Student development theories as conceptual framework in leadership

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 140, Winter 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ss.20029 17

2

Using Student Development Theories as Conceptual Frameworks in Leadership Education

Julie E. Owen

A Sufi proverb offers that a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing. Humans are constantly looking at the world through a set of lenses, which may be explicit or implicit, that color the way one sees and interacts with the world around them. This is especially true in the fi eld of leadership development where educators adopt theoretical perspectives from a multi-tude of disciplinary perspectives, as well as diverse cognitive, social, devel-opmental, and organizational frames. Particular frames help leadership educators make choices about what to include or exclude from leadership development, communicate values and beliefs about the nature and pur-pose of leadership, and articulate and assess the effi cacy of a leadership program’s design and delivery.

Theories of student learning and development are particularly impor-tant in leadership education because they make prescriptions about how people can adopt increasingly complex ways of being, knowing, and doing—essential forms of development for leadership learning. Popular student development theories that inform leadership education include, among others, cognitive approaches, psychosocial dimensions, learning theories, and theories of leader identity development. How one makes choices among these theories, and how one connects theory to program context, philosophy, pedagogy, and goals is the essential work of a leader-ship educator.

Increasingly, there is a call for leadership educators to adopt interdis-ciplinary and integrative approaches to leadership education. There is

This chapter describes the importance of selecting conceptual frameworks to undergird leadership education programs, and connects the selection of theoretical frameworks to principles of intentional design. International Leadership Association overarching Conceptual Framework Guiding Question: “What is the conceptual framework of the leadership education program?”

18 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss

general consensus that no single conceptual frame or theory can adequately address the complex set of competencies involved in leadership education. Therefore, leadership learning should be integrated across multiple struc-tures, strategies, and activities. This includes inviting students to connect formal study, life experiences, and diverse perspectives. Promoting integra-tive and interdisciplinary approaches to leadership development often requires restructuring existing learning opportunities with an eye toward examining multiple perspectives in complex and multifaceted ways. So how does one help students make meaning of their leadership learning, experiences, and beliefs in light of this plurality of approaches and perspec-tives? This chapter briefl y reviews student development theories that are popularly applied in leadership education and then examines the role of leadership identity development in the evolution of complex and relational approaches to leadership. Finally, issues and challenges in integrating and applying multiple theoretical perspectives to leadership development are addressed.

Student Development Theories as Conceptual Frames in Leadership Education

The importance of leadership educators being conversant in understanding and applying student development theory cannot be overstated. Day, Har-rison, and Halpin (2009) concur and suggest “there are naturally occurring maturational effects that are likely to interact with the experiences typically used as leader development initiatives” (p. 32). In short, leadership devel-opment and human development are inextricably intertwined.

Core processes of human development include moving through sequential stages that involve the resolution of developmental tasks. These processes often vacillate between stages of differentiation or disequilibrium, as students recognize old ways of interpreting and making meaning of the world are no longer adequate, and integration or equilibrium, where new lenses evolve and adequately explain experiences. Students adopt more complex ways of being when “internal biological and psychological changes interact with environmental demands, such as social norms and roles expected of individuals at certain ages in certain cultures” (Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 32). The implication of this process for leadership development is that leadership educators must pay attention to the personal, individual aspects of development, as well as design inten-tional environments that provide the optimal level of support and challenge to spur development (Sanford, 1966). Day and colleagues (2009) defi ne these processes as essential for the evolution of adaptive organizations. They offer that “focusing on the development of more overarching con-cerns such as identity, moral reasoning, and refl ective judgment would grow the kinds of self-aware and adaptive leaders that many organizations value” (p. 267).

USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 19


What follows are brief summaries of selected developmental and learn-ing theories that inform leadership education and development. These are not comprehensive descriptions, but should offer enough background for a leadership educator to start to see parallels to his or her own work.

Theories of Psychosocial Development

Psychosocial theories of development examine the content of development. That is, they often enumerate the important issues and tasks people face as they try to establish their own identity, interact and form relationships with others, and develop meaning and purpose in life. Developmental theorists, such as Erik Erikson (1959), take a life-span approach to human develop-ment and enumerate a series of sequential stages that correspond with age and maturation. Individuals face and must resolve important developmen-tal tasks associated with each stage in order to fl ourish. Environments can promote or hinder development based on the level of challenge or support they provide (Sanford, 1966). Individuals can also regress or revisit previ-ous stages of development when faced with stressful or new situations.

Arthur Chickering’s seminal work, Education and Identity, was one of the fi rst major theories to specifi cally explain the development of college students (Chickering, 1969; Chickering and Reisser, 1993). Chickering posited seven vectors of development that contribute to the formation of identity. Table 2.1 draws connections between each of these vectors and how they might inform leadership education and development. Note that movement through these vectors or dimensions of development is not a lockstep, rigidly sequenced process. Rather, these vectors may interact with and build upon each other, ideally leading to “greater complexity, stability, and integration” (p. 38). This movement is symbiotic with leadership edu-cators’ goals of developing authentic, ethical leaders.

Theories of Cognitive-Structural Development. Rooted in the work of Piaget (1952), cognitive-structural theories focus on the processes people use to think, reason, and make meaning of their experiences. Researchers who focus on intellectual development describe structures, positions, or stages whereby individuals attempt to perceive, organize, and evaluate their experiences (Evans et al., 1998). These structures change, adapt, and increase in complexity as the individual develops. These theo-ries posit that cognitive-structural development always occurs in the same sequence, regardless of cultural conditions, though age and rate of change may vary by individual. College students may experience moments of assimilation, where new information is integrated into existing cognitive structures, and accommodation, where structures are modifi ed or new cog-nitive structures are created to address new information. Disequilibrium can occur when there is confl ict between expectations and experiences.

Perhaps the most well-known cognitive-structural theory that has implications for college students is William Perry’s (1968) theory of



Table 2.1. Connecting Chickering’s Psychosocial Vectors of Develop-ment With Leadership Education

Vector of Development (Chickering, 1969)

Implications for Leadership Education and Development

Developing Competence

College students develop intellectual, physical, and interpersonal forms of competence. Leadership programs can promote such development by explicating the theoretical and empirical foundations of leadership studies, helping students develop and hone leadership skills and habits, and encouraging students to communicate effectively and work well with others.

Managing Emotions

In this vector, students learn to recognize, appropriately express, and control emotions. Leadership educators address this dimension when they provide opportunities for self-assessment and 360-degree feedback from peers. Students learn that positive emotions such as optimism, resilience, and gratitude are essential to developing leadership in oneself and others.

Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence

Chickering defi ned this vector as focusing on increased emotional independence, including self-direction and problem solving, while simultaneously recognizing one’s interconnectedness with others. Collegiate leadership educators promote development in this dimension by encouraging students in self-exploration so that they have a clear sense of their mission, vision, and values, while also inviting them to develop shared meaning with others.

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

This vector invites students to consider the role meaningful relationships play in the development of self. Leadership educators have long posited that the ability to work collaboratively, to seek out and embrace divergent perspectives, and to dialogue across differences in sustained ways are essential to leadership effectiveness.

Establishing Identity

College students are constantly navigating the complex intersections of numerous aspects of identity, including but not limited to their gender, ethnic and cultural heritage, sexual orientation, ability, and the like. It is imperative for leadership educators to help students navigate the implications of these identities for leadership.

Developing Purpose

How one develops a coherent set of personal and professional commitments is the focus of this vector. Numerous leadership theories include dimensions of individual and organizational purpose as essential to leadership success. Students should be invited to consider the question of “leadership for what purpose?”

Developing Integrity

Chickering describes the importance of humanizing and personalizing values, as well as developing congruence between articulated values and personal actions. Numerous postindustrial models of leadership state that leadership must be for moral and ethical ends (Burns, 1978).



intellectual and ethical development. Perry offers a continuum of intellec-tual development where thinking evolves from dualistic, or dichotomous, thinking, to valuing multiplicity where numerous views and opinions are considered valid even with a dearth of evidence, and fi nally to relativism where opinions are evaluated based on legitimacy. More recently, theorists have sought to update Perry’s work by examining gender differences in cognitive development (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982; King and Kitchener, 1994).

Understanding the intellectual development of college students has numerous implications for leadership educators. Students will interpret information and experiences differently based on the sophistication of their cognitive schemes. As leadership educators seek to design experiences and provide feedback, they should take into account the cognitive readiness of their students for such activities and information. Students with more dual-istic worldviews may need more structure and support than those with more relativistic approaches. Students will make different decisions based on their cognitive complexity, and may need more personalized feedback at less complex levels.

Another cognitive-structural researcher, Lawrence Kohlberg (1971), discerned stages of moral development, from preconventional to conven-tional to principled. As leadership educators seek to imbue the learning and practice of leadership with notions of principled practice, the distinc-tions among students operating at various stages of development become important to the design and delivery of programs. As Dayand colleagues (2009) offer, “leadership and ethics are inherently intertwined. Just about every decision made and action taken by a leader has ethical implications. Leadership development needs to include the development of ethical and moral reasoning to address these implications” (p. 83).

Learning Theories. Chapter Three in this volume addresses the importance of leadership pedagogy to how students learn. Indeed, “how someone thinks about leadership infl uences and potentially limits how leadership is enacted. An important part of leader development involves the deliberate change from a relatively simple implicit model of leadership to one that is more complex, more explicit, and provides for a greater repertoire of available behaviors. This enhances adaptability” (Day et al., 2009, p. 117).

Learning theories have much to say about how people learn, and about how they learn how to learn. Theories such as Baxter Magolda’s epis-temological refl ection model (1992) and Baxter Magolda and King’s (2004) learning partnership model identify environments and conditions that pro-mote students’ self-authorship, or how one’s construction of knowledge evolves from external to internal defi nitions of self. Kegan and Lahey’s (2009) plateaus in mental complexity describe the evolution of the way individuals make meaning of their experiences. Meaning-making originates in the socialized mind that focuses on the expectations of others, shifts to



the self-authoring mind that offers its own ideas, and fi nally becomes the self-transforming mind which seeks multiple ideas and solutions.

One of the most ubiquitous learning theories in collegiate environ-ments is that of David Kolb. Kolb (1984) defi nes learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38). He asserts that people perceive information through one of two primary modes: abstract conceptualization or concrete experience. They process information through either refl ective observation or experimenta-tion. He describes learning as a four-step cycle that includes the following elements: concrete experience, refl ective observation, abstract conceptual-ization, and active experimentation. All learning processes include some sort of concrete experience that leads to a period of refl ective observation. From this reflection, students begin to conceptualize their learning in abstract terms and enter into a period of active experimentation in which they test the generalizations that resulted from refl ection. This experimen-tation, in turn, leads cyclically into more concrete experiences.

Many leadership educators believe that leadership can and should be learned; that the learning and development of leadership capacities are inextricably intertwined; and that leadership educators can purposefully foster learning environments that help students integrate knowledge, skills, and experiences in meaningful ways. Rainey and Kolb (1995) adapted Kolb’s model by describing learning environments that complement each learning style, specifi cally related to diversity education. Table 2.2 (Owen, 2011) is an adaptation of Rainey and Kolb’s work to leadership education. It includes ways to create leadership environments to fi t each of Kolb’s four learning domains. Adapting leadership experiences so that each of Kolb’s learning domains is addressed is one way to ensure leadership education is meeting the needs of all learners.

Theories of Identity Development. An increasing number of leader-ship theorists are starting to articulate a lifespan approach to leadership development, and the evolution of a leadership identity as being an essen-tial developmental task. Day and colleagues (2009) offer that “part of developing as a leader is identifying a more articulated and complex con-ception of self as leader” (p. 67). These processes involve distinguishing between leader development and leadership development. Leader develop-ment refers to the differentiation and integration of leadership and personal experiences, values, and confi dence while leadership development focuses on the processes that happen between and among individuals. Others have characterized the difference as leader development focusing on human capital, while leadership development focuses on social capital (Day et al., 2009).

Although identity development is a lifelong process, an emerging framework for collegiate leadership development is presented in the Lead-ership Identity Development Model (LID) that will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.


Table

2.2

. C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f L

ead

ersh

ip L

earn

ing

En

vir

on

men

ts b

y K

olb

Typ

e

Aff

ecti

vely

Ori

ente

dP

erce

pti

onall

y O

rien

ted

Cog

nit

ivel

y O

rien

ted

Beh

avi

orall

y O

rien

ted

Pu

rpo

se o

f L

ead

ersh

ip

Ed

uca

tio

n

Dev

elo

p p

erso

nal

aw

aren

ess

of

lead

ersh

ip

stre

ngt

hs,

sk

ills

, an

d

con

gru

ence

.

Un

der

stan

d h

ow

div

erse

vi

ews

of

lead

ersh

ip

theo

ry a

nd

pra

ctic

e in

terr

elat

e.

Acq

uir

e an

d m

aste

r le

ader

ship

k

no

wle

dge

an

d s

kil

ls.

Act

ivel

y ap

ply

lea

der

ship

le

arn

ing

to r

eal

life

si

tuat

ion

s.

Stru

ctu

re o

f L

ead

ersh

ip

Lea

rnin

g E

nvi

ron

men

t

En

viro

nm

ent

invi

tes

free

ex

pre

ssio

n o

f fe

elin

gs,

valu

es, an

d o

pin

ion

s.

En

viro

nm

ent

emp

has

izes

pro

cess

an

d

inq

uir

y.

En

viro

nm

ent

is s

tru

ctu

red

an

d

pre

sen

ts c

lear

lea

der

ship

le

arn

ing

goal

s an

d o

bje

ctiv

e cr

iter

ia f

or

eval

uat

ion

.

En

viro

nm

ent

is

min

imal

ly s

tru

ctu

red

an

d i

nvi

tes

auto

no

mo

us

lead

ersh

ip l

earn

ing.

Nat

ure

of

Fee

db

ack

on

L

ead

ersh

ip

Per

son

aliz

ed a

nd

im

med

iate

fee

db

ack

ab

ou

t le

ader

ship

co

mp

eten

ce.

No

nev

alu

ativ

e su

gges

tio

ns

abo

ut

lead

ersh

ip c

om

pet

ence

ra

ther

th

an c

riti

qu

es.

Fee

db

ack

ab

ou

t le

ader

ship

co

mp

eten

cy i

s d

irec

t an

d

un

amb

igu

ou

s.

Lea

rner

ju

dge

s o

wn

le

ader

ship

per

form

ance

b

ased

on

est

abli

shed

st

and

ard

s.

Ro

le o

f L

ead

ersh

ip

Ed

uca

tor

Lea

der

ship

ro

le m

od

el

and

co

llea

gue.

Fac

ilit

ates

lea

der

ship

p

roce

ss.

Inte

rpre

ter

of

the

fi el

d o

f le

ader

ship

stu

die

s.L

ead

ersh

ip c

oac

h a

nd

ad

viso

r.

Lea

der

ship

A

ctiv

itie

sG

uid

ed i

mag

ery,

pai

r an

d s

har

e, d

ebat

es.

Co

nce

pt

map

pin

g,

jou

rnal

ing,

or

bra

inst

orm

ing.

Tra

dit

ion

al c

on

veya

nce

of

con

cep

ts, te

sts

and

as

sess

men

ts, d

evel

op

ing

per

son

al t

heo

ries

of

lead

ersh

ip.

Dev

elo

pin

g le

ader

ship

ac

tio

n p

lan

s,

sim

ula

tio

ns,

or

coll

abo

rati

ve l

ead

ersh

ip

pro

cess

es.

Ori

gin

ally

pu

bli

shed

as:

Ow

en,

J. E

. (2

01

1).

“C

on

sid

erat

ion

s o

f St

ud

ent

Lea

rnin

g in

Lea

der

ship

.” I

n S

. R

. K

om

ives

, J.

Du

gan

, J.

E. O

wen

, C

. Sl

ack

, an

d W

. W

ag-

ner

(ed

s.),

The

Handbo

ok f

or S

tuden

t L

eader

ship

Dev

elop

men

t (2

nd

ed

., p

p. 1

09

–1

33

). S

an F

ran

cisc

o: Jo

ssey

-Bas

s.



Critical Theories. Another set of theories that are congruent with leadership education are critical or emancipatory theories such as those espoused by Paolo Freire (1970), bell hooks (1994), and others. These may include action inquiry, feminist theories, and critical multiculturalism. These theories are usually derived from a dialectic process where educators and participants work to “determine the relations between social condi-tions, the inter-subjective interpretations of those conditions, and partici-pant actions” (Comstock, 1982, p. 3). Once distorted conceptions, unjust values, and false consciousnesses are exposed, participants together derive a program of action to change social conditions. Values in critical theory are always made explicit and examined, and all knowledge is deemed to be socially constructed and power-laden. One cannot do critical theory with-out engaging in action and refl ection. Many leadership educators use prin-ciples of critical refl ection in their curriculum. Inviting students to examine the power relationships, context, and assumptions behind leadership prin-ciples and actions is especially suited to complexity theories, and leader-ship for social change.

Limitations of Student Development Theories in Leadership Edu-cation. Over time, student development theories have been clarified, tested, and modifi ed, yet “we have become increasingly conscious of the inadequacies of and gaps in our theories” (Moore and Upcraft, 1990). Evans and colleagues (1998) identify four main limitations of existing stu-dent development theories. First, most theories of student development were developed in the positivistic tradition that assumes there is an objec-tive reality that holds across time and situations. This result of this is that “developmental processes are assumed to be similar for every individual in any environment or culture” (p. 283). It is imperative for leadership educa-tors not to assume that every student is in the same developmental place or that any one leadership curriculum can simultaneously meet the needs of all participants.

A second limitation is that “existing developmental theories are for the most part based on the values of Euro-American, middle-class, educated people,” which offers a “limited sense of what is important in the lives of students, especially those from other traditions” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 283). McEwen (2003) concurs that theory must be examined both in terms of its implicit worldview, as well those worldviews or cross-cultural perspectives that are absent. She notes that “underlying assumptions about gender (and other individual conditions), patriarchy, dominance, and power should be identifi ed” (p. 154). This is especially true for leadership development, where relational and collaborative approaches are making inroads, but have not yet supplanted traditional hierarchical, command and control views of leadership. How we teach leadership to a diverse and ever-changing popu-lation is why leadership development is as much art as science.

A third caveat in using theories of student development is that these theories are predominantly based in the fi eld of psychology (Evans et al.,



1998). This results in an overemphasis on internal processes and less of a focus on sociological or environmental forces. Leadership educators would be well served by studying principles of intentional design of learning com-munities and inclusive design (Munin and Dugan, 2011).

Finally, Evans and colleagues (1998) note that existing student devel-opment theories tend to fragment development rather than view it holisti-cally. Even emerging theories are not exempt from these critiques. For example, most identity theories are placed under the category of psychoso-cial theories, but Helms (1990) notes that identity theories are both psy-chosocial and cognitive in nature. Similarly, King and Magolda (1999) argue that cognition and development are inextricably intertwined. Similar to leadership theories, more work is needed on how to integrate diverse theoretical approaches, which of these approaches best align with the work of leadership education, and how to help students navigate multiple views and experiences.

One can’t help but wonder if these critiques and competing notions can ever be resolved. Perhaps, like the myriad of leadership defi nitions and theories, the problem isn’t what researchers and practitioners think student development is, but rather how they think about it. Leadership educators are an eclectic bunch, operating out of a host of competing and evolving paradigms. We also need to recenter our conversation on how people develop leadership, rather than what leadership is. The LID theory and model is one step toward doing just that.

The Leadership Identity Development (LID) Theory and Model

Hall notes that “identity is probably the most important aspect of leader development” (2004, p. 154). Additionally, the extent to which one can integrate their leadership identity with other aspects of their personal identity helps explains how thoroughly one develops leadership expertise. Once educators began to conceptualize leadership as a social identity, it made sense to examine how such an identity develops. Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, and Osteen (2005, 2006) conducted a grounded theory to explore the question of “what processes does a person go through to come to an awareness that he or she can work effectively with others to accomplish change? What personal and environmental factors con-tributed to this development?” Nominations for participants were sought using intensity sampling. Thirteen diverse college students were selected as being strong exemplars of relational leadership (Komives, Lucas, and McMahon, 1998, 2007). Each participated in three hour-long in-terviews using life narrative protocols. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a constant comparative method. The result was a grounded theory (Figure 2.1) where the core category was the development of a relational leadership identity, defi ned as “a sense of self as one who believes that groups are comprised of interdependent members who do



leadership together, and the perception from others that one acts on that belief.”

Six developmental stages emerged that describe the increasingly com-plex ways in which individuals defi ne leadership and identify themselves as a leader. Stages 1 and 2, awareness and exploration/engagement, typically occur prior to a student arriving at college (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, and Osteen, 2006). Table 2.3 describes Stages 3 through 6 and how important developmental experiences occur at each stage.

Issues and Challenges in Applying LID to Leadership Education.There are many ways to apply the leadership identity development (LID) theory and model to co-curricular and curricular collegiate settings, and some important implications for leadership educators trying to facilitate students adopting more complex and inclusive views of leadership. It is vital that educators realize that growth and complexity cannot be forced, only facilitated. That is to say, leadership educators do not make students change; instead, they create environments, opportunities, and conditions that encourage more complex ways of being. The following table offers but

Figure 2.1. Illustration of the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Grounded Theory

Originally published as: Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., and

Osteen, L. “Developing a Leadership Identity: A Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student

Development, 2005, 46, 593–611.


Table

2.3

. L

ead

ersh

ip I

den

tity

Dev

elop

men

t (L

ID)

Mod

el S

tage

s 3

–6

Des

crip

tion

s

LID

Sta

geV

iew

of

Lea

der

ship

Dev

elop

ing

Sel

fG

roup I

nfl

uen

ces

Dev

elop

men

tal

Infl

uen

ces

Vie

w o

f Sel

f W

ith

Oth

ers

3. L

ead

er

Iden

tifi

edL

ead

ersh

ip i

s at

trib

ute

d

to a

hie

rarc

hic

al

po

siti

on

—it

is

wh

at t

he

per

son

in

th

e le

ader

ship

ro

le d

oes

. B

elie

ve t

he

foll

ow

er’s

role

is

to d

o

wh

at t

he

lead

er s

ays.

W

hen

stu

den

ts h

ave

the

lead

ersh

ip p

osi

tio

n,

they

id

enti

fy a

s a

lead

er,

oth

erw

ise

they

do

no

t.

In s

om

e ca

ses,

th

e m

oti

vati

on

to

be

invo

lved

in

gro

up

s is

to

get

to

be

“th

e” l

ead

er, in

ord

er t

o

hav

e th

at i

den

tity

. O

ther

s ar

e m

oti

vate

d t

o b

e ju

st a

fo

llo

wer

bec

ause

th

ey

wan

t to

avo

id h

avin

g th

e p

ress

ure

of

bei

ng

sole

ly

resp

on

sib

le f

or

a gr

ou

p’s

fail

ure

. T

akin

g o

n

lead

ersh

ip r

ole

s co

ntr

ibu

tes

to l

ead

ersh

ip

iden

tity

sal

ien

ce, w

hic

h

may

lea

d t

o a

ccep

tin

g ev

en m

ore

lea

der

ship

ro

les.

Aw

are

of

gro

up

st

ruct

ure

an

d g

rou

p

goal

s. S

ee g

rou

ps

as

hie

rarc

hic

al

org

aniz

atio

ns,

aw

are

of

role

s an

d p

roce

sses

to

ac

com

pli

sh g

oal

s.

Mo

tiva

ted

to

jo

in

gro

up

s b

ased

on

w

het

her

th

e gr

ou

p

mis

sio

n a

nd

val

ues

al

ign

wit

h t

hei

r o

wn

in

tere

sts.

Nu

mb

er o

f gr

ou

p i

nvo

lvem

ents

n

arro

ws

as l

on

ger-

term

co

mm

itm

ents

fo

rm

wit

h a

sel

ect

few

gr

ou

ps

that

mat

ter

mo

st.

Ro

le o

f ad

ult

s ad

van

ces

to

men

tori

ng/

coac

hin

g. O

lder

p

eers

ser

ve a

n i

ncr

easi

ngl

y im

po

rtan

t ro

le a

s m

od

els

of

dif

fere

nt

lead

ersh

ip s

tyle

s an

d a

pp

roac

hes

. W

illi

ngn

ess

to t

ake

on

lea

der

ship

or

acti

ve f

oll

ow

ersh

ip r

ole

s b

uil

ds

self

-effi

cac

y th

rou

gh

mas

tery

ex

per

ien

ces.

Th

e o

pp

ort

un

ity

to l

earn

le

ader

ship

th

eory

an

d

lan

guag

e en

han

ces

abil

ity

to

arti

cula

te b

elie

fs a

nd

refl

ect

o

n e

xp

erie

nce

—th

e b

asis

fo

r th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

f p

ract

ical

in

tell

igen

ce. E

xp

osu

re t

o

div

ersi

ty a

mo

ng

pee

rs a

nd

gr

ou

p m

emb

ers

faci

lita

tes

dev

elo

pm

ent.

1.

Stu

den

ts f

eel

ind

epen

den

t w

hen

th

ey h

old

a

lead

ersh

ip p

osi

tio

n.

2.

Stu

den

ts f

eel

dep

end

ent

wh

en

they

ho

ld a

fo

llo

wer

p

osi

tio

n.

4. L

ead

ersh

ip

Dif

fere

nti

ated

Iden

tity

as

a le

ader

is

dif

fere

nti

ated

ho

ldin

g a

po

siti

on

of

lead

er i

n t

he

hie

rarc

hic

al s

tru

ctu

re.

Lea

der

ship

is

attr

ibu

ted

to

an

yon

e w

ho

co

ntr

ibu

tes

to t

he

fun

ctio

nin

g o

f th

e gr

ou

p.

Defi

nin

g le

ader

ship

su

ch t

hat

on

e’s

ow

n

invo

lvem

ents

are

no

w

seen

as

lead

ersh

ip

con

trib

ute

s to

an

in

crea

se

in t

he

sali

ence

of

on

e’s

lead

ersh

ip i

den

tity

.

Aw

are

of

the

abil

ity

to

mak

e an

im

pac

t w

ith

o

r w

ith

ou

t h

avin

g a

lead

ersh

ip t

itle

. L

earn

ing

team

wo

rk,

dev

elo

pin

g tr

ust

, le

arn

ing

ho

w t

o

dev

elo

p t

alen

t in

oth

ers.

A

war

e o

f h

avin

g m

ore

sel

f-aw

aren

ess

than

on

ce h

ad.

Ex

per

ien

ce w

ork

ing

wit

h

div

erse

oth

ers

lead

s to

gr

eate

r se

lf-a

war

enes

s an

d

mo

re c

on

fi d

ence

in

th

e ab

ilit

y to

be

effe

ctiv

e in

a

div

erse

gro

up

.

Un

der

stan

d h

ow

th

eir

gro

up

fi t

s in

to a

lar

ger

syst

em. C

an c

on

sid

er

coal

itio

n b

uil

din

g.

Co

mm

itm

ent

to a

gr

ou

p h

as d

evel

op

ed

new

sk

ills

—tr

ust

, w

ork

ing

wit

h p

eop

le

wh

ose

vie

ws

are

dif

fere

nt

fro

m y

ou

rs,

lear

nin

g to

net

wo

rk

and

co

llab

ora

te.

Ro

le o

f ad

ult

s an

d p

eers

is

as

a p

erso

n t

o r

efl e

ct o

n

exp

erie

nce

wit

h. So

meo

ne

wh

o c

an h

elp

mak

e m

ean

ing

of

lear

nin

g ex

per

ien

ces.

Beg

in t

o b

eco

me

awar

e o

f th

e in

terd

epen

den

ce o

f p

eop

le w

ork

ing

toge

ther

in

gro

up

s.

Po

siti

on

al l

ead

ers

and

gro

up

mem

ber

s ar

e m

utu

ally

d

epen

den

t o

n e

ach

o

ther

in

ord

er f

or

the

gro

up

to

su

ccee

d.


5. G

ener

ativ

ity

Lea

der

is

any

per

son

wh

o

par

tici

pat

es i

n t

he

pro

cess

o

f le

ader

ship

. B

ein

g a

lead

er i

s n

ow

a s

tab

le a

nd

sa

lien

t as

pec

t o

f id

enti

ty,

rath

er t

han

sh

ifti

ng

dep

end

ing

on

wh

eth

er

on

e h

old

s a

lead

ersh

ip

po

siti

on

or

no

t.

Self

-aw

are

of

per

son

al

stre

ngt

hs

and

min

dfu

l o

f th

e b

elie

fs a

nd

th

e va

lues

im

bed

ded

in

th

eir

acti

on

s.C

an a

rtic

ula

te t

hei

r p

assi

on

fo

r ca

use

s an

d

lon

g te

rm g

oal

s. A

war

e o

f b

ein

g an

old

er m

emb

er

and

fee

l a

sen

se o

f re

spo

nsi

bil

ity

to m

ento

r yo

un

ger

mem

ber

s.

Ro

le i

n g

rou

ps

chan

ges

as t

hey

pas

s th

e to

rch

to

yo

un

ger,

mo

re a

ctiv

e m

emb

ers.

Les

s ac

tive

in

dai

ly p

roce

sses

, b

ut

serv

e as

men

tors

to

th

ose

do

ing

that

wo

rk.

Val

ue

the

adu

lts

and

pee

rs

wit

h w

ho

m t

hey

can

refl

ect

an

d r

ecei

ve h

on

est

feed

bac

k.

Are

aw

are

of

thei

r ro

le a

s m

od

els

of

lead

ersh

ip a

nd

m

ento

rs t

o y

ou

nge

r p

eers

. B

eco

me

refl

ecti

ve o

f w

hat

th

eir

imp

act

has

bee

n, an

d

wh

at w

ill

hap

pen

in

th

eir

gro

up

s w

hen

th

ey a

re g

on

e.

Are

refl

ect

ive

of

ho

w t

hei

r ex

per

ien

ce a

nd

lea

der

ship

va

lues

wil

l tr

ansf

er t

o t

he

nex

t co

nte

xt.

Dee

pen

th

eir

com

mit

men

t to

fo

ster

ing

a se

nse

of

inte

rdep

end

ence

w

ith

in t

hei

r gr

ou

p.

6. In

tegr

atio

n/

Syn

thes

isV

iew

of

lead

ersh

ip

rem

ain

s fo

cuse

d o

n

par

tici

pat

ing

in a

pro

cess

. B

ein

g a

lead

er r

emai

ns

a st

able

asp

ect

of

iden

tity

.

Ex

per

ien

cin

g n

ew

con

tex

ts,

are

able

to

ass

ess

the

envi

ron

men

t an

d

kn

ow

ho

w t

o c

on

trib

ute

to

th

e gr

ou

p p

roce

ss i

n w

ays

that

are

mo

st h

elp

ful.

Are

aw

are

of

hav

ing

mu

ch t

o

lear

n f

rom

oth

ers,

an

d a

re

com

mit

ted

to

on

-go

ing

self

-dev

elo

pm

ent

as a

way

o

f li

fe.

Aw

are

of

the

com

ple

xit

y o

f o

rgan

izat

ion

s ac

ross

d

iffe

ren

t co

nte

xts

. F

ocu

s o

n g

rou

p’s

mis

sio

n a

nd

val

ues

as

they

ch

oo

se n

ew

invo

lvem

ents

.

In n

ew c

on

tex

ts, th

ey s

eek

o

ut

peo

ple

an

d

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

that

wil

l in

fl u

ence

th

eir

furt

her

d

evel

op

men

t, i

ncl

ud

ing

chal

len

gin

g n

ew e

xp

erie

nce

s an

d p

eop

le w

ho

sh

are

thei

r va

lues

aro

un

d l

ead

ersh

ip

and

can

refl

ect

wit

h t

hem

ab

ou

t th

eir

on

goin

g le

arn

ing.

No

w r

eco

gniz

e in

terd

epen

den

ce o

f gr

ou

ps

in a

sys

tem

as

wel

l as

of

ind

ivid

ual

s in

a

gro

up

.

Ori

gin

ally

pu

bli

shed

as:

Wag

ner

, W

. “C

on

sid

erat

ion

s o

f St

ud

ent

Dev

elo

pm

ent

in L

ead

ersh

ip.”

In

S. R

. K

om

ives

, J.

Du

gan

, J.

E. O

wen

, C

. Sl

ack

, an

d W

. W

agn

er (

eds.

), T

he

Handbo

ok f

or

Stu

den

t L

eader

ship

Dev

elop

men

t (2

nd

ed

., p

p.

85

–1

08

). S

an F

ran

cisc

o:

Joss

ey-B

ass,

20

11

a.

Table

2.3

. L

ead

ersh

ip I

den

tity

Dev

elop

men

t (L

ID)

Mod

el S

tage

s 3

–6

Des

crip

tion

s (c

on

tin

ued

)

LID

Sta

geV

iew

of

Lea

der

ship

Dev

elop

ing

Sel

fG

roup I

nfl

uen

ces

Dev

elop

men

tal

Infl

uen

ces

Vie

w o

f Sel

f W

ith

Oth

ers



a few ways leadership educators can apply the LID theory and model in their work with students.

LID research revealed that providing opportunities for students to intentionally learn the “language” of leadership facilitated more relational approaches to leadership. When students are able to articulate the postin-dustrial theories behind their approaches to leadership, they often refl ect on and strive to make their actions congruent with such approaches.

Leadership educators should intentionally design group processes in ways that encourage interdependence. Further, students benefit from expectation setting, and the explicit teaching of group roles, dynamics, and processes. Educators who encourage both depth and breadth of organiza-tional commitment invite students to practice leadership in an ongoing, deep, and meaningful way. This is in marked contrast to students who only think of organizational involvement as resume builders.

LID suggests that leadership educators should assure that students have access to caring adults and older peer mentors, as well as teach stu-dents to be mentors themselves. Having access to someone who can facili-tate meaning-making from experiences is essential to the development of a relational leadership identity.

Students may feel themselves skilled in personal leadership skills and attributes, yet may not function effectively in groups, or larger organiza-tions and complex systems. Educators can invite students to participate in more complex leadership endeavors, and to adopt networked approaches to leadership. Leadership educators should practice intentional develop-mental program design in that they are developing programs and classes that meet students where they are and provide appropriate levels of chal-lenge, support, and feedback to optimally facilitate learning.

Integrating Theories and Perspectives

There is always the danger of being reductionistic whenever one starts applying developmental theory. That is, because college students are com-plex, multifaceted individuals, it is important not to misuse or overapply any one developmental theory. It is imperative that leadership educators seek to integrate the multiple theories, models, and tools they have at their disposal. Figure 2.2 does some initial work to map the stages of the leader-ship identity development model to other developmental theories.

Connecting LID to Social Identities. In applying the LID model, leadership educators must also acknowledge the ways leadership identity intersects with other dimensions of identity such as race, culture, sexual orientation, gender, religion, and social class. A challenge in using the LID model is recognizing this intersectionality (Collins, 1998) and how stu-dents’ multiple identities shift in relative salience depending on context and relationships (Abes, Jones, and McEwen, 2007). If, as social construc-tionist approaches to identity development posit, identity is socially,



Figure 2.2. Mapping the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Stages to Other Developmental Theories



historically, politically, and culturally constructed (Weber, 2001), these fac-tors must be considered in LID application and research.

There is a growing body of research that relates racial and cultural fac-tors to leadership development (Arminio et al., 2000; Balón, 2003, 2005; Harper and Quaye, 2007; Hoppe, 1998; Kezar and Moriarty, 2000; Liang, Lee, and Ting, 2002). Students of color may experience the LID stages dif-ferently than their White peers. In developing the LID grounded theory, several participants of color described their experience of Stage 3 (Leader Identifi ed) in more collectivist ways than other study participants. For some students of color, there was no independent experience of hierarchi-cal leadership. Rather, there was an understanding of leadership as a posi-tional, leader-centric phenomenon in the western world around them, but these students were able to move more quickly through Stage 3 to arrive at relational views of leadership more congruent with their cultural backgrounds.

Figure 2.2. Mapping the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Stages to Other Developmental Theories (continued)

Source: Figure created by Komives, Longerbeam, Mainella, Osteen, and Owen.



The LID fi ndings are in keeping with different forms of cultural cogni-tion where students from individualistic cultures experience the self as separate and discrete while the collectivist cognition of self depends on group relationships and obligations (Helms and Cook, 1999). As views of self and views of self with others shift across the LID model from depen-dent to independent and fi nally to interdependent, cultural cognition may shape the development of leadership identity. More research is needed about the intersection of race, culture, and leadership identity. Whether students are in immersion, emersion, internalization, or integration may affect the experiences that shape their development (Helms, 1990). See Renn (2007) and Komives and colleagues (2009) for more detailed infor-mation about the intersections of leadership with other dimensions of iden-tity such as gender and sexual orientation.

Measuring and Assessing LID. There are numerous complexities involved in assessing leadership identity development. Rather than exhibit-ing behaviors and meaning making strategies that refl ect a single stage, student responses and behavior are more likely to signal multiple stages at once. Additionally, students may retreat back to an earlier stage when faced with a situation that challenges their way of understanding themselves as leaders. These factors can make it diffi cult to assess which stage a student primarily operates from. Learning to use LID to inform learning outcomes and program assessment without oversimplifying both the student experi-ence and the LID theory itself is a challenge to be addressed.

Another challenge to assessing leadership identity development is the fact that some students are able to discuss leadership in ways that would indicate one stage, but their actual behaviors refl ect an earlier stage. This challenge is not unique to LID research. In self-report data it is not uncom-mon to fi nd that participants tend to self-report survey responses that are one stage higher than their actual behavior.

Assessment methodology for the LID model is currently limited. A quantitative measurement scale for LID is not yet available, but develop-ment is in progress. Two scales representing Stage 3 and Stage 4 were piloted in the 2006 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL). This national study of students on 52 campuses used a measure of the Social Change Model of Leadership Development as the leadership outcomes (Dugan and Komives, 2007).

Additionally, doctoral research by Wagner (2011b) uses Q-technique to reveal the stages and transitions in students’ leadership identity develop-ment. Others are using portfolios, especially electronic portfolios, to assess leadership learning (Owen, n.d.). Because they often feature multiple selected examples of student work, include refl ection, and are context rich, portfolios can allow educators to examine development over time (Cam-bridge, 2001). Portfolios can reveal leadership developmental stages in ways that more traditional assessments might not and may even elucidate transitions between stages.



Final Thoughts

In seeking to apply developmental theory to leadership work, educators must remember that theory is socially constructed and autobiographical and as such, theories evolve and change. If theories are products of the people who develop them, the context and culture in which they operate, and the people on whom the theory is based, then anyone attempting to apply theory should understand this social construction. Most student development models “represent a limited context of values and assump-tions, primarily embedded in western rationalism and American pragma-tism” (Strange, 1994, p. 410). The same could be said of leadership theories. Regardless of how theories evolve or are constructed, practitioners must never forget that ultimately people choose their own labels and develop their own authentic selves. Paolo Freire (1970) cautions that “it is not our role to speak to the people about our view of the world, nor to attempt to impose that view on them, but rather to dialogue with the peo-ple about their view and ours” (p. 96).

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that theory is only as good as its praxis. Freire (1970) defi ned praxis as “the action and refl ection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (p. 79). He rejected ideas of using education to indoctrinate people, and instead encouraged the development of critical consciousness and active dialogue. The same could be said of the use of both leadership and developmental theories. Theories can be mindlessly applied, without thought to what their use implies about nature of reality and the creation of meaning. Much better to adopt the practices of critical awareness and engagement so that leadership educators can use theory intentionally, carefully, and with full knowledge of what we are asking of students and ourselves.

References

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., and McEwen, M. K. “Reconceptualizing the Model of Dimen-sions of Identity: The Role of Meaning-Making Capacity in the Construction of Mul-tiple Identities.” Journal of College Student Development, 2007, 48(1), 1–22.

Arminio, J. L., Carter, S., Jones, S. E., Kruger, K., Lucas, N., Washington, J., et al. “Lead-ership Experiences of Students of Color.” NASPA Journal, 2000, 37, 496–510.

Balón, D. G. “Asian Pacifi c Americans and Leadership.” In Insights and Application Series. College Park, Md.: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, 2003.

Balón, D. G. “Asian Pacifi c American College Students on Leadership: Culturally Mar-ginalized From the Leader Role?” Netresults, April 26, 2005.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-Related Patterns in Students’ Intellectual Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., and King, P. M. Learning Partnerships: Theory and Models of Prac-tice to Educate for Self-Authorship. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2004.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., and Tarule, J. M. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Burns, J. M. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.



Cambridge, B. Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Insti tu-tional Learning. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 2001.

Chickering, A. W. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.Chickering, A. W., and Reisser, L. Education and Identity. (2nd ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1993.Collins, P. H. “Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Nation: Some Implications for

Black Family Studies.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1998, 29, 27–36.Comstock, D. E. “A Method for Critical Research.” In E. Bredo and W. Feinberg (eds.),

Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research. Philadelphia: Temple Univer-sity Press, 1982.

Day, D., Harrison, M., and Halpin, S. An Integrative Approach to Leader Development: Connecting Adult Development, Identity, and Expertise. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Dugan, J. P., and Komives, S. R. “Developing Leadership Capacity in College Students: Findings From a National Study.” A Report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership. College Park, Md.: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, 2007.

Erikson, E. H. Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: Norton, 1959.Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., and Guido-DiBrito, F. Student Development in College: Theory,

Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press, 1970.Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.Hall, D. T. “Self Awareness, Identity, and Leader Development.” In D. Day, S. J. Zaccaro,

and S. M. Halpin (eds.), Leadership Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leadership for Tomorrow. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.

Harper, S. R., and Quaye, S. J. “Student Organizations as Venues for Black Identity Expression and Development Among African American Male Student Leaders.” Journal of College Student Development, 2007, 48(2), 127–144.

Helms, J. E. Black and White Racial Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Helms, J. E., and Cook, D. A. Using Race and Culture in Counseling and Psychotherapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.

hooks, b. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Hoppe, M. H. “Cross-Cultural Issues in Leadership Development.” In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, and E. VanVelson (eds.), Handbook of Leadership Development: Center for Creative Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Kegan, R., and Lahey, L. Immunity to Change. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2009.Kezar, A., and Moriarty, D. “Expanding Our Understanding of Student Leadership

Development: A Study Exploring Gender and Ethnic Identity.” Journal of College Student Development, 2000, 41(1), 55–68.

King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. Developing Refl ective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

King, P. M., and Magolda, M. B. “A Developmental Perspective on Learning.” Journal of College Student Development, 1999, 40(5), 599–609.

Kohlberg, L. “Stages of Moral Development as a Basis for Moral Education.” In C. M. Beck, B. S. Crittendon, and E. V. Sullivan (eds.), Moral Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.

Kolb, D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984.

Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., Osteen, L., Owen, J. E., and Wagner, W. “Leadership Identity Development: Challenges in Applying a Developmental Model.” Journal of Leadership Education, 2009, 8(1), 11–47.



Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J. E., Mainella, F. C., and Osteen, L. “A Lead-ership Identity Development Model: Applications From a Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student Development, 2006, 47(4), 401–420.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., and McMahon, T. R. Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., and McMahon, T. R. Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., and Osteen, L. “Devel-oping a Leadership Identity: A Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student Develop-ment, 2005, 46(6), 593–611.

Liang, C. T. H., Lee, S., and Ting, M. P. Developing Asian American Leaders. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, and C. T. H. Liang (eds.), New Direc-tions for Student Services, no. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

McEwen, M. K. “The Nature and Uses of Theory.” In S. R. Komives and D. Woodard (eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Moore, L., and Upcraft, M. L. (eds.). Theory in Student Affairs: Evolving Perspectives. New Directions for Student Services, no. 51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

Munin, A., and Dugan, J. P. “Inclusive Design.” In S. R. Komives, J. P. Dugan, J. E. Owen, C. Slack, and W. Wagner (eds.), The Handbook for Student Leadership Develop-ment. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Owen, J. E. “Considerations of Student Learning in Leadership.” In S. R. Komives, J. P. Dugan, J. E. Owen, C. Slack, and W. Wagner (eds.), The Handbook for Student Leader-ship Development. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Owen, J. E. “Using Electronic Portfolios to Assess Leadership Identity Development.” (Manuscript in process).

Perry, W. G., Jr. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press, 1952.

Rainey, M. A., and Kolb, D. A. “Using Experiential Learning Theory and Learning Styles in Diversity Education.” In R. R. Sims and S. J. Sims (eds.), The Importance of Learn-ing Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning, Course Design, and Education. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Renn, K. A. “LGBT Student Leaders and Queer Activists: Identities of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Identifi ed College Student Leaders and Activists.” Journal of College Student Development, 2007, 48(3), 311–330.

Sanford, N. Self and Society. New York: Atherton Press, 1966.Strange, C. “Student Development: The Evolution and Status of an Essential Idea.” Jour-

nal of College Student Development, 1994, 35(6), 399–412.Wagner, W. “Considerations of Student Development in Leadership.” In S. R. Komives,

J. P. Dugan, J. E. Owen, C. Slack, and W. Wagner (eds.), The Handbook for Student Leadership Development. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011a.

Wagner, W. “Examining Developmental Stages of Leadership for College Students: A Validation Study of the Leadership Identity Development Model.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 2011b.

Weber, L. Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality: A Conceptual Framework. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

JULIE E. OWEN is an associate professor in the New Century College at George Mason University.

Copyright of New Directions for Student Services is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Student development theories as conceptual framework in leadership

Education

Transcript of Student development theories as conceptual framework in leadership