74 Research Question 1 – How Courage Was Practiced ...... 75 Common Purpose/Shared Values ...... 76 Bettering self ...... 76 Personal values ...... 82 Interpersonal relationships ...... 88 Assume Responsibility For Common Purpose ...... 93 Values alignment ...... 94 Bettering the organization ...... 96 Challenge Behaviors ...... 101 Accountability ...... 102 Confronting problem behaviors ...... 108 Research Question 2 – How Courage Was Defined ...... 119 Intellectual Courage ...... 119 Moral Courage ...... 121 Doing the right thing ...... 121 Taking a stand ...... 123 Overcoming Fears ...... 126 Confidence ...... 131 Research Question 3 – When Courage Was Practiced ...... 133 Accountability Systems...... 133 Support Networks ...... 137 Chapter Summary ...... 143

5 DISCUSSION ...... 146

Overview ...... 146 Key Findings and Discussion ...... 147 Research Question 1 – How Courage Was Practiced ...... 147 Common purpose/shared values ...... 148 Assuming responsibility for the common purpose ...... 151 Challenging behaviors ...... 154 Research Question 2 – How Courage Was Defined ...... 159 Moral and intellectual courage ...... 159 Overcoming fears ...... 164 Confidence ...... 165

Research Question 3 – When Courage Was Practiced ...... 167 Accountability systems ...... 167 Support networks ...... 170 Implications ...... 171 Recommendations for Practice ...... 174 Recommendations for Research ...... 178 Chapter Summary ...... 180

APPENDIX

A INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ...... 181

B INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE (SUPPLEMENTAL) ...... 182

C INFORMED CONSENT ...... 183

D INTERVIEW GUIDE (STUDENT LEADERS) ...... 185

E INTERVIEW GUIDE (PROFESSIONAL STAFF) ...... 186

F MEMBER CHECK EMAIL REQUEST...... 187

G IRB APPROVAL ...... 188

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 190

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 205

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Themes and subthemes ...... 144

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Chaleff’s (2009) courageous follower model ...... 54

2-2 Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) five dimensions of courageous followership ...... 54

2-3 Conceptual model of courageous leadership within fraternities when addressing problem behaviors, adapted from Chaleff’s (2009b) model of courageous followership...... 55

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LEADER COURAGE WHEN ADDRESSING PROBLEM BEHAVIORS IN AGRICULTURAL FRATERNITIES

Jack Causseaux

August 2020

Chair: Nicole Stedman Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

This study sought to examine courageous leadership within college fraternities.

Fraternity involvement has been shown to have benefits for student members, but college fraternities have been engaging in problem behaviors that have been hurting, and in some cases killing, college students. These problem behaviors among fraternity members have included hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. The students that serve as positional leaders of these fraternities have often been ill-equipped to prevent these problem behaviors from occurring within their organizations or chapters.

For this study, courageous leadership was assumed necessary to combat the negative outcomes of these problem behaviors. The purpose of this study was to examine courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in agricultural fraternities when addressing problem behaviors. The research questions of this study were: (1) how was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity, (2) how was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors, and (3) when was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors? A qualitative approach, case study design was followed,

and purposive sampling was used to interview chapter presidents of two historically agricultural fraternities. National staff of each fraternity were also interviewed in addition to analyzing fraternity documents. Coding and data analysis revealed themes for each research question. For the first research question, the themes were (1) common purpose/shared values, (2) assume responsibility for a common purpose, and (3) challenge behaviors. For the second research question, the themes were (1) intellectual courage, (2) moral courage, (3) overcoming fears, and (4) confidence. For the final research question, two themes emerged: (1) accountability systems and (2) support networks. Several subthemes were also found. Key findings were reported and discussed. Implications, recommendations for practice, and recommendations for future research were provided.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

On college campuses around the country, student-led organizations have helped to enhance the educational experience of the students (Dunkel et al., 2014; Kegan,

1978; Kuh et al., 1991; Spurlock, 2017). Students attending college may have chosen to be a part of these clubs and organizations for a number of reasons, including building social connections, networking, an outlet for entertainment, personal development, and learning. College administrators have often encouraged students to get involved as part of their college experience (Griffin et al., 2008). With college enrollment rates continuing to rise, participation in student organizations is likely to continue (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2019). Involvement in clubs and organizations has been a common experience for most college students (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Student organization involvement while in college has also been beneficial for students as it relates to satisfaction, development, and learning (Astin, 1999; DeBard & Sacks, 2010; Dugan &

Komives, 2007; Gellin, 2003; Kuh, 1995; Webber et al., 2013). Student involvement has not only helped the college student to be successful, it has helped the colleges by having satisfied and connected students, contributing to a better student retention.

Background for the Study

One quite popular, and sometimes controversial, student organization involvement experience for college students has been to become a member of a fraternity or sorority (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education,

2015; Grandillo, n.d.; Kimbrough, 2005). Fraternities and sororities trace their beginnings back to college campuses as early as 1776 (Torbenson, 2005). Over time, fraternity and sorority communities have exploded in numbers and diversity, and they

have become part of the culture associated with the college experience (Causseaux &

Andenoro, 2018; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2015;

Hevel & Bureau, 2014; Torbenson, 2005). Among these fraternities and sororities there have been notable differences in type and scope. A fraternity has been defined by

Merriam-Webster Online as “a group of people associated or formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or pleasure” (Dunkel et al., 2014; Fraternity [Def. 1], n.d.).

Fraternities are most often, but not always, named with a series of Greek letters (Dunkel et al., 2014). While fraternities can be used to describe organizations made up of both men and women driven by a collective purpose, “fraternity” has been commonly used when referring to those organizations exclusive only to college men (Dunkel et al., 2014;

Owen, 1991). Sororities have a similar purpose to fraternities, but have been typically used to refer to exclusively female organizations (Dunkel et al., 2014). There have been a few categories that separate the make-up and purpose of various fraternities. Service fraternities may have membership of men and women and focus almost exclusively on service or philanthropic activities dedicated to their community (Dunkel et al., 2014).

Greek-lettered honor societies or fraternities focus on membership with achievement in leadership or scholarship (Dunkel et al., 2014). The professional fraternities are also coeducational in their membership, and membership is exclusive to college students in a particular field of study (Dunkel et al., 2014). General fraternities, or social fraternities as they are more commonly called, are almost always single-sexed organizations that share values of service, scholarship, leadership, and community development, but they usually do not focus membership on a particular achievement or academic field of study, with some exceptions (Dunkel et al., 2014; Matney et al., 2016; Owen, 1991;

Pang, 2018). College fraternities are “self-perpetuating groups which provide an organized social life for their members in college and universities as a contributing aspect of their educational experience”(Owen, 1991, p. I-9). The term social fraternity has been often interchangeable for general fraternity, but as Dunkel et al. (2014) pointed out:

This concept of ‘social’ is worth illuminating as it is a common misconception that general fraternities value social activities above all else when, in fact, ‘social’ is the shortened term for a found value of developing men and women to be contributing members of society. (p. 45)

For the purpose of this study, a social fraternity was defined as an exclusively-male college student organization whose members were driven by a common purpose and shared values of service to society, leadership development, academic achievement, and personal or community development.

Involvement in fraternities and sororities has been a beneficial involvement experience for college students (Anderson, 2014; Bureau & Koepsell, 2017; DeBard &

Sacks, 2010; Hickey, 2012; Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998; Kuh & Lyons, 1990; Long,

2012; McClure, 2006). Fraternities and sororities have been founded upon and guided by organizational values, including academic achievement, community service, and leadership (Long, 2012; Matney et al., 2016). Participation in a fraternity or sorority has been associated with positive outcomes for college students, such as satisfaction with campus life, increased campus involvement, higher graduation rates, and increased college retention (DeBard & Sacks, 2010; Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998; Nelson, et al.,

2006; Walker, et al., 2015). Fraternity involvement can promote college men’s learning about civic values and civic responsibility; fraternity men can have a better sense of belonging to and their role within a community (Jackson & Iverson, 2009).

Leadership has clearly been an integral part of the fraternity and sorority experience. Fraternity membership, while matriculated at a college or university, has been considered a potentially valuable student involvement experience, but a critical element to that involvement has been the leadership practices or leadership cultures students must practice or navigate while participating in these organizations. Leadership has been defined in several different ways. In his book on leadership theory and practice, Peter Northouse (2019) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). Komives et al. (2007) described leadership as “a relational and ethical process of people together attempting to accomplish positive change” (p. ix). The National Association of Colleges and Employers defined leadership as the ability of one to “leverage the strengths of others to achieve common goals, and use interpersonal skills to coach and develop others” (National Association of Colleges and Employers, n.d.). Through fraternity and sorority involvement, students have had opportunities to practice leadership through formal leadership positions and practice (Kelley, 2008). Members have emphasized the importance of leadership by recruiting students with past leadership experiences or students that were already serving as a positional leader in some other organization

(Hevel et al., 2014). The national governing bodies of fraternities and sororities have regularly provided opportunities for members to attend leadership development programs (Ryan, 2019). Leadership development has been deemed valuable as part of the fraternity and sorority experience and has been beneficial for students to hone and grow leadership capacity in addition to learning the knowledge and technical skills through their formal course work.

While leadership development has been an important aspect of a fraternity, two social fraternities have had traditional roots in the agricultural field of study and, as such, may have included members that have also been taught leadership development through their agricultural academic programs. Both FarmHouse Fraternity and Alpha

Gamma Rho Fraternity have been considered social fraternities but have had a history of membership associated with the agricultural profession (“Alpha Gamma Rho: About,” n.d.; “History of FarmHouse,” n.d.). Over the years, there have been increased research in and emphasis on leadership development as part of college agricultural academic curriculums (Love & Yoder, 1989; Schumacher & Swan, 1993). In fact, Connors et al.

(2006) wrote that leadership “has always been a major component of Colleges of

Agriculture” in which “students have numerous opportunities to develop their leadership skills and abilities though formal coursework, collegiate organizations, and personal leadership activities” (p. 1). Professionals and researchers in the agricultural field have recognized that leadership skill development is important to those people living and working in rural farming communities (Stedman & Weeks, 2013). The American

Association for Agricultural Education, a professional society for agricultural education faculty and graduate students, listed leadership education among one of its top research agenda questions: “How can teaching, research, and extension programs in agricultural leadership, education, and communication address complex interdisciplinary issues” (Roberts et al., 2016). Students in FarmHouse and Alpha Gamma Rho may have been connected to academic programs that expose them to leadership education that complements the leadership practices they experience through their fraternities.

The fraternity and sorority experience has also been linked to problem behaviors such as alcohol abuse, hazing, and sexual misconduct (Allan & Madden, 2008;

Matthews et al., 2009; McMurtrie, 2015; Shonrock, 1998; Soule et al., 2015). Hazing among fraternity and sorority members has been a particularly complex problem and a difficult practice to prevent (Nuwer, 1999). In general, hazing has been defined as, “any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person’s willingness to participate” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 2). Often involving degrading acts, alcohol consumption, sleep deprivation, and physical abuse, hazing has caused serious harm, and even death, to the college students involved (Allan & Madden, 2008; Eveland &

Bollinger, 2019; Nuwer, 1999; Parks et al., 2014). Hazing has been a systemic problem for many organizations across the country, but due to the potentially damaging and lethal outcomes, hazing has been deemed a problem among fraternities and sororities on college campuses (Allan & Madden, 2008; Drout & Corsoro, 2003; Hollmann, 2002;

Nuwer, 1999). However, many of the tragic consequences of hazing, such as death, have been associated more so with fraternity traditions and practices (Nuwer, 1999).

The fraternity victims of hazing have seemed to tolerate such behavior, in part, to gain acceptance among their peers (Nuwer, 1999).

Fraternities and sororities have also had a notorious association with alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct (Eberly & Stillman, 2016; Kuh et al., 1996; McMurtrie,

2015; Nelson & Engstrom, 2013). Much of the existing literature on the impact of fraternities and sororities on the student experience can be categorized into topics related to alcohol and sexual assault (Miranda Smalls, 2012). Danielson-Burke and

Borton (2018) wrote of addressing these problem behaviors, “The reality is problems around alcohol continue to be pervasive within the fraternity and sorority experience; thus, it is impossible to address the high-risk behaviors threatening student safety without addressing alcohol” (p. 2). Within fraternities, the problems of alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct are often linked together (Hechinger, 2017). Fraternity and sororities hold social events which allow large groups of peers to interact, typically in the presence of alcohol. Sometimes the alcohol consumption can lead to unwanted sexual encounters (Baugher, 2012). Some have suggested that the fraternity culture is prone to situations of alcohol consumption as a means to engage in potentially non-consensual sex (Sanday, 1996).

Fraternities and sororities are at a critical point (Horras, 2016). They are “toxically flawed” organizations (Mousseau, 2015, p. 11). The fraternity and sorority community has been facing complex challenges and issues (Danielson-Burke & Borton, 2017).

Innovative thinking and strong leadership is needed to overcome the challenges associated with problem behaviors, such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct (Danielson-Burke & Borton, 2017; Matthews Kirk, 2014). The author of the blog, The Fraternity Advisor, wrote:

Being a fraternity leader is a difficult position. You are often put in the position to make difficult decisions that directly impact your best friends – your fraternity brothers. When these situations occur, and they will, you need to have the courage to follow your convictions. (“Have the Courage to Follow Your Convictions,” n.d., para. 1)

Some have argued that student leaders within fraternities, through a model of self- governance, have been unable, or unwilling, to adequately address the problem

behaviors seen within fraternities (Barron, 2017; S. Brown, 2015; New, 2015; Silverman,

2017).

Courageous leadership must be practiced by fraternity and sorority leaders in order to address problem behaviors (R. Lane, personal communication, February 27,

2020). Famous British author C. S. Lewis (1943) wrote that “courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality” (p. 46). If fraternity and sorority members are to align their behaviors with their organizational values, courage must be the value that ensures all the others are being followed. Simon Sinek said in an interview that, “the best leaders tend to be the best followers” (LeadersIn, 2016). He went on to say that great leaders have courage, courage because they face the pressures of leading an organization and sometimes having to make the choice to do the right thing (LeadersIn, 2016). Ira Chaleff

(2009b) wrote about courageous followership and defined it being carried out when,

“Moral action is taken with the intention of bringing the actions of the leadership and organization into line with the fundamental values that govern decent organizational behavior while preserving the capacity of the organization to fulfill its purpose” (p. 149).

Following this idea, courageous leadership can be thought of as the actions taken by leaders to ensure that the practices and behaviors of an organization and its members align with the fundamental values that govern decent organizational behavior, while fulfilling the purpose of the organization (Chaleff, 2009b).

Research Problem

College fraternities have been engaging in problem behaviors that have been hurting, and in some cases killing, college students. These problem behaviors among fraternity members have included hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. The

students that serve as positional leaders of these fraternities have often been ill- equipped to prevent these problem behaviors from occurring within their organizations or chapters.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in agricultural fraternities when addressing problem behaviors. This study sought to answer the following questions:

1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity;

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity?

Significance of the Study

For years, universities have taken steps to prevent problem behaviors within fraternities and sororities and clearly align shared expectations of behavior for those organizations (Allan & Madden, 2008; Wrona, 2016). Greek life professional staff, such as university student affairs professionals, have worked hard to combat and prevent these harmful behaviors within fraternities and sororities (Cufaude, 1990; Hayek et al.,

2002; Richmond, 1989). These folks have been only part of the solution to this broad and difficult issue. Advising and supporting fraternity and sorority communities have been challenging jobs for the staff within college and university fraternity and sorority life offices (Dunkel et al., 2014). For many campuses the sorority and fraternity community has been exceedingly complex, with multiple stakeholder groups outside of the student members within the organizations (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher

Education, 2015; Dunkel et al., 2014). Most universities have had their own policies, rules, and accountability processes pertaining specifically to fraternities and sororities.

Outside of that, there have been the national, or international, governing offices through which the campus chapters are chartered (Dunkel et al., 2014). These headquarters for the chartered chapters have had staff that are accountable to the fraternity and sorority governing boards; these staff members have been responsible to also advise the chapters and provide development programming (Dunkel et al., 2014; Hevel et al.,

2014). Other stakeholders have included chapter advisors, many of whom have not been officially affiliated with the universities, and other alumni members. Some campuses have recognized fraternity and sorority houses and with those often come the alumni house corporation board that owns them and the house directors that have been hired to manage them (Dunkel et al., 2014). All of these groups have operated almost as their own system, each having influence, ties, and expectations with the fraternity or sorority student members. Then within the fraternity and sorority chapters, there have been layers of leadership, not to mention the umbrella student fraternity and sorority governing councils that have existed as separate entities on campuses (Dunkel et al.,

2014). Communication of expectations and accountability has been extremely difficult with so many students, stakeholders, and governing group members numbering in the thousands. Often these separate stakeholder groups may each have had their own views and agendas that do not align with the views of others. Fraternity and sorority chapters may have been influenced to condone problem behaviors by their alumni or advisors, because the same behaviors were part of their college experience (Dunkel et

al., 2014). Within this type of system, efforts to impact these behaviors can be overwhelming.

Higher education administrators, particularly those in student affairs, have played an important role in fraternity and sorority experiences. Involvement in organizations, such as fraternities and sororities, have typically been managed or coordinated by college student affairs administrators or advisors and the headquarters staff (Dunkel et al., 2014). Naturally these administrators can help students develop leadership skills through educational efforts, advising, and mentorship. Knowing more about how courage played a role in the leadership among student leaders in fraternities and sororities could help students and practitioners alike to address problem behaviors.

Definitions of Terms

• Agricultural fraternity: a general, or social, fraternity whose membership has or has had ties or historical roots in the agricultural field.

• Alcohol abuse: a person may exhibit alcohol abuse when they “spend a lot of time drinking or recovering from alcohol; use alcohol regardless of negative effects on their relationships; miss obligations like work, school or social functions because of alcohol; engage in dangerous behavior while drinking; binge drink (four drinks for a woman or five drinks for a man in two hours); continue drinking despite health problems” (Addiction Campuses Editorial Team, n.d.).

• Binge drinking: drinking four alcoholic drinks for women, or five alcoholic drinks for men in a single occasion (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2019) or in a two hour span (Addiction Campuses Editorial Team, n.d.).

• Brotherhood: Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines brotherhood as a fellowship or an alliance (Brotherhood, n.d.).

• Chapter: An established membership unit of a national or international sorority or fraternity (Oregon State University, n.d.)

• Courage: “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty” (Courage, n.d.).

• Courageous followership: a model of followership in which the follower embraces “courage, power, integrity, responsibility, and sense of service” to fulfill an organization’s common purpose (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 1). A follower practices courageous followership when they fulfill an organization’s common purpose through the five dimensions: (1) assume responsibility for the common purpose, (2) support leader and the group, (3) take moral action, (4) challenge policies and behaviors, and (5) participate in transformation of the organization (Chaleff, 2009a, 2009b).

• Courageous leadership: a model of leadership in which the leader embraces “courage, power, integrity, responsibility, and sense of service” to fulfill an organization’s common purpose (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 1). A leader practices courageous leadership when they fulfill an organization’s common purpose through the five dimensions: (1) assume responsibility for the common purpose, (2) support leader and the group, (3) take moral action, (4) challenge policies and behaviors, and (5) participate in transformation of the organization (Chaleff, 2009a, 2009b).

• Hazing: “any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person’s willingness to participate” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 2).

• House: term sometimes used by members of fraternities or sororities to refer to the fraternity chapter that is part of the national or international fraternity. When used in this context, ‘house’ is synonymous with ‘chapter.’

• Sexual misconduct: “Sexual misconduct encompasses a range of behavior used to obtain sexual gratification against another’s will or at the expense of another. Sexual misconduct includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating the person against whom such conduct is directed” (Sexual Misconduct Law and Legal Definition, n.d., para. 1).

• Social fraternity: a college student organization exclusively for men “formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or pleasure” (“Fraternity [Def. 1],” n.d., def. 1) with shared values of service to society, leadership development, academic achievement, and community development. For the purpose of this study, a social fraternity was defined as an exclusively-male college student organization whose members were driven by a common purpose and shared values of service to society, leadership development, academic achievement, and community development.

Limitations

This study was conducted with the following limitations:

• The results of the study could not be generalizable to a broader population outside of the sample studied through qualitative measures.

• Only social fraternities with agricultural historical ties were studied. Sororities or other types of fraternities were not studied.

• The ethnicities of the participants were unknown. While these ethnicities may have been assumed, care was taken not to do so.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made for this study:

• The participants in this study had experience with problem behaviors.

• The participants try to address the problem behaviors by preventing or stopping them.

• The participants were able to identify when courageous leadership was practiced.

• The participants were truthful and forthcoming in their responses; they believed that the researcher had no intention of sharing their personally identifiable responses.

Chapter Summary

Involvement in fraternities has had potential benefits for college students, but it also has been associated with problem behaviors, such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. Fraternity members have been engaging in problem behaviors that are hurting, even killing, college students. Courageous leadership is needed to help address these problem behaviors. The purpose of this study was to examine courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in agricultural fraternities when addressing problem behaviors.

Given their potentially negative consequences, it has been in the best interest of universities and colleges to address problem behaviors of fraternity students on their respective campuses and to institute meaningful prevention or education strategies.

College fraternity life professionals stood to benefit from better understanding how student leaders respond to problem behaviors within fraternities by practicing courageous leadership.

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

This study sought to examine courageous leadership as practiced by college student leaders in agricultural fraternities when addressing problem behaviors. Chapter

1 introduced an overview of college fraternities engaging in problem behaviors, such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. Fraternity involvement has been shown to have benefits for student members, but these problem behaviors have posed a threat to students’ well-being. Leadership development has been a focus of college fraternities and the agricultural education field. For this study, courageous leadership was assumed necessary to combat the negative outcomes of these problem behaviors.

The research questions of this study were:

1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity;

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity?

Theoretical Framework

Leader-Follower Relationship

Ira Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) created a model of courageous followership that applies to organizations in which the relationship between the leader and the follower is key. It is in this relationship that the foundations of courageous expression emerge.

Despite the partnership between the leader and follower, Chaleff (2009b) recognized that in many organizational situations, the leader holds the power of ultimate responsibility and ultimate authority in an organization that followers do not possess. He

also argued that there is power in the follower, a power in the leader-follower relationship, and an ability to act toward the betterment of the organization. Once one moves past the self-conscious ideations that a follower is somehow less-than a leader, that person can acknowledge and embrace a power in followership (Chaleff, 2009b).

Chaleff said that “most of us are leaders in some situations and followers in others” (2009b, p. 2). He argued that there cannot be leaders, by definition, without followers. “To think of leaders without followers is like thinking of teachers without students” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 2). Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) proposed a new model of followership, courageous followership, based on a courageous relationship between the leader and follower. He believed that a model of courageous followership is important because it is “antithetical to the prevailing image of followers and so crucial to balancing the relationship with leaders” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 4). Chaleff (2009b) expanded on his concept of the courageous follower-leader relationship as:

The courage to be right, the courage to be wrong, the courage to be different from each other. Each of us sees the world through our own eyes and experiences. Our interpretation of the world thus differs. In relationships, we struggle to maintain the validity of our own interpretations while learning to respect the validity of other interpretations. (p. 4)

Chaleff (2009b) argued that the leader-follower relationship is connected to the organization’s common purpose and shared values (Figure 2-1). Chaleff believed that

“any organization is a triad consisting of leaders and followers joined in a common purpose” (2009b, p. 12). He postulated that followers do not serve the leader of an organization, rather the followers and the leaders serve the purpose of the organization to which they belong. “Followers and leaders both orbit around the purpose; followers do not orbit around the leader” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 13). In this model, it is important for

the purpose of an organization to be clear. Without a clear purpose for both leaders and followers, Chaleff (2009b) believed that the leaders and followers would be left to pursue their own self-interests related to the organization.

Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) also held that an organization’s shared values are as important as the organization’s purpose. He said that clarifying the organization’s core values gives validity to the organizational purpose, and these core values determine how and in what manner the organization will work to achieve the purpose. If the leader and follower work to pursue the organization’s purpose in a manner that violates decent human values, then the pursuit is not ethically founded (Chaleff, 2009b). In other words, a clear organizational purpose and clear organizational values are important in the leader-follower dynamic, but Chaleff (2009b) prescribed that the purpose and values should be ethically sound. “A common purpose pursued with decent values is the heart of the healthy leader-follower relationship” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 13).

Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership

In his model of courageous followership, Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) coined five dimensions that define how followers can act or operate within the leader-follower relationship in an organization (Figure 2-2). The first is the courage to assume responsibility. Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) believed that courageous followers assume responsibility for their own actions and belonging within an organization. Instead of expecting the organization or the leader within an organization to provide opportunities for personal development, the courageous follower takes control of opportunities to reach his or her potential to further an organization towards its goals. The courageous follower assumes responsibility to the organization’s common purpose and works to serve the organization and those within it (Chaleff, 2009b).

The second dimension is the courage to serve. Here, Chaleff (2009b) wrote that a courageous follower must have the courage to serve the organizational leader not from a sense of service to power, rather serving the leader for the purpose of bettering the overall organization. The follower serves the organization as a whole in order to meet its potential and achieve its goals (Chaleff, 2009b). “Courageous followers stand up for their leader and the tough decisions a leader must make if the organization is to achieve its purpose” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 7).

The third dimension of courageous followership is the courage to challenge. In this dimension, Chaleff (2009b) started to expand on the idea of the follower’s relationship not just with the leader, but with the organization members as well. When the actions of the organization’s members or the actions of the organization’s leader do not align with their values or ethics, courageous followers stand up and confront those actions head on, even if it means the risk of the followers’ rejection from the group

(Chaleff, 2009b). Chaleff (2009b) suggested that while the relationship to the leaders is important to the followers, the integrity and actions of the organization to further a common purpose is more important.

The courage to participate in transformation is the fourth dimension of the courageous follower. When actions of an organization risk the organization’s common purpose, courageous followers recognize the need for change (Chaleff, 2009b).

Understanding that organization change can be uncomfortable, Chaleff (2009b) wrote that courageous followers nonetheless remain committed to supporting the leader and organization through that change. Courageous followers are self-aware and recognize what change they must make in themselves with respect to bettering the organization or

aligning the organization’s actions with its common purpose and shared values (Chaleff,

2009b).

Finally, the fifth dimension of the courageous follower is the courage to take moral action. If challenging the leader of the organization in the face of actions that conflict with the organizational purpose or values is not successful, then courageous followers must take moral action (Chaleff, 2009b). Personal values or the values of the organization are sacred and more important than the leader-follower relationship

(Chaleff, 2009b). Taking moral action against the leader or the organization comes with risks for the courageous follower (Chaleff, 2009b). Actions of courageous followers in this case may be going against the positional authority of the leader, appealing to a higher authority to the organization, or leaving the organization all together (Chaleff,

2009b).

Conceptual Model

A conceptual model was created for this study using Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) model of courageous followership as a foundation. This conceptual model illustrates how leaders of fraternities might demonstrate courageous leadership when addressing problem behaviors such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct within the context of their organization (Figure 2-3). This conceptual model applies courageous actions or behaviors to both the leaders and the followers. Both leaders and followers should take courageous action to address problem behaviors that might threaten the overall health of the organization or the organization’s values. The model begins with the depiction of the relationship, as described by Chaleff (2009b), between a leader and a follower around a common purpose in an organization. A fraternity leader works together with the members (followers) to achieve the common purpose of that fraternity.

As Chaleff (2009b) has suggested, the leaders and members serve and support one another to achieve the organization’s purpose and within the context of the organization’s shared values.

The conceptual model for this study further demonstrates the relationship between the leader and the follower in the context of how courageous leadership may be practiced. This model adopts the same assumptions that were defined by Chaleff

(2009b) through his five dimensions of courageous actions. Rather than focusing on the actions of a follower, this model describes that same dimensions of courage practiced by the leader. Since Chaleff (2009b) believed that the leader and follower harmonized in a relationship to meet the organizational purpose, switching the roles of leader and follower should be sound, while maintaining the principles of the original courageous followership model. As leaders and members of fraternities work toward their common purpose, followers may engage in the problem behaviors that were described in this study. Actions that engage in these problem behaviors are depicted in the model by the arrows from the leader addressing those problem behaviors. Those problem behaviors, again, are hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. In practicing courageous leadership, a leader would then take action, for example moral action, to address those problem behaviors. Moral action by the leader could mean challenging the followers engaged in the problem behaviors, appealing to a higher authority to address the behaviors, or going against the perceived expectations of the followers. The courageous actions could come from the followers or the leaders in an organization, but the focus of this study was on the actions of the leader. The moral action and other courageous dimensions meet the problem behaviors within the context of the organization,

specifically the relationship between the leader and follower and working to achieve a common purpose.

Review of Supporting Literature

Problem Behaviors

Hazing

Hazing has been a systemic problem for many organizations all across the country, not just for sorority and fraternity organizations. While hazing has been an issue for high schools and professional athletic organizations, universities and colleges have dealt with hazing within athletics, bands, club sports, military affiliated groups, and sororities and fraternities (Allan & Madden, 2008; Johnson & Chin, 2016; Nuwer, 2004).

Although some studies on hazing have been conducted, the literature on this topic has been somewhat lacking (Roosevelt, 2018).

Allan and Madden (2008) reported findings from the National Study of Student

Hazing that was conducted with thousands of college students from colleges and universities from across the country. Researchers for the National Study of Student

Hazing used the definition of hazing that was used for this dissertation; hazing was defined as “any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person’s willingness to participate” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 2). The study found that 55% of college students experienced hazing through their experiences in student organizations, athletic or sport teams, or other clubs (Allan & Madden, 2008). As many as 47% of college students experienced hazing prior to coming to college. The study reported that hazing occurs in athletic groups and fraternities and sororities, but hazing practices have existed in other college organizations, as well (Allan & Madden, 2008). Findings from

this study showed a pervasive culture of hazing among college students; many students in the study recognized hazing as simply part of the college campus culture (Allan &

Madden, 2008). A majority of students associated positive outcomes with hazing rather than seeing those outcomes as negative, even though the students indicated that their hazing experienced included “alcohol consumption, humiliation, isolation, sleep- deprivation, and sex acts” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 2). These positive outcomes included students feeling like they were part of a group, feeling a sense of accomplishment, believing they would perform better in classes, and feeler stronger as individuals. “In 95% of the cases where students identified their experience as hazing, they did not report the event events to campus officials” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 2).

College students have differed in their opinion of what constitutes hazing; the vast majority of students from the study experienced hazing activities or behaviors, but they did not believe that what they had experienced was hazing (Allan & Madden, 2008).

Fraternities and sororities have remained a common organizational setting for hazing activities and cases (Salinas et al., 2018). “American fraternities have long engaged in hazing, subjecting their prospective members to curious and painful ordeals”

(Cimino, 2018, p. 214). Each year, college students have been injured due to hazing, either emotionally or physically (Salinas et al., 2018). Differences in how hazing has been perceived by college students and administrators, particularly across different institutions, have led to a lack of clarity on anti-hazing policies, which has, in part, contributed to the prevalence of hazing (Roosevelt, 2018; Salinas et al., 2018).

McGlone (2009) found that differences in how hazing has been perceived among

differing groups of college students or administrators, perhaps due to unclear policies, may negatively impact the effectiveness of an institution’s hazing policy.

Hazing behaviors for fraternities have looked different than those of sororities

(Veliz-Calderon & Allan, 2017). Fraternity men have associated hazing more often with dangerous behaviors, such as alcohol abuse and acts of physical strength or physical violence (Jones, 2004; Veliz-Calderon & Allan, 2017). Some reasons that fraternity men have engaged in or initiated hazing behaviors has been to bond the new members, or pledges, together, to weed out pledges not genuinely interested in joining the fraternity, and to have the pledges show respect to the organization or to the active members, or brothers (Cimino, 2018; Rogers et al., 2012). Fraternity men have hazed, in part, so as to create situations in which the incoming pledges must inevitably fail (Cimino, 2018;

Salinas et al., 2018). “While the rationale for many of these activities is the need to work through difficulty as a means of bonding and cultivating brotherhood or sisterhood, there are significant risks when college students engage in these behaviors” (Salinas et al.,

2018, p. 41). When researching one particular fraternity, Cimino (2018) also found that planned failure was a part of the fraternity’s hazing behaviors. He described planned as

“when a task is assigned [to the pledges] that is specifically designed to induce failure”

(Cimino, 2018, p. 215). Cimino (2018) went on to conclude that the planned failure may have been used as a way to shift blame of the hazing behavior from the brothers to the pledges. The hazing behaviors occurred in retaliation of the pledges’ inevitable failure.

“If hazees believe that they can avoid some hazing, but continually fail to meet the conditions for doing so, they may blame themselves or ‘the rules, rather than the hazers” (Cimino, 2018, p. 231).

Roosevelt (2018) proposed a differentiation of types of hazing when he tested an assumption that smaller, less-severe acts of hazing serve as a gateway to more severe acts of hazing. He categorized more severe types of hazing as those activities that logically would result in more harm to a person, such as physical abuse or acts of humiliation or embarrassment. The less severe acts of hazing were those that seemingly would not result in harm. Roosevelt found that fraternity men appear to make decisions on hazing others based on their perception of potential harm. However, one problem, he noted, was the fact that the fraternity men did not fully recognize alcohol consumption as harmful behaviors. Interestingly, he also found that the majority of fraternity men he studied did not support hazing behaviors. He concluded that perhaps the men’s strong value of friendship and belonging impeded them from speaking up against hazing behaviors when they incorrectly believed that the majority of the fraternity was in favor of the hazing.

Alcohol abuse

Alcohol abuse among college students has remained a prevalent issue. A little over half of college students aged 18 to 22 have consumed alcohol within the last month according to the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (National

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2019). According to this same survey, over

35 percent of college students experienced episodes of binge drinking in the past month, with almost 10 percent participating in heavy alcohol use, or binge drinking on five or more occasions within a month (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism, 2019). Alcohol use among colleges students has been known to lead to negative consequences such as academic problems, assaults, alcohol use disorders, and even death (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2020). “National

estimates suggest that thousands of college students are injured, killed, or suffer other significant consequences each year as a result of drinking” (White & Hingson, 2013, p.

208). Blanco et al. (2008) reported that alcohol use disorders were the prevailing disorders among college students, and the risk of having such disorders was greater for college students than non-college peers.

Research has shown that heavy alcohol use has been higher for fraternity and sorority students than for other college students (Asel et al., 2009; Larimer et al., 2004;

McCabe et al., 2005; Sher et al., 2001). Further studies have suggested that the relationship between fraternities and sororities and alcohol is a complex one (Danielson et al., 2001; Pace & Mcgrath, 2002). Pace and Mcgrath (2002) studied the drinking behavior of fraternity and sorority students and compared that to the drinking behavior of students in a volunteer organization. They found that the volunteer organization students and the fraternity and sorority students had higher rates of alcohol use and binge drinking compared to non-involved students. Pace and Mcgrath (2002) concluded that students involved in any student organization may have a higher tendency to drink, due to the socialization of those behaviors. Even studies that have shown conflicting results comparing alcohol consumption behaviors by fraternity and sorority students with all other students suggests that fraternities and sororities have had a student population “in which drinking attitudes and behaviors are embedded in the physical, cognitive, emotional, and cultural aspects of students’ lives” (Danielson et al., 2001, p.

461).

Crawford and Novak (2007) suggested that members of fraternities and sororities find it harder to resist pressure to drink from their peers or their perceptions of their

peers’ alcohol consumption. They found that fraternity and sorority affiliated members’ use of alcohol more closely mirrored their perceptions what was normal drinking behavior among their peers. This was compared to non-affiliated college students. The study found that fraternity and sorority students drank heavily and were more influenced by norms of their peers to do so, even though there could be negative consequences.

Other research has shown that fraternity men consume more alcohol, and more frequently, than other categories of college students (Capone et al., 2007; Sasso,

2015). Russett (2017) also found differences in the excessive drinking cultures between fraternity men and sorority women. In her qualitative study of sorority women, Russett

(2017) discovered that fraternity men were seen as the providers of alcohol, which created a culture in which fraternity men heavily influenced the alcohol drinking behaviors of sorority women. One woman described the fraternity houses on her campus as a “local bar” where alcohol is served (Russett, 2017, p. 56). Russett (2017) concluded that this fraternity-dominated alcohol culture negatively influenced the sorority women by encouraging them to make decisions around drinking that were not aligned with their personal values.

Men that are attracted to joining fraternities in college may have already experienced problems due to drinking behavior prior to joining. Capone et al. (2007) not only found that involvement in a fraternity or sorority, particularly for men, was associated with higher use of alcohol and negative consequences within the first two years of college, but that they “constitute an at-risk group prior to entering college”

(Capone et al., 2007, p. 316).

Studies on drinking behaviors of fraternity and sorority students have demonstrated negative or unhealthy outcomes associated with alcohol use. Asel et al.

(2009) conducted a study with first-year students and seniors that examined the effect of fraternity and sorority membership in a variety of experiential areas. They found that fraternity and sorority students were more likely to binge drink alcohol than non-affiliated students. Furthermore, the fraternity and sorority students were more likely to engage in higher levels of binge drinking and with greater frequency (Asel et al., 2009). Fairlie et al. (2010) compared the drinking behaviors of fraternity and sorority leaders to that of the general membership. They found little difference in the students’ drinking behaviors.

All students from the study reported engaging in “heavy episodic drinking” on average at least five days over a one-month period (Fairlie et al., 2010). Nine out of ten students from this study also reported experiencing negative consequences due to alcohol since the beginning of the semester in which this research was conducted. These consequences included getting sick or hung over, memory loss, and even alcohol- impaired driving (Fairlie et al., 2010).

Barry et al. (2016) found that fraternity and sorority members reported more negative consequences due to alcohol than their non-affiliated peers. Their research showed that members of fraternities and sororities used fewer protective behavioral strategies (PBS) than non-members. Protective behaviors strategies were behaviors used to reduce alcohol-related harm or negative consequences due to alcohol consumption, particularly binge drinking. These behavioral strategies included things like avoiding drinking games, tracking the amount of alcoholic drinks consumed, or alternating alcoholic drinks with non-alcoholic drinks.

Sexual misconduct

According to research, sorority women are more likely to be survivors of sexual assault than other students, and fraternity men are more likely to perpetrate sexual assault than other students (Bannon et al., 2013). Minow and Einolf (2009) surveyed sorority students at one college. Their findings supported previous research that sorority women reported higher rates of experiencing attempted or completed sexual assaults than unaffiliated students. Minow & Einolf (2009) attributed this higher rate in part to the greater alcohol consumption rates of sorority women and their more frequent attendance at fraternity parties where alcohol was consumed. Russett's (2017) qualitative research with sorority women furthered this connection of sexual misconduct with alcohol and fraternity parties. She found that fraternity parties would have sexually explicit themes that put women in positions of less power than the men or in demeaning, objectifying roles. These parties intentionally were designed to attract first- year women in sororities, and participants reported that sorority members make regrettable sexual decisions under the influence of alcohol (Russett, 2017). “Other patriarchal standards emerged regarding informal rules and norms established around acceptance to parties, whereas women were only allowed to gain entrance to parties if they met ambiguous and superficial standards set by men” (Russett, 2017, p. 57).

In a study of both fraternity men and sorority women, Bannon et al. (2013), looked at students’ willingness to take action to prevent or respond to situations of sexual assault. They found that sorority women were more willing than fraternity men to take action to intervene in a situation involving a sexual assault. Both fraternity and sorority students reported similar levels of efficacy to intervene in situations of sexual

assault, meaning they had the same knowledge of what to do to intervene, perhaps even if it meant stopping an assault from occurring (Bannon et al., 2013).

Foubert et al. (2006) learned in another study that “most male fraternity members report that they do not ask for consent before engaging in intimate sexual behaviors with women” (p. 366). Fraternity men in this study reported that they were afraid of being embarrassed by asking a woman for consent, and they were afraid that by asking they also may be rejected by the woman (Foubert et al., 2006). They found that the efficacy of sexual assault intervention actions among fraternity men may be lacking. The fraternity men reported wanting to learn more skills to intervene with their peers “before, during, and after sexual assault” (Foubert et al., 2006, p. 369).

Courageous Leadership

Similar to varying definitions that have existed for leadership, courageous leadership has been defined in multiple ways (Blankstein et al., 2016; Cottrell & Harvey,

2004; Forck, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2016; Kumar, 2018; Staub, 1996). Many approaches to courageous leadership in the literature described it as a characteristic or behavior of the leader. Kumar (2018) believed that courageous leadership was needed from leaders to oversee change of an organization in turbulent or uncertain times. Forck

(2011) wrote that courageous leadership was in the actions of the leader by showing care toward others, remaining calm under pressure, and sharing unfiltered information with higher level superiors within the organization. Blankstein et al. (2016) wrote about the courageous leadership needed to reform the racially unjust and unfair education system. They argued that courageous leaders recognized these inequities and that they faced “their own related fears by tapping into their core values in order to derive strength to commit to specific, high-leverage goals and actions to change the situation”

(Blankstein et al., 2016, p. 24). Staub (1996) argued that leadership required the fundamental characteristic of courage and that courageous leaders have:

the courage to face yourself; the courage to face your fears; the courage to move forward in the face of uncertainty and disapproval; the courage to tell the truth with candor; the courage to be open, even vulnerable, to others' ideas and strengths; and the courage to change beliefs, old rules and formulas of success, your behavior and mind (p. xix).

In their book on the fundamentals of leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2016) described courage in the context of leadership as “the ability to face adversity without being overcome by fear” (p. 129). Cottrell and Harvey (2004) viewed courageous leadership as challenging the status quo of the organization. They said that:

to become a courageous leader, you must have an undeniable, indisputable, and unwavering commitment to be the best you can be. The true measure of your leadership is the ability to look in the mirror and know that you had the courage to do what you felt was the right thing to do (Cottrell & Harvey, 2004, p. 9).

Several books on the topic of courageous leadership have provided readers with advice on how courageous leadership should be practiced within organizational contexts (Cottrell & Harvey, 2004; Kumar, 2018; Murphy, 2014; Staub, 1996). Analysis or texts on the topic of courageous leadership have been provided in various organizational contexts, including business, military, religious, and educational institutions, however, empirical research on the specific topic of courageous leadership was limited in the literature at the time of this study (Batagiannis, 2007; Comer &

Sekerka, 2018; Cottrell & Harvey, 2004; Danielson, 2015; Hannah et al., 2011; Hybels,

2009; Murphy, 2014; Palanski et al., 2015). Throughout the literature mentioned, themes emerged of courage and leadership, such as having the courage as a leader to make a change in uncertain circumstances or taking action through adversity, fear, or cost to the actor.

Some research has been conducted on topics similar to courageous leadership, such as virtuous leadership, authentic leadership, and leader integrity (Bauman, 2013;

Palanski et al., 2015; Palanski & Yammarino, 2007). Howard and Cogswell (2019) studied what they called social courage in organizational settings, which they defined as a person taking action even when there is a risk to the person’s perceived esteem by others. They were interested in trying to identify the antecedents to courage in the workplace. Recognizing courage as both behavioral and a personality trait, they studied the behavioral aspect of social courage. These researchers found that personal and organizational factors of people in a work setting influenced their social courage, particularly factors of personality, leadership, culture, and demographic characteristics

(Howard & Cogswell, 2019). This suggested that certain leadership styles influenced a follower’s display of social courage, and from this finding, Howard and Cogswell (2019) recommended that leaders could be trained to empower followers in order to encourage the followers’ display of social courage. The researchers also found that social courage behaviors were related to people’s assessment of risks and benefits of those behaviors, meaning that before decisions were made to take an act of courage, a person would weigh the risks and benefits of that action (Howard & Cogswell, 2019).

Palanski et al. (2015) studied the relationship between leader behavioral integrity and leader behavioral courage. They found that leaders of organizations may be seen as more courageous if they are perceived by others in the organizations to be in a highly adverse situation. This suggested that courage was more tied to a concept of endurance or grit rather than an act of moral standing. Palanski et al. (2015) suggested that this perception by others that a leader was courageous could be due to a concept

that leaders may have been expected to act courageously in adverse situations, therefore, they were perceived to be acting courageously. They concluded that courage displayed by leaders was directly tied to perceptions of their behavioral integrity, in this case the consistent behavior by the leader under situations of adversity. Stauffer and

Maxwell (2020) wrote that organizational change was inevitable and that it required courageous leadership to face that change. Their research found a positive relationship between change strategies and what they called Transforming Servant Leadership attitudes and behaviors (Stauffer & Maxwell, 2020). Transforming Servant Leadership was a hybrid of aspects of servant leadership and transformational leadership (Stauffer

& Maxwell, 2020). The Transforming Servant Leadership behaviors were defined as a leader that is “courageous and visionary” (Stauffer & Maxwell, 2020, p. 112). Here was a research example tying courageous leadership to transformational leadership. Again, courageous leadership appeared to be connected with ideas of facing difficult change within an organization.

Moral Action

Through the literature on courage and leadership, another theme emerged connecting courage with a concept of moral action, defined as an act by a person based on a sense of right and wrong or being authentic with one’s personal values alignment

(Chaleff, 2009b; Comer & Sekerka, 2018; Hannah et al., 2011; Hannah & Avolio, 2010;

Osswald et al., 2010; Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007; Singh Bangari & Prasad, 2012).

“Courage is often associated with morally upright behavior in adversity” (Palanski et al.,

2015, p. 298). Moral courage has been defined as taking action within an organization based on what is morally just or right even if it comes at high cost for the actor, such as rejection from the organization, ridicule, even physical attacks (Osswald et al., 2010).

Hutchinson, Jackson, Daly, and Usher (2015) wrote about moral action in the context of leadership and suggested that it is a more complex phenomenon than what is described in exiting leadership theories. Palanski and Yammarino (2007) wrote about courage and leadership and argued that honesty is also a necessary component of practicing moral action. Again, they shared a familiar concept that it takes courage to practice honesty in the face of personal loss. They said that “to act with courage does not necessarily mean to act in a morally upright way, for even the vilest acts can require courage” (Palanski &

Yammarino, 2007, p. 177). Courage is necessary, they wrote, but must be coupled with honesty in order to take moral action.

Sendjaya, Pekerti, Härtel, Hirst, and Butarbutar (2016) likened moral courage and moral action to authentic leadership. After studying managers in a large organization in Australia, they concluded that authentic leadership encouraged moral action by leaders when those leaders were also more aligned with the needs of others in the organization (Sendjaya et al., 2016). Hannah et al. (2011) conducted a field-study of soldiers attending a training program and also found a positive relationship between authentic leadership and the moral courage of the organization followers. They further found that moral courage in followers mediated their ethical or moral behaviors. These researchers furthered an argument for courageous leadership when they concluded that

“organizations constitute morally-complex environments, requiring organization members to possess levels of moral courage sufficient to promote their ethical action, while refraining from unethical actions when faced with temptations or pressures”

(Hannah et al., 2011, p. 555).

Hannah and Avolio (2010) furthered the literature on moral action being connected with courage. They posited that moral ownership and moral efficacy must be present for a leader to take moral action, but these two components are not enough.

Moral ownership was defined as a leader’s sense of responsibility to take action. Moral efficacy was defined as leaders’ belief that they have the capacity to take moral action in a situation. They argued that even if leaders have moral ownership and moral efficacy, they “may remain immobilized because of a lack of courage to face risk and overcome fears” (Hannah & Avolio, 2010, p. 295). Courage, they argued, must be present in order for a leader to take moral action.

Some research has shown the complex nature of leaders taking a moral stance, particularly pertaining to the relationship between the leaders and the followers. Kreps et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analyses of 15 different studies they conducted related to leaders changing their opinions or actions on moral stances. Their findings suggested that not only do followers label leaders as hypocritical if those leaders’ behaviors do not align with their publically know moral stance around an issue, but those leaders are also deemed hypocritical if they take an initial moral stance and later change their mind on the issue. “Leaders who changed their moral minds were seen as more hypocritical, and not as any more courageous or flexible, than those whose initial view was amoral”

(Kreps et al., 2017, p. 747). This may not be good news for leaders that take moral action if that moral action is a change, or evolution, of thinking on a moral issue. In one of their studies, however, Kreps et al. (Kreps et al., 2017) found that if leaders attributed their change in a moral stance to some sort of personal transformation or, rather, due to some uncontrollable external pressures or factors, those leaders were still seen as

hypocritical, but they were also deemed more worthy of support because their change in moral stance was seen as courageous. They concluded:

Thus, although leaders may, with effort and skill, cast their evolution in a positive enough light to overcome some of the cost of their hypocrisy, we found far more pervasive evidence to the contrary: That no matter what a leader does, and no matter who her audience is, changing her moral mind will cost her. (Kreps et al., 2017, p. 748)

Overall, Kreps et al. (2017) found that rather than being appreciated or valued for their authenticity or courageousness for making a moral evolution, leaders are seen more as hypocritical for doing so. This effect may have been lessened by followers that believed the leaders made a moral switch from what was “wrong” to what was “right” (Kreps et al., 2017, p. 750). With that evidence, followers’ own view, or stance, on a moral issue played a role in how they viewed leaders’ change in stance on a moral issue.

Van Zant and Moore (2015) found, however, some evidence to the contrary of the hypocrisy effect. They conducted a series of experiments using a foundation of moral or pragmatic framing for policy decisions within an organization. They defined moral frames as those used to justify policies or policy decisions on moral grounds, or moral values. Pragmatic frames were defined as those impacting policy decisions based on some economic gain or otherwise benefit to the overall organization. The experiments conducted by Van Zant and Moore (2015) yielded results that “found that the use of a moral policy frame somewhat insulated a leader from moral outrage – even after the leader reneged on a commitment” (p. 942). In other words, according to their results, people are willing to accept a change in organizational policy if they believe that change was motivated by, or couched in, moral reasons (Van Zant & Moore, 2015). It was also evident from their findings that it mattered if a leader was already believed to

have some moral character (Van Zant & Moore, 2015). For the purposes of their experiments, Van Zant and Moore (2015) defined a leader as having moral character when they displayed traits of being kind, compassionate, and caring toward others.

Moral Development in Fraternities

Attending college has been a formative experience for students, and institutions of higher education have used strategies, particularly through promotion of involvement, to aid in the ethical and moral development of their students (Dalton, 1999). “The conviction that learning has a moral context and that an educated person possesses certain traits of character, including a moral obligation to the common good, is deeply embedded in American higher education” (Dalton, 1999, p. 45). Some studies have shown the “educational effect” that attending college has on student’s moral reasoning

(Derryberry & Thoma, 2000, p. 14) The impact of fraternity involvement on moral development or moral reasoning in higher education has been studied (Dowiak, 2016;

Mathiasen, 2005; G. R. McCreary, 2012).

Kohlberg’s work on moral development has set a foundation for work and study by higher education practitioners and researchers (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000; Dowiak,

2016; Evans et al., 2010; Mathiasen, 2005). Kohlberg (1976) theorized six stages of human moral development, and he categorized these stages in three major levels: the preconventional level, the conventional level, and the postconventional level. Kohlberg conceptualized these six stages as hierarchical, meaning that someone progressed from a lower stage, say stage one, to a higher stage, such as stage four. The preconventional level had two stages: (1) heteronomous morality and (2) individualism, instrumental purpose, and exchange (Kohlberg, 1976). The heteronomous morality stage corresponded with one’s avoidance of punishment, from a superior power, as the

reason for doing the right thing; there was no consideration of others’ rights (Evans et al., 2010; Kohlberg, 1976). In stage two, the reasons for doing right were to serve the self while recognizing others’ interests existed, too; someone followed the rules if it was in their best interest (Evans et al., 2010; Kohlberg, 1976). In other words, a person had recognized that “other people have needs and interests that may conflict with their own, so right is defined by what is fair, an equal exchange, or an agreement” (Evans et al.,

2010, p. 103). The next level included stage three, mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity, and stage four, social system and conscience (Kohlberg, 1976). In stage three, a person wanted to be seen as a good person; they “desire to maintain rules and authority which support stereotypical good behavior” (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 34). Evans et al. (2010) interpreted this to mean that one

“is meeting the expectations to those to whom one is close and carrying out appropriate, acceptable social roles” (p. 104). Kohlberg (1976) associated this stage as one “keeping mutual relationships, such as trust, loyalty, respect and gratitude” in association with what was right (p. 34). In the fourth stage, what was right was defined by meeting one’s obligations, duties, and promises. It meant upholding the rules, and contributing to society or to the group (Kohlberg, 1976). In this stage, one recognized that there was a system and doing right meant following the rules of the group in order to avoid hurting the group or the system (Evans et al., 2010; Kohlberg, 1976). The fifth and the sixth stages fell in the in the postconventional level. The fifth stage was called the social contract or utility and individual rights. At this stage, one recognized that “values and rules are relative to your group” (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 35). One had freely entered agreements with a social system and doing right was toward a sense of obligation to

that system; one attended to the “greatest good for the greatest number” (Kohlberg,

1976, p. 35). In this stage, a person should have recognized that different people have different values, but that basis human rights and liberty were static (Evans et al., 2010;

Kohlberg, 1976). In the final stage, called the universal ethical principles, personal ethical principles took precedent over laws or rules that violated those principles

(Kohlberg, 1976). Principles were universal, such as equal human rights (Kohlberg,

1976).

Studies on the impact of fraternities and sororities on moral development, or moral judgement, have varied in their conclusions (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000; Dowiak,

2016; Mathiasen, 2005). Derryberry and Thoma (2000) found through their research that “students in the Greek system tend to have lower moral judgement scores than their peers” (p. 17). Their reports suggested that students in college that had supportive, yet diverse, friend groups were associated with higher moral judgement scores. This diversity of friend groups, friends from different social structures that did not know one another, was coined as low density friendships (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000). High density friendships were those that were close and they all knew one another

(Derryberry & Thoma, 2000). Derryberry and Thoma (2000) suggested that low density friendships led for one to experience a more diverse range of activities and diverse range of conversations that may have been connected to increased moral judgement.

Because Greek friendships were associated with high density, Greek students had experienced less diverse conversation topics, ideas, and activities than their non-Greek peers (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000).

Research by Dowiak (2016) on moral development in fraternities suggested no difference between fraternity men and non-fraternity peers, based on specific identities.

His research examined, in part, the relationship between fraternity involvement and

Internalized Moral Perspective, a measure that was identified as being connected to

Kolhberg’s sixth stage of moral reasoning (Dowiak, 2016). Dowiak (2016) found that fraternity men did not significantly differ from their non-fraternity peers along the

Internalized Moral Perspective measure. Similarly, Pascarella and Blaich (2013) could find little evidence in their research that fraternity or sorority involvement inhibited moral reasoning, but only for the first year of college.

Research conducted by McCreary et al. (2016) found a connection between moral disengagement and cultural norms of a group. In their study on moral disengagement and moral judgement on hazing scenarios, they found that fraternity members scored higher on moral disengagement scales and were less likely to intervene in hazing scenarios compared to other bully-type behaviors (McCreary et al.,

2016). Their findings suggested that fraternity members also scored higher in respecting social norms and higher in personal interest indicators. They suggested that because fraternity men were more attuned to maintaining social norms as part of their moral judgement, they may have been more likely to participate or support morally disengaging behavior like hazing (McCreary et al., 2016). The social influence of the fraternity chapter had a positive influence on members’ moral disengagement on hazing behaviors (McCreary et al., 2016).

McCreary and Schutts (2015) identified four schemas of brotherhood within fraternities and developed the Fraternal Brotherhood Questionnaire to measure these

brotherhood schemas. Through qualitative research, they found four schemas: solidarity, shared social experiences, belonging, and accountability (McCreary &

Schutts, 2015). Solidarity was related to mutual assistance among brothers in a fraternity; this was the mentality of “I’ve got your back, you’ve got mine” (McCreary &

Schutts, 2015, p. 33). Shared social experiences was indicated as the socializing, friendship aspects of the fraternity. The brothers saw each other as a social outlet

(McCreary & Schutts, 2015). Brotherhood “transcended friendship or social interactions;” this was the schema of belonging (McCreary & Schutts, 2015, p. 35). “The fraternity was described as a place where students felt connected, and this psychological feeling of connection aroused strong emotion” (McCreary & Schutts,

2015, p. 35). The schema of accountability was described as an aspect of the brotherhood that was “based on accountability to group standards and expectations”

(McCreary & Schutts, 2015, p. 35). Fraternity men that identified with this schema saw brotherhood in the context of values and expectations, a mutual commitment that went beyond friendship (McCreary & Schutts, 2015). The researchers then studied the relationships between these four schemas of brotherhood with other factors, such as moral disengagement. They found that brotherhood based on accountability had a negative relationship to moral disengagement (McCreary & Schutts, 2015). Brotherhood based on shared social experiences had a strong, positive correlation to moral disengagement (McCreary & Schutts, 2015).

Chapter Summary

This chapter reviewed the model of courageous followership put forth by Chaleff

(2009a, 2009b). This model of courageous followership was used to create a conceptual model of courageous leadership that was used as the research foundation

of this study. The proposed conceptual model diagramed courageous leadership in the context of fraternity leaders addressing problem behaviors in their organizations. An exploration of the literature was presented, specifically related to problem behaviors in fraternities (hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct), courageous leadership, and moral action. The moral character of a leader matters, and so too may moral action taken by leaders.

Figure 2-1. Chaleff’s (2009) courageous follower model

Figure 2-2. Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) five dimensions of courageous followership

Figure 2-3. Conceptual model of courageous leadership within fraternities when addressing problem behaviors, adapted from Chaleff’s (2009b) model of courageous followership

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Overview

A review of previous literature, a theoretical framework, as well as a conceptual model were presented in the preceding chapter. The theoretical framework used to guide this study was Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) model of courageous followership. In his model, Chaleff (2009a, 2009b) presented five dimensions of courageous followership, or five actions that a courageous follower would take with a leader of an organization when warranted. Those dimensions included assuming responsibility, having courage to serve, having courage to challenge, participating in transformation of the organization, and taking moral action when necessary. A conceptual model of courageous leadership, adapted from Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) model of courageous followership, was presented and discussed in the previous chapter.

The purpose of this study was to explore courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in agricultural fraternities in the context of addressing problem behaviors. The research questions that were used to direct this study were:

1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity; and

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity?

The epistemological approach to this research was grounded in social constructivism. Constructivism has assumed that knowledge is created through mental processes by the person perceiving reality (Young & Collin, 2004). Through the perspective of social constructivism, a person has derived knowledge through their own

personal constructs in addition to those formed in social relationships (Young & Collin,

2004). This epistemology emphasizes “the co-construction of meaning within a social activity” (Doolittle & Camp, 1999, p. 6). Fraternity men have likely formed meaning and knowledge through their own experiences and perceptions of the world. The social interactions that fraternity men have with one another, in the context of their fraternity social structure, can lead to new meaning and schemas of knowledge formed and informed by those social connections.

Qualitative Approach

A qualitative research approach was used to carry out the purpose and research questions of this study. Qualitative research is best employed when exploration is needed to gain a better, richer, detailed understanding of the issues of interest

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). This research approach is particularly useful when trying to study and understand human behavior as it is carried out within the context of certain social situations or settings (Ary et al., 2010). In contrast to quantitative research, in which a researcher may use experimental or quasi-experimental methods to study variables and relationships, qualitative research seeks to “understand a phenomenon by focusing on the total picture rather than breaking it down into variables” (Ary et al.,

2010, p. 29). Maxwell (2013) argued that qualitative research is founded in process theory, a perspective that seeks to analyze and explain how the processes that drive people or situations are connected. He believed that qualitative inquiry is an inductive approach to research that focuses on providing descriptions of people, situations, or contexts from this process orientation, rather than describing phenomena through numbers, as with quantitative research (Maxwell, 2013). Eriksson and Kovalainen

(2016) wrote about the value of qualitative research and argued that qualitative and

quantitative approaches are easier to compare than to define them. Whereas a quantitative approach to research deals with testing hypotheses for the purpose of explanation, a qualitative approach seeks to understand and interpret situations holistically, especially within the social or cultural contexts of those situations (Eriksson

& Kovalainen, 2016). Creswell and Poth (2018) emphasized a unique characteristic of qualitative research being the pursuit of inquiry in a natural setting; researchers interact with participants of the study in the context of how the participants experience the phenomenon of interest. Creswell (2013) provided a useful overall definition of qualitative research:

Qualitative research begins with assumptions and the use of interpretive/theoretical frameworks that inform the study of research problems addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and its contribution to the literature or a call for change (p. 44).

Qualitative research is associated with several characteristics and goals.

Qualitative inquiry, or research, is best used when trying to achieve the following goals: to understand meaning as understood by participants; to understand particular contexts; to understand processes associated with a phenomenon; and finally, to recognize, explain, or pursue phenomena or factors that are not anticipated (Maxwell, 2013).

Qualitative research uses an inductive analysis approach, drawing conclusions and making meaning from specific observations or interactions. Data are coded to make abstract meaning, and data analysis can take place as data are collected (Ary et al.,

2010; Creswell & Poth, 2018). Qualitative research often takes place in the natural

setting in which the area or situations of interest occur (Merriam, 1991). Rather than observations taking place in a lab or otherwise artificial setting, the observations are made in the setting or situation in which they occur (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell & Poth,

2018). In qualitative inquiry, the context is critical when trying to make meaning of the topic of study (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell & Poth, 2018). The instrument of data collection in qualitative research is the researcher (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The researcher gathers data through observations, review of available documents, or interviews with the participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Because of the researcher’s direct involvement with data collection, the researcher’s reflexivity or subjectivity must be addressed. This includes an explanation of the researcher’s background or personal connection to the topic of study and how those may influence the researcher’s interpretation of the data being gathered (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Qualitative research is best employed when wanting to provide or seek a holistic understanding of a certain phenomenon in the context of which it occurs (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam, 1991).

This research design is used to deeply explore an issue, to understand how or why something occurs within the context of a social setting (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Researcher Subjectivity

Reflexive qualitative researchers reflect upon their own personal contexts and biases that may influence their interpretation and meaning-making of the data being collected (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Qualitative research lends itself to subjectivity of the researcher, but that subjectivity should not eliminated, as it is “an essential element of understanding human activity” (Stake, 2010, p. 29). Reflexivity is the practice of self- reflection by the researcher of his or her personal biases and is done as a means to try to control for the impacts of those personal biases on the research (Ary et al., 2010).

Practicing reflexivity, I reflected on my own potential biases and personal contexts and provided those in this subjectivity statement. My life experiences certainly have influenced my perspective on nearly all of the variables of this study: courage, problem behaviors, fraternities, and moral action. I identify as a white male and resident of the United States of America, and I am fortunate that I have been able to complete a master’s degree level education. I was raised in a loving household with two parents and multiple siblings. Though I was not raised in wealth, I was also not raised in poverty. I enjoyed a comfortable upbringing and was privileged to have access to financial stability, comfort, and access to education. Though my biological parents divorced when I was very young, I was raised by a supportive mother and stepfather

(both of whom I consider to be my parents). Education was a value instilled in me by my parents, and they nurtured my educational interests throughout my childhood and early adulthood. My upbringing also instilled in me a sense of personal ethics and values, along with a strong sense of right and wrong. I was taught to be kind, honest, fair, and compassionate, and I have always identified with those personal values. My mother especially taught me, both through expectation and demonstration, to be courageous to stand up for what I believed was right. I watched her throughout my childhood demonstrate courage, particularly when looking out for others’ best interests.

Though I do not have an education in agriculture or strong connection to an agricultural field, I did grow up in a rural setting. My stepfather was college educated and worked as a forester. Even though I never took an interest in seeking an education or career in an agricultural industry, I have always had a passion for natural resources and natural settings. This was undoubtedly influenced by stepfather’s profession.

My undergraduate degree is in marine biology, and my graduate degree is in counseling psychology. While pursuing my undergraduate degree, I developed an interest in the involvement opportunities and extracurricular activities associated with the college experience. I was heavily involved in student government leadership, campus activities planning, was a resident assistant for residence life, served as a new student orientation mentor, and was, and still am, a member of a fraternity. I obtained a master’s degree in counseling for the purpose of pursuing a career in student affairs in higher education.

As an undergraduate and graduate student at the same university, I maintained involvement and membership in a fraternity. I served in several leadership positions as a student member of the fraternity, including the executive board position of vice president of the chapter. As a member of the fraternity, I personally experienced hazing.

Even though I vehemently and vocally opposed the practice of hazing, I recall the extreme difficulty and personal courage it took to confront my peers who did not oppose the practice. I often reflect back on my college fraternity experience and wish I displayed more courage to stop many hazing practices from occurring. I also witnessed abuse of alcohol by peers in the fraternity. I did not often drink alcohol in college, and I rarely engaged in what I considered excessive or abusive alcohol use. My biological father struggled with alcoholism, which always made me very cautious and aware of my own drinking behaviors.

After college I pursued a career in higher education student affairs. At the time of this study, I was employed by a university that shared the characteristics of other universities from which the participants in the study were selected. I had worked at this

particular university for over a decade. My entire professional career of over 15 years has been in higher education student affairs. The vast majority of those years I spent advising and supporting the fraternity and sorority community at two different universities. I have extensive experience working with various students across dozens of fraternities and sororities. Throughout my career I have worked with hundreds of students and student leaders, as well as many other fraternity and sorority professional advisors at universities across the country. I have also worked with many of the professional staff and advisors employed or volunteering for the national offices or leadership boards that oversee the university chapters for whom I was responsible in my job. As a university professional, I have encountered countless cases and situations of hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct within the context of fraternities and sororities. Because of my job, I have a great deal of experience addressing these problem behaviors, holding students accountable as a result, and providing education, workshops, and leadership development programs to prevent such behaviors within the fraternities and sororities. When this study was conducted, part of my professional job responsibilities included supervising the Leadership Center within the university’s

Division of Student Affairs. The Leadership Center conducts leadership education opportunities and programs for all students at the university for which I worked. My job responsibilities include supervision of the Leadership Center, as well as the office that oversees all of the social fraternities and sororities.

From my own fraternity experience and throughout my professional career, I have a passion for addressing problem behaviors in fraternities. I am fascinated by the occurrence of hazing in particular. I often wonder why such behavior occurs and how

such behavior can be prevented. I maintain a belief that problem behaviors, such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct, are against the proclaimed values of fraternities and sororities and, therefore, have no place in these organizations. I also believe that strong, or appropriate, leadership is an answer for addressing these behaviors. Even as a student member of a fraternity, I have always held close to the belief that fraternities and sororities should be values-driven experiences for their members.

Throughout the study, I maintained awareness of my preconception and biases of the general leadership and organizational cultures of fraternities. My own experiences, as well as personal beliefs and morals, informed my personal biases, as well as my intuitive ability to understand the cultures I was studying. As the researcher and instrument of data collection for this study, and being a university administrator, I recognize the need to assure the participants of this study that despite my ongoing profession, their shared comments or beliefs will in no way affect the status of their organizations at their respective universities.

Methodology

Characteristics of Case Study Methods

This study followed a case study, qualitative research design method. Case study research targets a bounded system, uses multiple sources of information, and explores the context of the case being studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In contrast to an ethnography approach in which the goal is to explain how a culture works, a case study approach can still seek to understand a culture, but within a single or multiple cases

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). The target of this study was a bounded system in that it looked at the courageous leadership of two particular fraternities.

More specifically, this study used an intensive case study approach. Eriksson and Kovalainen (2016) described intensive case study research as the “elaboration of cultural meanings and sense-making processes in specific contexts” (p. 134). The intensive case study research is geared toward understanding the internal workings of the phenomenon being researched by “providing a thick, holistic and contextualized description and interpretation” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 133). On the contrary, an extensive case study research approach compares multiple cases for the purpose of developing a theory so as to generalize the findings (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016).

Moreover, the case study design of this study was founded in both descriptive and exploratory case study research. “The main goal of the descriptive case study is to assess a sample in detail and in depth, based on an articulation of a descriptive theory”

(Tobin, 2010, p. 2). The descriptive case study looks to find and describe or explain patterns of the topic of study; this description is usually in relation to theoretical foundations (Merriam, 1991; Tobin, 2010). This study was descriptive in nature in that it aimed to describe the courageous leadership culture of a particular case as informed by a model of courageous followership. At the same time, this study was seeking to explore the leadership culture and behaviors of the agricultural fraternities of interest.

Tobin (2010) argued that there is overlap in the types of case study methods:

To some degree, from the perspective of positivist research, all types of case studies can overlap, because they have the following similar aims: (a) to depict the relatively incontrovertible details of the people, place, events, transactions, and processes of the case – a description that others would likely make if they had been there; (b) to give a clear picture of what is happening, without making judgments – an organized and coherent presentation of the phenomenon; and (c) to develop and expand on relevant concepts (p. 2).

Although the types of case study research may vary and overlap, case study research is characterized by some fundamentals which make this style of research unique. Case study research focuses on a specific case or a bounded unit, meaning that it can be identified within a specific context or within specific parameters (Ary et al.,

2010; Creswell & Poth, 2018). This bounded system may be a person, a social organization, a process, or a community (Ary et al., 2010; Merriam, 1991). Case study research often involves the study or analysis of multiple data sources obtained through multiple methods, such as interviews, review of archival data, observations, focus groups, or review of relevant documents (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2016; Yin, 2003). Case study research is also characterized by the pursuit of a rich, deep, and holistic understanding of the case being studied (Creswell & Poth,

2018; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016; Yin, 2003). Finally, case study is, at its core, tied to the experiential essence of the phenomenon, the experiences of the people in the case being studied, and the researcher conducting the data collection and then making meaning (Stake, 2008).

Participants

The targeted population for this study was college student leaders of two agricultural fraternities: Alpha Gamma Rho and FarmHouse. Using purposive sampling, the chapter presidents of the two fraternities from chosen universities were invited to participate in this study. A purposive sample is a type of non-probability sample, meaning that it cannot be used to make statistical inferences or generalizations to a population (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Rather, in purposive sampling, the researcher is purposeful in selecting participants for the study who can provide valuable and relevant information related to the research topic (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell & Poth, 2018). An

extreme/deviant case purposive sampling was used for this study by selecting the chapter presidents of the fraternities from various selected universities. Since this study explored the leadership culture of students within agricultural fraternities, the deviant cases were the positional leaders of those fraternity chapters. Positional leaders of student organizations are those students in a titled leadership position (i.e., president, vice president, etc.). People within an extreme/deviant case sample are the outliers from the norm of the target population; they stand out as more likely to practice a behavior of study (Crossman, 2019; Etikan et al., 2016). In describing extreme/deviant case sampling, Crossman (2019) argued that by studying the outliers from the norm, in this case the positional leaders, the researcher can learn more about the regular behaviors of a population. The researcher believed that these positional leaders, the presidents, would provide the best information regarding courageous leadership culture and behaviors within the fraternities. Leadership is not merely defined by a positional role; leadership can be practiced by anyone within an organization. However, there is some authority and responsibility for the organization associated with fraternity presidents (Drout & Corsoro, 2003; Kelley, 2008; What a great fraternity president brings to the table, n.d.). “Some of the duties of a fraternity president include acting as chief executive, managing special meetings and chapter expenses, overseeing officers and committees, enforcing chapter bylaws and serving as chapter representative (What a great fraternity president brings to the table, n.d., para. 4).

The college students that were invited to participate in this study were chapter presidents of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity and FarmHouse Fraternity. A total of 40 student chapter presidents were sent an invitation to participate (23 from Alpha Gamma

Rho and 17 from FarmHouse) from 23 different universities that met the criteria of interest. The universities from which the students were invited were all large Research

One, land-grant institutions from the Midwest and Southeastern regions of the United

States. These criteria were based on the 2018 Carnegie Classification of Institutions

(News and announcements: 2018 classification update, 2018). These universities were also selected based on the prevalence of chapters from both fraternities on those campuses. Also invited to participate, for the purpose of providing a more holistic view of the fraternity leadership culture, were professional staff members of the national offices of both Alpha Gamma Rho and FarmHouse.

After invitations were sent to 40 undergraduate chapter presidents, a total of four scheduled and participated in an interview with the researcher. Two fraternity presidents responded to the initial invitation and showed interest in participating, but further contact with these individuals remained unanswered and they did not participate. One person from the administration of both national headquarters offices were invited, agreed to participate, and were interviewed. Therefore, there were a total of six participants that were interviewed in this case study.

Data Collection

Semi-structured, personal interviews were conducted with the participants of this study. Semi-structured interviews allow for some structure or guidance in the interview process, while keeping the tone of the interview informal and conversational (Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2016). With semi-structured interviews, the researcher works from pre- determined questions, or an interview protocol, and themes while still having the

“possibility to vary the wording and order of questions in each interview”(Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2016, p. 94). An interview protocol was used for this study containing open-

ended questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) argued that one-on-one interviews with participants should “involve unstructured and generally open-ended questions that are few in number and intended to elicit views and opinions from the participants” (p. 187).

Invitations to participate in a one-on-one interview were emailed to all fraternity student presidents targeted in the sample population. Those students that accepted the invitation were asked to complete the informed consent form, and an interview was scheduled. The interviews were conducted online through Zoom® videoconferencing software. The interviews were intended to range from 45-90 minutes in length. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for data analysis. This same procedure was used to invite the staff members from the national fraternities’ headquarters. One staff member was interviewed from each of the two fraternities. During their interviews, some student president participants identified other student leaders from their chapters that might have been interested in being interviewed as part of this case study. These participants, however, never followed up with the researcher to provide contact information for those student leaders. All interview transcripts were initially transcribed using Otter.ai online software. The transcripts were then double-checked for accuracy by listening to the recorded interviews and corrections were made manually by the researcher.

Documents deemed relevant to this study were obtained from both Alpha

Gamma Rho national fraternity and FarmHouse international fraternity. Documents relating to fraternity policies governing problem behaviors, accountability, and fraternity values and general behavioral expectations were collected from their respective websites or provided by the headquarters participants.

Data Analysis

Analysis of data in qualitative research involves organizing the data collected, synthesizing the information, and making meaning of the findings (Ary et al., 2010).

Qualitative data analysis is a process of piecing through the immense data collected and making sense of what is learned or found (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Analysis of case study research begins first with detailing the case and the context in which it exists

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). The data from this study were analyzed by describing the case context and by following these steps as outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2018):

1. Organize the data and get it ready for analysis. This includes transcribing interviews, organizing documents collected, and typing any field notes.

2. Read over all of the data collected. This step should involve an initial synthesis of the data and reflection upon its overall meaning.

3. Begin coding the data that has been collected. Coding “involves taking text data or pictures gathered during data collection, segmenting sentences (or paragraphs) or images into categories, and labeling those categories with a term, often based in the actual language of the participant” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 193).

4. Create themes and descriptions from the data.

Once initial coding and thematic analysis occurred, results were then interpreted to generate overall findings and implications from the data collected. All relevant documents collected from the fraternities were also analyzed for themes and compared to the findings from the interviews.

Measures of Validation

Trustworthiness and validity of this study were attempted in several ways. First, the researcher engaged in reflexivity. Reflexivity is the concept of the researcher engaging in “self-understanding about the biases, values, and experiences that he or she brings to the qualitative research study (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 229). Reflecting

on one’s biases and experiences prior to conducting data collection and analysis is designed to help the researchers be aware of their own biases and leanings in order to avoid those throughout the research and writing process (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell &

Creswell, 2018; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam, 1991). The researcher wrote about the reflexive process in this chapter. Additionally, the researcher practiced reflexivity with emergent data collection and themes.

Triangulation was also used to help ensure quality of the study. Triangulation is the practice of using different methods or using different sources of data to support singular or similar conclusions (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Creswell &

Poth, 2018; Merriam, 1991; Stake, 2008). It involves “corroborating evidence from different sources to shed light on a theme or perspective” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p.

260). This study triangulated the data from interviews with the fraternity student presidents, the interviews with the fraternity national office professionals, and the fraternity policies and written standards. Discrepant or outlying themes were examined by the researcher and evaluated as relevant or influenced by bias of the researcher.

Member checks were conducted as part of the data collection and data analysis.

According to Merriam (1991), member checks involves “taking data and interpretations back to the people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible” (p. 169). Maxwell (2013) referred to this method as respondent validation and said it was “an important way of identifying your biases and misunderstandings of what you observed” (p. 127). Member checks, or respondent validation, occurred throughout the interviews. Ideas or interpretations of the participants’ comments were often synthesized and repeated back to them for clarification. Additionally, emergent themes

were emailed to each participant, and they were given an opportunity to clarify the emergent findings.

The quality of the interview questions was checked prior to the interviews being conducted. The research protocol questions used for the one-on-one interviews with the fraternity presidents were reviewed with a small focus group of fraternity presidents at one university. This focus group of fraternity presidents did not include members of the invited fraternities at the focus of this study. These questions were asked to the focus group so that the questions could be assessed for clarity and understanding. The interview questions were adjusted in a way that was easily understood by the focus group student participants and did not illicit concern or distrust of the interviewer.

Chapter Summary

A qualitative approach was used to conduct this study. A case study design was followed, and one-on-one interviews were conducted with the participants. Participants included chapter presidents of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity and FarmHouse Fraternity, as well as professional staff members from the national fraternity offices. Documents from the fraternities were also reviewed and analyzed. The data were analyzed for meaning by coding the interview transcripts and documents and categorizing those codes into themes.

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

Overview

The purpose of this study was to examine courageous leadership practiced by agricultural fraternity leaders when faced with addressing problem behaviors. Problem behaviors committed by members of fraternities were initially identified as behaviors such as hazing, alcohol abuse, or sexual misconduct. These problem behaviors have created significant issues for fraternities and have been associated with damaging consequences, such as injury or even death of the fraternity members or others (Allan &

Madden, 2008; McMurtrie, 2015; Nuwer, 1999). The research questions for this case study research were:

1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity; and

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity?

The findings in this chapter were presented by research question. Significant themes were found after the data was analyzed. Those themes are discussed in this chapter corresponding to each research question. Evidence, such as quotes from the participants and excerpts from the fraternity documents, were shared to support the themes and subthemes reported.

Case Study Overview

The participants of this case study were associated with two fraternities with agricultural roots or connections. Alpha Gamma Rho was founded on “April 4, 1908, when two local fraternities combined. Alpha Gamma Rho founded at The Ohio State

University on October 10, 1904, and Delta Rho Sigma founded at the University of

Illinois on February 6, 1906” (History, n.d.). At the time of this research, the fraternity had 71 active chapters across the United States (Chapters, n.d.). Alpha Gamma Rho was “the fraternity sharing a common bond within a dynamic, global agriculture committed to fostering the highest values and providing each and every brother with superior lifelong personal development and professional success” (Alpha Gamma Rho:

About, n.d.). FarmHouse was founded in 1905 by men “studying agriculture at the

University of Missouri” (History of Farmhouse, n.d.). According to the website,

FarmHouse “has flourished in the 110+ years since. With 48 chapters chartered across

North America, from coast to coast, and 30,000 men becoming lifelong members through these chapters” (History of Farmhouse, n.d.). At the time of this study,

FarmHouse listed 38 active chapter and colonies throughout the United States and

Canada (Current active chapters, n.d.).

There were a total of six participants that were interviewed for this case study.

Two of the student leader participants were from Alpha Gamma Rho, and the other two were from FarmHouse fraternity. All four were presidents of their respective and separate fraternity chapters. Two additional participants that were interviewed were staff members at the headquarters, one from FarmHouse and the other from Alpha Gamma

Rho. Documents from both fraternities were also used to create a rich, detailed account of the fraternities in the case study. Documents included bylaws, a chapter and association policy manual, a fraternity constitution, a mutual agreement document, and values guiding documents. Pseudonyms were given to each of the six participants.

Participant Overview

Cal was a staff member of the national fraternity office of one of the fraternities.

His job included “pretty frequent” chapter interactions, as well as regular interactions with alumni volunteers for the fraternity. He was college educated. He had worked in the business sector prior to working at his fraternity’s headquarters. He had “quite a bit” of responsibility for the leadership development programming for the fraternity undergraduates. Cal has been a member of a fraternity since college.

Hal was also a staff member at his fraternity’s headquarters office. He was also college educated and worked in the business sector before working with his fraternity.

His responsibilities included, among other things, “general strategy for the organization.”

He has had extensive experience working in higher education. He has been a member of a fraternity since college.

Everson was chapter president for his fraternity. He was relatively new to the role of president, only having served as president for a couple of months. He came from “a farming background.” His responsibilities as president of his fraternity included “mostly overseeing the chapter.” He was president of a chapter with a fraternity house. The chapter to which he belonged had more than 100 members. As president of his chapter,

Everson lived in the fraternity house.

Booker was serving as chapter president for his fraternity. He was a more seasoned chapter president. He had been president for nearly a year. He was raised in a “smaller town,” “not completely rural but also not . . .large either.” He reported that there was some “distance” between him and the “farm generation.” He was the first person in his family to belong to a Greek-lettered organization. Booker equated his

responsibilities as president to those of “running a small business.” He was president of a chapter with a fraternity house, and he did live in the chapter house. Booker’s fraternity chapter had more than 100 members.

Art was also a more seasoned president of his chapter. He was coming to the end of his one-year term as president at the time of our interview. Art identified as coming from “rural America.” He saw his responsibilities as organizing meetings with chapter and with stakeholders and advisors, and he was the “accountability partner” to all the members of his executive board. Art had served in at least one other executive board positions prior to being president. He lived in the fraternity house of the chapter.

His chapter also had over 100 members.

Wendell was also a relatively new chapter president at the time of our interview.

He had served as president only for a few weeks. He had been on the executive board prior to being president. He listed his responsibilities as “culture management,”

“maintaining relationships” with stakeholders, and being “kind of in charge of” the executive board team. Wendell was not the first person in his family to attend college or to be in a Greek-lettered organization. His chapter membership was nearly 100 men. He did live in the chapter’s fraternity house.

Research Question 1 – How Courage Was Practiced

Exploring how courage was practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors related to the first research question of this study. Significant and important findings were extracted from the interviews with the student fraternity chapter leaders, the fraternity headquarter staff members, and the guiding documents and policies of both fraternities. Three major themes emerged related to how courage was

practiced among fraternity leaders, including (1) common purpose/shared values, (2) assuming responsibility for common purpose, and (3) challenging behaviors.

Common Purpose/Shared Values

Across the two fraternities that accounted for the case study in this research, a common purpose and shared organizational values emerged as relevant to courageous leadership and courageous actions of leaders. Within this theme of a common purpose and shared values, three subthemes also emerged: (1) bettering self, (2) personal values, and (3) interpersonal relationships. Both fraternities had several implicit and explicit organizational values, but the concepts that made up these subthemes were those values found to be in common across both fraternities, those reported by the participants, and those that set a foundation for how courage was practiced among the organizations. To understand how courage was practiced by the leaders, it was first important to describe the context for the organizations’ common purpose towards which the courage was directed.

Bettering self

FarmHouse had an expressly written motto of “building men” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 1). Alpha Gamma Rho listed its purpose was to “make better men”

(National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 3). Alpha Gamma Rho looked to better its members by surrounding them with “influences tending to encourage individual endeavor, resourcefulness, and aggressive effort along lines making for the development of better mental, social, moral and physical qualities” (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 3). FarmHouse stated its objective as “building the Whole Man through four-fold development: Intellectually, Spiritually,

Socially/Morally, and Physically” (Our objective, n.d.). Cal talked about his national headquarters’ responsibility in bettering the members:

And so how do we exemplify that? It’s through our day to day interactions. It’s living our purpose by providing a world class experience for all of our member to engage from the time they’re initiated to the time that they graduate and beyond. So really, I think a lot of what I try to do day to day, what I hope is instilled with all of our staff, as well as our consultants, you know, to be honest, I hope that’s what they’re doing. Really, it’s how we’re exemplifying our values. It’s everything that we do.

Everson understood his fraternity’s purpose was, among other things, to development the members and make them better individuals. Booker expressed how it was the responsibility of the fraternity to better its members:

And, you know, the guys around here, they're kinda, they're not, they're not completely self-made, but they’ve got a lot of internal drive. And so that, that kind of helps us across the board to shape and build a culture that is scholarship based but then also focuses on rounding out us as individuals also.

The FarmHouse Statement of Purpose (Philosophy of respect, n.d.) included:

Whatever contributes to the realization of a man’s highest potential, we are for, and we believe our kind of brotherhood can make many such contributions. This is man-building. Whatever prevents or reduces the realization of a man’s highest potential, we are against, and we know that many kinds of association do prevent and reduce that realization (para. 2).

Personal development or personal growth appeared in the data to be connected to the fraternities’ value of bettering the self, or bettering of the fraternity members. One of Alpha Gamma Rho’s stated values was to “foster lifelong personal development through innovative educational, leadership, and social opportunities” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d., para. 7). One of Alpha Gamma Rho’s written principles sought to “teach men how to live and work together, striving by precept and example for the personal development of the individual in the training of mind and body” (National constitution of

Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 3). When talking about the values of his fraternity,

Hal said that “one of them is achievement, and this idea of personal betterment.”

Wendell joined his fraternity, in part, because the fraternity valued personal development:

I ended up at [fraternity] mostly just because there's a lot of really genuine people around here, and I realized, as opposed to some of the other places I was looking, the guys around here weren't really in it for the status. They're in it for something a little deeper, they were more concerned with personal growth, friendship, things like that.

Everson felt that he had grown as a person because of his fraternity experience.

Reflecting on his fraternity’s purpose of bettering its members, Everson said:

I can really, really relate to that and how I’ve grown as a person and what that means to me and [fraternity] is how, like, bringing guys together that I know all struggle with coming away from their family background, or might come from really rough backgrounds and coming together in one place . . .”

He continued in talking about how the fraternity was a factor in his personal development:

And now I'm stepping up and now I'm president of a fraternity. I never, ever had any ties to Greek life, wanted to be in Greek life. But, you know, I'm really, it's been really foundational to me for my professional development, academic development, and really social development of meeting people.

The data showed that the fraternities also valued a sense of professional development or skill development for the members as part of the experience in being in the fraternity. The concept of personal development was associated with aspects of the fraternity experience that would better the members as a whole person. The professional development value presented as members being better, more skilled, professionals in their chosen field after completing their college education. Art spoke about how connecting and networking with alumni of the fraternity was an important aspect of professional development or success for members. He said that:

everyone comes from rural [state] and I would say 75% of the guys here are going to go home and farm or they're going to be in an ag related field, whether it's a seed dealer, so they're going to be working with these [inaudible] clients, and we have career fairs where alumni come back for the businesses or whatever, whoever they're representing now, come back and try to recruit from us. So just even, it's pretty easy to see that this chapter goes beyond just your undergrad career, that it's a connection throughout.

Everson also addressed a sense of professional development that comes with being in the fraternity, and how that was an integral part of the mission of his fraternity. In mentioning his fraternity’s mission of bettering its men, he said, “And through that, I mean, through a common fellowship of agriculture just really, I mean, it’s a simple statement, but there’s a lot to that to me.” Everson went on to talk about how the professional development of members was tied to fraternity relationships and networking. In talking about his fraternity’s values, he said, “An those are essential to, really I think, professional development to me; it’s really helped me gain internships.” He continued by saying:

I credit a lot of that to [fraternity], because alumni have helped recommend me to interviews; like there’s the network of alumni, but, and that really just lines up with [bettering members] and how we, like, I guess, conduct our business as a chapter every day, but just the accountability we can have as brothers through that.

Cal referred to the value of professional success for his fraternity’s members:

All we say and do is done in a positive and professional image, that we’re promoting that lifelong career success and education, leadership and social opportunities, that we’re engaging with our colleges and universities…And above all, that we’re recognizing, rewarding our chapters and our individuals for that professional success, that is consistent with our . . .values.

Leadership development was identified as part of the professional development or skill development valued for the members of the fraternity. Alpha Gamma Rho included among its list of values to, “Engage all brothers in professional development,

promoting lifelong career success” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d., para. 8). Hal pointed out that a strength of his fraternity was in preparation of leadership or leadership development:

You know, I would say that, I mean, [Fraternity] has a pretty strong commitment to, 1) preparation of leadership, particularly at the student level. . . .It's about readiness for your position, it's about working together as a leadership team, and about personal skill development or, you know, what used to be called soft skill development, I hope, I will call critical skill development.

Similarly, Cal saw it as the responsibility of the fraternity to build the leadership and professional skills of its members:

So I think what we owe it to, as members of our home office in the national fraternity is, is, is exposing our young men to leadership opportunities through career readiness, workshopping career readiness, and career fair exposure during our national fraternity events, focusing on the resume building aspect, and the hard and soft skills that can be a strong use to them when it comes to interacting with alums, certainly from a university or just [fraternity] alums . . .

Everson recognized that leadership opportunities were an important value of the fraternity. He said that the “[fraternity] really provides the opportunity for you to take leadership roles. There's always a leadership role in the house.” When asked about the values of his fraternity, Wendell said that “the essential characteristics of I think just about every fraternity are essentially the same, and its service, scholarship, and leadership.”

Related to personal development of its members, a sense of high achievement, particularly around scholarship excellence and sense of moral character, emerged as part of the value of bettering self. Alpha Gamma Rho valued “a pursuit of academic excellence among all our members” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d., para. 5).

Additionally, the fraternity urged “excellence in scholarship and provides encouragement and recognition for intellectual attainment in addition to rewards given

by the college” (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 4). As part of its overall purpose, FarmHouse stated in a public document that it bettered its members when “brothers gather together in a community that inspires continued improvement as a scholar and as a man of high character” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 1). FarmHouse also acknowledged that it encouraged “members to strive for what is highest and noblest in their contribution to a safe campus culture for all students”

(Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 5). As a part of their publicly proclaimed values,

Alpha Gamma Rho listed its desire to “consistently perform as a professional, integrity- driven, world class organization committed to the highest of standards and driven to recruit men of the highest potential” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d., para. 3). When asked about his fraternity’s values, Wendell said:

Yeah, I'd say, um, around here the two that we really try to, that we've just kind of ended up focusing on the most, are that scholarship pillar. . . .And, I think, I mean, the, the scholarship one is just a matter of people being in a community where they're constantly pushed.

Wendell talked about personal fulfillment in seeing members of the fraternity exceed and succeed. He said, “I think on a personal level, it's just, it's just fun to see your friends succeed.” Wendell further supported this finding when he said that his fraternity had a “tradition and a culture of people always being high achieving.” Booker spoke about his chapter’s “scholarship drive” being a part of their culture. He was referring to the drive of his members to achieve high academic goals. He acknowledged that his members were “very, very cognizant of the fact that, yes, fraternity is fun, we do a lot of great things, but we’re still here to go to school first.” Cal spoke about this value in the sense that members had a responsibility to help other members be successful and achieve for themselves. He said, “It's, it's bringing those, bringing those hard working

values, those day-in, day-out, helping others be successful, helping others achieve their goals, and when we aren't doing that or helping our brothers out, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.” When talking about his fraternity’s values, Hal said, “There's one about that, if you look closely it talks about, we talk about learning a lot and academics.”

He reported that his fraternity was “really strong” at academics. He furthered this idea by saying:

In my experience, [Fraternity] has a very low tolerance for, for academic achievement. And so there's this courageous thought that they are students first. And there's a wide [inaudible] buy-in of our chapters, that students are there to get a degree and they shouldn't, they shouldn't be there to detract them.

All of these aspects were seen as the fraternities bettering their members.

Personal betterment was part of the common purpose of the organization. Personal values were another subtheme within the common purpose/shared values theme.

Personal values

In describing the common values or common purpose of the fraternity, several of the participants referenced a sense of morality and personal values that were important to, or certainly they played a part in, the carrying out of the fraternities’ common purpose. Personal values were also tied to the overall values, or common values, of the organizations.

Morality of the fraternity members, or personal morals, were significant in the fraternities’ shared values system, or common purpose. Morals and ethics were in and of themselves something of value to the fraternities in this case study. Although it was not explicitly identified as a personal value set, Booker alluded to an integral part of his personal belief and values system. When he addressed what he reported as low

incidents of problem behaviors within his fraternity that were incongruent with the fraternity values, Booker referenced the role of faith. He said:

We're just, like I said earlier, very faith driven. And so when, when faith plays a role in it, it's, it's kind of hard to argue because, you know, it's all it's all, there's a book, the Bible, and, and if it goes against it, then we're almost always an agreement that you need to you need to change your ways. And we understand that, you know, maybe not everybody is a, is a strict following believer, but you know, we still kind of have the culture and the values that back up that type of, that type of person, that type of leadership.

Booker continued by talking about how faith factored in to how the chapter functioned and how members lived their lives:

We have a, a chaplains’ time where, you know, we get a little five-minute devotional from one of our chaplains. . . .And so, and really just the culture, you know, we have every once in a while we'll do church as a house to where everybody goes to the same church in town and, and just kind of, you know, does do our religious piece in that way. And there's house Bible studies, and I mean, so it's interwoven all throughout our programming. . . .It’s all over the place, and if, when it's not in strict programming time set aside, it showcases that through our individual members living it out in their lives without, you know, actual, the actual set time, you know, everybody just kind of lives that way and their daily, daily basis.

In other ways, morality was mentioned more directly. Morality in this case study was viewed as inherent to the individual members, something both personal but also incorporated into the common values of the organization. In one of its governing documents, Alpha Gamma Rho accepted “its role in the moral and spiritual development of the individual. It endeavors to develop those finer qualities of ethics conduct, which add to the inner growth of man” (National constitution of Alpha Gamma

Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 4). The fraternity stated within its purpose the “moral development” of its members (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d.. p. 3). Morality appeared to be seen as a two-way relationship. Members came into the fraternity with a sense of morality that guided their behaviors, but also the fraternity

experience influenced its members’ moral being. FarmHouse demonstrated this two- way relationship in its governing documents when it acknowledged its responsibility to

“exert influence toward high standards of personal, social, and moral conduct upon its members” and “that the college years are times particularly important to the testing and shaping of individual attitudes, beliefs, and values” (FarmHouse Fraternity, 2020, p. 4).

The fraternity pointed to its members’ personal morals as key to all behavior carried out as a fraternity man. It stated, “Through education and mature adult guidance, we equip men with the tools necessary to live according to their morals and understand the consequences of their choices” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 7). Referring to one of the shared, foundational values of his fraternity, Wendell pointed out that “we want to be a social fraternity but at the same time, we want to do it in a way that's, I mean, morally acceptable and, um, is something you'd be proud of at the end of the day.” Hal identified morality as one of the specifically adopted values of his fraternity. Similar to what Booker described, Hal also said that “faith can be an important guide for many of our members as well.” Cal also alluded to the value of morality and the role it had played in his fraternity. He talked about a concept of “moral courage” practiced by leaders. He said that this moral courage was “something that you were raised more on.”

It was “what you feel is right and wrong,” he said.

Throughout his interview, Everson referenced several times the importance of doing the “right thing,” both from the perspective of his own actions as a leader and the actions of his fellow fraternity members. When talking about common values of his fraternity, he said that:

I mean, they're all great guys. I mean, I would just say, I would put any one of my brothers on the spot and a situation and know that they would do the right thing, is probably the best way to say it.

This morality of doing the “right thing” was personal for Everson. It was connected to not only how he defined courage in his leadership, but also how he practiced it. For example, when talking about how he addressed problem behaviors, he said, “I just try to handle it the right way . . .just go back to my values and remember what I’m doing, what's right.” Another example was when he talked about his role as a leader and having the “courage to do the right thing.”

Participants in this case study also expressed the importance of personal values attributed to their upbringing, or how they were raised. There was particular reference to an agricultural background and upbringing that translated to an emergence of agricultural values for these participants. Several of the participants found common ground with fellow fraternity members based on these common personal values. These personal values influenced how the leaders behaved within the organization. Although a specific example of these personal values was not shared among all participants, personal agricultural values were referenced from at least three of the six participants.

Therefore, it was of note.

In some instances, the participants were attracted to their fraternity, or found value in the fraternity experience, because of shared personal values with others.

Everson spoke about his connection to a “farming background” and alluded to that as a factor that attracted him to his fraternity. In a joking tone, but still very telling, Everson told a story about first showing interest in joining his fraternity:

And, I don't know, I found, I found, walked by [fraternity], quite frankly, saw their trucks in the back [and] knew those guys are me, so I rushed their house and got in and I've loved it ever since and really have grown a lot.

In connection to his farming background, he continued that thought of why he joined his fraternity:

But I guess the thing that brought me to it mostly was just the common, common goals and common values of the guys that were around me. I finally could find friends that dream the same way as me and wanted the same things as me, or similar things, similar values, but ah, yeah, and that was the biggest thing.

When talking about values, Everson also referred to personal growth and development through a “common fellowship of agriculture.” Everson said many of his fellow members came from a “rough” background, and he said that was “very similar” to “ag backgrounds.” He continued by saying, “we all have a common value of, a shared goal of wanting to do something – most, not everyone, but most of us want to do something in agriculture.”

Art also talked about common ground among his membership being connected to an agricultural background and agricultural professional ambitions. He also translated that agricultural upbringing to personal attributes of the members that were of value to the fraternity. He said that many of his members identified with an agricultural background and because of that they had a common call to support one another.

Specifically, when talking about the agricultural commonality among his fraternity, he said, “But I'd say we always have that root and even just beyond like, our studies or academic pursuits that everyone comes from rural America has that rural feel, and everyone's got each other's back.”

Other personal values were connected to agricultural values. For example,

Everson shared, “I mean, I’m coming from an ag background. I love, I mean, I have

those values, the farm values, I have Christian values, very strong family-oriented values.” Everson also felt that members with an agricultural background were passionate about their personal beliefs. He said, “I mean, they're very, very passionate about what they, these guys believe in. I mean, especially in the ag field.” Everson attributed an agricultural background to valuing self-sufficiency and taking initiative:

I'd say the biggest thing with our guys and what we're kind of unique at is, and what I'm really proud of is, I mean, a lot of us come from ag backgrounds. We like to do, I mean, like to be as self-sufficient as possible.

Cal also referred to this personal value being connected to an agricultural background, particularly as it related to characteristics of leadership:

So I think leadership is, is exemplified through the, the traditional rural values that maybe you see as is not being too big to lend a hand, to get your hands dirty, to step in for the betterment of a, of a cause to help your brothers out whenever you can when possible. So we're looking for that, I don't want to say folksy or down home, down home behavior, because anybody exhibits that when you came from a rural background or not.

In talking about leaders displaying courage, Cal referenced several values tied to an agricultural upbringing for fraternity members. He said:

I feel like you could probably relate a lot of it back to, you know, your agricultural upbringing, your production upbringing that you’d hear from a lot of your collegiate members is that it's, it's what they learn from their dad while out on the tractor, plowing up the back 40, or helping combine, or helping harvest. It's the hard work values and challenging those who don't feel, you know, something is important or necessary to the benefit of chapter.

Several of these values that Cal attributed to an agricultural lifestyle were found throughout this case study, such as bettering self, interpersonal relationships and support, and bettering the organization.

Interpersonal relationships

Interpersonal relationships also emerged from the findings as a subtheme that related to the fraternities’ common purpose and shared values. Words such as friendship, brotherhood, community, and respect were observed or heard throughout the case study, all of which contributed to the foundation of how courage was practiced by fraternity leaders. This subtheme established evidence of fraternity members viewing their organizations as social organizations, and the interpersonal relationships among the membership were both fostered by and an inevitable byproduct of carrying out the fraternities’ common purpose.

Supporting and guiding documents of both fraternities showed their purpose to include a responsibility to fostering interpersonal relationships. Attention to development of “social . . .qualities” and “fellowship” towards the “best social . . .development” was observed within Alpha Gamma Rho (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho

Fraternity, n.d., p. 3). The fraternity also acknowledged its role in strengthening social relationships:

Alpha Gamma Rho is the center of much of the social life of each fraternity member. As such, it seeks to develop the social graces, the art of good living, the development of courtesy and kindness. Good manners, good taste and good companionship are a part of the training of every member (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 4).

The fraternity also proclaimed itself to be “a fraternity with high brotherhood attainments and every effort should be made to develop and recognize tolerance, consideration and understanding of others” (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p.

5). Another example could be found in Alpha Gamma Rho’s objects within its constitution:

To develop within our group an appreciation of the desirability of binding all our members through ties of sincere and enduring brotherhood so that through life the best qualities of each shall be encouraged by precept, example and friendly criticism (National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 5).

FarmHouse also demonstrated the value of interpersonal relationships with the words

“fellowship” and “unity” included in its shared purpose and guiding documents

(Philosophy of respect, n.d. p. 1). A primary objective of the fraternity was to develop its men both “socially” and “morally” (Our objective, n.d, para. 1). In one of its documents governing all chapters, the fraternity gave credence to its common purpose of fostering interpersonal relationships by stating one of its policies:

It is a college home in which a man can be: creative, share responsibilities, make lasting friendships, express his inner self in an atmosphere of trust and understanding, learn lessons in living in a community of which he is an integral part, be accepted as a participant, learn the essence of brotherhood, and learn the caring of one man – and of a community of men – for the individual, the brother, for the community and for the mutual welfare (FarmHouse Fraternity, 2020, p. 12).

Cal provided insight from his perspective on how brotherhood was beyond friendship.

He differentiated brotherhood from friendship, while still recognizing how the two were related. It was not just enough to be friends, members were brothers and brothers where at a higher level of commitment to one another and the fraternity. Brotherhood included a responsibility to further the purpose of the organization. For example, when he talked about a brother, or member, not fulfilling his individual responsibility toward the organization’s purpose, he said, “he can be a great friend, but he may no longer be a good fit as a fraternity brother.”

The fraternity leaders that participated in this case study referenced how interpersonal relationships, friendships, were a valuable part of their fraternity experience. For example, recall that Everson found in the fraternity “friends that dream

the same way as me.” Prior to joining the fraternity, he “struggled finding some friend groups” with interests similar to his own. He also recognized the fraternity as having developed his interpersonal relationships, in addition to his professional and academic development. He said, “I’m really, it’s been really foundational to me, for my professional development, academic development, and really social development of meeting people.” Wendell also said that a reason for his joining his fraternity was because the people were in it, in part, for “friendship.” In reflecting on his leadership style, his leadership of a chapter within a large organization, Wendell recognized the friendship that existed among the fraternity membership. He said, “I’m in charge of my friends.” This showed that within the fraternity, the members were friends first, and that friendship is a valuable part of the fraternity experience. Booker commented on his leadership as like leading a business, but one in which interpersonal relationships were a value. “So it’s just really great experience. It's almost like running a small business really, just a little more fun because you have the brotherhood aspect.” Art found common ground with his fellow fraternity members around a rural upbringing. He credited this common background to paving the way for brotherhood being strong within his fraternity. That brotherhood translated to support for one another:

And we all know where we're coming from and what we grew up with and that, this, I'd say [our] chapter excels at brotherhood the most. I would call anyone and they would do anything for me at any time without a doubt.

For Art, brotherhood was one of the most important values of the fraternity. That value of brotherhood was also connected to some of the other subthemes under common purpose and shared values, such as bettering self. For instance, when giving an example of how brotherhood was exhibited from his perspective as a leader, Art talked

about networking with alumni. An alum offered him an opportunity for professional development before looking more broadly because Art was a fraternity brother. Art said:

That's the kind of stuff that I think really like, our values, is that it goes beyond just your undergrad experience, that he knows I'm from [my hometown], he knows I have my head on right that this could be a possibility for you. And I'd like to offer it to a [fraternity name] before I open it to the public.

Art, in fact, prioritized brotherhood as a value over some problem behaviors that did not align with the fraternity common purpose:

I'd much rather have three brothers to get in trouble together, than to have one be going awry with some people that aren’t part of the brotherhood. That, I think that is probably the biggest culture, or goes against the culture when they're not actively participating. They're not with their brothers. They're not making any effort to know their brothers. That they're just, it doesn't even seem like they're in the fraternity.

Respect for others, both within and outside of the fraternity, was another aspect in this case study that showed the value of interpersonal relationships within the fraternities. The notion of respect further expanded on this subtheme to be one of positive interpersonal relationships. Respect supported brotherhood and friendship.

Valuing respect for others was important because it showed that the fraternities, at least outwardly, did not find value in problem behaviors, such as hazing, alcohol abuse, or other harmful acts committed by one person to another. In fact, both fraternities had explicit rules against hazing, alcohol abuse, and violence toward others. These behaviors were seen as the antithesis of respect for others, respect for the organization, or respect for self (bettering self). In its guiding document on respect, FarmHouse said,

“We believe that alcohol misuse, substance abuse, hazing, and sexual misconduct originate from a lack of self-respect and self-worth” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para.

3). It continued, “these behaviors . . .are man-destroying and man-demeaning. These

acts defy our human dignity and have no place in our membership” (Philosophy of respect, n.d. para. 3). Alpha Gamma Rho required all members to sign a written agreement as part of their active membership. This written agreement included an expectation that all members “respect the dignity of all persons; therefore [he] will not physically, mentally, psychologically or sexually abuse or haze any human being”

(Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 6). It also included an agreement to

“respect my property and the property of others” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 8). Alpha Gamma Rho also required members to agree that they

“will neither misuse nor support the misuse of alcohol” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 11). The national office representative with this fraternity explained his interpretation of this written agreement. He said, “it's a mutual agreement between the chapter and those who are newly initiated. And in there is pretty powerful statements: respecting the brothers, therefore, I will not physically, mentally abuse or haze any one of my brothers . . .” Another national office representative talked about his fraternity’s value of respect and how that appeared in their governing documents. He said of one document, “it talks about the ‘spirit of congeniality shall reign at all times’ and talks about respect.” He talked about how respect was a central tenant in being a member of the fraternity, and how that was connected to personal betterment.

I don't know that someone who shares a difference of belief in the way we respect someone - or back to those values, how we want to, how we want to help them achieve, help them improve their personal development, help them practice leadership, be servants - I don't know that those values align.

This national office representative explained more about his fraternity’s guiding document for members on respect and behavior:

It talks about, you know, it’s more about respect for yourself and respect for the world around you. And it’s about, it's about, you know, you don't want to rob yourself of potential, and you also don't, when you look at some of our [Fraternity] documents and some of the things that we promise about the way we treat others, it all comes, we think it all comes down to respect. And less about authoritarian respect because someone's in charge. More about respect because you've been given an opportunity in life, or respect because every life is valuable. More of respect, because, um, you know, you should do everything you can to help someone else be successful in life.

Wendell identified that one of his fraternity’s values was treating others with respect.

This applied to members treating other members with respect, but also members treating others outside of the organization with respect. He reflected on his responsibility as a leader to ensure members were adhering to the value of respect:

I mean, to an extent we have to be a part of people's relationships with their friends or partners. And making sure that - I don't want to say making sure, because it feels like we're getting a little too involved - but I mean, just understanding that it's not just about, I don’t think it's just about hazing and alcohol abuse, it's, it goes into people's relationships with their friends and significant others just making sure that they're treating people the right way too. Not just our membership, it goes outside our membership.

Assume Responsibility For Common Purpose

The second theme that emerged when looking at how courage was practiced by the fraternity leaders was assuming responsibility for the common purpose of the organization. The theme of common purpose/shared values set up a foundation upon which the leaders displayed courageous leadership. Within the theme of assuming responsibility for the common purpose, evidence began to appear of how courage was carried out by the leaders. Leaders not only took personal responsibility for the fraternity’s purpose, they also found ways to enable the members to do the same. Two subthemes were found under assume responsibility for the common purpose: (1) values alignment and (2) bettering the organization.

Values alignment

Within both of the fraternities in this case study, an important aspect of member responsibility was aligning personal behaviors with shared organizational values.

Behaviors not in alignment with the fraternity values, such as problem behaviors, were found to be damaging to the organization. Behaviors in alignment with fraternity values were accepted as benefiting the organization as a whole.

When talking about his fraternity holistically as a national organization, Wendell shared the importance of values alignment and members believing in the shared values of the organization. He said of the national staff and volunteers for his organization, “We have people who are really actually invested in our core values, and they're not doing it just because it's tradition. It's something that they truly believe in.” He continued by expressing that it feels good for him to see chapter members’ behaviors aligning with the fraternity’s values:

I mean, it feels great. Especially for those of us who are in elected positions, because we kind of, can kind of see this, this vehicle that we're a part of is very much so producing what it was meant to produce and that's, um, socially upstanding, high achieving young men.

Art again referenced displays of brotherhood, brothers helping brothers, as an example of member behavior aligning with values. When asked what it looked like when member behavior aligned with fraternity values, he gave an example of a member hosting an event (unrelated to the fraternity) on their college campus and getting other fraternity members to volunteer to help with the event management:

So I'd say it looks like that, too, when a brother that's organizing that comes up and asked for volunteers and we're able to get 25 volunteers to go and speak on behalf of agriculture and represent it in a good manner.

Everson said that his fraternity chapter struggled sometimes with having members align their behaviors with the values, but he desired to get back to a culture where the behaviors did align with values. He said, “We're really working on that. It's, there's a, there's a culture change, or we want to make a culture change in, really coming back to holding, upholding the values of the fraternity.” Cal believed that every action of his fraternity members should reflect the values of the fraternity. When asked about the values of his fraternity, he responded with, “Really, it’s how we’re exemplifying those values; it’s everything that we do.” He was referring to the actions of his fraternity members, himself included, aligning with his fraternity’s values. He shared that it was the responsibility of the national organization, the national leaders, to align members’ behavior with values. “And I think, to me personally, and, and what we try to coach to our guys as much as possible is how we exemplify those values,” he said.

The leaders in this case study also spoke about the importance of recruiting new members of the fraternities that did, or had potential to, align their behaviors with the fraternity values. Cal supported the idea that values alignment was important in this case study when he talked about recruitment. He said, “it's how are we finding folks who, and finding young men, who fall in line and align with what our values are that we see as [a] leader.” Cal continued, “And then once they're brought in the door, what are we doing to continually coach them?” This was a reference to leaders taking responsibility to “coach” members to always align their actions with the values and common purpose of the organization. Booker mirrored what Cal said and reflected on why living the values mattered from a leadership perspective:

And it's, it's easier to focus on the fraternal aspects of things versus the operational aspect. So, so when our behavior aligns with our values, it's much

easier to conduct leadership activities. . . .And so it's very helpful when we actually live up to the values that we say we stand by. And in it, I mean, it starts at recruitment, you know, we're looking for guys that embody the values that we hold. . . .So it's, it's very helpful from a leadership standpoint, when the behavior aligns with the values and on an individual basis . . .

Hal demonstrated evidence that behavioral values alignment was something in and of itself of value to the fraternity. He referenced values alignment being an expectation of fraternity members, and how fraternity leaders needed to ensure values alignment was practiced. He gave an example of a when a member’s actions did not align with the fraternity values:

So I think my, my message, which I hope would be shared by our students is, there's a lot of things that can be remediated. I don't know that someone who shares a difference of belief in the way we respect someone - or back to those values, how we want to, how we want to help them achieve, help them improve their personal development, help them practice leadership, be servants - I don't know that those values align . . .

Guiding documents for both fraternities also showed that values alignment was expected of fraternity members and was part of the fraternities’ common purpose and shared values. FarmHouse’s policy stated, “Members of FarmHouse Fraternity are expected to adhere to the policies and practices of FarmHouse Fraternity in a manner that represents the principles and values of the organization” (FarmHouse Fraternity,

2020, p. 7). Alpha Gamma Rho had members sign an agreement that expected that members will, “know and understand the ideals expressed in my fraternity Ritual and will strive to incorporate them in my daily life” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 2).

Bettering the organization

Similar to values alignment, findings from the data suggested that the fraternity leaders placed value and expectations on member behaviors that bettered the

organization. Behaviors that bettered the organization were those that contributed toward the organization in a way that was aligned with fraternity values or common purpose and contributed to the overall organization in some way. These behaviors mostly pertained to the behaviors of the followers, or the members, but there was also evidence of leaders enabling the members to behave in ways that would better the organization.

Alpha Gamma Rho demanded as one of its values that members “always present a positive image of Alpha Gamma Rho in everything we say or do” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d., para. 4). FarmHouse presented in one if its guiding documents an expectation of members to help the organization. It stated, “each is entitled to find help, and each is obligated to give it” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 8). Alpha Gamma

Rho also committed an expectation that members agree to, “participate regularly in all

Chapter activities and programs until I graduate” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 3). Portraying the fraternity in a positive image, contributing through participation, and taking initiative were three concepts supported in the data related to bettering the organization.

Expanding on a quote already used by Cal about member behaviors, he talked about expectations of member actions bettering the fraternity. He was comparing his fraternity to aspects of a business.

And we may have some great brothers, who are great employees, who represent the fraternity in every possible way, they’re leaders on campus, they have great, high, high GPAs, they’re getting engaged in internships and employment opportunities. And there are others who like to have a good time. It doesn't make them less of a person; you could still be a great friend. But when a brother, or an employee of that business called [Fraternity] is no longer valuable, or is not contributing his, his, his expectations to the betterment of the chapter – he can be a great friend, but he may no longer be a good fit as a fraternity brother.

Everson shared his opinion on personal responsibility as a factor in bettering the organization. He touted how his members have taken responsibility and have taken initiative for bettering the organization.

We like to do, I mean, like to be as self-sufficient as possible. Like, there's a hole in the wall, guys would be perfectly fine with fixing it. Maybe not good at fixing it, but they love taking things on themselves and on their own responsibility. And I would say that's probably the, the when we are at our best, all cylinders are hittin’ on line, and it's, and it's going, and this machine’s just running well - guys are taking initiative.

Everson gave another example when he spoke about values-aligned behavior from the fraternity members. He said this occurs when a member has been seen, “reaching out, helping others, but really that taking initiative and taking responsibility.” Hal also talked about responsibility, and he connected courageous leadership to membership responsibility. When asked what he thought members of his fraternity should know about courage and leadership, he responded:

And so if you were to ask what, what do you think students need to know? Then I think it's probably this idea of normalization of - you use the words courageous leadership - and you know, I would just use the words membership responsibility.

Art provided an example that supported member participation as something that was important to him as a leader. He talked about how it was a detriment to the fraternity when brothers were not actively spending time with other brothers. This did not support his chapter’s value of brotherhood.

That, I think that is probably the biggest culture, or goes against the culture when they're not actively participating. They're not with their brothers. They're not making any effort to know their brothers. That they're just, it doesn't even seem like they're in the fraternity.

Art even stated that he was not as bothered by members committing problem behaviors as when they were committed by a brother when not with another fraternity brother.

Recall that he said, “I’d much rather have three brothers to get in trouble together than to have one be going awry with some people that aren’t part of the brotherhood.” He continued, “It’s not necessarily bad behavior that bothers me. It's more so when they're not with the fraternity. That there's really no sense in being here if you're not going to be present.” Wendell gave an example of a leader contributing to bettering the organization through one’s efforts. This member was not in a formal leadership position, but was seen as a leader because he took initiative in fraternity matters:

I think specifically of my friend . . .he never held a, an elected position in the house. But he was definitely one of the leaders of the house. And that came from very much so actions speaking louder than words. He would do all sorts of small things just around the house; he was really handy. So he would, he would fix things, build things, just, he would help out in ways that were not at all required of him, but he just wanted to contribute.

Booker connected courageous action to actions that bettered the organization:

I'm very thankful because it's not just courage coming from the president. It's not just courage coming from the execs. It's courage coming from each individual chapter member who knows that if he can’t do his part, then none of it's going to work all together, like it supposed to. And so it's not like I'm having to stand up there and drag everybody else up the hill, we're climbing. Everybody's doing their fair share of the work in every way that they can to make sure that our house as a whole is thriving the way it should be.

Representing the fraternity well in one’s actions was seen a part of bettering the organization. Leaders shared that actions of members should be those that help the fraternity or its members and, even in some cases, make the fraternity look good to others or to the public. Everson alluded to this idea of representing the fraternity well when he talked about the quality of his fellow members. He said, “but I think as a whole,

I mean, they represent our house really well. And that's, that's probably the proudest thing I am of this house, is what I’m really coming to learn . . .” When he answered a

question about examples of member behaviors aligning with values, helping other members and helping the fraternity was mentioned:

But they pledged that oath [to the fraternity], and they see that as a ‘I have to represent this fraternity well. I'm going to this cleaning session to make my brothers happy. He couldn't do this, I'm going to be there for him and stop, I'm not going to go to that, go watch a movie or something, I'm going to go out and help my brother.’

Art alluded to members’ actions aligning with fraternity values helped the fraternity’s public image. Specifically, he said, “everything you would think is good PR I would say that that is what it looks like for when people go along with our values.” The example he gave of this type of behavior was community service events such as cleaning up neighborhood yards.

Two chapter leaders spoke of internal processes that encouraged members to take more initiative for the betterment of the organization. Everson described the system he had in his fraternity chapter in which newer members were matched, based on their interest, with a positional leader. That leader had some responsibility for the fraternity chapter’s purpose. Everson explained:

We prioritize these guys in their groups. And now our officers can use those guys as resources and help and it provides an opportunity for them to step up and learn from the leader on the exec position, gives him an opportunity to groom someone, so he doesn't have to do his position for more than a year or two. But I mean, those are, that's really our, kind of our model of how we provide leadership in house.

Art practiced courage for assuming responsibility for the common purpose of his organization by delegating tasks to fraternity members. He assigned responsibilities to members and then ensured that those responsibilities were being carried out by members that reported to him. He said:

100

And I was very intentional when I was president at delegating things out and holding people accountable for the jobs they're supposed to be doing. And not just taking on their entire workload that I think that develops a deeper appreciation. So how leadership is practiced now I would like to say is that everyone gets their work done and everyone’s held accountable for their actions and for their responsibilities.

He also explained that positional leaders in his chapter, those members in a committee chair position or other executive board position that held specific responsibilities, were enabled to do their work because they were given clear expectations from the beginning. Art talked about what happened before leaders were elected into their respective positions:

But I would say that it's very clear, clearly defined before they take on the leadership position, what is expected before they even start running. They're expected to talk to the person in their position and understand what their responsibilities are. It’s very clearly laid out in the transition documents, what's expected of them.

Booker ensured that new members just joining the fraternity understood that they could take responsibility for modeling behavior and could take initiative for the organization without being in a positional, elected leadership role. He recalled what he had said to new members in the past, “I told the new recruits on day one, one of them asked me,

‘So what position should I run for?’ I said, ‘Well, you know, you can be a leader just by yourself, you don't need the title to do it.’”

Challenge Behaviors

The third theme that was found within the data, on the research question of how courage was practiced by leaders, was challenging behaviors. Two subthemes were identified, (1) accountability and (2) confronting problem behaviors. Under this third theme, courageous leadership behavior to address problem behaviors started to emerge more clearly.

101

Accountability

All participants in this study talked in some way about accountability among the fraternity membership and accountability as part of the fraternity culture. Why accountability was important to the fraternity and how accountability was practiced, or should be practiced, were addressed.

Accountability within the fraternity was tied to shared values and common purpose. Booker said that he and his fraternity held each other accountable “if somebody does something that’s out of line with the fraternity values, especially when they do it in public or at a group setting in a social event . . .” In the context of discussing his fraternity’s values, Everson talked about his fraternity bettered its individuals through a culture of accountability, and that accountability was tied to the fraternity values. He said that his fraternity made members better “through holding each other accountable.”

He recited his fraternity’s shared values and then said, “but, in house these things are, I mean, this is essentially, like, critical on how we conduct everything in our, in our chapter, how we hold each other accountable.” Cal connected his fraternity values to accountability. In his role at the headquarters office, he and his staff tried to teach those values to fraternity members and then hold them accountable to those values. Cal said:

And I think, to me personally, and, and what we try to coach to our guys as much as possible is how we exemplify those values. And at the same token, if there's anybody who's compromising those, how are we holding our members accountable.

Cal continued on accountability for living the values by saying that he expected chapter leaders to show courage by holding members accountable to shared, agreed upon values. He referred to a policy that must be agreed upon and followed by all members of the fraternity:

102

every member who's initiated [agrees to an oath] - it's a mutual agreement between the chapter and those who are newly initiated. And in there is pretty powerful statements . . .

Those “powerful statements” included policies against problem behaviors such as alcohol abuse and hazing. Cal pointed out that leaders should be a major player to “hold our members accountable.”

Evidence suggested that fraternities in this case study believed that accountability to fulfill the organization purpose was the responsibility of all members. A

FarmHouse guiding document showed that the national office both expected accountability as well as engaged in it by saying, “We hold both chapters and individuals accountable for the choices that they make” (Philosophy of respect, n.d., para. 7). Alpha Gamma Rho included in its articles of government that it “encourages all members to be good citizens, to practice self-government” (National constitution of

Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, n.d., p. 5). Booker used the collective “we” when he discussed the importance of accountability in his chapter:

So, so because we are so strong in our, in our areas of, the values that we hold . . .when somebody strays from it, it's very easy to deal with it, because normally, it's not just the chapter leadership that's having to deal with it.

Wendell shared the same sentiment that accountability to organization values was not just the responsibility of the president or other elected leaders. He said:

I think what's kept us going and what's kept us successful is that it's not just those people who are trying to manage when things don't go as well. It's, it's a constant, um, it's a constant knowledge by the rest of the fraternity, other than just a handful of guys at top, that we want people to be succeeding. And when something negative does happen, people are on it right away. It's not, it's not just waiting for the handful of guys at the top to take care of it. It's, people are constantly, people don't feel that they're not allowed to say something, they're not allowed to stand up and speak for what's right.

103

When asked what it looked like when member behaviors did not align with fraternity values, he reiterated the shared accountability. “I think that comes back to that culture management that I talked about. And I mean, that's not just my job. That's the job of everyone in the house, has to help with that,” he said. Art stated that his chapter practiced self-governing, and that as such, members often held one another accountable for problem behaviors. He felt that accountability from other members was more effective than when he held someone accountable to the organization values. He said:

I'd like to say that generally we have a pretty self-governing chapter that, quite honestly, it's not very often I have to get up at meeting and yell at someone. Whether they posted something on social media that was picked up by Old Row and now has 300,000 views, or whatever. That someone else is usually on top of it before I am, which is good. And that’s the way it needs to be, because it means more than when I pick on, pick up on something and I have to yell.

Everson pointed out the importance of shared accountability, not because his fraternity members were good at practicing it, rather because they lacked that culture. He wanted to get to a point where his chapter members could hold one another accountable more often. He said:

We have a lot of struggles with guys holding each other accountable, which – now I did talk about earlier how we are great at holding each other accountable, but in the last year, we've really seen things be a lot different but that's the culture. We're really working on that.

Everson furthered his feelings on the matter of shared accountability. He said it was difficult for just him as president to be the one to hold members accountable, in part because he had a relatively large fraternity chapter. In talking about the lack of accountability, he said:

It's, there's a, there's a culture change, or we want to make a culture change in, really coming back to holding, upholding the values of the fraternity. But a lot of

104

that is because we have 100 guys, and it's really hard to manage 100 guys, especially in my role.

Hal pointed out, “I think any time you ask an 18 to 22-year-old to hold their friends accountable to anything, that it’s tough, right?”

Several of the participants provided some insight as to how they as leaders felt about a culture of accountability or why accountability was important. Evidence provided in this section and above showed that accountability was something practiced by leaders and, ideally, by followers. Accountability was practiced to address problem behaviors and to ensure that members were bettering themselves through the fraternity experience. Wendell talked about accountability as an aspect of peer pressure, members looking out for and looking to other members for validation. He said:

But around here, it's very much just a culture of what we like to call positive peer pressure. So we have, um, just people are constantly looking at each other to see what others are doing. . . .And so we're looking left and right at our peers to see maybe what's the best thing for us to be doing and we have just a tradition and a culture of people always being high achieving, but then also being caring about one another.

Booker also saw accountability in a positive light and connected it with benefiting membership. He said, “and so, you know, we're, we're very big on accountability. You know it. If no one's holding you accountable, and you're not setting goals for yourself, then it's kind of hard to grow.” When asked to expand further on accountability, Booker responded:

Yeah, and so we use a lot of that here, I would say it's probably our most practiced leadership virtue/value, whatever you want to categorize it as. And that's kind of how we do things the most, the most, most of the time.

Booker saw accountability as a way that members bettered themselves, but he also saw it as way to ensure behaviors were in line with shared values. He talked about how

105

practical it was for members to hold one another accountable when the majority of members lived in a fraternity house together. “And it's very practical, you know, because we're living together for the most part. And so you don't, you don't get away with much when you're living with these guys in such close quarters,” he said.

Several participants described accountability including some form of disciplinary action to prevent problem behaviors, correct problem behaviors, or protect the organization from harm by a member’s actions. Booker again talked about his fraternity members overwhelmingly supported accountability, even if that accountability meant a formal discipline for a member. He said:

So, for me, I'm going to have a different perspective on this but like I said, if something is out of line here with a member or with a group of members, number one, those members, or that individual, is going to, you know, consciously already know what they did is not in alignment, and they're going to be expecting discipline, you know? And so it’s not like we come to disciplinary action, and they're caught off guard, not surprised that we had discipline for them. They know. So it's an understood thing that, you know, we expect everybody to uphold what we consider the values of a [Fraternity] man, and when that doesn't happen, there's going to be consequences. And, and, you know, 99% of the time those consequences are going to be voted on by the chapter. And they're normally unanimously approved a lot of the time.

Again, Cal expected his chapter leaders to hold members accountable when their actions violated common purpose or values, and that may be met with disciplinary action. For example, he said, “we're holding those members accountable, accountable for their actions, and that there's proper punishment or recourse in place to handle those situations.” Cal believed that the accountability of the violating member with

“proper punishment” was a deterrent to other members violating fraternity values. He also said that by not holding someone accountable, the leader was in essence condoning such behavior. He said accountability is important:

106

Because if you don't, then what's to stop somebody else from doing the exact same thing or doing something further in the future? So we expect our chapter officers to really truly uphold that, to uphold our [values], to not let behavior go unnoticed and, one thing we coach advisors, and we coach presidents, too, on our visits is that if you see something being done, and you are not addressing it, you're condoning that behavior. And so by, by not addressing it, you're allowing chapter members at large to do, to make poor decisions.

Booker also believed that disciplinary action with a member was a deterrent to others’ actions. He added:

so the disciplinary action, you know, is a great start, and I think it needs to be swift and it needs to be strong because not only is that making the guy that did it think about it, it's also going to make future people, it's going to deter people from making those same stupid decisions. And so discipline works as a deterrent and as a, what it's meant for, for the guy that it did at that time.

In some cases, disciplinary action resulted in expulsion from the fraternity. Cal spoke about expulsion of members as part of accountability. He said:

So what are we doing to hold those members accountable for their actions. And if they're repeat offenders and cannot see the error of their ways after proper recourse, you know, expulsion is not a taboo thing. They may be great friends, they may be great individuals outside of the fraternity, but they're no longer a good fit for the fraternity.

Cal talked about a fraternity chapter that was “routinely expelling members because they’re not following the minimum standards of where they see their chapter on their campus.” Expulsion was not uncommon for this chapter. However, expulsion was not carried out without empathy an ability to rejoin the organization at a later time. Cal explained:

I think that's very courageous for a leader to recognize that this person has messed up. They're doing the process, the way that they showed they're holding them member accountable. They're being a little bit empathetic to the situation by saying, ‘Yes, we realized that you're no longer a good fit here because of these reasons. However, here's what you can do to correct your behavior. And here's how you can work your way back into the fraternity if you so choose.’

107

Hal also provided evidence that expulsion from the organization was possible for a member whose behaviors were not in line with the organization values. He also showed that accountability through remediation was a possible form of accountability as well. He said:

And so I would hope that the conversation our young men are having are less about how are we finding a fit for that person, and how, you know, but it's more about how are we marginalizing that opinion, and giving that person a choice that they're either going to adopt a different, a different mindset that aligns with our values, or there's going to be, there's going to be a parting, of a parting of the friendship piece, right? A parting, a friendship can maybe still exist, but you can't be a member of the organization.

Accountability to the common purpose and shared values of the organization was presented. The culture of accountability also contributed to the next subtheme that emerged, and that was how the leaders and members confronted problem behaviors.

Confronting problem behaviors

Confronting problem behaviors was a way in which leaders of the fraternities practiced courage by challenging behaviors within the organization. Evidence showed what types of behaviors leaders considered to be problem behaviors. Participants also shared why addressing these problem behaviors was courageous. Additionally, how leaders confronted problem behaviors was identified.

In additional to hazing and alcohol abuse, other behaviors were described as problem behaviors in this case study. Alpha Gamma Rho required all members to agree to “neither use nor support the use of illegal drugs” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 11). FarmHouse also included in its policies that “the possession, sale and/or use of any illegal drugs or controlled substances by any member is strictly prohibited” (FarmHouse Fraternity, 2020, p. 4). Art had to take accountability measures

108

and address a situation involving members “smoking weed” on fraternity property. Hal talked about policy reform, or policy development, for his fraternity and in so doing mentioned problem behaviors typical in fraternities. He said:

And so rather than going, rather than going, kind of habit by habit or problem area by problem area - which is the places people would want to be courageous: alcohol abuse, others substance abuse, or sexual misconduct, hazing, the normal areas you would see organizations that adopt a . . .statement on - we already had the policies.

Wendell also brought up interpersonal relationships as a potential area of problem behaviors. This related back to the foundation of interpersonal relationships a fraternity value. He said:

And making sure that, I don't want to say making sure, because it feels like we're getting a little too involved, but I mean, just understanding that it's not just about, I don’t think it's just about hazing and alcohol abuse, it's, it goes into people's relationships with their friends and significant others just making sure that they're treating people the right way too. Not just our membership, it goes outside our membership.

Art also intimated that members’ interactions with women may have also been a problem behavior, particularly when alcohol was involved. Regarding a member that had “too much” to drink, Art said, “…if he is with a girl and shouldn’t be, telling him no and putting him in a sober ride home, and things, that, that would look like courage as well.” Everson was concerned with destructive behavior that needed to be held to account, but he did say this was associated with alcohol consumption, as well. He said,

“But I mean, the largest thing is some of the struggles we face is, if, is, I mean, obviously in a fraternity house, stuff gets broken a lot.” He later associated that type of behavior with alcohol. “Why do you guys get destructive,” he said. “That's like, you shouldn't be drinking. Like you can't control yourself, is when, when guys get to the point, and I think a lot that's everywhere, guys just punching holes in walls.”

109

Participants also discussed hazing as a behavior that did not align with shared values of the fraternity. Hazing was explicitly written in guiding documents or policies of both fraternities as behavior not allowed and not in line with organizational values and common purpose. FarmHouse stated in its rules that “No chapter, new member, chapter member, student, alumni member or volunteer shall conduct nor condone hazing activities” (FarmHouse Fraternity, 2020. p. 7). Alpha Gamma Rho members agreed not

“haze any human being” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 7). There was understanding by the chapter leaders in this case study that hazing was not to be tolerated, but there was not an agreement on how hazing was defined. Everson shared a situation from his chapter in which behaviors were considered by someone else potentially hazing. “They called that hazing,” he said. He said, “I’ve never seen anything hazing as far as, like . . .making it do anything to prove yourself as a brother.” Everson also said his definition of hazing changed when he became president and attended meetings with other fraternity presidents and heard stories of potential hazing. He believed hazing was abusing power over someone else. He said:

Like, I never, I thought hazing was like, it's, the definition has changed as I've been at these presidents’ meetings and heard other chapters and what [inaudible] we've talked about it's, but, I mean, a lot of it is, I mean, obviously just forcing somebody to do something they don't want to mostly for mostly for recognition or that they need to be a part of brotherhood or like he had to do this to be a brother. I mean, it's simply just a statement of power on someone else. I mean, just making them do something it's just you trying to be powerful over someone else making sure they know that, I guess.

Art also made reference to acts of hazing being ambiguous. When asked what hazing looked like in fraternities, Art responded:

[sigh] I mean, you know the definitions and stuff, and that's, to me some, like, forced to do things for membership. I don't really believe in that because we're

110

going to make you . . .do philanthropy. . . .So I think there, there's no perfect definition to it. But I do think there's some flaws in that definition, if that makes sense. But otherwise, I mean, I could use infinite examples as to what hazing looks like in fraternities. I've heard stories.

He did reference hazing behavior as something that might be seen as unacceptable.

When he described hazing behaviors, he said, “I would say anything that you wouldn't want to tell your grandmother you did.” He continued, “I don't know. I, you laughed at the grandma thing, but I seriously think that's probably true because I don't think, in this fraternity we don't do anything that I would be embarrassed to tell my grandma that they do.” Booker said hazing, “in fraternities it’s almost always alcohol related.” He referenced physical abuse as a potential factor in hazing, but not within his own chapter.

“And so I don't know how physical places get. I know that getting the tar beaten out of me wouldn't want to do anything, in the long run. But you know, I would say alcohol is, is kind of the problem here.” He believed that some of the “guidelines does take hazing to a bit of an extreme as far as the definition goes, you know.” There was some unwillingness to share too much detail in his qualitative interview, but he added:

I'm not, I'm not going to get too far into that because it's little touchy, but I mean, you have to understand after your years of experience that obviously the definition from the house is going to be a little bit different from the definition of the campus leaders. But I think there's a common ground you know.

Wendell was asked what he thought hazing looked like in fraternities in general. He also indicated a broad definition of hazing. He said:

And I think, to me, there's an extremely wide range of it. And that comes from, I mean, those horror stories, things that I just shudder to think about people actually going through. And then there's the little things just, um, something as simple as like, ‘hey, do this for me because you're a new member.’ Or, ‘hey, finish your drink’ or whatever, something along those lines. And there’s a wide range in there. And so that's, that's how I define it.

111

Alcohol abuse was described by the participants as a problem behavior. Wendell described alcohol abuse by members of the fraternity as “higher frequency or using it as a crutch.” He shared his thoughts on members abusing alcohol:

I kind of get a little worked up thinking about it, but people who say something along the lines of, like, ‘Oh man, that test really got me. Let's go blackout.’ That's scares the crap out of me. If that's, that's gonna be your attitude, going through anything else in life, that's scary, extremely scary.

Booker referred to alcohol as “just an accident waiting to happen.” He alluded to alcohol abuse being related to quantity when he talked about those fraternity chapters that

“have a more moral and spiritual argument again alcohol use and in large quantities.”

Cal also talked about alcohol use quantity when he said:

Information that we've gained . . .through others about the dangers of over- consumption, leading to death, leading to injury, or result from hazing practices and using hard alcohol, um, that it's, it's not conducive to what we think is model behavior of [Fraternity members].

He also believed that alcohol abuse was “something that is most common among just

Greek organizations and in, in total.” Everson referred to alcohol abuse when he was asked about behaviors from his members that do not align with fraternity values. He said:

Now, I have seen a lot of guys abuse alcohol, and I'm seeing a lot of alcoholics. But I mean, that's, I mean, that's just your own choice almost. But there is pressure drinking situations. I haven't seen a lot of it in our house. I've seen more guys just kind of be alcoholics on their own.

Again, he also referred to members losing control as a problem of alcohol abuse.

But I would say alcohol abuse to me, looks like it can be two things. One is obviously like, making others drink or peer pressure drink, and struggling with handling the actual alcohol. But I think what's more, a bigger problem is those who can't control themselves when they consume alcohol.

112

Art recognized the potentially damaging effects of alcohol abuse by sharing a story of another Greek-lettered organization that got someone “so drunk in a car in front of the house that they had, he had to be hospitalized . . .” Art first said when asked about alcohol abuse in fraternities, “alcohol abuse is hard because obviously the president's going to be held liable or as liability for the entire chapter and could legally get in trouble if something happened.” He went on to share his opinion of alcohol abuse in a fraternity:

But I would say alcohol abuse, so I'd say there's two parts: one, it's kind of unfair to put your brothers in that situation that you need them to take care of you. But I also say alcohol abuse can be from the person not drinking, that was supposed to take care of them, whether it's our scheduled drunk phone for that night, and that's like the sober ride program that we have, that if he lets him out on the street in front of the bar and doesn't pick him up, that I would say he's held just as much accountable . . .

Followers’ and, in particular, leaders’ responsibility to confront problem behaviors was found. Alpha Gamma Rho had all members of the fraternity agree to the statement that they will, “Challenge all my fraternity members to abide by these fraternal expectations and will confront those who violate them” (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant, n.d., para. 14). Evidence supported the role of the fraternity president in the accountability of the fraternity and confronting problem behaviors. Everson talked about his “executive team of executive officers” in his organization. He said “the president and the exec team, we’re all on a equal playing field.” As president, Art was “in charge of . . . executive meeting.” He was the “accountability partner on all the execs to make sure they’re getting their things done.” Art also said that if other members of the fraternity did not confront a problem behavior, the responsibility would fall to him as president. “But if it does happen,” he said, “I think you can have a governing culture. And then if that fails, or they do not pick up on it, because maybe they're unaware of something, then it goes

113

back onto my shoulders.” Wendell also said, “we have an executive team, as I'm sure most chapters that you talked to do, and so I'm kind of in charge of making sure they're all getting their roles taken care of and squared away.” Part of his responsibility as president was “culture management.” When asked to clarify, Wendell said, “I think it has a lot to do with making sure just our guys’ attitudes are in the right place. They're in this for the right reason.” Booker referred to his executive team when he said that he was required to live in his fraternity house as president, and “we require our exec [inaudible] to live in the building.” Cal alluded to the responsibility of the chapter president in addressing problem behaviors when he said that the chapter presidents in his fraternity were told, “if you see something being done, and you are not addressing it, you’re condoning that behavior.”

Evidence from the qualitative interviews showed that chapter presidents confronting problem behaviors of the members were defined as difficult or uncomfortable. Hal addressed the difficulty for chapter presidents to address problem behaviors. He said:

I think it is infinitely harder to be a chapter president today than it was [years ago]. The social media, the, ah, the changes in substance abuse, the mental health issues, those three things alone are game changers for the, for the, not even ethical dilemmas that our students have to deal with in courageous leadership, but emotional dilemmas that they have to deal with.

Wendell described a situation in which addressing the problem behavior with a member was “emotional.” He said:

I'm thinking of one time in particular, and I won't provide any detail, but I remember I sat down with another executive team member, and then just a new member, and we had a very, very emotional conversation just about this new member’s behavior and what, what had gone wrong. And I remember after that new member had left the room, I sat and talked with that other executive team member for an hour just trying to process our emotions through that because it

114

was extremely hard for us because he was our friend and what was going on was not at all lining up with what we knew were his personal values or the fraternity values. And it was, it was just deeply emotional, I guess.

When problem behaviors occurred, Everson described that the result, “definitely makes my job and my other guys on exec, their lives harder.” When asked what it was like when he addressed problem behaviors, Everson said:

Yeah, it's, uh, I mean, it's not fun, especially when a friend tells you, or somebody you thought was your friend tells you you’re just, ‘You're not being a good friend since you've been president, because you haven't been hanging out with us and drinking with us and shootin, just havin’ fun. You, you aren't good.’ Like, now I mean, it's true, I haven't been around as much because I've been in the office calling people; it’s busy. But I mean, they don't see that and you can't explain that in every situation. So it's really hard to communicate that. But I mean, it hurts; kind of sucks.

Wendell also said that when addressing problem behaviors, his leaders tried to be “non- confrontational,” but “there is definitely a fear that it might not end well.” Everson shared his feelings about addressing problem behaviors to the membership as a group.

But it's I mean, it's, it's almost uncomfortable. I mean, it's a hard conversation. It's hard to sit up there. No one wants to have these conversations, because why should I have to tell other people to do the right thing? Why don't you just do it yourself?

How chapter presidents confronted problem behaviors seemed to be connected with empathy and care. Wendell shared an example of addressing members that had engaged in alcohol abuse. He felt that “people get kind of scared to address alcohol abuse in college. I shouldn't say a little bit. They're extremely afraid to address it.” He explained:

And I think that's because, I mean, there's this, there's this stigma that, ‘oh, it's college. It just happens.’ But a lot of what we talked about around here is that there's no, there's no magic light switch after you graduate from college. And we'll talk about that as in just moral decisions and alcohol, too. If you build up a habit of going out four nights a week and throwing back huge amounts of alcohol, everyone, every night, then once you leave college, and, you've developed a

115

dependency on that, and it's not going to be an easy habit to break. And, uh, just being able to have the courage to have those conversations with people that we see around us who maybe are kind of headed down that path and just being able to address it.

The concern to address this problem behavior with a member was not that it would be confrontational, rather it “is not necessarily being afraid to do it, but being afraid that someone will take it the wrong way if it is brought up to them,” Wendell said. Wendell also recognized that the members he was leading were first his friends. He used that aspect when he addressed problem behaviors:

I’d say my approach tends to be, instead of me coming in and trying to be judge, jury and executioner, I really try to, I mean, it's, it's a conflict and it's also, I think, it can be really helpful in situations like this is the fact that, um, I'm in charge of my friends. And so if something does happen, and I need to talk with someone – I started off as, ‘Hey man, I'm concerned about you because you're my friend, and I want what's best for you. This isn't me trying to be someone who, I don't want to just get you in trouble. I want to help you as a person.’ And coming from a place of love and understanding, instead of a place of just pure authority, I think is how I try to do it. And I feel like that's something that's really hard for college- aged guys to talk about is that aspect of, like, we do things for each other because we love each other. Guys our age are really scared of the word love.

Art said that there was courage in taking care of one another; there was courage in brotherhood. He said:

Courage is, like, you know, at like a function setting, courage is, like, bringing that guy home that drank too much. But I don't know if that's as much courage as it is brotherhood. It might be courage because he's worried about being made fun of, but I'd say it's probably falls more under the brotherhood factor, in my perspective at least.

Cal shared a story that his fraternity adopted a controversial piece of legislation in their rules on alcohol use. He shared part of the fraternity national leaders’ reasons:

By using our consultants and coaching chapter leaders on why we felt this was important, and why, you know, we, we coach ourselves that we love our brothers, and we want the person sitting next to us on our left and our right to be there in the morning.

116

Some of the data showed techniques and approaches that fraternity leaders have used to confront problem behaviors in their chapters. A common approach to confronting problem behaviors was to do it, when possible, one-on-one with a fraternity member rather than with the organization as a group. The former was seen as the more favorable approach. Everson explained that standing up in front of a chapter meeting to discuss a problem behavior could be difficult:

And so, it's hard to have those conversations, and it, when I'm in front of the chapter, I mean, I'm nervous telling guys like, that I know, can easily band together and just, I mean, have that group mentality of ‘Well, I didn't really do it,’ or ‘I could justify it because my friend can justify it.’

Art said that he preferred a more personal approach with the member with whom he is addressing the problem. He said:

this is leadership style, but I'm not one to get up and yell at [chapter meeting]. I have, whatever, my laptop is sitting on my four-foot round table in my room. It's like a coffee table. And I have two chairs and I usually sit them down there, talk across the table, we're both at the same height. Both have the same ability to speak, lock the door, and just sort the things out what's going on, what the actual problem is, how can we change it going forward.

Art also used logic as an approach to confronting problem behaviors. He presented the offending fraternity member with a fine and told the member to just pay the fine or else numerous other consequences could happen to the whole organization if it went further.

He explained his approach:

It's very matter-of-fact. I don't let, like, emotions get into it or anything like that. You have to, there's a road with different paths. You describe the paths; describe your, or explain your reasoning why you chose what you did, be able to defend it like hell . . .

Everson gave an example of trying to appeal to individual morals or values when he needed to confront a problem behavior. He said:

117

But I mean, really, when I'm in those situations, I mean, there's always a way out, there's always a way to do the right thing. And telling these guys okay, ‘Don't be that guy. Don't, don't do that.’ And you can't control someone else's actions. You can't stop them from thinking something or making an opinion about you. But I mean, you can you can do what, I mean, you can tell them ‘Don't be that guy, don’t, I mean, like, remember our fraternity.’

Everson also compared one-on-one confrontations with members versus in a larger group. He said, “if I’m calling out a friend one-on-one, it's even harder in a group of friends or to your group of friends, or in front of a chapter and then you have to argue why you're right.” Booker identified himself as a “very confrontational, head-on, get-to- the-root-of-the-problem sort of guy” and said that style worked for him, “especially with the guys who act out, because normally, that's what it's like to take care of those problems.” He also talked about taking a one-on-one approach to confronting problem behaviors and he tried to find someone to help that had a close relationship with the offending person. He also hinted at the level of care for the member that went into his approach. He said:

You're not going to have very close relationship with every single guy. So, if somebody acts out who I'm not exactly close with, sometimes, you know, I'll look to somebody else on my exec board who can go to that person who's closer to him maybe, and handle it in a more personal, personal relationship-based setting because at the end of the day, yeah, the guy screwed up, but we still want him to grow from this mistake and recuperate and come back and be just as good as he, or if not better.

Hal mentioned courageous leadership for chapter leaders in addressing problem behaviors had included “difficult conversations between brothers in the chapter.” He said that his chapters, “have that sense of accountability that those conversations are happening one-on-one and two-on-one.”

118

Research Question 2 – How Courage Was Defined

The themes and subthemes under common purpose and shared values not only set a foundation for how courage was practiced through assuming responsibility for the common purpose and challenging behaviors, but it also set a foundation for how courage was defined in this case study. Four themes emerged under how courage was defined: (1) intellectual courage, (2) moral courage, (3) overcoming fears, and (4) confidence.

Intellectual Courage

Cal introduced two different, yet related, types of courage. One he called “moral courage” and the other “intellectual courage.” Ideas related to these two types of courage were found in the data. Cal defined intellectual courage as, “It's, it's focused around things that you've read. It's maybe more of a classroom setting. It's, it's education that you've received, or you have self-discovered through experiences through your own reading, through your own research.” Intellectual courage, according to Cal, in an organization setting was “challenging old behaviors to get them in line with new thoughts and processes.” Cal was a little more specific to a process that changed in his own fraternity. He said, “I think a place where any intellectual courage, or again, courage was put to the test was that it was educating and challenging old thoughts and behaviors to a new set of standards for a new, disciplined approach” to a process within the fraternity.

Cal shared an example of how courageous leadership played out in his fraternity after there was a major policy change related to alcohol use. New policies were implemented to keep members from overconsuming alcohol to dangerous proportions.

119

Rationale and information were used by the national fraternity with collegiate fraternity chapters in order to educate them on the decisions. He said:

So using that information and coaching our chapter leaders, I think we're seeing them have the courage to step up and share some of that same information with the broader membership about ‘this is the rationale why the fraternity felt was important.’ They gained our insight and our input in the decision making process. Here's how we want to implement that or here's how we should be implementing this new [policy] within our chapter settings.

Booker shared his definition of courage that also fell in line with this concept of intellectual courage. Booker’s definition had to do with making change or reform in his fraternity chapter. Even though he referred to it, in part, as doing the “right thing,” it seemed to go beyond instinct. He said that dealing with “disciplinary problems” was easy because everyone was in alignment with those behaviors violating the organizational shared values. He went on to say that it took more courage to address the growth and direction of his fraternity chapter:

When we get to a to a sector of ‘how do we propel the fraternity forward,’ ‘how do we grow the fraternity to make sure that it's stronger to a culture on the outside that's not exactly in alignment with the fraternity ideals,’ then you have to get a little more courageous, you know, then you have to think outside the box and, and say, ‘okay, if I draft up this, this plan to change this part of the fraternity programming, who's going to be up against it?’ What's their argument going to be? And how are we going to make sure that we're still serving the best interest of the fraternity, even if there's pushback on a, on a change that we're taking. And a lot of the time, you know, people don't like change, but growing pains are a real thing. Sometimes, to grow, you have to have a little bit of disagreement, some friction before you can get anywhere on the things though, you know, that's probably one way I would, you know, give you an example of the courage you'd have to do in this position.

With regards to change in his fraternity, Hal said his fraternity leaders, at a national level and chapter level, may have been resistant to “change for change sake.” Rather, he said, leaders were more inclined to buy in to things changing “in the name of progress.”

He continued:

120

And that certainly has been the case at the student level. They're very rational. So I think the students who I try to chat with about our strategic direction, or about strategic decisions, they tend to want to do a bit more about why, and they tend to walk with you through it.

Booker felt that the courage to lead change was a courage to face concerns over relationship risks and reputational risk for the fraternity. He said:

A lot of the changes that I think fraternity leaders need to be making in this era with the culture as it is and with the values being redefined – I would say that you know, at first, the change is going to be fearful of what your chapter members are going to think of it. But you know, almost always the drive behind that change, is to make sure that our reputation is as good if not better than it is now in 10 and 20 and 30 years.

Moral Courage

In addition to intellectual courage, a theme of moral courage emerged. The theme of moral courage had two subthemes: (1) doing the right thing and (2) taking a stand. Cal defined moral courage when he was asked to talk courage practiced among chapter leaders:

I think moral courage is something that's more of a gut feeling. It's a gut check. It's something that you were raised more on. It was out of the classroom setting. You are learning by doing. You've experienced it firsthand. You recognized and solidified as you mature as a young adult, what you feel is right and wrong.

Doing the right thing

A narrative of right versus wrong or doing the right thing as leaders came up several times in the data. In talking about how fraternity chapter leaders practiced courageous leadership, Hal laid a foundation for doing the right thing. He said that

“they’re willing to tackle it,” it being “conduct” issues, is the “first part of this idea of courageous leadership.” He continued:

So I think they're good at recognizing when things aren't right. They don't usually, there's not a lot of times that they've missed the moment of ‘Gosh, I could have done something about that.’ And I’ve found that that's been the strongest piece

121

is, that number one, that acknowledgement to know that something is wrong. And then part two is, you know, having the courage to deal with it.

Hal expanded on this concept. He said, “I think people want to be courageous, and people normally know what's right from wrong. The environmental factors around them, to some extent determine how much they act, right?” Booker defined courage from his position as a leader as “doing the right thing, even when you don't know if everyone's going to agree with it.”

Everson, too, defined courage in his role as a leader as, in part, “having the courage to do the right thing.” He mentioned doing the “right thing” or “doing what’s right” as a leader several times. When he reflected on his role as president of the fraternity, he said, “And what it's shown is you can't make everybody happy. So if you can't make everybody happy, why don’t you do what you know is right, and stick up for what's right no matter what.” It was very important for him to do the right thing and he relied on his own personal values system to determine the right thing to do. He said that his fraternity members would also define courage as “doing what’s right, or doing what you believe in, probably.” His fraternity operated at its best, he said, when “you don’t have to micromanage them. You don’t have to tell them to do the right thing.” Art also alluded to members’ sense of right or wrong when it came to their behaviors.

So I would say probably 90% of the time something like that happens, they know they're doing something wrong. So it's just a matter maybe it's a mob mentality that they're have somebody alongside them, so they think it's right, but then when you actually, whatever, put light on it, then they realize how dumb it was.

Everson shared an example of doing the right thing as a leader, setting an example of what it right, even when other members of the fraternity may not be doing the right thing. He shared from his own experiences that ten percent of fraternity

122

members were “destructive or could be the cancers’’ of the organization. He said that he could still do the right thing for himself, even if it was difficult to try to manage those destructive members:

I just can only do, control what I can do at the end of the day. I mean, stepping up and taking a leadership role, but setting an example, I mean, that's an easy one; doing the right thing myself; owning up to if I, if I've messed up before; if I, if I've really done, even good things; if I've done something wrong, if I didn't handle situation well, own it. I mean, I'm gonna set the example, set the precedent, demand excellence.

Everson demonstrated that it was sometimes difficult as chapter president to do the right thing and hold members accountable for engaging in problem behaviors. The difficulty in doing the right thing came when other members called him out for engaging in similar behavior before he became president. He told a story of a group of members that lived in the fraternity house and caused damage. Everson and his executive board were part of a group of men that voted to punish these members. He explained:

We just voted just trying to do the right thing. Especially I mean I do that every day just being called, just ‘hypocrite’ ‘You've done this in the house.’ You, we have a lot, I mean, yeah, I'm not a perfect college kid, like, we've all messed up, like, but we, I mean, you do, you got to do what's right for the fraternity, that's why we, that's why we have those, that constitution, that values and I’m trying to get back to that.

Taking a stand

Closely connected to doing the right thing was evidence that leaders defined courage as taking a stand or standing up for what they believed was right. Cal agreed that an example of moral courage was a fraternity president “standing up against some of the behaviors in that chapter.” Cal also believed that chapter leaders relied upon their own personal values when taking a stand to do the right thing in a situation. When

123

asked how fraternity members might define courage as it related to leadership, Cal responded:

I think what the common thread you would get is ability, is, is to be able to stand up for what they believe in and not shy away from what they’ve, what the values are that they grew up with. Um, and challenge those who are just blatantly disregarding it. Um, if its leaders, I think you take that a step further and say that it's, it's not being afraid to stand up to the senior, ah, who is being disruptive and not being a productive member . . .

Hal believed personal values were a factor in taking a stand, more so for personal authenticity or organizational identity. He said:

And so there's a place where I think our students, some do it better than others, you know where this courageous leadership is less about conduct and is more about being authentic for who you are, and knowing what your values are and being able to lean into it.

Wendell also defined courage as taking a stand:

I think courage is just being able to stand up in the face of maybe a few members here and there who are very, very vocal in their opinions on something that, you know, is not what's best for the fraternity, and being able to stand up for that and probably take a little bit of flak here and there socially, mostly, but just being able to do that.

Cal furthered this idea of taking a stand when he shared an example of a chapter president that confronted members that were getting “overly intoxicated and causing a ruckus in the chapter.” He said:

He's challenging that opposition because he recognizes that behavior is not conducive to making better men. It's not what he believes is right. It's not what he believes that he signed up and agreed to when he was initiated. And despite a faction in that chapter being very vocal, he is opposing their behavior from a morality issue because it doesn't exemplify what the fraternity stands and strives for.

Everson used a similar situation to illustrate how he defined taking courageous action against an unknown member of his fraternity that had caused damage in the fraternity house. He believed that courage was standing up against certain behavior and

124

reminding his members about their shared values and common purpose. There were members of the fraternity that did not want that person to get disciplined, even though he caused damage. Everson said:

I guess it gets back to doing the right thing and standing up for, uh, reminding these guys tonight, uh, I’ve been readin’ the, the ritual of our constitution. . . .I've really got to step up and remind them of our values. I’m going to have to, I mean, I ain’t gonna be easy . . .

Everson said that he also relied on his personal values set when he got pushback from members for the way he confronted a problem behavior. Those personal values helped him to stand with his decisions. He said:

And then when guys come out of their way and combat me, I just, I mean, I just try to handle it the right way that situation how it handles, just go back to my values and remember what I’m doing what's right.

He reflected on the times that he had to confront his fraternity brothers and stand up for what he believed. He said, “I mean, doing what’s right, it's just, again, it goes back to sticking up for what you believe. And also just doing what is right, what you know is right.”

Everson pointed out that sometimes taking a stand for what you believed could create conflict in the organization. Standing up for your beliefs was recognized as a personal matter of what was right or what was wrong:

I mean, there's a lot of guys that just will stick with what they stand for, whether they're wrong or right until they're obviously wrong or broken down. But I mean, they, they courage to them is just sticking up for what you believe in, I think is a lot of guys. And that can be good thing. If you believe in great thin – or great values. But it can also be a bad thing if you believe in self-interest; if you believe in sticking up for friends no matter what, even when they're wrong. . . .I guess what I'm saying is sticking up for what you believe in cannot, can be [a] dangerous tool if you, if you don't believe in the right things, I guess.

125

Overcoming Fears

When looking at how courage was defined in this case study, there were several references to fears and how those related to courageous leadership within the fraternities. The participants associated these fears with their leadership positions, particularly being chapter president of a fraternity.

Of particular note in the findings was evidence that college fraternity presidents have lived with a real fear or worry that someone in their organization could get hurt, or even die, due to their problem behaviors. A fraternity member could get hurt, or the fraternity could cease to exist due to a culture of problem behaviors, particularly alcohol abuse. If it was not identified by the participant as “fear,” they at least recognized the real possibility that someone’s actions could lead to dire consequences. Each chapter president that participated in this case study was asked what kept them up at night.

Wendell responded:

Um, what keeps me up at night is the fact that I know there's things out of my control. And just knowing that there are sometimes younger, not fully developed minds, making rash decisions out late at night that could come back and, and hurt a lot more people than just themselves. . . .I stay up at night thinking about how fragile this whole situation the Greek life is and how I might not get to pass this experience on [to other] people.

Everson said, “I mean, obviously the fear the worst, but I mean . . .” He then was asked to clarify. He said:

Uh, you can’t be there when that kid asphyxiates. When he wasn’t responsible to fall asleep on his side or even responsible to just say no to just, or to himself, whether it's pressure, you get, I can't be there in every situation to protect everyone.

Booker was more pragmatic in his answer. He was concerned about the future of his fraternity chapter:

126

So the future, you know, keeps me up more than anything because I know that, you know, right now across, across society, the culture’s shifting, the culture is all over the place. And we, as [my fraternity], we have to make sure that we align with our values and reaffirm them, because, quite frankly, the culture is against most of them.

Booker at least recognized the national culture of fraternities. He mentioned, “I think we had five deaths last, last month alone. Something like that across the nation.” He said an incident involving a fraternity member and alcohol on his campus scared his members because, “it takes one little thing or one thing like that to happen for the national spotlight and for the university officials and everybody else to be jumping down our throat trying to shut us down.” In response to the question, Art said, “Oh, it changes.” He continued, “Last night between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. it was eight phone calls putting out fires with another fraternity.” In his response to what alcohol abuse looked like in fraternities, Art believed the chapter president could face legally liability for someone getting hurt. This is what he said in follow up:

It's just, it's such a crapshoot that you can spend every night awake worrying about something's going to happen and spend every waking hour ensuring that nothing happens. And then something happens. Or you can just put your hands up and say ‘what happens, happens’ and nothing happens.

Several participants associated courage with overcoming some fear. Cal found an internet definition of courage and agreed that courage was, “the ability to do something, or face extreme difficulties or challenges without fear.” Everson also shared an internet definition of courage when asked to define courage in his role as a leader.

He said it was, “the ability to do something that frightens one.” For some, the fear that they may have had in their leadership roles was overcome by doing the right thing.

Booker defined courageous leadership as doing the right thing, and “doing the right thing, even when you're afraid to do the right thing, because, you know, there might be

127

some pushback.” Everson said something similar about having courage to overcome fears associated with being a chapter president:

Just the fear of doing, like your fear of failing, but having the courage to do what's right, like, overcoming that fear. And I mean, the confidence is doing something without fear, but I mean, quite frankly, I'm, I get scared a lot, and, but you still gotta do the right thing and telling guys in situations that might be your best friend or you thought was your best friend, I mean, just tell him ‘Hey, don't do that, like, stick up for the right thing; stick up for a guy that gets made fun of, or stick up for, don't let him punch a hole in the wall’ or stuff like that, and doing what's right when you're, when you're scared.

Overcoming fear for the fraternity presidents was often based in their relationships and friendships with other members, their brothers, in the fraternity. Much of the fear discussed in throughout the data was a fear of being alone, not being supported, or losing friends or popularity within the organization. Words and phrases like “pushback,” “backlash,” “guys come out of their way to combat me,” “verbal argument,” “you’re not being a good friend since you’ve been president,” “hypocrite,” and “take a little bit of flak here and there socially” appeared in the qualitative interviews. When asked what fears a chapter president needed to overcome, Cal responded, “Oh, I think the fear of any 18 to 22-year-old is the fear of losing their social capital or their friend group.” Cal also said of courageous leadership for fraternity chapter presidents:

It's the fear that if he's going to have to go out on a limb, that he's the only one standing out there and nobody else is there to back him up. . . .If he's bold enough to make the decision, and nobody's out there behind him.

Hal said something very similar to Cal regarding “social capital.” Hal directly equated the chapter presidents’ courage to embracing the fraternity’s common purpose. He had said to his chapter presidents:

128

You guys are going to have to have some courage on your campus, because there are men like you who are looking for an experience different, now more than ever, when fraternities are all over the news with their Greek letters, that things are happening in private, and men are dying in houses. How are we leaning into who we say we are?

Hal continued that example by saying:

There's a lot of courage that it takes for an 18, 19, 20, 21-year-old to forget about social capital on one end . . .and to navigate between the beacons to say, ‘this is my channel in life, and this is who we need to be.’

Everson talked about the difficulty in being one person confronting the rest of his members. He gave an example of addressing his fraternity members on a problem behavior at a chapter meeting:

And it's real . . .hard for my, for me, one person stand up there, tell guys that they're wrong when their friends might say, ‘Oh, it's kind of funny. It's all right.’ And then they band together. But it's part of doing the right thing and hoping that the good, the good guys, I guess, really have my back. . . .There are more good guys.

The potential of losing friends by actions he has had to take as a leader was something felt by Wendell. On courageous leadership, he said:

I think the most courageous step is getting over the fear that you're going to lose popularity or lose a friend or something. I mean, and that's, that's kind of a struggle of being a leader of a fraternity. Like I said, these people are my friends. So at the same time, that helps me approach things from the perspective of ‘I care about you.’ It also just as much can be a fear that if I have to punish my friend, they're not going to be my friend anymore, you know? And that happens a lot more so with the, the negative things that sometimes happen. And as far as courage goes, it's, it's getting over that fear that I might lose a friend, and, and doing something that you know is either best for them or best for the organization as a whole.

Wendell had shared an example of confronting a member of his fraternity for alcohol abuse and said that people were scared to address it. For him, the fear was not in confronting the fraternity member, rather he said it was, “being afraid that someone will take it the wrong way if it is brought up to them.”

129

Wendell also defined courage from a leadership perspective as making unpopular decisions; decisions that risked social capital for the leader. Courage, he said, was:

Being able to go with a decision through the voices of the, probably louder voices, of a few dissenting opinions. That tends to be the case is guys, guys who don't necessarily take on leadership roles are guys who sometimes don't want to have to deal with the reality that I they might not end up being the most popular person just based on some decisions that we have to make.

Everson talked about his concerns over what members might think based on his decisions as a leader:

But what's everybody gonna say? Everybody might be upset or, like the fear of what, what guys are going to say or what guys are going to think about you. . . . It's mostly those un, those unspoken words, like, when somebody just looks at you and you just, like you can feel the judgment. . . .But, I mean, that's, that's the fear, is that unspoken fear.

Booker talked about courage from a position of making a decision even if it was unpopular among members. “But other than that, you know, it's doing it even, even when you know it's, you know, not going to be popular, you still have to do it if it's the right thing,” he said about courageous leadership. He also referred to the fear of the unknown. He said, “courage is, you know, almost always it's knowing you need to do something, but not exactly, really having the desire to do it, because you're afraid of what may happen after you do.”

Art gave an example of courage defined by a younger fraternity leader or member interacting with or leading college senior members. He said, “that can kind of be daunting when you're a sophomore, to call a senior meeting with all the seniors and try to lay down the law and persuade their vote.” He also said it could be “intimidating” for freshmen to stand up for the first time to address the other members in the fraternity

130

in a formal meeting. He equated their ability to do that with courage. Cal gave a similar definition of courageous leadership that had to do with younger members that were intimidated by older members. He said, “it's not being afraid to stand up to the senior, ah, who is being disruptive and not being a productive member.” In an example of a chapter president that showed courage to address a moral issue, Cal said:

I think also a fear is that this was a sophomore leader talking to predominantly juniors and seniors and a small class of freshmen and a lot of his classmates, quit, expelled, dropped, whatever, didn't want to be engaged. So he was in a minority of a younger group. So it's the fear of having to stand up to the big kids, if you will.

Confidence

Confidence was a word and a theme that appeared several time throughout the data. Confidence was discussed in the interviews as part of how courageous leadership was defined. The participants described what they meant by a leader having, or lacking, confidence and why that was significant in relation to courageous leadership.

Booker described himself as both a “confrontational” and “very confident guy.” He recognized those qualities as “beneficial” in his role as a chapter president. He mentioned these personality traits in the context of talking about holding other members accountable and confronting problem behaviors. When asked to describe what it looked like when he stood up to behaviors that did not align with fraternity values, he said,

“Well, like I said, you know it’s easy for me because by nature, I’m a confrontational guy.” Everson directly related confidence to fear. When he defined courage, he said he

“always personally struggled with confidence.” He defined “the confidence is doing something without fear.” He talked further about having the courage to do the right thing

131

through the fear. In talking about himself as a leader, Everson brought up insecurity.

That insecurity in the decisions he made was part of the fear he faced as a leader:

Yeah, I mean, the biggest fear is that, I mean, I think a lot of people face it, don't like to admit it, is that the others, I mean, we’re insecure, others what they think of you . . .what others think about you and what will my friends say if, if, I mean, I don’t like that, but that's what they stand for. . . .What do they say if I'm from hanging out with this person, if I stick up for this person, if I fine him, like he didn't come to the cleaning session ‘cause he slept in, but he did stay up late doing something or had homework. But what's everybody gonna say?

A sense of insecurity was also brought up by Wendell. He said that men in his age range, 18 to 22-year-old men are “a little unsure of ourselves.” So they have looked to their peers to see “what’s the best thing” for them to be doing. Art defined courage as being confident in a decision as a leader:

I would say that the courage isn’t in the matter-of-fact part, it's probably more in the defending part; that sometimes you can kind of doubt yourself. . . .So I would say it’s in ‘you made a decision, you thought about it, [inaudible] you felt this was the best decision, everyone voted for you to be president because they trusted your decision making skills, this is the way it's going to be and stick with it.

He then said, “I’d say that’s more like courage over self-doubt, is basically what I was describing to you.”

Cal and Hal identified the need for confidence in courageous leadership. Hal said that that confidence was needed in order to be courageous enough to hold your peers accountable. He said, “I think it takes some confidence. I think our, you know, any student has to have some, some level of confidence in their own abilities or in their own value set.” Cal believed that confidence was needed by leaders to address the moral issues that arose in the fraternity. He talked about how his national leadership worked to give confidence to chapter leaders addressing moral issues or change in their chapter.

He gave an example of a chapter president that was leading his chapter through a

132

conduct suspension and the aftermath. Some of his peers were expelled from the chapter as a result of the suspension. Cal said:

So there was a lot of coaching on the front end of what this [president] had to do, um, from a communication standpoint of letting all the members know that this was going to happen. And once he made it through that process, what we expected him moving forward. And, and, and working with him to get to a point of confidence that he can tell these members who were, that were maintained . . .so we helped him build the confidence to communicate to those members who stay, you know, ‘these are growing pains, we need to all work together and buckle down.’

Cal also shared that his national headquarters hosted a leadership development program for chapter presidents and other chapter leaders. At this program, the chapter presidents developed a strategic plan for their chapter and learned skills for leadership.

He felt that this program could help the chapter leaders “handle more of these difficult situations and feel like they have the confidence and the backing to push it through in a productive way.”

Research Question 3 – When Courage Was Practiced

The third and final research question was when was courage practiced by the fraternity leaders. Two themes were found in the data pertaining to when courage was practiced: (1) accountability systems and (2) support networks. Evidence is presented here to support these findings.

Accountability Systems

Accountability systems were those features or documents that existed within the fraternities in the case study, in the fraternities’ cultures, that supported practicing courageous leadership and addressing, or confronting, problem behaviors. These systems included internal peer-accountability boards, written standards, written policies,

133

or governing documents. The standards were, at least for the chapter presidents, objective, measureable expectations driven by the shared values of the organization.

There was some evidence that leaders holding members accountable to academic standards was more comfortable than holding them accountable to risk policies that would address problem behaviors. Hal said that when chapter presidents defined courage as it related to leadership that they might have been more inclined to talk about academic standards. He said:

I think most of them are going to define it as standards and enforcement of those standards. There's this odd, and I hate to say, there's this odd place about [Fraternity], but there just is, particularly around academics that I think most of them are going to know that they, they're going to go to the spot that is most familiar to them, and be able to talk about the things that they do to hold their members accountable for grades. So, to me, I think that's gonna be a comfortable place to go.

“In my experience, [Fraternity] has a very low tolerance for, for [poor performance in] academic achievement,” Hal said. Cal said that one of their chapters routinely held members accountable, to the point of expulsion, for not maintaining a certain, minimum grade point average. He said:

But the thing that's really admirable for them is that once an individual has been expelled, and let's use academics, for example, that they're not maintaining a minimum . . .GPA for two consecutive semesters. And they recognize that this person has not cleaned up their act. They they've been warned. They've been, they've been assisted. They've, the chapters helped provide mentors, tutors, etc. and scholarship opportunities to get them to change their, their academic studies habits, but they haven't changed their way so they've been expelled.

Hal suggested that leaders from his fraternity chapters struggled more with relationship issues than academic issues. “I'm not getting a lot of questions about you know, help me navigate how to hold someone accountable for their grades . . .I'm just not seeing that; I'm seeing more of that, that relationship, respect, emotional pieces,” he said.

134

Cal referenced a chapter that he had been working with that had a history of problem behaviors, and in part of rehabilitating the chapter to align its behavior with the values, he said, “We need to build a peer accountability system.”

Written processes addressing accountability or separate processes, such as peer-accountability processes, were mentioned in reference to when a fraternity leader practiced courageous leadership, especially in regards to addressing problem behaviors. Hal believed that his fraternity had “a really strong standards process” in the context of chapter leaders practicing courageous leadership in addressing problem behaviors. Art spoke about a situation in which a member was being brought up for expulsion from the chapter. The chapter followed a formal process for that situation. Art said, “that’s, again, another example where you can avoid a lot of problems, a lot of political debate and things if you have good processes.” Art said the matter first went through their “J-Board,” or the “judicial branch” of the chapter. Wendell explained, “I'd say we give a lot of deference to our, um, the, the mechanisms that we have in place: like our judicial board, or our elected officials who are supposed to be disciplinary.” As president, Wendell was not part of the judicial board, or “J-Board” as he called it. When asked if having the judicial board made it easier for him knowing there was a process to support him confronting problem behaviors, he said:

Yeah, I would say it does. It does make my job a little easier, especially with things that need some sort of defined action following it. Whether that's, you know, whether that's a fine or whether that's some sort of probationary status. It gives, it gives me an opportunity to step back and not be just the bad guy dishing punishments all the time. Because, I mean, this is, this ends up being a board of . . .their peers. And so that's, it's spread out across classes, across friend groups. And so, I'd say it does make it a little easier for me just because I don't have to be the one dishing out all the punishments. It's, it's judged by the group.

135

Art described a time that a disciplinary decision had to be made by the chapter members and J-Board through a formal process. It was through this experience that Art had to practice courageous leadership of a different sort. He said, “when you’re president, everything funnels towards you. We had a system and process so I was able to remain unbiased through the whole thing and let the chapter house decide for itself.”

Art agreed that it took more courage for him in that moment to do nothing as president, and to remain unbiased, than to take a side. “That was a pretty stressful point in my life,” he said. According to Art, the chapter was “pretty divided” during that time. There were members that expected him to do something; the pressure was on him “not to remain unbiased.”

Wendell said he had been in similar situations in which a process was running its course, yet the members of the fraternity wanted him to take a stand. He described:

And it's, it's kind of one of the things that we have is that we have to do as president, and just the way that we run things, is that there are certain things that we just have to back off from and just being facilitators instead of being involved in the decision making.

Wendell was then asked how remaining unbiased in a process like that made him feel.

This is what he said:

Yeah, I mean, it can feel a little disarming at times. I feel like because, I mean, we're elected to these positions, and we feel that with that comes sort of some sort of authority. But at the same time, we've, we've seen this work long enough that we just kind of have to take the mature step and say, ‘I know this is what is going to be best.’

Written policies or values supported when fraternity presidents needed to practice courageous leadership and to confront problem behaviors. Everson addressed his fraternity members at a meeting after someone caused damage in the fraternity house, but no one would own up to who did it. He said he had to “remind them of our

136

values.” “We have to remember, remember our . . .pillars, guys, remember this,” he told them. For Everson, he said those written documents helped him in his role as president:

But I mean to me since my experiences as a new member, and as, as an underclassman, and then stepping into leadership roles is just reading, reading the ritual, reading our constitution, reading things and understanding what our fraternity stands for.

Booker referenced the Bible to back up his leadership when they people accountable:

And so when, when faith plays a role in it, it's, it's kind of hard to argue because, you know, it's all it's all, there's a book, the Bible, and, and if it goes against it, then we're almost always an agreement that you need to you need to change your ways. And we understand that, you know, maybe not everybody is a, is a strict following believer, but you know, we still kind of have the culture and the values that back up that type of, that type of person, that type of leadership.

His fraternity policies also helped him as leader, as well. When asked how faith played a role in addressing problem behaviors, he responded, “I would say that a lot of our policies, a lot of our, you know, house policies, a lot of our bylaws are written to back that up in a more legalistic worldview way.”

Cal said that courageous leadership from the chapter leaders was expected to be practiced when members violated their mutual agreements.

Every member signed a mutual agreement. Where we expect our chapter leaders to demonstrate courage, to demonstrate, you know, good sound leadership is calling out those members who are, who are being those individuals and violating that [oath]. That they're not following the principles, the values and the objectives of the fraternity.

Accountability systems was one theme of when courage was practiced by the leaders. Support networks also played a vital role in when courage was practiced.

Support Networks

The data revealed that fraternity leaders practiced courageous leadership when there was some sort of network there to support them. These networks came in the

137

form of stakeholders to the fraternity chapters that provided guidance or advice to the fraternity and fraternity leaders. Support was also presented as a peer network or some knowledge by the courageous leader that the accountability for or confronting the problem behaviors had been done before.

Cal provided examples of entities that provided support for a chapter president and helped the president to handle some of the difficult situations he may have encountered in his chapter. Cal believed that those entities made a positive difference for the fraternity leaders’ ability to practice courage. He referred to the culture of the chapter. “How are those officers being transitioned year over year? And if any, or to what level, are alumni leaders engaged,” he said. He also said that a “house director,” or a “house mother” could also make a difference. Cal explained:

We feel very strongly about a, a strong positive female presence who can provide those, that life-skill leadership development. Um, so, those who feel better equipped to be able to handle the dissenting opinion are, are better equipped because, again, they had a sound officer to transition, they’re coaching it, they're checking in regularly with the sound advising team, they can have the backing of the alumni board, of the alumni corporation support, and they have that housemother or that house director, that, that strong adult presence who is living or interacting with the chapter and regular basis, who, um, and a lot to be said for expectations and not wanting to disappoint your house mother because she'll, she'll never get mad at you, but she'll just express disappointment and that's, and you can tell a lot of chapters that have one, don't want to disappoint their house mother.

Cal pointed out that he wanted his chapter leaders, chapter presidents, to know that they could lean on their alumni/advisors for support when they practiced courageous leadership. He wanted the chapter leaders to:

understand that they have those chapter advisors, they have those other alumni leaders to bounce ideas off to help them, maybe, build a case for support or be that sounding board, whatever the situation may be, for them to make the decision or for others to help uphold that decision.

138

Cal said his national office trained the chapter advisors, or alumni advisors to the chapter, to “step up and, and help them work through the process, keep [chapter leaders] out of the ditches, don't make the decision for them, but help them get to a point of a solution.” Hal said that in addressing problem behaviors, chapter leaders were

“assisted by a really strong local volunteers network, which for our more established chapters, there's just a really strong rank and file alumni presence who I think help them through that, that courageous decision making.” Cal pointed to his national office as another support system for chapters, chapter leaders, and advisors. His office conducted educational programming that helped fraternity leaders to be “stronger in their positions.” The national office held training programs that included “all the chapter officers, a chapter advisor, the housemother/house director, and a member of the alumni board” in which the curriculum included, “learning about their job, learning how it works to the, to the inner workings of the chapter, why they all need to work together.”

Cal provided an example when one of the chapter presidents for his fraternity leaned on the alumni advisors for support in enforcing new rules around alcohol consumption in the fraternity chapter house. He explained:

I've seen where a chapter has been very proactive that, ah, they went with their alumni board and had the alumni board buy in, who wrote the housing contracts, include those stipulations in their housing contracts, so then all the members re- signed for the following year, they were then agreeing to abide by those . . .new rulings.

He gave another example that demonstrated how the alumni advisor helped the chapter leaders that they advised. In this case, the chapter leader introduced new alcohol rules to the rest of the fraternity members:

139

And I've seen others where a [chapter president] or chapter officer who's bringing up this information may not be as strong a leader, get steamrolled by the opposition, in which the chapter advisor has had to step in and help out.

Hal also shared that his fraternity headquarters office was an important support network, in addition to alumni advisors, when helping chapter leaders practice courageous leadership. He recalled an example of a few chapters in which the leaders took a stand against member behaviors that did not align with chapter values:

And we've seen that probably in three or four cases . . .where chapters took that direction and lost a significant number of the men, because the men wanted to have a different social fabric than the rest of the chapter. Those wouldn't have been possible without strong alumni support, I think, propped them up through it, or staff support. . . .And if you care about your values, and you care about courageous leadership then I think I'm asking our men to tackle that head on, and share it with us so we can help them.

Hal said that in those examples, the support from advisors and his office were important in a chapter leader that held a chapter accountable to their values.

And so in those, most of those cases . . .that I think the access they've had to volunteers and staff, and the relationships that were created, made someone comfortable in raising their hands being, being like, ‘this isn't, this isn't who we are, and I want to do something about it.’

Another area of support for the chapter leaders in this case study was the support by peers or other members of the fraternity. Evidence showed that chapter leaders were more likely to practice courageous leadership in addressing problem behaviors when they felt supported by their peers and were not alone in their decisions.

The executive boards that played a role in leading the chapters were seen as an important part of supporting the chapter presidents. Again, Cal referred to an example in which a controversial new policy restricting alcohol consumption was being implemented to the chapters of his fraternity. He pointed to using the chapter presidents and the “executive officer positions to coach the chapter and build that consensus,” and

140

“generate buy-in from our collegiate members” on the new policy. Cal wanted his chapter presidents to know that practicing courageous leadership should not be done alone. He said of the chapter presidents, “I think the biggest thing is that they need to understand that they're not alone in their decision making. . . .They have an executive officer team that they can build consensus with. It’s not just the [president] making the decision.”

Regarding when chapter leaders practiced courageous leadership, Hal expanded on the confidence they had to have in their own value set to make a decision on an issues. He said, “And I think they, I think they have to have some sort of feeling that they're not the only person who believes that.” Booker’s comments supported this idea.

He said it was easier for him to hold members of his fraternity accountable when other chapter members were in support of that action. He said when someone strays from the fraternity values:

it’s a piece of cake for myself as president to take care of the situation, because I've got the rest of the chapter to back me up on it because, you know, everyone agrees: that's not who we are, that's not what we stand for, and we're not gonna tolerate.

When Booker had to stand up against problem behaviors in his chapter, he said:

it's also easy for me because the nature of the chapter is: that's not us; we don't stand for that, you know, step up your game, clean up your act. So [it’s] helpful to have the majority and the, the mob, if you will, behind you.

Wendell also spoke to this idea of support when confronting problem behaviors.

“First, it’s easier if you have someone else with you to do it,” Wendell said. He continued, “And we take, we take a lot of time and deliberation in electing our executive team. And so having someone else there with you when you're having to maybe have some sort of confrontation.” As a new president, Everson had to find new peer groups

141

within the fraternity that supported his values. He described a situation in which he was being “made fun of” by his friends for some of his personal values and interests. He explained:

And I mean, in that situation for me, I've had to really call out my friends. I really had to separate myself from those friend groups and I found new friend groups, and I found people who may not think the same way or may not be the same person, but I mean, they're, they're goal-oriented. They're very similar to me. They're driven, they're passionate. They don't really care about what other people think.

Similar to peer support being important when leaders practiced courageous leadership, leaders found it easier to address those behaviors if someone had been held accountable for those problem behaviors before. Wendell talked about what made confronting problem behaviors easier for him as a chapter president. “And then also something much harder to define is the, the culture that we have that I've seen it work in the past. I've seen other people able to take courageous action and get results,” he said. Hal said something similar regarding his chapter presidents that had confidence to uphold the chapter values. Knowing that a behavior had been held to account before helped the chapter president when he did the right thing to uphold the values. He said:

I believe that most of our [Fraternity] men probably are in that camp, right? Where they, they think, ‘gosh, this is important, and I know that I'm right. And based on other behavior that I've seen and the way other behaviors are confronted, I feel like I'm in a position to be courageous and step up.’

There was another interesting concept that emerged in the data that was mentioned by a few of the participants. The findings showed that having support made it easier for chapter presidents to practice courageous leadership and confront problem behaviors in their chapter. Some participants recognized that courage was needed by chapter presidents in order to seek that support, or ask for help. Art had pointed out that

142

courageous leadership for a younger, sophomore, chapter president came in the form of seeking the backing of upperclassmen on an important discipline decision. However, the courage that was taken to do that gave the chapter president the support needed to confront the problem behavior. “So I'd say trying to get the backing that you need for a successful turnaround on those actions can be daunting and need to have some courage, but once you have the backing, then there's no courage needed,” Art said.

Hal recalled the several chapters that used alumni advisors and headquarters staff as support when they wanted to tackle a culture of problematic behaviors in their chapters.

It first took those chapter presidents asking for that help. He said in all of those cases, “it was because a student raised their hand and said, ‘Hey, I don't think this is right. How can I fix this?’” Wendell saw asking for help as a different kind of courageous leadership. He saw courageous leadership as enabling others to provide input on decisions. He said that courage as a fraternity leaders was:

the ability to not only do what you think is best for the fraternity yourself, but to also, I mean, seek the counsel, seek the advice, seek the opinions of everyone else. Because I think at times, presidents can get a little isolated and start making decisions just on their own and what they think is best and, and the fact of the matter is, we have 100 members that I need to take into account for every decision that I make. And granted, some of those are probably going to happen just on my own or just from the executive team, but making sure to have the courage to, I think the courage is tied up a little bit in humility, and being able to have the courage to say ‘okay, maybe I, I shouldn't make this decision 100% on my own, maybe I should bring this to some more people.’

Chapter Summary

Findings from the case study were presented in this chapter. The purpose of this research was to examine courageous leadership as practiced by fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors. The case study consisted of two fraternities with agricultural goals or foundations: Alpha Gamma Rho and FarmHouse. The findings

143

were presented for each of the three research question. Four fraternity chapter presidents were interviewed, along with one staff person from each of the two fraternity’s headquarters. Transcripts from those interviews were analyzed for codes and ultimately themes. Governing and guiding documents from both of the fraternities were also analyzed for themes and presented with the findings. Table 4-1 provide a summary of the themes and corresponding subthemes for each of the research questions for this study.

Table 4-1. Themes and subthemes Research Question Themes Subthemes Question 1 Common Purpose/Shared Bettering self Values Personal values Interpersonal relationships Assume Responsibility for Values alignment Common Purpose Bettering the organization Challenge Behaviors Accountability Confronting problem behaviors Question 2 Intellectual Courage Moral Courage Doing the right thing Taking a stand Overcoming Fears Confidence Question 3 Accountability Systems Support Networks

The first research question was how was courage practiced by the fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors. The themes discussed for this research question were (1) common purpose/shared values, (2) assume responsibility for a common purpose, and (3) challenge behaviors. Within the theme of common purpose/shared values, three subthemes were also found: (1) bettering self, (2) personal values, and (3) interpersonal relationships. There were two subthemes under

144

the theme of assume responsibility for a common purpose: (1) values alignment and (2) bettering the organization. Under the themes of challenge behaviors, two subthemes were discussed in the findings: (1) accountability and (2) confront problem behaviors.

The second research question how was courage defined by the fraternity leaders in the case study when faced with problem behaviors. Four major themes emerged and were reported in the findings: (1) intellectual courage, (2) moral courage, (3) overcoming fears, and (4) confidence. Only the theme of moral courage had under it two subthemes. Those subthemes were: (1) doing the right thing and (2) taking a stand.

The third and final questions for this research was when was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors committed by the members of their fraternity. Two themes were reported for this research question. The first theme was accountability systems. The second theme was support networks.

Chapter 5 will present key findings and discussion on those findings. The next chapter will also present general conclusions and implications along with recommendations for practice and research.

145

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

Overview

The purpose of this research was to explore courageous leadership practiced by leaders of agricultural fraternities when confronting problem behaviors. The previous chapters presented an argument for why this study was significant, along with a review of the literature on problem behaviors in fraternities. Problem behaviors in fraternities were identified as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. Justification for why these behaviors were problematic for members of fraternities, and the overall organizations, were discussed. Existing literature on courageous leadership and moral action was also reviewed.

Methodological procedures were presented for this case study qualitative research project. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with six participants. Their interviews were conducted one-on-one using video conferencing technology. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, first by an online, automatic transcription software, followed by manual verification by the researcher. The data collected from the interviews and fraternity written documents were analyzed.

Codes were identified and grouped into themes that emerged. Thematic findings were described in the previous chapter, supported by in vivo evidence from the participant interviews and fraternity documents acquired.

The themes discussed in Chapter 4 were categorized by each of the three research questions. The research questions for this study included:

1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem

behaviors in the fraternity;

146

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem

behaviors in their fraternity; and

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem

behaviors in their fraternity?

Key findings and discussion were presented in this chapter related to each of the three questions. Implications as well as recommendations for practice and recommendations for future research were also addressed.

Key Findings and Discussion

The key findings from the study were separated into the three research questions. The significant themes that were founding through data analysis and coding were reported under the research question to which they were determined to correspond.

Research Question 1 – How Courage Was Practiced

The first research questions of this study was how did fraternity leaders, in this case fraternity presidents, practice courage when they addressed problem behaviors.

For this case study, problem behaviors were defined as alcohol abuse, hazing, and sexual misconduct. There was an assumption by the researcher that fraternity presidents actually took action to stop or prevent these behaviors from being committed by the fraternity members, or followers. An assumption was also made that the fraternity presidents had responsibility or even agency to address these types of behaviors.

Evidence did show that fraternity presidents had responsibility, or at least believed they had responsibility, to confront problem behaviors in their chapter. Presidents reported that they had to deal with problem behaviors, especially when fellow brothers did not step up to the task. There were examples that presidents had to enforce new policies

147

and were trained or coached by the national office staff members in addressing those situations.

There was evidence in the findings that certainly all members were responsible for confronting problem behaviors, but chapter presidents did prove to be a rich source of information. The participants in this study at least desired to have all members be responsible for holding one another accountable. They felt that if that happened, less burden would fall on them to address the behaviors. The chapter presidents were outliers from the norm in the fraternity culture and were more likely to confront problem behaviors, or at least expected it by others. This supported the extreme/deviant case study method this research followed (Crossman, 2019; Etikan et al., 2016).

Common purpose/shared values

The organizations’ common purpose/shared organizational values was an important theme in this study. While the information presented on the fraternities’ values and common purpose did not directly show how the fraternity president practiced courageous leadership, it did provide the necessary context needed to fully describe the findings in this case study. The common purpose of the fraternities was separate and distinct for each fraternity, but remarkably similar to one another. This common purpose belonged to each fraternity as a whole, in essence franchised to every chapter chartered by the fraternity at various college campuses across North America. The ostensible values of each fraternity were also shared among the chapters, but each chapter appeared to be its own microcosm of the fraternity with its own distinctive subculture and values that were prioritized with that subculture. For example, Booker’s

148

chapter, according to him, valued high academic achievement and accountability. Art demonstrated that his chapter placed a high value on brotherhood.

Chaleff (2009b) believed that leaders (for the purpose of this case study the chapter presidents) and the followers (fraternity members or brothers) exist in a reciprocal relationship around the organization’s common purpose. “Any organization is a triad consisting of leaders and followers joined in a common purpose. Often the purpose exists and we come together around it” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 12).

The clear, simple common purpose of both fraternities was to better the men who were members. This betterment was directed across several aspects such as academic achievement, leadership, social responsibility, and brotherhood. Alpha Gamma Rho’s clear and shared purpose as listed in their national constitutions was “to make better men” (Purpose, promise, values, n.d.). FarmHouse was a fraternity “dedicated to the building of men” (What is Farmhouse, n.d.). Evidence was presented in the findings that showed the chapter presidents and the national staff could articulate the common purpose and could either relate to it or articulate how they shared some responsibility toward that common purpose as a leader.

Bettering of members was the common purpose from which the fraternity values arose. The three subthemes of shared values that were interpreted from the data were bettering of self, personal values, and interpersonal relationships. Chaleff (2009b) believed that for an organization, “equally fundamental are the group’s shared values”

(p. 13). He said that “clarifying core values validates the purpose and determines how we will and how we won’t pursue it” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 13). The common purpose of both fraternities manifested as a shared value and presented as personal growth,

149

personal skill development, professional growth, or academic achievement. Morality and personal values were a shared valued throughout both fraternities. For Booker, “faith” was an important guiding personal value. Wendell mentioned “morally acceptable” behavior, and Everson talked about the importance of doing the “right thing” in leadership. Upbringing influenced several participants’ expression of their personal values. Everson mentioned “farm values” and “Christian values,” and Art talked about

“rural America” as terms used that influenced personal values toward what Cal called

“folksy or down home behavior.” The leaders in this case study seemed attuned to their personal values and they shared examples of aligning their behavior to their own values. This personal values alignment showed evidence of authentic leadership described by Bill George (2003). George wrote that part of being an authentic leader is to be guided by one’s personal values. He wrote that “leaders are defined by their values and their character” (George, 2003, p. 20). Values were in a sense the leaders’ moral compass, helping them to find their way through right and wrong (George, 2003).

Interpersonal relationships were also valued. This value was observed as another important shared value for the fraternities, one that set up a critical foundation for how problem behaviors were addressed through courageous leadership. Friendships within the chapters formed the basis for which problem behaviors were confronted.

Brotherhood was the term commonly used by participants to describe the social aspect of the fraternity, the friendships among the members. Brotherhood was talked about by the chapter presidents at a chapter level. Brotherhood also seemed to transcend chapters; members from one chapter were brothers with members from another chapter. These findings on friendships and the brotherhood aspect of the fraternities

150

aligned with the schemas of brotherhood found by McCreary and Schutts (2015).

Evidence of solidarity, shared social experiences, and accountability appeared in the data related to the brotherhood, or interpersonal relationships, within the fraternities.

Respect played a large role in the value of interpersonal relationships. Both fraternities had shared, written guidance that included the word and concept of respect.

This respect was expected of each member upon the other, and of each member upon everyone outside of the fraternity. It laid the stage for how and why problem behaviors such as alcohol abuse, hazing, and sexual misconduct would not be tolerated. Hazing and sexual misconduct were seen as a form of disrespect upon others; alcohol abuse was seen as a disrespect of oneself. Additionally, there was evidence that suggested that alcohol abuse was closely related to hazing and could come in the form of one member disrespecting the other. This supported the findings of Allan and Madden

(2008) that showed alcohol consumption to be often associated with hazing behaviors.

The common purpose and shared values helped to provide the context to further describe this case study. How courageous leadership was practiced stemmed from the common purpose and shared values, just as Chaleff (2009b) suggested. Fraternity leaders practiced courageous leadership along the lines described by the conceptual model for this research. Two of those dimensions of courageous leadership in the conceptual model were assuming responsibility for the common purpose and challenging behaviors.

Assuming responsibility for the common purpose

The conceptual model of this study was based on Chaleff’s (2009b, 2009a) model of courageous followership and the five dimensions of a courageous follower.

151

The conceptual model asserted that courageous leaders of the fraternity must also in some way practice the five dimensions, just as any courageous follower might, in working toward the fraternity’s common purpose, and more specifically, addressing problem behaviors committed by the membership. If the leaders and followers exist in a triad with the common purpose as Chaleff (2009b) believed, then practicing courageous leadership can be described by actions in the five dimensions.

The dimension of assuming responsibility for the organization’s common purpose was supported by the findings. Chaleff (2009b) wrote that “courageous followers assume responsibility for themselves and the organization” (p. 6). He also wrote that the courageous follower initiates “values-based action to improve the organization’s external activities and its internal processes” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 6). The same could be said of the courageous leader. The chapter presidents in this case study talked about members’ behaviors aligning with the shared values and how that helped them as a leader and bettered the organization because the common purpose was being fulfilled.

Guiding documents stated that member behaviors should clearly align with shared values or represent the organization well. Values alignment was expected of the followers and the leaders of the fraternities. That meant that all members, including the leaders, were expected to align their behaviors, both inside and outside of the fraternity, with the shared, outwardly facing values. Evidence showed that if behaviors did not align with shared values, then there would be consequences for the members not behaving in accordance to the values.

Actions by the fraternity members to assume responsibility for the organization were recognized and valued by the leaders. For example, when Everson said his

152

members “like to be as self-sufficient as possible” and “they love taking things on themselves and on their own responsibility,” this seemed to be a shared expectation, especially in his chapter culture. How the leaders articulated values alignment or bettering the organization seemed to depend on the priority value for that chapter. For example, it was clear that Art valued the expression of brotherhood in his chapter.

Therefore, he valued the brothers’ participation in the fraternity. By this, he meant brothers socializing with other brothers. Remember, he felt it went “against the culture when they're not actively participating.” Booker specifically recognized articulated that it took courage from leaders and members to contribute to the success of the fraternity.

He said it took courage for each member to do their part so that the fraternity as a whole could be successful.

The chapter leaders not only expected members to assume responsibility to align behaviors with actions and better the organization, they practiced courage by doing it themselves or enabling members of the fraternity. For instance, Everson talked about his chapter’s practice of enabling members to shadow positions of leadership to learn how to take on more responsibility for the common purpose. Art mentioned delegating specific responsibilities to members of his executive board, and he saw it as his responsibility to ensure those members met their obligations toward the fraternity.

Everson admitted that at one point he was, as a member, not contributing to the betterment of his fraternity. He talked about the ten percent of members that were

“destructive” or the “cancers” of the organization. He admitted that he was close to being part of that ten percent, but instead he decided to run for a leadership position and dedicate energy to making the fraternity better. According to Chaleff (2009b), this

153

would be an example of the leader assuming responsibility by creating “opportunities to fulfill their potential and maximize their value to the organization” (p. 6). Chaleff wrote that personal growth was associated with assuming responsibility. One must assume responsibility for themselves in order to better the organization. From the perspective of the follower, he said, “If we are to contain or transform our leader’s dark side, we had better become familiar with our own” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 44). This is exactly what

Everson did but from the perspective of a leader. He recognized that he was actively contributing to the degradation of the fraternity, and then he assumed responsibility for his own growth toward making the fraternity better.

Challenging behaviors

The third theme that was reported under the research question of how courage was practiced by fraternity leaders was challenging behaviors. This theme, like assuming responsibility for the common purpose, was named for one of the five dimensions presented in the conceptual model for this study. Chaleff (2009b) described the courage to challenge behaviors as “followers give voice to the discomfort they feel when the behaviors or policies of the leader or group conflict with their sense of what is right” (p. 7). He continued, “They are willing to deal with the emotions their challenge evokes in the leader and group” (Chaleff, 2009b, p. 7). In the conceptual model, these same sentiments were applied to the leader rather than the follower. It was assumed for this study that the leaders of fraternities would have to practice courage in order to challenge certain behaviors of the members, problem behaviors, because they were antithetical to the fraternity’s common purpose and shared values. Evidence was found in this study to support these claims.

154

The primary problem behaviors outlined in this study and included in the review of the literature were found in the context of this case study. Those problem behaviors included alcohol abuse, hazing, and sexual misconduct. All three of these problem behaviors were outlawed in governing documents by both fraternities. The explicit prohibition of such behaviors supported the literature that these behaviors were problematic in the fraternity culture (Allan & Madden, 2008; Asel et al., 2009; Bannon et al., 2013; Cimino, 2018; Foubert et al., 2006; Larimer et al., 2004; McCabe et al., 2005;

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2020; Salinas Jr. et al., 2018; Sher et al., 2001).

Only two of the fraternity presidents gave an example that came close to behaviors that might be in the category of sexual misconduct, but no significant details of how they addressed those possible situations was shared. Similarly, the chapter presidents shared what they thought hazing looked like in fraternities in general, but no one participant shared examples of having to directly address hazing behaviors in their own chapters. Hazing was discussed as, what Wendell called, “horror stories” that presidents heard about happening in other fraternity chapters, but not their own.

Presidents did indicate that hazing definitions were subjective and unclear. It was clear that hazing was prohibited, but based on the findings, the definition of what constituted hazing was subjective. This evidence from the qualitative interviews supported literature that reported differences in how hazing was defined by students and administrators led to a lack of clarity (Roosevelt, 2018; Salinas Jr. et al., 2018).

All of the chapter presidents in the case study did talk about alcohol abuse as a problem behavior. For example, Everson talked about having seen frequent alcohol

155

abuse in the fraternity. The presidents spoke about their concerns over alcohol abuse hurting the well-being of their brothers. Alcohol abuse was described, in part, as consumption with heavy frequency, and this certainly supported the research of Fairlie et al. (2010) that showed fraternity and sorority students engaged in heavy alcohol use and reported negative consequences. The fraternity presidents in this study talked about alcohol use in terms of alcohol dependency and causing damage in the fraternity house.

It was interesting that the fraternity presidents that participated were more comfortable talking with the researcher about confronting issues with alcohol or holding someone accountable for not meeting the academic standards. The presidents seemed somewhat guarded in talking with the researcher. For example, Art shared a point with a story that was “un-incriminating.” There was evidence that the fraternities identified with the problem behaviors described in this study, particularly alcohol abuse. The lack of willingness to share too much detail with the researcher made it difficult to ascertain how the fraternity presidents confronted direct examples of all problem behaviors. More trust between the researcher and the participants would likely need to be established before more details are provided related to all problem behaviors. It was also possible that the fraternities studied in this case study simply did not face problem behaviors of hazing and sexual misconduct. Regardless, more examples of confronting alcohol abuse were shared, by far, than those of hazing or sexual misconduct. Perhaps alcohol use is more wide-spread and, therefore, less taboo. Perhaps presidents felt that these examples could get them in less trouble if someone at the national organization or

156

university found out. Perhaps violating values around alcohol abuse were more clear and easier to convey.

One thing was clear in the findings about the fraternity cultures. All participants talked about a culture of accountability, either a strong one or a weak one, that existed in their respective chapters and with the fraternities as national organizations.

Accountability was the culture, and confronting the problem behaviors, those that misaligned with the fraternity values, was the action. The accountability was connected to the organization’s common purpose. Members shared several times that accountability was, or should have been, shared among all members of the fraternity.

For example, Art used the term “self-governing.” Wendell said it was not just his job to confront problem behaviors. He said, “when something negative does happen, people are on it right away. It's not, it's not just waiting for the handful of guys at the top to take care of it.” Chaleff (2009b) addressed shared accountability. Accountability should be expected if the relationship of the follower and the leader revolve around the organization’s common purpose. “Largely, the community itself ferrets out antisocial behavior and enforces adherence to its rules through social pressure. But at some point a formal authority must emerge that acts as arbiter while respecting the group’s values”

(Chaleff, 2009b, p. 184). In this case study the formal authority could be seen as the chapter president, the judicial boards they mentioned, or the national offices that sometimes had to hold chapters or members accountable.

An interesting finding in this study was how fraternity presidents held members accountable and practiced courageous leadership by confronting problem behaviors.

The phrase of “confronting” problem behaviors was used to mirror the term as it was

157

used by the participants. The newer chapter presidents in this study identified with the confrontation of problem behaviors as difficult or uncomfortable. Chaleff (2009b) said to confront a problem behavior, the person must be “willing to deal with the emotions their challenge evokes” (p. 7). Wendell supported this when he described confronting a member on an issue as “emotional.” Evidence showed that chapter presidents favored confronting problem behaviors with a member one-on-one rather than addressing the entire group, or addressing that behavior in a group setting. Wendell pointed out that in a fraternity, the members are friends first, which must make accountability that much more difficult for the president that may be responsible for administering it. The presidents used that basis of friendship, or brotherhood, as a tool for confronting the behavior. Booker would enlist someone else, if necessary, that had a more positive relationship with the offending member to confront the problem behavior. Wendell approached the member with care when he had to confront a problem behavior, reminding that person that they were all friends. He tried to be non-confrontational, recognizing the, what he called, “negative connotation” to the term confrontation. He would approach an issue with a member with love and understanding. Art would appeal to the value of brotherhood if someone engaged in a problem behavior. He would point out to the person the damage that they had caused to other brothers for not taking personal responsibility and accountability for the problem behavior. With regards to how presidents confronted problem behaviors was again connected to the values of that particular chapter. Wendell valued the care and support his members provided one another. Art valued brotherhood, and he used that loyalty of brotherhood as leverage when he confronted the problem behaviors.

158

The subtheme of accountability was connected to the findings of McCreary and

Schutts (2015). In their research, accountability was one of four schemas through which brotherhood was defined. They found that fraternity brotherhood was “based on accountability to group standards and expectations” (McCreary & Schutts, 2015, p. 35).

They also noted that fraternity brotherhood “represents a mutual commitment to make one another better through systems of accountability” (McCreary & Schutts, 2015, p.

35). The culture of accountability found in both fraternities set a foundation, or expectation, that allowed the fraternity leaders to confront problem behaviors.

Research Question 2 – How Courage Was Defined

The second research question was how fraternity leaders defined courage, particularly in the context of a leader confronting problem behaviors in the chapter. Four major themes emerged from the data: (1) intellectual courage, (2) moral courage, (3) overcoming fears, and (4) confidence. Moral courage and intellectual courage were presented here in the key findings as one section.

Moral and intellectual courage

Moral courage and intellectual courage were presented in the findings as two separate themes, but they were discussed here together. These terms were used by

Cal, who defined courage in the context of the case study as both moral and intellectual.

Intellectual courage was defined by Cal as the courage to know what to do, or what was necessary to do for the betterment of the organization. He referred to it as courage that is informed by knowledge rather than a gut instinct of right and wrong. A leader may still have done the right thing, the moral thing, but it was based on an educated decision.

While no other participants referred to intellectual courage by name, others did talk about making changes in the fraternity or making a controversial change to a rule or

159

policy. Booker in particular said courage was needed in those cases to know that such a change was best for the organization, stick to that decision, and do what was best for the fraternity, even if there was push back from the members. Leading change within the organization, such as the examples used about facing changes to alcohol policies in the chapter, aligns with the courageous leadership dimension of having the courage to participate in transformation.

The idea of moral courage was discussed more broadly in the data. Cal defined moral courage as “more of a gut feeling.” He said moral courage was addressing things in the organization that “you feel is right and wrong.” The idea of doing the right thing or taking a stand against something wrong appeared throughout the findings. For example,

Everson defined courage as “having the courage to do the right thing” and to “stick up for what’s right no matter what.” Booker also said that courage was “doing the right thing, even when you don’t know if everyone’s going to agree with it.” Similarly, there were comments about leaders standing up for what they believed in or what they believed was right. The participants understood that a fraternity president doing the right thing or taking a stand on an issue, particularly related to a problem behavior, might have come with resistance from the membership. Certainly there was overlap between moral courage and intellectual courage. In both cases the president might have done the right thing; the distinction was likely that moral courage was based on personal, instinctive morals of right or wrong, where intellectual courage was likely based on some evidence or rationale on what course to take.

Both taking a stand and doing the right thing were also connected. They were almost synonymous with one another throughout the data. The courage for the leader to

160

do what was right or the courage to take a stand on an issue seemed to be rooted in personal values. For example, Cal said that the chapter leaders were likely to define courage as the ability tap into their personal values and stand up for what they believed.

There appeared also a sense of leaders being authentic by knowing their values and embracing them, even when it was difficult. The participants were aware that confronting a problem behavior required courage because it might have likely come with a cost to the leader. Those costs for leaders were found and described in the data.

Everson gave an example of the cost of taking a stand and doing the right thing.

A member of the fraternity had caused damage in the fraternity house, but some brothers did not want the member to be held accountable by being disciplined. Everson said he had to remind his fraternity brothers of the shared values of the organization and how that type of behavior was not in alignment. In similar situations, Everson said he had been called a “hypocrite” for doing the “right thing” in holding another member accountable. He was called a hypocrite because his brothers said that Everson used to engage in similar behaviors before he president. So Everson showed courage in owning his past mistakes and he moved forward. In his mind, he had to “set the example, set the precedent, demand excellence.” This example supported the research conducted by

Kreps et al. (2017) that found that leaders that changed their mind on a moral issue were seen as more hypocritical than courageous. If Everson never found issue with a brother’s problem behaviors (or even engaged in them) before he was president, then he took a moral stand against that behavior later as president, that might explain why members called him a hypocrite. The data suggested that fraternity presidents may have been more prone to this hypocritical effect. The reason being, for these

161

fraternities, the friendships that existed within the brotherhood were the foundation to everything else. They were all brothers first, then one of them is elected from that brotherhood as president. Members of the fraternity must have known every behavior, every misstep, every time the president had potentially engaged in problem behaviors before he was president. Now as president, he would have been expected to set a better example and be the steward for all of the fraternity’s righteous values. On top of that, in fraternities, presidents typically have been elected for one year terms, so the turnover of leadership has been frequent. Upholding organizational values and holding one’s friends accountable under these circumstances must be uniquely challenging.

The operational definition of fraternity brotherhood proposed by McCreary and

Schutts (2015) may play a role in dissention for holding certain members accountable.

Everson pointed out that doing the right thing was good unless a member’s sense of what was right did not align with the fraternity’s common purpose. Everson called this standing up for or believing in the wrong thing. It is possible, then, that in fraternities exists a member debate of right versus wrong. The brotherhood schema of solidarity may being playing a role here (McCreary & Schutts, 2015). For example, a brother of the fraternity may engage in a problem behavior. The president of the fraternity may want to hold that brother accountable and enact some form of punishment because he believes it is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, other brothers close to this perpetrator may want to protect him in the name of brotherhood, but they, too, believe that is the right thing to do. If brotherhood is a value, as it appeared to be in this research, then it seems plausible that fraternity members might struggle with the morally right course of action.

162

In the context of this research, moral disengagement could be seen as engaging in the problem behaviors such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. Given the findings, the moral disengagement for some members of the fraternity may not be seen as a violation of the fraternity’s common purpose. If indeed the common purpose of the fraternity, or at least part of the common purpose, is brotherhood and friendships, then standing up for one’s brother, even if he had committed a problem behavior, is supporting the common purpose. The evidence in the study suggested that the friendships among the members of fraternities were foundational to the whole fraternity experience. Wendell shared that as the president he was in charge of his friends. Art identified brotherhood as the important value in his particular chapter. Remember, he said he would rather members got in trouble together as brothers than with someone outside of the fraternity. This could mean that brotherhood took precedence over engaging in problem behaviors, at least for some of the fraternity chapters. This could explain, in part, why those problem behaviors have occurred and why the chapter presidents found accountability so difficult. Courageous leadership would then be carried out differently for the chapter presidents depending on how they each identified with the common purpose. A chapter president may have practiced courageous leadership by holding a member accountable because that member’s behavior violated the president’s sense of a common purpose of bettering men. It would stand to reason that other members then dissented from holding that one member accountable because they identified with a common purpose of brotherhood. Punishing the member could then have been seen as violating a sense of brotherhood. This could also explain the organizational right versus wrong debate that Everson discussed. The leader and the

163

follower both felt that they were doing right by the fraternity’s common purpose because they identified differently with a common purpose.

Overcoming fears

Participants in this case study spoke about overcoming personal fears that as fraternity leaders they had in connection to their leadership roles. In many ways, it was making a decision or taking action in response to those fears that the participants associated with courage. The chapter presidents felt a significant burden or weight in their decisions, or making the right decision for the organization. Most notably, they lived with the fear that someone in their fraternity could get hurt or even die, likely due to alcohol. They lived with fear that any one problem behavior from a member could suspend their own fraternity chapter or negatively impact fraternities across the country.

This burden must have created unparalleled complexity, especially for a college student leader. For example, Wendell said what kept him up at night was the fact that things, behaviors of his members, were out of his “control.” Everson feared “the worst,” such as not personally being there to help “when that kid asphyxiates,” presumably due to intoxication and vomiting. Wendell recognized that his fraternity, and all fraternities, were in a “fragile state” and could be shut down if something bad happened. Living with these fears may have put a unique pressure on the chapter presidents to make decisions to do what they felt was right, particularly around problem behaviors. They understood the consequences of taking moral action, or not taking moral action, could result in dire consequences for the fraternity and the members. Or perhaps those grave fears could have had the opposite effect on chapter presidents. The pressure may have been so overwhelming that they tuned it out. For example, Art recognized the potential

164

consequences to problem behaviors, but intimated that it was not productive to worry about such things. This could be easily interpreted from when he said that it was “a crapshoot” each night that a member might get hurt, or they might not. Alcohol abuse and the negative outcomes associated with it have not been actions left up to random chance. The fraternity members make decisions to abuse alcohol, and their brothers make decisions to enable it or try to stop it.

The participants in this study also identified a fear of losing social capital as a result of confronting a problem behavior, taking a stand on an issue, or leading controversial change for the fraternity. This was perhaps the most prevalent concern or fear for chapter presidents. For example, Cal recognized the “fear of any 18 to 22-year- old is the fear of losing their social capital or their friend group.” The chapter presidents in this study supported this in their interviews. Previous literature has agreed with or supported these findings related to leaders overcoming fears, especially the fear of facing social ridicule (Osswald et al., 2010). Kouzes and Posner (2016) shared a similar definition of courage as “the ability to face adversity without being overcome by fear” (p.

129). Palanski et al. (2015) said that “courage is often associated with morally upright behavior in adversity” (p. 298).

Confidence

The concept of confidence and how it appeared in this case study was an interesting finding. A chapter president’s level of confidence in himself was a factor in his practicing courage to confront a problem behavior. Confidence was identified as an attribute, a belief in themselves, to help practice courage and overcome their fears. The confidence appeared in the data as two-fold. For chapter presidents it was having

165

confidence that the decisions they made were right, or it was having confidence to overcome the pushback from peers or peers being unhappy with them because of the decisions they made. Confidence seemed connected to the fear of losing social capital; overcoming that fear took confidence. For example, Everson realized as a leader that he could not make everyone in the fraternity happy with every decision. So he accepted that and just followed his own values of what was right. This indicated the confidence that he knew he was right and was willing to stand up to the dissenting voices or willing to compromise relationships over it. Everson provided some evidence for this possibility when he said that he “found new friend groups” in connection to calling out friends and separating from those friend groups.

There appeared to be a difference in self-reported confidence between the two newer chapter presidents and the two more experienced chapter presidents. For example, Everson and Wendell were the two newer presidents, and both made mention of low confidence or uncertainty in themselves in their leadership roles. These two presidents appeared to talk about confidence in handling or overcoming the dissenting voices of their peers. The two of them described confidence as standing up to peers. On the other hand, Booker straight out identified as a “very confident guy.” Standing up against problem behaviors was “easy” for him. Art talked about having “courage over self-doubt” and defined courage as being confident in a decision as a leader. His interview indicated that he had to, at times, have some wavering in his confidence to make good decisions as a leader, but not necessarily a lack of confidence related to what others thought of him. For all of the participants, confidence came in the form of standing up to one’s peers or feeling confident in one’s decisions as a leader. The

166

research by Hannah and Avolio (2010) on moral ownership and moral efficacy are related to these findings. The presidents of the fraternities provided evidence that they did have moral ownership within the organization; it seems the finding of confidence was related to Hannah’s and Avolio’s (2010) definition of moral efficacy. They pointed out that even if both moral ownership and moral efficacy were present, the actor may still need courage to overcome their fears to act (Hannah & Avolio, 2010).

Research Question 3 – When Courage Was Practiced

The third and final research question was when was courage practiced by the leaders of the fraternities in this case study. Originally this research question was meant to find out for what behaviors, or in what circumstances, would a chapter president feel that he would take courageous action to confront them. What was discovered in the data, however, had to do more with what factors helped or encouraged chapter presidents to confront problem behaviors. Two themes emerged in response to this question: (1) accountability systems and (2) support networks.

Accountability systems

Systems of accountability and written governing documents, or written values, seemed to encourage or help a chapter leader to take courageous action and confront problem behaviors. Of first note, there appeared in the data some evidence to show that chapter presidents holding peers accountable for academic standards was easier than confronting problem behaviors, although both might have been related to violation of some policy or shared organizational value. For example, Hal reported that his fraternity overall did not tolerate poor academic achievement and that his participating chapter presidents would talk more in their interviews about holding members accountable to academic standards. Some other evidence supported this, specifically as reported by

167

Cal and Booker. Art shared examples of confronting members on financial obligations to the fraternity. Academic failures or dodging financial obligations were not defined in these interviews as problem behaviors, but evidence showed that fraternity members were held accountable for these things nonetheless. Perhaps it was easier to hold members accountable for academic achievement, for example, because there could be an easily defined standard associated with the value. The fraternity value was academic excellence; that then translated to a standard of, say, a member being required to maintain a 2.5 grade point average. There can be little controversy over that number; a member either meets that mark or they do not. Perhaps there was little emotion in the accountability of academic achievement. Perhaps presidents had minimized risk of being called a hypocrite if they held someone accountable for their grades. The chapter president likely had to maintain the chapter’s academic standard in his days before serving as president, so no one was likely to call him a hypocrite. Perhaps there was not as much controversy within a chapter surrounding an academic standard. After all, academic achievement was inherently expected of fraternity members by nature of them attending college. There may have been more debate by members associated with alcohol abuse or hazing and whether or not they were even problem behaviors.

Evidence showed, as did the literature, that students may have been ambiguous over what constituted hazing. Participants in this study talked about controversial new fraternity rules around alcohol consumption. So perhaps it seemed easier to address the value of academic excellence because it was less politically charged; therefore, it took less courage to address it.

168

Having an internal chapter peer-accountability process or system, such as a judicial board, seemed to help chapter presidents in practicing courage to confront problem behaviors. For example, Wendell said having an accountability process helped him as president in confronting problem behaviors. This may have been in part because the consequences of the problem behavior needed to have a defined action. A chapter president may have been more likely to call out or confront a problem behavior if they could separate from the emotions of having to dole out the punishment, particularly if it was not a standard punishment.

Art shared an interesting example of a time that his judicial board was addressing an issue surrounding one of his brothers. While this was going on, he was being pressured by members to take a stand one way or another on a problem behavior issue. He described it as a stressful time for him. He remained unbiased to let the chapter process pass judgement on the member for committing some values-based violation. Even though he described it as courage to remain unbiased, perhaps it was a way to avoid taking a side. If he had taken a side, inevitably his peers who disagreed would have been unhappy with him. On the other hand, Art was not in a position to overturn the internal judicial process. It would not have been the appropriate action of a president to do so based on the process. He knew he was making peers unhappy either way because he was not taking a stand, or choosing a side. He showed courage by letting the process carry out as a system of accountability just as it should have done.

Was Art practicing courage by empowering his members to practice accountability to the organization’s common purpose, or was he simply avoiding conflict?

169

Evidence also showed that the chapter presidents called upon written policies or values to back up their need or decision to confront problem behaviors. The common purpose and the shared values of the fraternity were clear. They were written, shared documents. The chapter alone could not change many of those documents, such as the fraternity’s shared values. The chapters may have had their own subcultures and values, but those written documents at least acted as a beacon, reminding the chapter presidents on how to handle problem behaviors. This was evident in Everson’s mention of him reading his fraternity’s constitution and ritual to get a better sense of what the fraternity stood for. The evidence showed that it may have been more likely for a chapter president to show courage to confront a problem behavior when there were accountability systems or written policies in place to remove them from being subjective on the matter.

Support networks

Support from stakeholders or peers also helped chapter leaders to practice courageous leadership and confront problem behaviors. Support from advisors, or support from peers, appeared to be a critical precursor to chapter presidents taking, or following through, on practicing courage to confront problem behaviors. The data showed a wide network of advisors or national staff that supported the chapter presidents. Sometimes these staff members would give advice on problem behavior issues, or sometimes they would step in to hold chapter members, or the entire chapter, accountable. If there was a higher authority to the chapter president, it was the alumni boards of the chapter or the national fraternity headquarters and governing body.

170

Stakeholders mentioned in the findings included chapter alumni advisors, alumni corporation, and house directors. Cal pointed out that it was important to chapter presidents to know that they could rely on their advisors and stakeholders as a sounding board. Hal also talked about the volunteers and staff that had helped their chapter presidents, and through a relationship the chapter presidents were comfortable to seek the help of the stakeholders. The national staff and alumni advisors may act as the higher authority Chaleff (2009b) mentioned that the whistleblowers would go to in an act of moral courage. If the chapter president believed there were member behaviors occurring that violated the common purpose or shared values, and they were unsuccessful in correcting the behaviors, they could go to the national staff or alumni advisors to seek counsel or intervention.

Peer support was also indicated as a factor that helped chapter presidents confront problem behaviors. Knowing that their peers supported their decision, or knowing that the behavior had been held accountable before, made it easier for the chapter presidents to confront the problem behaviors. Of note in this study was what

Wendell said about having humility as a president. He felt he displayed courageous leadership by having humility to not know all the answers as president and to ask for help from others.

Implications

The findings presented from this study have implications for higher education institutions and for leadership education and leadership development in general, particularly for college students. This section is meant to provide the general implications of this research beyond just agricultural fraternities or fraternity communities. The next section provides more specific recommendations for practice.

171

The results of this study have unique implications for fraternity, and even sorority, communities, but certainly provide insight to a broader audience. The conceptual model of this research set up a specific framework of courageous leadership based on an existing conceptual model for courageous followership (Chaleff, 2009a, 2009b). The essence of this research was to explore how courageous leadership was practiced for a specific fraternity case. The research looked for how and when leaders of the fraternities would practice courage based on the presented courageous leadership model. The research also looked to discover how leaders defined courage in their roles and actions as leader.

This research has implications for general leadership education and leadership development. Findings from this research should further inform Chaleff’s (2009a,

2009b) model of courageous followership, since this research was conducted from the perspective of the leader in the leader-follower-common purpose triad he described.

Leadership educators using a model of courageous leadership and courageous followership as proposed in this study can use these findings to better inform their curriculums. Courageous leadership involves the same dimensions as outlined in

Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) courageous followership model. This research has demonstrated that courageous leadership also involves dimensions such as assuming responsibility for the organization’s common purpose, challenging behaviors, and taking moral action.

Within the context of institutions of higher education, this research has implications for understanding college student leadership. Recommendations for practice for fraternity communities are discussed in the next section. The results from

172

this study may have implications to other student organization contexts, such as clubs, sport teams, and student government just to name a few. The problem behaviors presented in this study (hazing, alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct) are not unique to fraternities and sororities on college campuses. Based on the literature presented in this study, other college student organizations are sure to face these problem behaviors and other ethical dilemmas which would require courageous leadership to serve the organization’s common purpose. Taking the knowledge acquired from this study regarding accountability cultures and accountability systems, fears for student leaders, and support networks can help inform the practice of not only study leaders, but the higher education administrators responsible for advising these groups. Knowledge presented here can help inform how to encourage or enable courageous action against problem behaviors in student organization contexts.

The results from this study also have implications for any organizational context, not just college student organizations and fraternities. Frequent review and group discussion of the organizational common purpose, shared values, ethics, and standards may help to support a culture of accountability within organizations. Ensuring shared accountability and systems of accountability should help leaders to not feel isolated when addressing behaviors not in alignment with an organization’s common purpose.

Leaders of organizations should find ways to encourage or enable their followers to assume responsibility for the organization. Leaders should also find and connect with support networks related to their responsibilities and decisions as a leader. For organizations, these support networks may be boards of directors or mentors to the leader, groups that can help support the confidence of the leader to confront actions or

173

behaviors that threaten the common purpose. These support networks should also be able to inform the leader of needed organization change and help to support the leader’s confidence in leading change for the organization.

Recommendations for Practice

This section offers recommendations for practice based on the findings from this research. The previous section discussed the implications of this research for leadership development and leadership education. Leadership educators should include as part of their teachings Chaleff’s (2009a, 2009b) model of courageous followership and could include the model of courageous leadership presented in this study. Other research related to followership and courageous leadership should also be included to help leadership students understand the dynamic relationship between followership and leadership. Leadership development programs, particularly those for college students within institutions of higher education, can include the models of courageous leadership and courageous followership outlined in this study. College students can explore and practice the five dimensions of courageous leadership in the context of their leadership experiences and as applied through their own leadership styles. College students should also explore how, as leaders, they can encourage and enable courageous followership among the members of their organizations.

Findings from this case study research could inform practice for fraternity leaders as well as volunteer advisors and professional staff that work with fraternity communities. The professional staff that work with the fraternities includes the national headquarters staff of the fraternities, whose jobs include seeing to the success of their chapters. This also includes university student affairs professionals that are responsible for the fraternity communities on their respective campuses. Given that this was a

174

qualitative study, these results are not generalizable to a broader population of fraternity leaders. However, the findings in part or as a whole can be transferable to leadership cultures of fraternities and even sororities.

A conclusion of this research was that when members identified more with the brotherhood aspect of the fraternity’s common purpose it created a potential conflict when leaders addressed problem behaviors with followers. This does not have to be the case. Confronting problem behaviors in fraternities should happen because of the brotherhood and friendship aspect, not in spite of it. Fraternity communities professional staff should help fraternities to identify with healthy, positive aspects of brotherhood.

The brotherhood should exist as part of the common purpose of a fraternity, but not at the cost of degrading the overall common purpose. Particular attention should be given to the accountability component of brotherhood and how brotherhood can be a tool for holding members accountable to the other aspects of the common purpose, such as bettering self, interpersonal relationships, and personal values.

Confidence was an important quality for the chapter presidents. A lack of self- confidence for the leaders appeared to be a barrier to their practice of courageous leadership. Fraternity professional staff should consider programs to teach or develop confidence in their fraternity presidents. This might be part of leadership development programs for chapter presidents and other chapter leaders. Evidence from this study showed that national headquarters staff already host some form of leadership development programs. Chapter presidents need opportunities to practice values-based leadership. They should be able to practice scenarios in which they become attuned to their personal values and can apply those to making decisions for the chapter,

175

particularly around confronting problem behaviors. Providing opportunities for newer chapter presidents to hear from seasoned or past presidents could help instill confidence. It is important that these newly elected presidents can see that others have been through issues of confronting problem behaviors and how those confrontations played out.

Fraternity chapter presidents should be exposed to development or training programs in which they learn one-on-one communication skills, such as empathy or conflict management. Findings from this study showed that chapter presidents more often confronted problem behaviors one-on-one over doing so at a fraternity chapter meeting. Chapter presidents, again, should be able to practice one-on-one accountability scenarios in an artificial setting in order to sharpen those skills.

Similarly, taking information learned from this study, chapter presidents should call out or confront problem behaviors in a one-on-one setting. If the chapter president does not have a particularly close relationship with the member to be confronted, then perhaps he could enlist a member that does. Confronting problem behaviors one-on- one might disarm a member’s ability to be supported in the moment by the dissenting voices of the mob.

The findings in this study showed that younger fraternity members may struggle with confronting veteran fraternity members. With this in mind, it is recommended that fraternities consider passing legislation that sets experience limits for members that run for the role of president. For example, underclassmen may not be allowed to act as president. Presidents already face challenges with addressing problem behaviors, and

176

to do so for a freshman or sophomore president just adds another unnecessary level of challenge.

Fraternity professional staff should create opportunities for good support networks for the fraternity leaders. Support of the alumni advisors, alumni house boards, and national staff may be an incentive for fraternity presidents to be courageous enough to confront the problem behaviors. Chapter presidents need support in their decisions and support in holding problem behaviors accountable. Energy should be put into building positive, trusting relationships between the chapter presidents and chapter stakeholders. Peer networks should also be created for the presidents. Peers can be fraternity members outside of their chapters, for example a peer network of chapter presidents from different chapters. If a national headquarters is hosting a leadership program for chapter presidents, create time for peer-to-peer connections to grow and develop.

Chapter presidents should spend time with members of the chapter reviewing the common purpose of the fraternity and the shared values. Fraternity professional staff should conduct exercises with the chapter membership to ensure that the values with which they identify are the shared values of the fraternity. This may be exceedingly difficult, for in this lies the problem. It was clear from this research that problem behaviors such as alcohol abuse and hazing are against the ostensibly shared values of the fraternities. Yet those problem behaviors occur. The argument that fraternity presidents must make is not whether those problem behaviors are right or wrong, the question, rather, should be do they align with the proclaimed, shared values. Having guiding documents, such as values statements, policies, and mutual agreements has

177

been demonstrated to help chapter presidents when confronting problem behaviors.

The chapters should review these policies and values statements as an organization regularly, just as Booker’s chapter members studied the Bible together.

Recommendations for Research

Further research related to the topics discussed in this study could advance the literature on addressing problem behaviors in fraternities and the courageous leadership in these organizations. This section recommends some areas related to future research.

A conceptual model was created for this study that was adapted from the courageous followership model developed by Chaleff (2009a, 2009b). Future qualitative research should focus on similar research questions carried out in this study but with followers of fraternities rather than the identified leaders. It would be interesting to see how followers, or members, of fraternities practice courageous followership when addressing problem behaviors. Such findings could add to the knowledge of the complex nature of this case study and help prevent problem behaviors in fraternities.

Similar future qualitative research could focus on fraternity stakeholders as the target population. Stakeholders such as alumni advisors, house board members, and house directors were identified in this current study as stakeholders that are connected to the operations and culture of the fraternity. Qualitative research could focus on their perspectives on how they contribute to or support leaders, and followers, in practicing courageous leadership. Are there factors that enhance or inhibit their involvement in the accountability systems to confront problem behaviors of the fraternity members?

While the racial identities or ethnicities of the participants were not collected, such identities are likely to have an impact on this research. There are those fraternities and sororities whose memberships are considered predominately white. Future

178

research can focus on culturally-based fraternities and sororities and Black Greek-

Lettered Organizations to gain the perspectives on courageous leadership from students of color. Diverse perspectives and experiences of courageous leadership can only strengthen our understanding of how courageous leadership is practiced in fraternities and sororities and, for that matter, all student organizations.

Another interesting research focus would be on the difference in how courageous leadership is practiced between agricultural fraternities and other fraternities. Farming and agriculture values were mentioned in this current study. Do those values have an impact on how courageous leadership is practiced? Do development programs traditionally offered to young adults interested in the agriculture field have an impact on courageous action?

Similarly, further research on confidence and self-efficacy as it relates to the practice of courageous leadership could be compelling and informative. Youth development programs may enhance communication skills, interpersonal relationships, and self-confidence. Is there a relationship between perceived self-confidence and ability to confront problem behaviors in fraternities?

Further studies on the development and the difference between moral courage and intellectual courage in fraternities may also yield interesting and beneficial results.

Both terms were used by a participant in this study. A conceptual model would need to be created to better define the two concepts. Perhaps a grounded theory approach could be taken to further define moral courage and intellectual courage in fraternities.

Additionally, research could focus on how personal values contribute to both moral courage and intellectual courage. What are the inhibitors on the contributors to

179

practicing both types of courage? How must or how can fraternity professionals support or develop moral courage and intellectual courage in fraternity leaders and followers?

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented a brief overview of the study purpose, research questions, and methodology. Key findings were presented and interpretations were discussed. Key findings were reported for each research question: (1) how courage was practiced by fraternity leaders while addressing problem behaviors, (2) how courage was defined by fraternity leaders while addressing problem behaviors, and (3) when courage was practiced while addressing problem behaviors. Key findings were tied to appropriate existing literature.

Several themes emerged from the data. Related to the first research question, there were three main themes: (1) common purpose/shared values, (2) assume responsibility for the common purpose, and (3) challenge behavior. For the second research question, four major themes were discussed: (1) intellectual courage, (2) moral courage, (3) overcoming fears, and (4) confidence. For the third and final research question, there were two main themes reported: (1) accountability systems and (2) support networks.

Implications for practice and recommendations for research were also presented in this chapter. Findings were transferable to fraternity leaders and fraternity communities. Suggested meanings or practices for fraternity advisors or professional staff from headquarters and universities were provided. This study contributed to the overall literature on leadership, particularly for the fraternity communities. Additional research ideas were generated in order to spark new contributions to the existing literature on courageous leadership.

180

APPENDIX A INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

181

APPENDIX B INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE (SUPPLEMENTAL)

This email was sent as an introduction to the invitation to participate for one fraternity upon request of their national headquarters office.

Dear ____,

I received your contact information from [FRATERNITY] headquarters. My name is Jack Causseaux, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. I am also a student affairs practitioner and have been working with student organizations for over 15 years. Please see the attached letter inviting you to participate in a study to support fraternity leadership. Your Executive Director, XXXX, asked that share with you that he believes findings from this study may be beneficial to [FRATERNITY] and the fraternity industry.

Thanks,

Jack Causseaux

182

APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT

LEADER COURAGE WHEN ADDRESSING PROBLEM BEHAVIORS IN AGRICULTURAL FRATERNITIES (IRB Project #: 201902412)

Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this research study. Your participation is voluntary, and you can decline to participate, or withdraw consent at any time, with no consequences.

My name is Jack Causseaux and I am a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Florida. I also work as the Director of Student Activities and Involvement. My faculty supervisor for my research is Dr. Nicole Stedman.

I am conducting a study to examine courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in fraternities. My research dissertation is titled “courageous leadership when addressing problem behaviors in agricultural fraternities.” As the title suggests, the purpose of the study is to examine courageous leadership as practiced by leaders in agricultural fraternities when addressing problem behaviors.

Today I am requesting to interview you about your experiences related to courageous leadership among agricultural fraternities. This interview will be audio recorded only, and it should take no longer than about 45 minutes to an hour. This will be just a one- time interview; you will not be asked to participate in this study beyond this interview other than for clarification on your responses.

There are no risks or discomforts anticipated for you to participate. Additionally, there are no direct benefits of participation for you. There is no compensation for participating in this study.

Your name or other identifying information will not be used in this study nor will they be associated with your responses. The interview audio recordings will be kept private and they will be stored in a password protected location. Only me and my faculty supervisor will have access to these recordings. The recording will be transcribed by a private transcriptions service. Audio recording will be transcribed with any identifying information removed, and then the recording will be erased.

As the researchers, we may benefit professionally if the results of the study are presented at meetings or in scientific journals.

Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you can decline to participate, or withdraw consent at any time, with no consequences. You can decline to answer any question you don’t wish to answer.

183

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB02) office (University of Florida; PO Box 100173; Gainesville, FL 32610; (352) 392-0433 or [email protected].)

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

______Participant Name

______Participant Signature Date

______Name of Person obtaining informed consent

______Signature of Person obtaining informed consent Date

184

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE (STUDENT LEADERS)

Research Questions: 1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity;

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity

Research Interview Guide for student leaders

Beginning questions: 1. Tell me about yourself and how you came to be a member of your fraternity. 2. How long have your served in your leadership position? a. What are some of your responsibilities in your leadership role? 3. What are the values of your fraternity? Of your chapter? a. What is the common purpose?

Research Question 1: 4. How is leadership practiced in your fraternity? 5. Describe the culture within your chapter? b. What does it look or feel like when your chapter behaviors align with your fraternity values? c. What does it look or feel like when your chapter behaviors do not align with your fraternity values (without providing specific examples)? 6. Without giving specific examples, as a leader how have you addressed situations or attitudes from members that favor behaviors that go against your fraternity’s national purpose? 7. What does it look like when you stand up against behaviors that do no align with your fraternity’s purpose?

Research Questions 2: 8. How do you define courage in your role as a fraternity leader? 9. How would the members of your fraternity define courage?

Research Question 3: 10. Without providing specific examples or names, what does hazing look like in fraternities in general? 11. Without providing specific examples or names, what does alcohol abuse look like in fraternities in general? 12. Under what circumstances do you take courageous action to address behaviors from members that do not align with fraternity values or purpose?

185

APPENDIX E INTERVIEW GUIDE (PROFESSIONAL STAFF)

Research Questions: 1. How was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in the fraternity;

2. How was courage defined among fraternity leaders when faced with problem behaviors in their fraternity;

3. When was courage practiced among fraternity leaders when addressing problem behaviors in their fraternity

Research Interview Guide For professional staff/advisors

Beginning questions:

1. Tell me about yourself and how you came to be in your current job. 2. How long have you served in this role? a. What are some of your responsibilities in your current role? 3. What are the values of your fraternity?

Research Question 1:

4. How is leadership practiced in your [specific] fraternity? 5. How do your [specific] fraternity leaders practice courage when addressing issues or attitudes that favor behaviors that go against your fraternity’s national purpose? 6. How would you hope chapter leaders of this [specific] fraternity would address issues or attitudes that favor hazing or alcohol abuse?

Research Question 2: 7. How do might members of this [specific] fraternity define courage? 8. What should this [specific] fraternity’s chapter leaders know about courage in leadership?

Research Question 3: 9. Under what circumstances would chapter leaders be expected to practice courage? 10. What are examples in which fraternity chapter leaders demonstrated courage?

186

APPENDIX F MEMBER CHECK EMAIL REQUEST

Hello [name],

I hope this email finds you doing well and staying safe. Thank you again for speaking with me several months ago about your experiences as a fraternity leader as I conducted research for my dissertation. I have finally put together some common themes based on how I interpreted what you and I discussed.

Please take a look at the common themes and corresponding ideas attached. Please let me know if you agree with the initial findings or if you want to make any corrections. Also, if you would like to see a full copy of the word-for-word transcript I will be happy to provide you a copy. I would appreciate feedback on the attached themes by May 31.

If you would like to call me, you can reach me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Thanks again, and take care.

Sincerely, Jack Causseaux

187

APPENDIX G IRB APPROVAL

188

189

LIST OF REFERENCES

Addiction Campuses Editorial Team. (n.d.). The definition of alcohol abuse. Addition Campuses. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from https://www.addictioncampuses.com/blog/alcohol-abuse-definition/

Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk initial findings from the National Study of Student Hazing. https://www.stophazing.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/hazing_in_view_web1.pdf

Alpha Gamma Rho: About. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://www.alphagammarho.org/about

Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity covenant. (n.d.).

Anderson, C. J. (2014, September). Honoring our founders, creating a standard and accountability for Black men. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 30–33. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/perspectives_winter_2014_final_redu

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Asel, A. M., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). The effects of fraternity/sorority membership on college experiences and outcomes: A portrait of complexity. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 4(2), 1–15.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.

Bannon, R. S., Brosi, M. W., & Foubert, J. D. (2013). Sorority women’s and fraternity men’s rape myth acceptance and bystander intervention attitudes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp- 2013-0005

Barron, E. J. (2017, August 21). Penn State president: “Self-governance” for fraternities and sororities needs to end. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/21/after-timothy-piazza-penn- state-crack-down-fraternity-sorority-hazing-drinking-eric-barron-column/584222001/

Barry, A., Madson, M., Moorer, K., & Christman, K. (2016). Predicting use of protective behavioral strategies: Does fraternity/sorority affiliation matter? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1165107

Batagiannis, S. C. (2007). Leadership guided by courage: A challenge to instantaneous perfection. The Journal of Educational Thought, 41(2), 145–164.

190

http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23767319&site=eds-live

Baugher, A. (2012, July). The hook up culture. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 8–9. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/spring_11_full

Bauman, D. C. (2013). Leadership and the three faces of integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.005

Blanco, C., Okuda, M., Wright, C., Hasin, D. S., Grant, B. F., Liu, S. M., & Olfson, M. (2008). Mental health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: Results from the national epidemiologic study on alcohol and related conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(12), 1429–1437. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429

Blankstein, A. M., Noguera, P., & Kelly, L. (2016). Excellence through equity: Five principles of courageous leadership to guide achievement for every student. ASCD.

Brotherhood. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brotherhood

Brown, S. (2015). Is it fair to ask fraternity-council presidents to reform Greek life? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(8). https://www.chronicle.com/article/Is-It-Fair-to- Ask/233769

Bureau, D. A., & Koepsell, M. (2017). Developing employability skills through fraternity and sorority life. In A. Peck (Ed.), Engagement and employability: Integrating career learning through cocurricular experiences in postsecondary education (pp. 217– 247). NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Capone, C., Wood, M. D., Borsari, B., & Laird, R. D. (2007). Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: A prospective examination. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.316

Causseaux, J., & Andenoro, A. (2018). Exploring adaptive leadership as a tool for building leadership capacity in sorority and fraternity leaders. Annual Confernence Proceedings: Association of Leadership Educators 28th Annual Conference, 725– 728. https://www.leadershipeducators.org/resources/Documents/ALE 2018 Conference Proceedings - Chicago.pdf

Chaleff, I. (2009a). Ira Chaleff: Tobias Center 2: The courageous follower model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1dkfN1XBuE

Chaleff, I. (2009b). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

191

Chapters. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.alphagammarho.org/chapters

Cimino, A. (2018). Fraternity hazing and the process of planned failure. Journal of American Studies, 52(1), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021875816001924

Comer, D. R., & Sekerka, L. E. (2018). Keep calm and carry on (ethically): Durable moral courage in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 116– 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.011

Connors, J. J., Velez, J. J., & Swan, B. G. (2006). Leadership characteristics of outstanding seniors in a land-grant university college of agriculture. Journal of Leadership Education, 5(3), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.12806/v5/i3/rf5

Cottrell, D., & Harvey, E. (2004). Leadership courage: Leadership strategies for individual and organizational success. Walk the Talk.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS professional standards for higher education (9th ed.). Author.

Courage. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/courage

Crawford, L. A., & Novak, K. B. (2007). Resisting peer pressure: Characteristics associated with other-self discrepancies in college students’ levels of alcohol consumption. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 51(1), 35–62.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Crossman, A. (2019). Understanding purposive sampling. https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727

Cufaude, J. (1990). Strategies from a Greek advisor: Maximizing the Greek cocurriculum’s potential. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1990.11072192

Current active chapters. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://farmhouse.org/chapter-directory/

Dalton, J. C. (1999). Helping students develop coherent values and ethical standards. In G. S. Blimling, E. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs:

192

Priciples to foster student learning (pp. 45–66). Jossey-Bass.

Danielson-Burke, E., & Borton, N. (2017, December). Letter from the editors. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 2.

Danielson-Burke, E., & Borton, N. (2018, May). Letter from the editors. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 2. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/afa-perspectives-2018-issue1-final-

Danielson, C., Himbeault Taylor, S., & Hartford, M. (2001). Examining the complex relationship between Greek life and alcohol: A literature review. NASPA Journal, 38(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1152

Danielson, R. (2015). A call for courageous leadership. College and University, 90(4), 27–32. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=eric&AN =EJ1083830&site=eds-live

DeBard, R., & Sacks, C. (2010). Fraternity/sorority membership: Good news about first- year impact. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 5(1), 12–23. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Derryberry, W. P., & Thoma, S. (2000). The friendship effect: Its role in the development of moral thinking in students. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 5(2), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220000500204

Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 1–15. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.html

Dowiak, S. M. (2016). An analysis of the leadership, student, and moral development gains of NIC fraternity men controlling for sexuality and institution size. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 11(1), 31–48.

Drout, C. E., & Corsoro, C. L. (2003). Attitudes toward fraternity hazing among fraternity members, sorority members, and non-Greek students. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.535

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study. In Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (Issue April). http://mslreviewteam.wiki.usfca.edu/file/view/MSLReport+06.pdf

Dunkel, N. W., Schuh, J. H., & Chrystal-Green, N. E. (2014). Advising student groups and organizations (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Eberly, C. G., & Stillman, A. (2016, April). Expanding the scope of fraternal research.

193

Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 25–27. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/perspectives_issue1_forissu

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Eveland, W., & Bollinger, A. (2019). Looking ahead: Pennsylvania’s new antihazing legislation and how it affects you. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 26–28. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/afa-perspectives-2019-issue1-final-

Fairlie, A. M., Dejong, W., Stevenson, J. F., Lavigne, A. M., & Wood, M. D. (2010). Fraternity and sorority leaders and members: A comparison of alcohol use, attitudes, and policy awareness. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36(4), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2010.491878

FarmHouse Fraternity. (2020). Member policy manual. https://farmhouse.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/Chapter-and-Association-Policy-Manual- 5.13.2020.docx.pdf

Forck, M. (2011). Courageous leadership three traits to expand your influence. Professional Safety, 56(3), 34–35.

Foubert, J. D., Garner, D., & Thaxter, P. J. (2006). An exploration of fraternity culture: Implications for programs to address alcohol-related sexual assault. College Student Journal, 40, 361–373.

Fraternity [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraternity

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746–762. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0066

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey-Bass.

Grandillo, M. A. (n.d.). Social fraternities and sororities: History, characteristics of fraternities and sororities, reforms and renewal. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2429/Social-Fraternities-Sororities.html

194

Griffin, K. A., Nichols, A. H., Perez II, D., & Tuttle, K. D. (2008). Making campus activities and student organizations inclusive for racial/ethnic minority students. In S. R. Harper (Ed.), Creating inclusive campus environments for cross-cultural learning and student engagement (pp. 121–138). National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character- based leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal, 62(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022283

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201453011

Have the Courage to Follow Your Convictions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 4, 2019, from http://thefraternityadvisor.com/have-the-courage-to-follow-your-convictions/

Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., O’Day, P. T., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or tragedy: Comparing student engagement levels of members of Greek-letter organizations and other students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 643–663.

Hechinger, J. (2017). True gentlemen: The broken pledge of America’s fraternities. PublicAffairs.

Hevel, M. S., & Bureau, D. A. (2014). Research-driven practice in fraternity and sorority life. New Directions for Student Services, 147, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20098

Hevel, M. S., Martin, G. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2014). Do fraternities and sororities still enhance socially responsible leadership? Evidence from the fourth year of college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0025

Hickey, L. (2012, July). Fraternity/sorority participation positions student for success. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 20. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/fall_11_full

History. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.alphagammarho.org/history

History of Farmhouse. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2019, from http://farmhouse.org/

Hollmann, B. B. (2002). Hazing: Hidden campus crime. New Directions for Student Services, 2002(99), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.57

Horras, J. (2016, April). The future of fraternity. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 9–11. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/perspectives_issue1_forissu

195

Howard, M. C., & Cogswell, J. E. (2019). The left side of courage: Three exploratory studies on the antecedents of social courage. Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(3), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1426780

Hutchinson, M., Jackson, D., Daly, J., & Usher, K. (2015). Distilling the antecedents and enabling dynamics of leader moral courage: A framework to guide action. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 36(5), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2015.1017627

Hybels, B. (2009). Courageous leadership. Zondervan.

Jackson, A., & Iverson, S. (2009). “Step up and do it”: Fraternity and sorority members’ beliefs about citizenship. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 4(1), 1–16.

Johnson, J., & Chin, J. W. (2016). Seeking new glory (d)haze: A qualitative examination of adventure-based, team orientation rituals as an alternative to traditional sport hazing for athletes and coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 11(3), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116643648

Jones, R. L. (2004). Black haze: Violence, sacrafice, and manhood in black Greek- lettered fraternities. State University of New York Press.

Kegan, D. L. (1978). The quality of student life and financial costs: The cost of isolation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 19, 55–58. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Kegan/publication/308795266_The_Q uality_of_Student_Life_and_Financial_Costs_The_Cost_of_Social_Isolation/links/5 7f28ba308ae91deaa58fc70/The-Quality-of-Student-Life-and-Financial-Costs-The- Cost-of-Social-Isolatio

Kelley, D. R. (2008). Leadership development through the fraternity experience and the relationship to career success after graduation. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 3(1), 1–12. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Kimbrough, W. M. (2005). Should black fraternities and sororities abolish undergraduate chapters? About Campus, 10(4), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.140

Kimbrough, W. M., & Hutcheson, P. A. (1998). The impact of membership in Black Greek-letter organizations on Black students’ involvement in collegiate activities and their development of leadership skills. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(2), 96–105.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31–53). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring leadership: For college

196

students who want to make a difference (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2016). Learning leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Kreps, T. A., Laurin, K., & Merritt, A. C. (2017). Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous evolution? When leaders change their moral minds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(5), 730–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000103

Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943909

Kuh, G. D., & Lyons, J. W. (1990). Fraternities and sororities: Lessons from the College Experiences Study. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1990.11072183

Kuh, G. D., Pascarella, E. T., & Wechsler, H. (1996). The questionable value of fraternities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(32), A68.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., Strange, C. C., Krehbiel, L. E., & MacKay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside of the classroom. Jossey- Bass.

Kumar, S. (2018). Courageous leadership: The missing link to creating a lean culture of excellence. Routledge.

Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Mallett, K. A., & Geisner, I. M. (2004). Predicting drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems among fraternity and sorority members: Examining the role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.18.3.203

LeadersIn. (2016). Simon Sinek: The best leaders are the best followers [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wtzze9L_M

Lewis, C. S. (1943). The screwtape letters. Macmillan Co. http://www.mentalbrick.com/downtown/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/the_screwtape_letters.pdf

Long, L. D. (2012). Unchallenged, professed core values: Do undergraduate fraternity/sorority members actually benefit in the areas of scholarship, leadership, service, and friendship? College Student Affairs Journal, 30(2), 15–30. https://search-proquest- com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1503763845/fulltextPDF/2FE7CED1F9B64B25PQ/ 1?accountid=10639

Love, G. M., & Yoder, E. P. (1989). An assessment of undergraduate education in American colleges of agriculture. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315573

197

Mathiasen, R. E. (2005). Moral development in fraternity members: A case study. College Student Journal, 39(2), 242–252. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=slh&AN= 17458089&site=eds-live

Matney, M. M., Biddix, J. P., Arsenoff, S., Keller, T., Dusendang, J., & Martin, D. (2016). Fraternity member reflections about civic values. Journal of College and Character, 17(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587x.2016.1230760

Matthews, H., Featherstone, L., Blunder, L., Gerling, A., Loge, S., & Messenger, R. B. (2009). Living in your letters: Assessing congruence between espoused and enacted values of one fraternity/sorority community. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 4(1), 29–40.

Matthews Kirk, H. (2014, September). Editor’s note. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 3. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/perspectives_winter_2014_final_redu

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

McCabe, S. E., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Kloska, D. D. (2005). Selection and socialization effects of fraternities and sororities on US college student substance use: A multi-cohort national longitudinal study. Addiction, 100(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01038.x

McClure, S. M. (2006). Voluntary association membership: Black Greek men on a predominantly white campus. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1036–1057. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0053

McCreary, G. R. (2012). Impact of moral judgment and moral disengagement on hazing attitudes and bystander behavior in college males. The University of Alabama.

McCreary, G. R., Bray, N., & Thoma, S. (2016). Bad apples or bad barrels? Moral disengagement, social influence, and the perpetuation of hazing in the college fraternity. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 11(1), 1–15. http://ezproxyprod.ucs.louisiana.edu:2077/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=d6afb726- 564e-4506-bedd- f38bb98c46dd%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D# AN=123582304&db=sih

McCreary, G., & Schutts, J. (2015). Toward a broader understanding of fraternity - developing and validating a measure of fraternal brotherhood. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(1), 31–50.

McGlone, C. A. (2009). Hazy viewpoints: Administrators’ perceptions of hazing. International Journal of Sports Management and Marketing, 7(1–2), 119–131.

198

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2010.029716

McMurtrie, B. (2015, August 3). Do fraternities have a place on the modern campus? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do- Fraternities-Have-a-Place/232087

Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.

Minow, J. C., & Einolf, C. J. (2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence Against Women, 15(7), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209334472

Miranda Smalls, M. L. (2012, July). 2011 President Remarks. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 5–6. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/winter_11_full

Mousseau, T. (2015, April). Saving fraternity and sorority. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 11–13.

Murphy, J. D. (2014). Courage to execute: What elite U.S. Military units can teach business about leadership and team performance. John Wiley & Sons.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (n.d.). Career readiness defined. NACE. Retrieved February 26, 2020, from https://www.naceweb.org/career- readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). College enrollment rates. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cpb.asp

National constitution of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity (pp. 3–6). (n.d.). Unpublished document, Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2019). Fall semester: A time for parents to discuss the risks of college drinking. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NIAAA_BacktoCollege_Fa ct_sheet.pdf

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2020). College drinking. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Collegefactsheet.pdf

Nelson, S., & Engstrom, C. M. (2013). Fraternity influences on binge drinking and grade point averages. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0028

Nelson, S., Halperin, S., Wasserman, T. H., Smith, C., & Graham, P. (2006). Effects of fraternity/sorority membership and recruitment semester on GPA and retention. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity /Sorority Advisors2,

199

2(1).

New, J. (2015, June 23). Leniency likely? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/23/greek-councils-administrators- clash-over-how-sanction-fraternities

News and announcements: 2018 classification update. (2018). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Indiana University Press.

Nuwer, H. (Ed.). (2004). The hazing reader. Indiana University Press.

Oregon State University. (n.d.). Glossary of Greek terminology. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from https://studentlife.oregonstate.edu/cfsl/glossary-greek-terminology

Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In C. L. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue. (pp. 149–164). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12168- 008

Our objective. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://farmhouse.org/

Owen, K. C. (1991). Reflections on the college fraternity and its changing nature. In J. L. Anson & R. F. Marchesani (Eds.), Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities (pp. I1–I10). Baird’s Manual Foundation.

Pace, D., & Mcgrath, P. B. (2002). A comparison of drinking behaviors of students in Greek organizations and students active in a campus volunteer organization. NASPA Journal, 39(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1000

Palanski, M. E., Cullen, K. L., Gentry, W. A., & Nichols, C. M. (2015). Virtuous leadership: Exploring the effects of leader courage and behavioral integrity on leader performance and image. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2317-2

Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.04.006

Pang, D. (2018). Differences in recruitment preparation between business fraternities and social Greek organizations. Joseph Wharton Scholars. https://repository.upenn.edu/joseph_wharton_scholars/52

200

Parks, G. S., Ray, R., Jones, S. E., & Hughey, M. W. (2014). Complicit in their own demise? Law & Social Inquiry, 39(4), 938–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12075

Pascarella, E. T., & Blaich, C. (2013). Lessons from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 2, 6–15. http://www.education.uiowa.edu/centers/crue/Publications.aspx#WNSLAE.

Philosophy of respect. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2020, from http://farmhouse.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/FH-Philosophy-Respect.pdf

Purpose, promise, values. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://www.alphagammarho.org/purpose-promise-values

Richmond, D. R. (1989). The legal implications of fraternity hazing. NASPA Journal, 26(4), 300–307. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1989.11072120

Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (Eds.). (2016). American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016-2020. Department of Agriculture Education and Communication.

Rogers, S., Rogers, C., & Anderson, T. (2012). Examining the link between pledging, hazing, and organizational commitment among members of a black Greek fraternity. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 7(1), 43–54. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Roosevelt, R. W. (2018). Deconflating buffoonery and hazing: A two-factor model of understanding maladaptive new member activities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 13(1), 16–32. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Russett, J. (2017). Sorority women, drinking, and context: The influence of environment on college student drinking. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 12(1), 49–62. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Ryan, J. (2019). From listening to learning: Using podcasts to spark creativity in educational programs. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 19–20.

Salinas Jr., C., Boettcher, M., & Plagman-Galvin, J. (2018). A document analysis of antihazing policy. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 13(1), 32–51. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Sanday, P. R. (1996). Rape-prone vs rape free campus cultures.pdf. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801296002002006

Sasso, P. (2015). White boy wasted: Compensatory masuclinities in fraternity alcohol use. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(1), 14–31. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

201

Schumacher, L. G., & Swan, M. K. (1993). Need for formal leadership training for students in a land-grant college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(3), 1–9. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.563.3140

Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(2), 132–149. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00484.x

Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A., Härtel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I. (2016). Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2351-0

Sexual Misconduct Law and Legal Definition. (n.d.). No Title. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-misconduct/

Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects of fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: A social norms perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893- 164X.15.1.42

Shonrock, M. D. (1998). Standards and expectations for Greek letter organizations. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.8107

Silverman, S. (2017). Amid tragedy at Penn State fraternity, leadership was lacking. The Business Journals. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth- strategies/2017/05/amid-tragedy-at-penn-state-fraternity-leadership.html

Singh Bangari, R., & Prasad, L. (2012). Leadership in action: Courage, the critical leadership differentiator. ASCI Journal of Management, 41(2), 40–75. http://asci.org.in/journal/Vol.41(2011-12)/41_2_ravindrasingh.pdf

Soule, E. K., Barnett, T. E., & Moorhouse, M. D. (2015). Protective behavioral strategies and negative alcohol-related consequences among US college fraternity and sorority members. Journal of Substance Abuse, 20(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2013.858783

Spurlock, B. (2017). Developing employability skills through student organizations. In A. Peck (Ed.), Engagement and employability: Integrating career learning through cocurricular experiences in postsecondary education (pp. 189–216). NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 119–151). Sage Publications, Inc.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Publications. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

202

Staub, R. E. (1996). The heart of leadership: 12 practices of courageous leaders. Executive Excellence Publishing. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=efb221db-dab5-454b-aeed- 7479179a00a2%40pdc-v- sessmgr01&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN=6774 &db=nlebk

Stauffer, D. C., & Maxwell, D. L. (2020). Transforming servant leadership, organizational culture, change, sustainability, and courageous leadership. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v17i1.2793

Stedman, N., & Weeks, P. P. (2013). The balancing act: Exploring scholarship for the agricultural leadership educator. Journal of Leadership Education, 12(3), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.12806/V12/I3/TF4

Tobin, R. (2010). Descriptive case study. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (p. 289). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n108

Torbenson, C. L. (2005). The origin and evolution of college fraternities and sororities. In T. L. Brown, G. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternties and sororities (pp. 37–66). The University Press of Kentucky.

Van Zant, A. B., & Moore, D. A. (2015). Leaders’ use of moral justifications increases policy support. Psychological Science, 26(6), 934–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572909

Veliz-Calderon, D., & Allan, E. J. (2017). Defining hazing: Gender differences. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 12(2), 12– 26. https://www.afa1976.org/page/Oracle

Walker, J. K., Martin, N. D., & Hussey, A. (2015). Greek organization membership and collegiate outcomes at an elite, private university. Research in Higher Education, 56, 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9345-8

Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611.

What a great fraternity president brings to the table. (n.d.). Omegafi. Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://www.omegafi.com/what-a-great-fraternity-president-brings-to- the-table

What is Farmhouse. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2020, from https://farmhouse.org/about/

White, A., & Hingson, R. (2013). Excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Research: Current Reveiws, 35(2), 201–218.

203

Wrona, D. (2016, April). The campus fraternity/sorority professional of the future. Perspectives: A Publication for the Members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 17–19. https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/perspectives_issue1_forissu

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005

204

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jack Causseaux is currently the director of the Department of Student Activities and Involvement (SAI) at the University of Florida. He has been a professional in student affairs for 18 years, and he has worked at the University of Florida for 12 years.

Prior to the University of Florida, Jack worked in student affairs at Binghamton

University in Binghamton, New York. He has extensive experience working with students, campus programming, risk management, crisis management and supporting student organizations.

Jack earned a bachelor’s degree in marine biology and a master’s degree in counseling psychology the University of West Florida in Pensacola. He began part-time work toward a PhD in agriculture education and communication, leadership development, at the University of Florida in 2017.

205