Running head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

Whats the Basis: The Absence of Research in Using Leadership & Student Development
Theories to Construct Student Leadership Programming Curriculum
Eric Ruelle
Loyola University Chicago

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

The campus blooms sometime in mid-August. From a virtually barren quad, to a sparsely
populated student center, the seedlings of a new academic year begin to spread and sprout across
the university. They come from all over the country to fill the residence halls with activity; where
there was once nothing but chairs and a few lonely sofas collecting dust, they cling to the sides
and throw themselves over like ivy. Students are the ones that make up the campus environment
and give it vibrancy. Some of them have had previous relationships with the people around them
from high school and others are venturing into the anxious unknown. As the calendar turns to
September, they are encouraged to grow in collective habitats like the Student Government
Association, Student Activities Board, or even fraternity/sorority life. If students are the seed,
and the outcome of their college experiences make up the stem and petals, then the campus
environment, and the support of student affairs professionals across the board, provide the soil
and water, respectively. It is our task as student affairs professionals to ensure we have a healthy
and flourishing garden.
Student development research on college campuses has expanded over time as the student
personnel position became more defined (Evans, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). It has grown
since to include a variety of theories that range across disciplines, even applicable outside of
higher education. Since the early 1990s, researchers have been taking a critical look specifically
on leadership and its influence on college campuses. Universities can provide an opportunity for
enrolled students to contribute to our society and exponentially impact the lives of others through
thoughtful programming. Therefore, leadership development has become more of a core
function; so much so, that presidents and board of directors are instituting departments focused
solely on leadership development (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education, 1999; Thompson, 2006). There are now over 1,000 co-curricular leadership programs

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

across the country (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Studies have linked leadership programs with a
variety of specific developmental outcomes including civic responsibility, multicultural
awareness, skill development, and personal and societal awareness (Dugan, 2006a, p. 217). This
scholastic trend has underscored the importance of continuing to discuss this topic. Attentive
implementations such as these listed above ensure that development happens in-and-out of the
classroom, in areas such as residential education, student organizations, service learning, study
abroad, and many others.
Leadership can appear to be different things depending on the perspective with which you
look at it through. Conventional views on leadership have changed. The literatures history
describes the splitting into two different styles of leadership: industrial and post-industrial.
Leadership has been historically classified as industrial through examples of management,
power, and authority (Rost, 1991) the more you had of these things, the greater leverage you
were able to use over others. The newer postindustrial model depends on trusting relationships
among people working together towards shared goals (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella,
& Osteen, 2006). These skills emphasize relationship building, process-orientation,
connectedness, and ethics of care and concern (Dugan, 2006a, p. 218). The postindustrial model
fits more in line with student affairs practices due to the focus on relationships, values,
collaboration, group success, and impact it can have in social justice (Dugan & Komives, 2010).
Here, leadership will be used to convey, a relational, transformative, process oriented, learned,
and change directed phenomenon (Dugan, 2006b, p. 335). It is more of a process of becoming a
leader that effects change on behalf of others and society, rather than a position one might hold,
and takes time to come into as a person (HERI, 1996). Leadership development links personality
with leadership it is the change that occurs to adapt a style that is uniquely your own (Day,

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014); however, gaining a style that is your own is not an
automatic process.
Currently, there is a gap in available, clear, and comprehensive research for student
development theories that tie into leadership development programming. These connections
though are vital in understanding leadership development wholly. Issues related to student
development play a role in the way students interpret what leadership is, their ability to practice
it, their responsiveness to certain classroom structures or assignments, their ability to learn from
cocurricular experiences, and even the way they view the role of the leadership educator
(Wagner, 2011 p. 85). Without seeing how both student development and leadership development
theories intertwine would be to miss out on being fully capable to help students along in their
journeys. This paper will discuss four main postindustrial theories on leadership the Relational
Leadership Model (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998), the Social Change Model of
Leadership Development (HERI, 1996), the Servant Leadership Model (Greenleaf, 2007) and the
Leadership Identity Development Model (Komives et al., 2006) and how each of these models
implicitly draws on student development theories to provide their framework. Through each of
the following sections, we will begin to look at the foundational theories themselves, and then
relate them to current research that is taking place in leadership development; afterwards, we will
detail existing gaps in research, as well as provide suggestions for implementing these theories in
student affairs practice.
Student Development Theories
Psychosocial Development
Going to college is a major paradigm shift for students from their comfy and familiar
abodes to foreign campuses packed with others who have also just been uprooted. It is a very

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

appropriate time during college to look at students and how they have developed in a
psychosocial context; or, [the] issues people face as their lives progress, such as how to define
themselves, their relationships with others, and what to do with their lives (Evans et al., 2010, p.
42). Development typically takes place over long stretches of time, can show forward
momentum or regression, and can be used to determine what sort of support should be provided
in nurturing them through to the next stage (Sanford, 1962). Erik Erikson (1980) developed one
of the most well known psychosocial theories. Eriksons Identity Development theory
encompassed eight stages that ranged from early childhood to late adulthood. Within one stage
there would be a crisis point, which would lead to progression or regression, and also show an
essential relationship to other individuals.
James Marcia (1980) took Eriksons stages and zoomed further in to the crisis points by
proposing four identity statuses. The four that balanced crisis and commitment were called
foreclosure, moratorium, diffusion, and identity achievement. Unlike Eriksons stages, Marcias
Ego Identity Statuses were not necessarily progressive or permanent one could stay in a state
and not need to be moved along. The inherent trait is that once someone reaches the identity
achievement status for each crisis in Marcias theory they may then move on to the next stage of
Eriksons. Finally, another important model of psychosocial development comes from Arthur
Chickering (1993). The Seven Vectors he describes is the non-linear track through developing an
identity; which includes learning to develop competence, manage emotions, and developing
purpose (Evans et al., 2010).
All three of the relayed psychosocial theories have been used as foundations for the
Social Change Model (SCM) of Leadership (HERI, 1996); yet, there are little to no studies for
example, how the SCM and Chickerings (1993) Seven Vectors can operate together in practice.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

The SCM is visualized as being three circles altogether in a triangle formation, each one
representing either the individual, the group, or the community/society. The circle, which
focused on the individual, symbolizes values like consciousness of self, congruence, and
commitment. Consciousness of self is synonymous with the definition of psychosocial
development. Further research should include Student Leadership Departments best practices
when it comes to aligning effective leadership curriculum and programming with student
development theories, the ways in which identities play a role in selecting a development and/or
leadership theory, as well as assessment data on what the students found successful.
Cognitive & Moral Development
Cognitive development is defined as, how students think and make meaning of their
experiences (Wagner, 2011 p. 89). This is the difference between how students develop over
time (psychosocially) to how they think (cognitively). Understanding where students are at
cognitively can have an impact on how student affairs professionals handle interactions with
students and gain perspective on how they see situations. William Perrys (1981) theory of
intellectual and ethical development studied undergraduates and their meaning making in
teaching and learning. Students move through positions of thinking from duality (good/bad,
right/wrong), to multiplicity (thinking more analytically about situations), and relativism
(knowledge is viewed qualitatively and is contextually defined based on evidence) (Evans et al.,
2010). In between each of these three categories are smaller steps that challenge students to take
their previous experiences and build off of those in order to make meaning these messages
influence the way that students carry out their lives.
Similarly, Robert Kegan (1994) and Marcia Baxter Magolda (2001) sought to utilize
cognitive and psychosocial development together to create self-authorship. Kegan coined the

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

Theory of the Evolution of Consciousness. Similarities between Kegan (1994), Erikson (1980),
and Marcia (1980) are that they all saw the importance of swing from stability and instability.
Kegan used five orders to track the progress from the infant to the point at which the individual
can take responsibility for their internal authority (Evans et al., 2010). Overall, instructors expect
students to be self-reflective, engaged, independent, self-directed, critical thinkers when it comes
to conceptualizing their lives in college. Baxter Magolda identified four phases as well toward
self-authorship, which involved movement from external to internal self-definition. Phase 1 dealt
with following formulas based on precedence. Phase 2 is labeled as crossroads when the
individual begins to decide what seems right for them. Phase 3, similar to Kegans (1994) fourth
order, when one is able to stand up for themselves in front of external perspectives. Finally, the
internal foundation, phase 4, happens when individuals have a belief system that is truly their
own.
Self-efficacy is one outcome of growing in the area of cognitive and moral development
(Dugan 2006a, Dugan & Komives, 2007). Perceived self efficacy is defined as peoples beliefs
about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over
events that affect our lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate
themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major processes.
They include cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes (Bandura, 1994). As
most of the leadership theories focus around one or two singular aspects of cognitive,
psychosocial, or group related there seems to be significant emphasis put on self-efficacy to be
able to do much of the balancing work. It aligns well with Kegans fourth order and as student
affiars professionals we can work on bringing that to leadership training There are three different

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

forms of cognitive theories have been built out of the role of self-efficacy including attribution
theory, expectancy-value theory, and goal theory (Bandura, 1994).
As student affairs educators, we are in a position where we can take the information that
has been provided from our students and construct opportunities for leadership programming to
exist and grow. Dugan (2006b) frames this task as:
[There is] a need for student affairs staff, regardless of functional area, to engage students
in dialogue more effectively Student affairs professionals have the potential to play an
enormously powerful role in shaping the meaning making capacity of students. However,
attention must be directed at developing leadership capacity across all values, not just the
ones that are more easily affected (p. 341)
One leadership theory that takes its roots from cognitive and moral development is Greenleafs
(2007) Servant Leadership Model. The servant leader is servant first. Then conscious choice
brings one to aspire to lead. The best test is: do those served grow as persons: do they, while
being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to
become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or,
at least, not be further deprived? (p. 27). The model brings together characteristics like listening,
empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment
to the growth of people, and building community (Spears, 2010) and mixes both industrial and
postindustrial values. Further research might be to pull Kegan (1994) and Baxter Magolda (2001)
together and see how specifically they relate. Doing so would allow practitioners to see more
depth how the development of the student influences the development of those that they are
serving; additionally, it might provide some insight into what type of programming is needed in
developing leadership in the students perhaps a Resident Advisor serves.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

Identity Development Theories

Who we are as people, or our individual identities, have a lot to do with how we carry
ourselves through the world. Identity is defined as the sense of a continuous self (Komives et al.,
2006). Much of the time in college is spent flushing and testing out these systems for how we
operate. Wagner (2011) defines identity development as, the processes through which
individuals come to have an enduring sense of who they are, both in terms of having unique
personal characteristics and values and how they make meaning of the groups in which they
share membership (p. 95). It is important to consider how students perceive the world through
their own lenses now that we have addressed how they develop and think. Leadership
development links personality with leadership it is the change that occurs to adapt a style that
is uniquely your own (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). The SCM (HERI, 1996),
the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMDI) (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007) and
Komives et al.s (1998) theory, dubbed the Relational Leadership Model (RLM), were all
leadership theories that address the growth of students identity. Some of the goals of the RLM
were to value facilitating change, to gain a better understanding of self and others, seek to view
groups and organizations as communities, and attending to individual and organizational
renewal. This philosophy has distinct postindustrial traits in being ethical and inclusive, as well
as acting to acknowledge the diverse talents of group members.
Student development theory focuses on identity development in many ways. The College
Impact Model (Astin, 1991) looked at the demographics of a student and provided estimated
outcomes based on the types of leadership that were offered on campus or the offerings of
leadership training. These three categories came to form the model: The Inputs (I), Environments
(E), and Outcomes (O). In this context, identities like gender, race, or sexuality are considered

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

10

the inputs that are filtered through leadership opportunities (the environment) the output here
would be the leadership outcomes of specific programming around moving up through identity
development; unfortunately, these connections have not been widely studied in literature. Cress
et al. (2001) found little to no differences across leadership outcomes based on racial group
membership. With more research focused on developing outcomes across spectrums, including
counseling other student development theories, leadership programming will be more supported
and finely tuned for populations. Part of the issue there might stem from programmers wanting to
make it as general as possible so more students enter into it, although this practice continues to
benefit privileged identities and leads to reinforcing the idea of other-ness. Exploration of
multiple identities is often not a voluntary activity for students of color because skin color is
evident while other identities can appear invisible. Indeed, most students with multiple
marginalized identities face the intersections of their complex selves not necessarily as willing
participants but for survival in the dominant culture (Evans et al., 2010).
Although there were conceptual models of leadership development, at the time of
Komives et al.s study (2005), there was no known research on how leadership identity was
formed (p. 594). The purpose then was to understand how leadership identity develops and to
create a grounded theory that would relate to particular identities and perceptions. The result of
this research was named the Leadership Identity Development (LID) model. The model is made
up of six stages that ask a student to define leadership and identify themselves as leaders.
Through a broadening view of leadership, in which leadership becomes a process and not a
position, the student may go through the six stages of leadership identity development. The six
stages are categorized as: awareness, exploration/engagement, leader identified, leadership
differentiated, generativity, and integration/synthesis. The complete LID model includes

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

11

transition statements to help come up with strategies for challenging and supporting students
through each stage and also tracking their process from being dependent to interdependent. Day
(2001) suggested that, Leadership development can be thought of as an integration strategy by
helping people understand how to relate to others, coordinate their efforts, build commitments,
and develop extended social networks by applying self understanding to social and
organizational imperatives (p. 586), leading us to believe that the self must be at the heart of the
identity first.
In 2005, Renn and Bilodeau published an article using the LID model to focus on lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) student leaders. There are very few research articles on
identity-based leadership. As in previous research, it supports the idea that leadership activities
related to identity can promote positive leadership development and/or activism. One of the most
interesting concepts was that across existing studies was the theme of reluctant acceptance of the
title leader. Arminio et al. (2000) stated, Contrary to the conventional leadership literatureand
leadership program marketing information, which glorifies the and encourages leadership
practices, most participants did not consider themselves leaders. In fact, some resented the term
leader used to describe them (p. 500). Renn and Bilodeau (2005) found evidence that supports
each stage the LID model for LGBT student leaders. What Renn and Bilodeau (2005) had done
was to reemphasize what Komives et al (2005) had proposed. The authors are quoted, It is
beyond the scope of this article to discuss in full the interlocking development processes of
becoming a queer leader, though we believe that this is the next most interesting place to take up
data analysis (p. 361).
Arminio (2000) goes into further detail about students of color on predominately White
campuses. He discusses multiple identities, including African-American, Latina, and Asian

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

12

American. This creates grouping that is generalized and does not have specific ties to specific
identities like some other theories do. In all of the articles there has been a warning that the study
has either been too general or too specific there does not seem to be a happy medium yet.
Arminio (2000) led with some advice on how to keep all of these things in mind as practitioners
when he said, Student affairs professionals in general and those responsible for leadership
development programs must realize that leadership language does not ring true for all students
(p. 506). One important takeaway is that we are not just creating new leaders but encouraging
them to model and mentor for other students (Komives et al., 2006) More than ever, based on the
above scholarship, we need to take a closer look at race, gender, and sexuality to start
deconstructing what more we can discover about these identities and leadership. We need to ask
questions about how programming is done, what is effective, and why use one model over the
other or how can we use these models in conjunction.
Conclusion
Leadership is inherently a group phenomenon (Rost, 1991) and what we do, as student
affairs professionals, can dictate as much as possible the tone and completion of the desired
outcomes. The importance of peer conversations about difference cannot be understated, and
educators are encouraged to actively structure and foster such opportunities throughout
leadership curriculum and co-curriculum (Dugan & Komives, 2010, p. 539). This research is far
from over, but suggests that student affairs scholars are just scratching the surface on how
student development models intersect with theory and practice.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

13

References:
Antonio, A. L. (2001) The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills
and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42(5). 593617
Arminio, J. L., Carter, S., Jones, S. E., Kruger, K., Lucas, N., Washington, J., Young, N., Scott,
A. (2000). Leadership experiences of students of color. NASPA Journal, 37(3).
496-510
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence. New York: Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Baxter Magolda, B. M. (1998). Developing self authorship in young adult life. Journal of
College Student Development, 39. 143-156
Baxter Magolda, B. M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Council for the Advancement Standards in Higher Education. (1999). CAS standards for
leadership programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental
outcomes of college students involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College
Student Development, 42. 15-27
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

14

Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths, and

optimism: Retention theories past, present, and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 7th National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston. (pp. 300-312).
Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma
Dugan, J. P. (2006a). Explorations using the social change model: Leadership development
among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2).
217-225
Dugan, J. P. (2006b). Involvement and Leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially responsible
leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3). 335-343
Dugan, J. P. (2011). Students involvement in group experiences and connections to leadership
development. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011. 17-32
doi: 10.1002/ir.414
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). 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.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students capacities for socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5). 525-549
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York. Norton
Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/2002). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

15

Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development:
Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kezar, A., & Moriarty D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership
development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(1). 55-69
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. (1998). Exploring leadership for college students
that want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 68-72
Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J. E., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2006). A
leadership identity model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College
Student Development, 47(4). 401-418
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. Willowbrook, IL: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. Accessed: http://tinyurl.com/lgs5klv
Marcia,, J.E. (1980) Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (pp. 159-187). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Posner, B. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(4). 443-456
Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005). Leadership identity development among lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender student leaders. NASPA Journal, 42(3). 342-367
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Spears, L. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING

16

leaders. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 1(1). 25-30

Thompson, M. D. (2006). Student leadership process development: An assessment of
contributing college resources. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3).
343-350
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent literature. A
Review of Educational Research, 45. 89-125
Wagner, W. (2010). Considerations of student development in leadership. In Komives, S, Dugan,
J. P., Owen, J., Slack, C., & Wagner W. The Handbook for Student Leadership
Development (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 85-108)