Student development theories as conceptual framework in leadership


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Student development theories as conceptual framework in leadership

  1. 1. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 140, Winter 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library ( • 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 field 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 efficacy 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?”
  2. 2. 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 briefly 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) define 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 reflective judgment would grow the kinds of self-aware and adaptive leaders that many organizations value” (p. 267).
  3. 3. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 19 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 flourish. 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 first major theories to specifically 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 modified or new cog- nitive structures are created to address new information. Disequilibrium can occur when there is conflict 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
  4. 4. 20 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 defined 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).
  5. 5. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 21 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 finally 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 influences 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 reflection 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 definitions 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
  6. 6. 22 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss the self-authoring mind that offers its own ideas, and finally 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) defines 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 reflective observation or experimenta- tion. He describes learning as a four-step cycle that includes the following elements: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptual- ization, and active experimentation. All learning processes include some sort of concrete experience that leads to a period of reflective 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 reflection. 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, specifically 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 fit 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 confidence 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.
  7. 7. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss Table2.2.CharacteristicsofLeadershipLearningEnvironmentsbyKolbType AffectivelyOrientedPerceptionallyOrientedCognitivelyOrientedBehaviorallyOriented Purposeof Leadership Education Developpersonal awarenessofleadership strengths,skills,and congruence. Understandhowdiverse viewsofleadership theoryandpractice interrelate. Acquireandmasterleadership knowledgeandskills. Activelyapplyleadership learningtoreallife situations. Structureof Leadership Learning Environment Environmentinvitesfree expressionoffeelings, values,andopinions. Environment emphasizesprocessand inquiry. Environmentisstructuredand presentsclearleadership learninggoalsandobjective criteriaforevaluation. Environmentis minimallystructured andinvitesautonomous leadershiplearning. Natureof Feedbackon Leadership Personalizedand immediatefeedback aboutleadership competence. Nonevaluative suggestionsabout leadershipcompetence ratherthancritiques. Feedbackaboutleadership competencyisdirectand unambiguous. Learnerjudgesown leadershipperformance basedonestablished standards. RoleofLeadership Educator Leadershiprolemodel andcolleague. Facilitatesleadership process. Interpreterofthefieldof leadershipstudies. Leadershipcoachand advisor. Leadership Activities Guidedimagery,pair andshare,debates. Conceptmapping, journaling,or brainstorming. Traditionalconveyanceof concepts,testsand assessments,developing personaltheoriesof leadership. Developingleadership actionplans, simulations,or collaborativeleadership processes. Originallypublishedas:Owen,J.E.(2011).“ConsiderationsofStudentLearninginLeadership.”InS.R.Komives,J.Dugan,J.E.Owen,C.Slack,andW.Wag- ner(eds.),TheHandbookforStudentLeadershipDevelopment(2nded.,pp.109–133).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
  8. 8. 24 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 reflection. Many leadership educators use prin- ciples of critical reflection 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 modified, 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 identified” (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 field of psychology (Evans et al.,
  9. 9. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 25 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 definitions 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, defined as “a sense of self as one who believes that groups are comprised of interdependent members who do
  10. 10. 26 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 define 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.
  11. 11. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss Table2.3.LeadershipIdentityDevelopment(LID)ModelStages3–6Descriptions LIDStageViewofLeadershipDevelopingSelfGroupInfluencesDevelopmentalInfluencesViewofSelfWith Others 3.Leader Identified Leadershipisattributed toahierarchical position—itiswhatthe personintheleadership roledoes.Believethe follower’sroleistodo whattheleadersays. Whenstudentshavethe leadershipposition,they identifyasaleader, otherwisetheydonot. Insomecases,the motivationtobeinvolved ingroupsistogettobe “the”leader,inorderto havethatidentity.Others aremotivatedtobejusta followerbecausethey wanttoavoidhavingthe pressureofbeingsolely responsibleforagroup’s failure.Takingon leadershiproles contributestoleadership identitysalience,which mayleadtoaccepting evenmoreleadership roles. Awareofgroup structureandgroup goals.Seegroupsas hierarchical organizations,awareof rolesandprocessesto accomplishgoals. Motivatedtojoin groupsbasedon whetherthegroup missionandvalues alignwiththeirown interests.Numberof groupinvolvements narrowsaslonger-term commitmentsform withaselectfew groupsthatmatter most. Roleofadultsadvancesto mentoring/coaching.Older peersserveanincreasingly importantroleasmodelsof differentleadershipstyles andapproaches.Willingness totakeonleadershipor activefollowershiproles buildsself-efficacythrough masteryexperiences.The opportunitytolearn leadershiptheoryand languageenhancesabilityto articulatebeliefsandreflect onexperience—thebasisfor thedevelopmentofpractical intelligence.Exposureto diversityamongpeersand groupmembersfacilitates development. 1.Studentsfeel independentwhen theyholda leadershipposition. 2.Studentsfeel dependentwhen theyholdafollower position. 4.Leadership Differentiated Identityasaleaderis differentiatedholdinga positionofleaderinthe hierarchicalstructure. Leadershipisattributed toanyonewho contributestothe functioningofthegroup. Definingleadership suchthatone’sown involvementsarenow seenasleadership contributestoanincrease inthesalienceofone’s leadershipidentity. Awareoftheabilityto makeanimpactwith orwithouthavinga leadershiptitle.Learning teamwork,developing trust,learninghowto developtalentinothers. Awareofhavingmoreself- awarenessthanoncehad. Experienceworkingwith diverseothersleadsto greaterself-awarenessand moreconfidenceinthe abilitytobeeffectiveina diversegroup. Understandhowtheir groupfitsintoalarger system.Canconsider coalitionbuilding. Commitmenttoa grouphasdeveloped newskills—trust, workingwithpeople whoseviewsare differentfromyours, learningtonetwork andcollaborate. Roleofadultsandpeersisas apersontoreflecton experiencewith.Someone whocanhelpmakemeaning oflearningexperiences. Begintobecome awareofthe interdependenceof peopleworking togetheringroups. Positionalleaders andgroupmembers aremutually dependentoneach otherinorderfor thegroupto succeed.
  12. 12. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 5.GenerativityLeaderisanypersonwho participatesintheprocess ofleadership.Beinga leaderisnowastableand salientaspectofidentity, ratherthanshifting dependingonwhether oneholdsaleadership positionornot. Self-awareofpersonal strengthsandmindfulof thebeliefsandthevalues imbeddedintheiractions. Canarticulatetheir passionforcausesand longtermgoals.Awareof beinganoldermember andfeelasenseof responsibilitytomentor youngermembers. Roleingroupschanges astheypassthetorch toyounger,moreactive members.Lessactive indailyprocesses,but serveasmentorsto thosedoingthatwork. Valuetheadultsandpeers withwhomtheycanreflect andreceivehonestfeedback. Areawareoftheirroleas modelsofleadershipand mentorstoyoungerpeers. Becomereflectiveofwhat theirimpacthasbeen,and whatwillhappenintheir groupswhentheyaregone. Arereflectiveofhowtheir experienceandleadership valueswilltransfertothe nextcontext. Deepentheir commitmentto fosteringasenseof interdependence withintheirgroup. 6.Integration/ Synthesis Viewofleadership remainsfocusedon participatinginaprocess. Beingaleaderremainsa stableaspectofidentity. Experiencingnew contexts,areabletoassess theenvironmentand knowhowtocontributeto thegroupprocessinways thataremosthelpful.Are awareofhavingmuchto learnfromothers,andare committedtoon-going self-developmentasaway oflife. Awareofthe complexityof organizationsacross differentcontexts. Focusongroup’s missionandvaluesas theychoosenew involvements. Innewcontexts,theyseek outpeopleand opportunitiesthatwill influencetheirfurther development,including challengingnewexperiences andpeoplewhosharetheir valuesaroundleadership andcanreflectwiththem abouttheirongoing learning. Nowrecognize interdependenceof groupsinasystem aswellasof individualsina group. Originallypublishedas:Wagner,W.“ConsiderationsofStudentDevelopmentinLeadership.”InS.R.Komives,J.Dugan,J.E.Owen,C.Slack,andW.Wagner(eds.),TheHandbookfor StudentLeadershipDevelopment(2nded.,pp.85–108).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,2011a. Table2.3.LeadershipIdentityDevelopment(LID)ModelStages3–6Descriptions(continued) LIDStageViewofLeadershipDevelopingSelfGroupInfluencesDevelopmentalInfluencesViewofSelfWith Others
  13. 13. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 29 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 reflect 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,
  14. 14. 30 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss Figure 2.2. Mapping the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Stages to Other Developmental Theories
  15. 15. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 31 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 Identified) 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.
  16. 16. 32 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss The LID findings 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 finally 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 reflect 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 difficult 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 reflect an earlier stage. This challenge is not unique to LID research. In self-report data it is not uncom- mon to find 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 reflection, 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.
  17. 17. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 33 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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) defined praxis as “the action and reflection 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 Pacific Americans and Leadership.” In Insights and Application Series. College Park, Md.: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, 2003. Balón, D. G. “Asian Pacific 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.
  18. 18. 34 DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ LEADERSHIP CAPACITY NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss Cambridge, B. Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institu- 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 Reflective 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.
  19. 19. USING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 35 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 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 Identified 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.
  20. 20. 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.