The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Full length article

“I want to be the line leader!” Cognitive and social processes in early

leader development
Jessie A. Cannon *, Stephen J. Zaccaro , Thalia R. Goldstein
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The field of leader development has recently begun to focus more on the role of pre-adult leadership experiences
Agency in shaping leader development. However, research has largely neglected to account for children’s and adoles­
Leader development cents’ agency in shaping their own leader development, instead focusing on external drivers of such development
Children
(e.g., parents, schools). This integrative conceptual article provides a model for leader development from
Adolescents
childhood through adolescence, drawing on insights from the cognitive and social child development literature.
Leader mindset
Socio-cognitive skills This model focuses on the reciprocal influences of agency, early leadership experiences, and foundational socio-
cognitive skills, including theory of mind, metacognition, self-regulation, and autobiographical reasoning, to
foster growth and complexity in leadership skills and mindsets. In addition, the enabling forces that influence the
early development and expression of agency, socio-cognitive skills, and leader mindsets are described.

Introduction Child leader development is undoubtedly shaped by external forces.

Leader development is a relatively new and growing area of research
(Day et al., 2014). Regarding leader development across the lifespan,
several theoretical and empirical studies have highlighted the impor­
tance of childhood and adolescent leadership experiences and early
leader skill development. For example, Murphy and Johnson (2011), Liu
et al. (2021) and Eva et al. (2021) described how particular child and
adolescent leadership experiences can lead to the growth of early leader
identities and leadership skills. In addition, longitudinal studies have
linked adult leadership outcomes to childhood experiences that
contribute to leadership-relevant skill development (e.g., Reitan &
Stenberg, 2019; Strain & Webber, 2017). These studies suggest that to
deepen our understanding of leader development, researchers should
focus more closely on experiences and processes occurring in childhood
that can fuel such growth. While these and other important empirical
and theoretical contributions have furthered our understanding of
childhood leader development (e.g., Kudo et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2019;
Meyer & Rinn, 2021), this literature tends to portray children as passive
recipients of leadership learning – they “are given” potential leadership
development experiences by others (e.g., parents, teacher, coaches), or
they engage in such experiences only as prescribed by others. Accord­
ingly, the extant literature has not fully captured the role of a child’s
agency in personal leader development.
However, children can and do make conscious decisions to claim lead­
ership (DeRue & Ashford, 2010b) as well as to actively reflect upon and
therefore grow from such experiences (Nesbit, 2012). While this process
has been described for adult leaders (Day et al., 2009; DeRue & Ashford,
2010a), we argue that it begins earlier in one’s lifespan as the claiming
of leadership roles can appear even in preschoolers (“I want to be the
line leader!”). Indeed, evidence has shown that preschool-age children
recognize (Margoni et al., 2018) and claim leadership roles at least as
early as age 4 (Chen & Kacerek, 2022). Thus, just as agency is a core
tenet of adult leader development, it is a central aspect of children’s
leader development.
Current models of youth leader development have briefly alluded to
agency. For example, Eva et al. (2021) noted that, “…by exercising
agency in programs, adolescent girls can develop a deeper level of skills
and abilities than those who attend a prescribed leader development
program” (p. 12). Liu et al. (2021) argued that individuals only express
agency in their own development once they reach adulthood (age
18–30), noting that “at this stage, individuals start to make decisions by
themselves in the face of various opportunities” (p. 8). We argue that
this process begins much earlier in development, as early as preschool.
In developing this argument, we build on prior work on leadership
development. However, we add to this work in several ways to describe
agency expression and its connection to leadership development

* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
E-mail address: jcannon5@gmu.edu (J.A. Cannon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101757
Received 3 June 2022; Received in revised form 21 November 2023; Accepted 3 December 2023
1048-9843/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jessie A. Cannon et al., The Leadership Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101757
J.A. Cannon et al.
experiences, socio-cognitive skills and critical enablers and inhibitors of
child leader growth. First, as noted, we emphasize the role of a child’s
agency more so, and in different ways, than in previous conceptual
frameworks. Specifically, agency in the context of early leader devel­
opment refers to the child’s act of choosing what leadership develop­
ment experiences in which to engage, how to engage in leadership
within a role, and/or how to frame leadership development experiences
when reflecting on one’s leadership identity. Thus, this agency is critical
not only for children accruing early leadership development experi­
ences, but also for prompting initiative to reflect, however naively, on
these experiences and seek meaning about them from others (e.g., par­
ents, teachers, etc.). Further, the child development literature has long
recognized children’s agency in their own development and learning.
For example, “In most kindergarten contexts, young children are
perceived as active agents who learn about themselves and the social
world through their participation in social situations in different insti­
tutional contexts” (Hedegaard, 2020, p. 48). Other well-known child
development researchers have historically taken similar approaches (e.
g., Hedegaard, 2020; Piaget, 1950; Sameroff, 1975; Vygotsky, 1998). We
note that while early expressions of agency are not as well-informed, this
foundational ability has been found to emerge at a young age (e.g.,
Recchia, 2011) and to develop into progressively more sophisticated
expressions throughout childhood and adolescence (e.g., Schwartz et al.,
2005).
Second, in line with other researchers (Liu et al., 2021; McCauley
et al., 2014), we emphasize the critical role of early leadership experi­
ences in fostering learning and development. As children claim the
leadership role, their early struggles, successes, and failures foster the
emergence of socio-cognitive skills and self-beliefs that in turn drive
engagement in future leadership experiences. These experiences can be
characterized as early leadership emergence, enactment, effectiveness
(or ineffectiveness), and/or leader development activities. Given a
young child’s lack of experience with leadership, we would argue that
any expression of early leadership claiming is developmental in nature.
Subsequent leadership development experiences, even after children
have gained some rudimentary leadership skills, serve to “stamp-in” or
routinize these skills (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004). Moreover, the child’s
agency should push them to seek more challenging experiences that can
foster further growth (McCauley, et al., 1994; Van Velsor & McCauley,
2004). Thus, in our framework, we include early leader enactment and
emergence in our references to leadership development experiences.
Third, we contribute to the literature of early leader development by
incorporating key insights from the child development literature
regarding the role of agency in child leader development and the key
socio-cognitive skills that facilitate growth in leadership skillsets and
mindsets. While research on leadership development has been useful in
understanding some of the processes that drive child leadership learning
(Liu et al., 2021; Murphy & Johnson, 2011), the literature on child
development in general, and particularly on the growth of socio-
cognitive skills and self-identity, should greatly enhance this under­
standing. Indeed, Murphy and Johnson (2011, p. 468) called for such an
integration of child development and leader development frameworks,
noting “developmental psychologists, and others who research children,
could offer valuable insights” to the study of leader development.
Fourth, we also add to the child leader development literature by
focusing on four core socio-cognitive skills that reflect key precursor
processes (Parkhill et al., 2018) that contribute to early leader devel­
opment: theory of mind, metacognition, self-regulation, and autobio­
graphical reasoning. Parkhill et al. described as precursors to adolescent
leadership certain skills and assets such as “sense of identity, belonging,
self-efficacy, and social skills [as well as] an ability to adapt flexibly to
one’s environment and circumstances” (p. 376). Here, we extend this
concept to early child leader development, arguing that the four socio-
cognitive skills are critical to the development of more specific leader­
ship skills and mindsets. Like the developmental framework proposed by
Zaccaro et al., (2018; see Fig. 1), we define these as foundational
2
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
attributes that interact with early experiences to foster growth in more
proximal leadership capacities and mindsets. Many studies from the
child development literature reviewed in later sections of this article
show how these skills derive from the child’s early social experiences
and in turn help shape and enrich future social and cognitive develop­
mental experiences. We apply these insights from this literature in our
model of child leader development.
Finally, we contribute to the literature on child leader development
by applying and building upon existing models of leader developmental
complexity (Day & Lance, 2004; Lord & Hall, 2005). Lord and Hall
(2005) described the developmental trajectory of leaders as moving
from novice to expert skill levels, along with concomitant changes in
leader identity. These authors also noted that while the leadership skills
of novices reflect surface-level generic behaviors and individual leader
identities, intermediate-level skills entail aligning leadership behaviors
to domain and situational cues. Also, leader identities become more
relational. At the expert level, leaders rely even more on situational
understanding and alignment, more underlying principles, and more
value-based collective identities (Lord & Hall, 2005). In this article we
argue that such development is cyclical and occurs throughout child­
hood and adolescence, where children evolve the complexity of their
leader skillsets and mindsets, by proactively engaging in leadership
development experiences (agency) and leveraging the aforementioned
socio-cognitive skills as well as external enablers to foster growth in such
complexity. We utilize research from the child and adult development
literature, particularly regarding constructivism (Carey et al., 2015;
Kegan, 1980) and the development of executive function complexity
(Jacques & Marcovitch, 2010; Zelazo, 2015) to support this argument.
Model overview
Our conceptual model of child leader development is shown in Fig. 1.
While we utilize themes from prior models of child leader development
(Eva et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Murphy & Johnson, 2011), our key
point of departure is that our model is grounded in children’s agency in
(a) claiming and enacting leadership, and (b) reflecting on these
enactment experiences to foster subsequent growth in core leader socio-
cognitive skills and mindsets. Our theoretical model builds on this
concept of agency to define a co-evolutionary process of youth leader
development.
As children engage in leadership development experiences, they
develop and refine socio-cognitive skills (e.g., Deutsch et al., 2017;
Hansen et al., 2018). These skills provide a foundation for learning from
future leadership development experiences, for the emergence of more
specific and proximal leadership capacities (Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro
et al., 2018), and for the evolution of leader mindsets. Our specification
of these particular skills is driven both by studies in the child develop­
ment literature and on a definition of leadership as goal-directed social
influence to instigate collective action (c.f. Chemers, 1997). When acting as
leaders, children engage in goal-directed activity (a form of agency,
Hannah et al., 2012) such that choice is exercised through setting and
pursuing collective goals. Also, leadership is a social influence process.
Leader agency is functionally directed toward motivating and influ­
encing others, generating endorsement of and commitment to goal-
directed activities (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Moreover, to develop as a
leader and effectively practice leadership requires children to have at
least a fundamental understanding1 of their own and others’ agency, and
the ability to interact with and influence others in social settings.
1
When researchers refer to children’s “understanding” of concepts, this can
have various meanings. For example, 5-year-olds communicate their expecta­
tions about leaders through expressing expectations of what a leader should do
in a given situation (Stavans & Diesendruck, 2021). See Carey (2009) for an in-
depth review of how concepts are understood from infancy through early
childhood.
J.A. Cannon et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Model of the Pre-Adult Leadership Development Process
Note: This model depicts the reciprocal relationships between socio-cognitive skills, experiences, and leader mindsets and how they contribute to early leadership
development. Actively seeking out and participating in leadership experiences enables skill development, while these experiences also help youth expand their leader
mindset, which in turn motivates further engagement in experiences. These relationships are driven both by the individual’s agency and by outside influences.
Four socio-cognitive skills are critical to (a) the growth of such un­
derstanding, (b) the effective expression of leadership agency and (c) the
growth of more complex leader skillsets and mindsets. Theory of mind
enables an understanding of others’ mental states and how they can lead
to actions. This capacity has been linked to the ability to influence and
have good relationships with peers (Peterson et al., 2016), which relates
to both the goal-directed and social influence aspects of leadership.
Metacognitive skill enables reflection and understanding about how
mental states lead to intentional actions and has been closely linked to
perceptions of one’s own agency (Marulis et al., 2020). Self-regulation is
critical for monitoring and regulating one’s own behavior and emotions
in pursuit of a goal (Montroy et al., 2016). Finally, autobiographical
reasoning enables youth to express agency in their own leadership
development, pursuing and shaping their life trajectories in intentional
ways (Van Doeselaar et al., 2020). Such reasoning is critical for the
evolution of leader mindsets, particularly leader identity. These socio-
cognitive skills emerge and grow over time in a dynamic, interdepen­
dent process (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019). This maturation is
demonstrated by increasing complexity in leader skillsets and mindsets.
The core of the model reflects a co-evolutional developmental spiral
driven and sustained by the child’s and adolescent’s agency. Leadership
researchers have also utilized the idea of co-evolutionary growth spirals
to describe leader development over time. For example, Day et al.
(2009) proposed a mutually reinforcing spiral for leader development,
asserting that the development of leadership competencies strengthens
leader identity. This in turn motivates an individual to participate in
leadership development experiences, thus fostering competency devel­
opment and further leader identity growth. Similarly, we propose that
the child’s expression of agency leads to engagement of early leadership
development experiences; these experiences provide the basis for the
emergence and practice of the four socio-cognitive skills and mindsets;
these skills and mindsets foster more experience-seeking and thus, the
evolution of (a) more complex understandings of leadership skills and
their application across different situations, and (b) more complex,
differentiated, and principle-based leader mindsets (Lord & Hall, 2005;
3
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Hannah et al., 2013).
Kegan’s (1980) constructive-developmental theory provides an
explanation of the role of agency, leadership development experiences,
and socio-cognitive skills in facilitating growth in cognitive complexity.
He suggested that people actively construct meaning to understand
themselves and the world. As people develop, he suggested that each
subsequent “level” transcends and includes the previous level. Because
of this inclusion, the later-stage “cognitive frames” are more complex
than previous ones. Similarly, theories of cognitive development have
proposed that growth in executive functioning and cognitive complexity
occurs through reflection, involving iterative reprocessing and consid­
eration of context (Zelazo, 2015). This reflection process and resultant
growth in cognitive complexity enables more effective learning, adap­
tation, and goal-directed behavior (Karr et al., 2022).
Finally, our model specifies several developmental enablers and in­
hibitors that influence each element driving the growth of complex
leader skillsets and mindsets. For example, particular individual differ­
ences in temperament as well parental patterns of behavior can deter­
mine the degree and direction of children’s agency expression.
Socioeconomic status, cultural norms, and non-parental role models can
also influence such expression. Similarly, interactions with parents,
peers, and mentors can influence socio-cognitive skill development.
These interactions, occurring through leadership development experi­
ences in which children and adolescents can practice leadership be­
haviors, also contribute to increased complexity of leadership skillsets
and mindsets.
In the remaining sections of this article, we elucidate each element of
our model, including its key developmental enablers and inhibitors. We
review and cite research from both the leadership and child develop­
ment literature to support the role of each element in our model in the
growth of children’s complex leader skillsets and mindsets.
Method of review
Our intent in this article is not to provide a comprehensive literature
J.A. Cannon et al. The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx

review or a description of the “state of the field” of childhood leadership Table 1

development. Others have recently provided such reviews (Eva et al., List of articles found across all literature searches.3
2021; Liu et al., 2021). Instead, we conducted focused literature reviews Topic Number of
around the key constructs in our model and their proposed relationships. articles
We next describe our methods for conducting these reviews. Socio-cognitive skills and cognitive development 50
The premise and starting point of this article is that children are Play 19
active agents in their own leadership development. Based on our initial Attachment and parents 17
review of key papers on this subject (e.g., Liu et al., 2021; Murphy & Mentors and role models 15
Extracurricular activities and leadership programs 45
Johnson, 2011) we identified agency as an important conceptual gap in Identity: leader identity and autobiographical reasoning 38
the literature. Our iterative process of searching for related and relevant Sports 7
articles began with a review of existing conceptual articles on leadership Children’s views of leadership, implicit leadership views, 18
and leader development in children to determine the degree to which schemas
Social intelligence and theory of mind 43
agency was represented in these frameworks (e.g., articles from lead­
Agency 16
ership and development literatures). Then, we conducted a deeper Brain, genetics, and other individual differences 6
search for research on leader development before adulthood in the Leadership self-efficacy and motivation to lead 6
EBSCO and Google Scholar databases, using the search terms (leader OR Negative life events 6
leadership) AND (child OR children OR youth OR adolescent OR teen OR Gender 4
Leader behavior in childhood/adolescence 15
toddler OR “young adult” OR preschool OR kindergarten OR elementary) as Media and technology 6
well as conducting forward and backward searches of key articles and Classrooms 2
using the “related articles” tool in Google Scholar. Essentialism 6
We then reviewed key articles and books on the nature of agency in Leadership in adulthood 52
Retrospective studies 12
young children to (a) extract definitions of this construct, and (b) to
Undergraduate student leadership 18
identify its nomological network as it would relate to leadership Lit reviews and theoretical papers 26
development (e.g., Carey, 2009; Choi, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2005). Books and book chapters 20
From this review, we identified the four socio-cognitive skills (theory of Articles excluded based on relevancy 39
mind, metacognition, self-regulation, and autobiographical reasoning) Total 486

we argue are particularly relevant to enacting leadership. We then 3

conducted searches to explore the relationship between agency and
early skill development and expression. We searched the same databases
using agency and each of the four skills as keywords. We also searched
for longitudinal research on each skill, looking for evidence for a tra­
jectory of how it develops and is expressed over the lifespan.
The next step was to review broader influences for each of these
constructs. Again, we searched databases using the same search terms
with and without the addition of the word “leadership.” Based on these
searches, we were able to identify the most prominent influences (e.g.,
parents, individual differences, SES, team projects in the classroom,
sports) on early leadership, skill development, and agency expression.
We then searched and reviewed research pertaining to each of the in­
fluences and experiences denoted in our model.
Finally, in our review of the leadership development literature we
identified that many papers had discussed a relationship between skill
development and identity development (e.g., Day et al., 2009; Day &
Dragoni, 2015; Liu et al., 2021). We conducted a literature review for
leader identity and related terms, as well as pulled out all related terms
from the articles we had collected in previous searches, referring to this
collection of related concepts as the “leader mindset.” We then con­
ducted searches in the same databases using the leader mindset terms
and keywords related to children/adolescents, and we reviewed articles
from previous searches, to find evidence of how the leader mindset
develops before adulthood.
Due to the complex nature of the topic, information learned from
previous searches helped to inform subsequent searches. This iterative
search process enabled us to find a broader and more comprehensive
body of literature than would otherwise have been possible with a single
search. As shown in Table 1, across all searches we identified 486
potentially relevant articles. Table 1 shows the number of articles
identified based on the topic area.
Agency
A key element of our model is that children can and do exert agency
over their own leadership expression and development. Such leadership
agency is expressed in young children by their active exploration of
opportunities to influence peers and through regulating their behavior
for the sake of pursuing a collective goal.
Due to the iterative nature of the literature search process, we determined
that some of our initial search topics were too tangential to include in our
conceptual model. We thank the reviewers for helping us narrow down and
refine our conceptual framework.
The child development literature began to move from an interpre­
tation of children as passive respondents to active agents in their social
interactions in the 1980s and 90s (e.g., Alanen, 1988; James & Prout,
1990). This movement forwarded several new perspectives of child
agency. A full review of this literature is beyond the scope of this article
(see Baader, 2016; Esser et al., 2016; Oswell, 2013; Varpanen, 2019).
Instead, we briefly note a few key themes related to the child expression
of leader agency. Fundamentally, agency refers to the child’s intentional
and purposive action (Schlosser, 2015; Varpanen, 2019). Such actions
include exploration activities designed to acquire new knowledge,
competencies, and values (Hedegaard, 2020). These activities are
motivated by the presence of uncertainty and novelty in the child’s
environment (Meder, et al., 2021; Schulz, 2015; Schulz et al., 2019).
Two perspectives on children’s agency suggest that (a) it derives from
the child’s motive and value orientations, or (b) it is socially con­
structed, derived from the child’s network of social relationships that
bound and direct its expression (Sugarman & Sokol, 2012). In our
framework, we reflect recent arguments to integrate both aspects of
agency (Rissanen, 2017; Varpanen, 2019) by emphasizing both the
child’s inclination toward proactivity and the role of social enablers (or
inhibitors) of this orientation.
Studies have documented children displaying agency from an early
age. For example, research has shown that 6-month-old infants
demonstrate that they understand themselves and others as active
agents who have goals (Carey, 2009). Preschool-aged children express
agency through displayed helping behavior (Chernyak & Kushnir, 2018;
Recchia, 2011). Mawson (2011) observed preschool children expressing
agency in a pretend play scene, by introducing new plotlines or identi­
fying a new role for themselves. Elementary-age children expressed
agency through organizing and encouraging teammates to work
together on a group project (Yamaguchi & Maehr, 2003). Children have
choices over how they act and react within contexts and can also choose
which contexts to enter. Holden (2010) noted there are multiple ways
that children actively influence their own developmental trajectories (e.
g., learning an instrument, succeeding academically, or attaining social

4
J.A. Cannon et al.
competence). He further explained that children can accept, reject,
negotiate, or resist their parents-initiated trajectories; they can change
their level of effort and cognitive constructions of experiences once on a
trajectory; and they can propose their own trajectories. Accordingly, this
agency expressed in many non-leadership situations can extend to
leadership situations as well. For example, children can accept, resist, or
reject leadership roles thrust upon them by parents and teachers, and
can negotiate or advocate for taking on different leadership roles and
trajectories.
Importantly, there is no “universal” or automatic progression in
agency expression from infancy to adulthood. Much like individual
differences in leadership and agency expression in adulthood, develop­
mental trajectories of agentic behavior show individual differences
based on personality traits, temperament, and other factors. We will
expand on this concept of the variability of agency below by reviewing
various enablers and inhibitors of agency development and expressions.
Enablers/inhibitors of agency
The child’s expressions of agency from infancy through young
adulthood can be influenced by particular individual differences,
influential relationships, and contextual factors. For example, some
children will differ by temperament in how much they will actively seek
– or minimize personal exposure to – leadership development experi­
ences (Guerin et al., 2011). Also, several relationship and contextual
factors can offer more enriched opportunities that provide a wider range
of choices in such experiences (Hansen et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2019).
Individual differences
Certain predispositions influence the degree to which children are
inclined to express agency around leadership. For example, Guerin et al.
(2011) found that temperament (approach/withdrawal) at age two
predicted extraversion at age 17, which in turn was significantly related
to leadership potential in adulthood. They reported those with an
“approach” temperament are more inclined to agentically seek out social
interactions and experiences, thus gaining more opportunities to
develop social and leadership skills. Narcissism is another individual
difference that fosters such agency. Narcissists typically possess an
exaggerated self-view that needs continued reinforcement (Cragun
et al., 2020). To gain such reinforcement they seek personal recognition
in the form of social achievement (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Accordingly,
narcissistic children are more likely to seek leadership roles. Along this
line, Brummelman et al. (2021) found that children ages 7–14 who
scored higher on a childhood narcissism scale tended to behave more
dominantly and present themselves as role models, which in turn led to
peers recognizing them as a leader. Taken together, these studies sup­
port certain individual differences as enabling child leader agency
expression.
Parents/caregivers
Baumrind’s (1971) dimensions of parenting behavior have important
implications for childhood agency and leader development. The first
dimension, demandingness, is the level of expectations parents have of
children. The second, responsiveness, is the degree of emotional warmth
and support expressed by parents. Liu et al. (2019) found that over­
parenting (a combination of high responsiveness and low demanding­
ness) related negatively to Chinese adolescents choosing leader roles or
displaying leader emergence. Parents who are overly involved in their
child’s activities limit the child’s ability to apply their own agency,
which in turn hampers their leader development.
In contrast, particular parental behaviors can enable greater agency
expression in children. In a U.S. study of adolescent boys ages 14–18,
Kudo et al. (2012) found that authoritative parenting (high respon­
siveness and high demandingness) significantly and positively corre­
lated with children’s mastery beliefs, which in turn predicted
transformational leadership behavior. Authoritative parents tend to
5
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
grant children more autonomy to foster personal responsibility, allow­
ing children to take on challenges (e.g., pursue leadership roles).
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status affects childhood leadership agency through
the modeling and social influence of parents. Barling and Weatherhead
(2016) reported that family poverty status had a significant negative
indirect effect on leader role occupancy, mediated by school quality and
personal mastery. These authors noted that family poverty may hinder
the development of agency, as the belief that individuals are unable to
control or influence their environment is reinforced through observa­
tions of parents’ financial struggles. Such beliefs may in turn limit the
child’s engagement in leadership development experiences. In contrast,
these authors articulated that economically advantaged families provide
psychological as well as physical resources to children, which help
children develop self-efficacy, mastery, and a sense of personal control.
Similar conclusions were reported by Yuan et al. (2022), who found that
family SES and positive parenting positively predicted leadership po­
tential, mediated by children’s self-esteem, and Duan et al. (2022) who
found that parental SES was associated with transformational leadership
behavior in adults.
Interestingly, parental behavior and agency also explained excep­
tional cases of children experiencing poverty while achieving academic
success. Cheang and Goh (2018) studied such “positive deviant” cases
and found that these children cited caring and supportive relationships
with their mothers as a source of motivation. They used their agency to
develop creative ways of helping their families financially, such as
saving their allowances and saving free meal coupons from their schools.
Although faced with poverty, the children believed in their own capacity
to influence outcomes and make a difference in the financial circum­
stances of their families. Similarly, Gozali and Paik (2023) reported that
young leaders in Indonesia cited negative personal events such as
financial hardship and the death of a parent as a source of learning,
motivation, and transformation. Indeed, having a sense of agency
buffers against challenging experiences.
Culture
Culture represents another influence on early leader development
and the expression of leadership agency. Wilson and Yip (2010) found
preliminary evidence for a range of differences in how leaders learn and
develop across cultures. Further, the attributes of an effective leader
were found to be in part culturally dependent (Dorfman et al., 2012). Of
particular relevance to leader agency, researchers have posited that
agency is expressed differently in Eastern versus Western cultures
(Hernandez & Iyengar, 2001; Trommsdorff, 2012). While Western cul­
tures typically view agency at the level of the individual (i.e., self-
determination and independent goal pursuit), Eastern cultures concep­
tualize agency at the level of the group (Hernandez & Iyengar, 2001).
Much of the research on leadership emergence in children and adoles­
cents reviewed in this paper has been conducted in Western contexts,
although there are notable exceptions (e.g., Liu et al., 2019), and more
research is needed to compare early leader development and agency
across cultures. One potential implication of these differences is that
culture matters for leadership beliefs and expression, such as the way
agency may translate to leadership engagement for Eastern versus
Western cultures.
Socio-cognitive skills
Our model indicates that four fundamental socio-cognitive skills
derive from agency-driven early leadership experiences, and in turn
enrich engagement in later experiences. In this section we describe these
four skills, along with their enabling conditions. We then follow this
with a section on specific developmental experiences linked to these
skills.
J.A. Cannon et al.
Theory of mind
Theory of mind (ToM), defined as “the understanding of others’
thoughts and feelings and their behavioral consequences” (Peterson
et al., 2016, p. 147), is dependent on a child’s rudimentary under­
standing of agency. After understanding that agents can have goals,
children develop an awareness around age 4 that agents can also act
according to true or false beliefs (Carey, 2009), building on earlier un­
derstanding of desires and knowledge (Wellman & Liu, 2004). ToM in­
cludes an awareness of how others express their own agency. Such
awareness in turn enables a more accurate prediction of how they will
act, an ability associated with ToM. Longitudinal growth in ToM un­
derstanding in children is reflected in mastery of a series of progressively
more difficult tasks. According to Peterson et al., (2016, p. 150), these
tasks include diverse desires (“awareness that different people may want
different things”), diverse beliefs (“awareness that different people may
hold different potentially true beliefs or opinions”), knowledge access
(“awareness that not seeing leads to ignorance”), false beliefs (ability to
“infer the behavior, speech, or thoughts of protagonists with false be­
liefs,” p. 147), hidden emotion (“awareness that people’s facial expres­
sions might not match their true feelings”), and sarcasm understanding
(“awareness that the literal meanings of people’s words might not match
their intended meanings”). In most cases, “typically developing” chil­
dren pass the first four tasks by age 7, but the latter two tasks remain
highly challenging for children from ages 7 to 12 (Peterson et al., 2016;
see Wellman & Liu, 2004 for a detailed account of ToM development
before age 7). Longitudinal research has indicated that around age 7,
children achieve the ability to understand that mental states can be
recursive (e.g., someone can hold a belief about someone else’s belief)
which is referred to as advanced or second-order theory of mind
(Osterhaus & Koerber, 2021). Theory of mind also continues to develop
throughout adulthood (Derksen et al., 2018; Klindt et al., 2017).
In a leadership context, an understanding that someone can hold
beliefs about other’s beliefs can help with sensemaking and problem-
solving. This understanding can aid discussions aimed at achieving
consensus on and working together to solve a problem, thus facilitating
collective action toward a shared goal. In addition, accurate social
perception involves understanding others’ reactions to one’s own lead­
ership attempts (Zaccaro et al., 1991). Accordingly, research has found
that children who possessed a more sophisticated ToM were also more
likely to be perceived as leaders (Peterson et al., 2016).
Metacognition
Metacognition has been defined as “the knowledge, monitoring, and
control of one’s cognition” (Marulis et al., 2020, p. 47).2 It reflects
children’s self-knowledge, awareness of other children’s cognitive pro­
cessing, and “skill in regulating one’s learning activities including
problem solving” (Daher et al., 2018, p. 293; See also Flavell, 1999).
Like ToM, children’s sense of agency is also closely intertwined with
metacognitive skill (Larkin, 2010). Early understandings of agency, such
that one’s actions can influence the external environment (Kloo and
Rohwer, 2012), help children engage in metacognitive processing by
motivating intentional thinking about one’s actions. Rudimentary forms
of metacognition emerge in the first few years of life. Indeed, skills such
as error monitoring were shown to emerge in nascent form as early as 12
months (Goupil & Koiuder, 2016). A system of explicit metacognition
develops around ages 3–4, where children become able to report
2 Although current developmental research no longer supports the
Kuhn (2008) noted that while Piaget’s stage theory of development has
generally not held up in subsequent empirical research, his identification of
second-order thinking (thinking about thinking) is still largely correct and is
now known as metacognition. While Piaget theorized that this skill does not
begin to emerge until late childhood or adolescence, research has found that
metacognition emerges in rudimentary forms much earlier in life.
6
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
metacognitive representations to others (Sodian et al., 2012). This
declarative form of metacognition continues to develop throughout
childhood and adolescence, as knowledge about metacognitive strate­
gies is gained (Schneider, 2008).
Leadership research has also identified metacognition as critical for
leadership development and practice (e.g., Black et al., 2016; Day et al.,
2004, Zaccaro, 2007). In children, metacognitive knowledge and skill
promotes goal regulation and planning in collaborative activities.
Indeed, Daher et al. (2018) found that middle school children who
engaged in metacognitive processes were more likely to succeed in
claiming leadership roles on a collaborative mathematics solution task.
Moreover, children’s reflection on early leadership development expe­
riences fosters growth in functional leadership and problem-solving
skills (Marshall-Mies et al., 2000) and greater developmental readiness
(Black et al., 2016; Hannah & Avolio, 2010).
Self-regulation
Self-regulation involves active efforts to direct one’s own thoughts
and actions using cognitive and emotional strategies (Slot et al., 2017).
According to Slot et al., cognitive self-regulation includes the use of
metacognitive knowledge and strategies to regulate task behavior like
planning, monitoring, and control of cognition, and motivational factors
like persistence and attention. Slot et al. defined emotional self-regulation
as involving the use of explicit knowledge about emotions, controlling
and modulating emotional expression, meeting the social expectations
of a situation, and getting along and resolving conflicts with peers.
Frazier et al. (2021) proposed that agency and metacognition were
jointly foundational to the exercise of self-regulation. They argued that
having (a) a sense of personal responsibility and control over one’s
behavior and, (b) the ability to monitor goal-directed strategies and
actions, motivate behavior toward regulating emotions and persisting in
the face of challenges.
Self-regulation skill begins to develop in infancy, as parents and
children co-regulate, with children learning from the explicit and im­
plicit modeling of regulation from their parents (Montroy et al., 2016).
According to Sameroff (2010), the growth trajectory of self-regulation
begins with regulation of biological needs (temperature, hunger), to
psychological and social regulation involving greater agentic decision-
making (e.g., to regulate behavior, attention, and social interactions).
Montroy et al. (2016) noted that the developmental trajectories of self-
regulation can vary widely in response to life experiences. Similarly,
Sameroff (2010) proposed that the self-regulation system interacts and
develops in the context of one’s family, school, community, and other
social contexts. A number of early experiences have been found to play a
role in the development of self-regulation, such as pretend play (Slot
et al., 2017; Whitebread & O’Sullivan, 2012), supportive educational
settings (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019), and extracurricular leadership
programs involving mentoring and teaching self-regulation skills
(Annesi, 2020).
Self-regulation is inextricably bound with effective leadership (Moss
et al., 2009). As children gain skill in self-regulation, they improve their
abilities to engage in goal planning and regulation, persist in goal
achievement, and to adapt goal plans in response to shifting events
(Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). Such abilities in turn foster leadership
emergence and development (Avolio &Vogelgesang, 2011; Reitan &
Stenberg, 2019).
So far, we have outlined how these socio-cognitive skills cited in the
developmental literature correspond with skills that have been docu­
mented as necessary for leadership in the adult leadership literature.
concept of strong and separable developmental “stages” (Bjorklund,
2018), there is evidence for a qualitative shift in socio-cognitive skills
and behaviors which begins around early adolescence (Janacsek et al.,
2012). These changes correspond with more sophisticated abilities to
reflect on one’s own identity and conceptualize the self in more complex
J.A. Cannon et al.
ways (van Doeselaar et al., 2020). The following section will elaborate
on the fourth skill in our model, autobiographical reasoning, which
emerges during this time in development and is crucial to the develop­
ment of leader identity and exercising of agency as an emerging leader.
Autobiographical reasoning
Autobiographical reasoning is the ability to construct a coherent
narrative of one’s life and how it contributes to a self-identity (van
Doeselaar et al., 2020). Many developmental researchers concur that
autobiographical reasoning is the main process through which one’s life
story and thereafter self and leadership identity is formed (Banks &
Salmon, 2013; Lilgendahl & McAdams, 2011; McLean & Breen, 2009).
Autobiographical reasoning has been conceptualized as having two
subcomponents, self-event connections and sophistication of meaning
(Banks & Salmon, 2013). According to Banks & Salmon, the former are
statements linking individual experiences to personal traits, beliefs, and
attitudes, and the latter is the level of complexity or insight of knowl­
edge especially about the self, resulting from self-reflections. These
concepts link information about the self to life events and have been
studied in connection with agency expression. A longitudinal study of
Dutch adolescents found that those who engaged in autobiographical
reasoning (i.e., made self-event connections) in more agentic ways
subsequently engaged in more adaptive exploration of their identities in
breadth and depth (van Doeselaar et al., 2020). Feeling a greater sense of
agency over how one experiences life events may empower adolescents
to make active choices in exploring and committing to chosen identities.
Autobiographical reasoning ability continues to progress and build
through adulthood. The narratives of adults in late middle age were
found to have the greatest complexity, individuation, and integration
with the self-concept (Pasupathi & Mansour, 2006). These findings align
with theoretical propositions about what it takes to become an expert
leader (e.g., Lord & Hall, 2005). According to Lord and Hall, expert
leaders possess a deep and elaborated sense of identity and values which
can be flexibly applied according to the particular demands of the
situation.
Taken together, these four socio-cognitive skills provide the foun­
dation for the expression of leadership and the development of a leader
mindset. Cognitive development researchers have proposed that socio-
cognitive skills mutually influence the development of one another –
advancement in one skill enables more successful enactment of other
skills. Along this line, some research has hypothesized that ToM in turn
facilitates the acquisition of metacognitive skills (Schneider, 2008).
Metacognitive skill also facilitates growth in autobiographical reasoning
(Hiver et al., 2020). The mutual growth in these socio-cognitive skills
enables early leader development. Self-regulation and metacognition
foster the ability to understand and enact leader goal achievement be­
haviors. Theory of mind helps developing leaders understand, influence,
and motivate others to work collectively in pursuit of goals. Finally,
autobiographical reasoning enables the crystallization of a leader
identity, which can further motivate pursuit of leadership roles and self-
development goals.
Enablers/inhibitors of socio-cognitive skills
A number of individual differences and external influences have been
found to impact the development of socio-cognitive skills, which in turn
influence early leader development.
Individual differences
Intelligence has been linked to skill development as well as leader­
ship potential. Longitudinal research on leadership in children indicated
that childhood IQ scores at age 12–13 had a positive relationship with
leadership potential, as measured by officer suitability in the military
draft at age 18–20 (Reitan & Stenberg, 2019). Some of the mechanisms
linking intelligence to growth in leadership ability include the socio-
7
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
cognitive skills referred to in our model. For example, Ohtani and
Hisasaka (2018) noted that metacognition and intelligence are corre­
lated, possibly because higher intelligence affords greater cognitive re­
sources to devote to metacognitive activities while performing a task.
Further, intelligence has been associated with ToM in preschool-age
children (Frye et al., 1995), secondary school students (Ibanez et al.,
2013) and in college students (Coyle et al., 2018). Ibanez et al. (2013)
explained this link, noting that fluid intelligence is associated with
greater facial processing ability and adaptation in social contexts, which
would lead to improved understanding and response to others’ mental
and emotional states. Additionally, Coyle et al. (2018) explained that the
ability to make complex inferences is associated with both intelligence
and ToM ability (specifically, the ability to make complex inferences
about others’ mental states). Likewise, Hughes and Ensor (2007) found
in a longitudinal study of children ages 2–4 that stronger executive
functioning predicted ToM use and growth. These studies suggest that
intelligence may correspond with the practice and development of the
four socio-cognitive skills in our model.
Parents
Parental relationships also provide a context for children to practice
socio-cognitive skills. For example, parents can encourage self-
regulation development through warmth and responsiveness (Grolnick
& Farkas, 2002) and autonomy support (Vasquez et al., 2016). In
addition, when parents allow children space to negotiate, this behavior
affirms their autonomy and can foster early growth in ToM through
perspective-taking, and metacognitive development through setting and
communicating personal goals. “By using negotiation, children not only
assertively communicate their disagreement with some aspect of
parental expectations but also engage with their parents relationally by
considering their perspectives while pursuing their own autonomous
goals” (Kuczynskiy et al., 2018, p. 8).
Mentors and role models
When working with mentors and role models who encourage agency
expression, youth have opportunities to learn socio-cognitive skills
including theory of mind, metacognition, and self-regulation. For
example, early adolescent girls (age 12) reported that participating in a
one-on-one mentoring program helped them develop self-regulation
skills and self-understanding skills by practicing goal setting and study
skills (Deutsch et al., 2017). Ridell (2017) noted that leadership op­
portunities where adolescents are required to lead by example (an op­
portunity to practice agency) can help increase self-regulation skills.
Actively choosing which leader role models to follow can be a way of
practicing autobiographical reasoning – making sense of and shaping
one’s growing leader identity by focusing on role models to emulate.
This choice of leadership role models can also extend to fictional media,
such as leaders on television (Harms & Spain, 2016; Maskell et al.,
2022).
Interaction with mentors, role models, and peers often occurs
through leadership development experiences, the next component in our
model which we expand upon below.
Leadership development experiences
Children express agency in part by seeking out particular leadership
development experiences. These experiences in turn enable growth in
socio-cognitive and leadership skills and, as competence grows, a
heightened sense of agency. In this section, we suggest that early lead­
ership development experiences tend to share key features regarding
what makes them growth opportunities for young leaders. These fea­
tures can include freedom to exert agency (i.e., freedom of decision-
making); working with others to accomplish a shared goal (e.g., Oli­
vares et al., 2007), engagement in complex and/or reflective thinking
and planning (e.g., DeRue & Ashford, 2010a); and experiencing an
optimal degree of challenge (e.g., Ohlott, 2004). This section will
J.A. Cannon et al.
describe four experiences in which socio-cognitive skills can be devel­
oped: pretend play, classroom projects, sports, and extracurricular ac­
tivities. Our intention is not to represent the full array of experiences
that afford child leader development. Liu et al., (2021) provided a
broader summary of such experiences. Our focus is on how particular
kinds of experiences promote growth in these four socio-cognitive skills.
Pretend play
Child development researchers have defined pretend play as a spe­
cific form of imaginary play which includes fantasy and sociodramatic
play and argue that it is one of the most important activities for socio-
cognitive development during the preschool age (3–6 years; White­
bread & O’Sullivan, 2012). In a pretend play setting, children have
opportunities to choose what activities to engage in, allowing free
expression and practice (i.e., agency) of leader behavior. This form of
play can involve several different components related to representa­
tional imagination, such as object substitution, role enactment, or the
creation of an imaginary storyline, with children playing different roles
or characters. Several studies have documented leadership behavior (i.
e., a child leading a group of peers) emerging spontaneously in a group
play setting (Howes et al., 1989; Kim, 2021; Mawson, 2011).
The situational affordances in the context of pretend play can offer
opportunities to practice agency and develop socio-cognitive skills.
Research has found that a natural outdoor environment affords a greater
degree of autonomy than a manufactured outdoor environment (Kim,
2021; Morrissey et al., 2017). In a recent study of sociodramatic play in
preschoolers, when children had access to a yard in a more naturalized
environment with open-ended materials such as sand and logs, they
engaged in longer and more complex episodes of pretend play than
when given access to a plastic cubby house and fewer open-ended ma­
terials (Morrissey et al., 2017). The format of pretend play enables
children to practice other skills related to leadership, including negoti­
ation (though deciding what each person’s character will do, or dis­
cussing the plot of the imaginary scene), symbolic thinking (through
object substitutions, such as sand representing flour for a cake). This
format can also foster problem-solving (of problems that arise through
enactment of the imaginary scene) through communication with peers
as well as reflective thinking (imagining how their character should act)
and taking others’ perspectives (imagining what peers’ characters’
motivations are; Kim, 2021; Morrissey et al., 2017).
Pretend play also enables skill development through the mechanism
of metacommunication, a form of communication that is focused on the
roles and rules of imaginary situations (Whitebread & O’Sullivan, 2012).
An example of such metacommunication is when a one child says to
another, “This is your tractor and you have to drive it into the field”
(Whitebread & O’Sullivan, 2012, p. 205), or “Pretend I was your kitty”
(Kim, 2021, p. 49). According to Whitebread and O’Sullivan (2012), by
verbally discussing their intentions with one another, meta­
communication enables children to create an understanding of the
shared goal and tasks assigned to each of the players to accomplish that
goal. These conversations foster a greater understanding of peers’
mental states and thought processes, which in turn contributes to ToM
understanding (Schwebel et al., 1999; Wolf, 2022). In addition, the
process of planning and regulating behavior in group pretend play
provides an opportunity to practice metacognitive strategies (Slot et al.,
2017; Whitebread & O’Sullivan, 2012). Research has found that suc­
cessful child leaders were more likely to use complex patterns of meta­
communication to extend pretend play and were also more effective
negotiators and compromisers (Elias & Berk, 2002). Children who
practice taking on both follower and leader roles also develop a better
awareness of their peers’ perspectives (Kim, 2021; Shin et al., 2004),
enabling greater ToM understanding. While most of the research on
metacommunication has focused on pretend play, practicing meta­
communication, or being exposed to others’ metacommunication in
other contexts, can also foster growth in socio-cognitive skills (van der
8
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Veen et al., 2017).
Team projects in the classroom
Classroom activities and group projects provide significant oppor­
tunities for children to express agency and practice leadership (Liu et al.,
2021). Different affordances in such activities can influence the form of
leadership and functionality of particular leadership behaviors that
emerge in such contexts. For example, in a U.S. study of 4th-6th grade
students, Yamaguchi (2001) found that student groups assigned a task
under a “performance” condition (i.e. try to do better than the other
groups) tended to be dominated by one leader, whereas student groups
assigned the same task under a “mastery” condition (i.e. focus on
learning and improving rather than competition) tended to exhibit more
shared leadership. In addition, the mastery groups’ leadership behavior
focused not only on the task but also on building group cohesion. These
groups were more effective at completing the task. Thus, the mastery
task condition afforded a different form of leadership, allowing greater
opportunities for students to learn how to practice collective leadership.
These tasks also afford opportunities to practice and develop metacog­
nition and ToM, as students share their thought processes and learn
about others’ ideas and perspectives.
Classroom activities which specify the goals but do not specify how
to complete them also encourage greater expressions of leader agency,
and opportunities to practice leadership skills. For example, in an open
group discussion activity with 4th grade students, Li et al. (2007) found
that some students spontaneously emerged as leaders, and child leaders
displayed a range of leadership styles (e.g., turn management, argument
development, planning and organizing, and topic control). They
concluded that the differences in styles were influenced by the person­
alities of leaders, and by contextual factors such as the characteristics of
group members, the group dynamics, and the circumstances of the dis­
cussion. In a study of an extracurricular activity of a “court” created by
students ages 6–12 and teachers, children displayed varying levels of
leadership behaviors based on the roles they chose to take and the
situational features. For example, children playing the judge role dis­
played more leadership than witnesses/observers, and judges displayed
more leadership towards the end of the trials (Wilcox, 2004). Group
activities such as these that involve performing a fictional role, such as a
judge or lawyer in this study, encourage children to practice self-
regulation, through the effortful control of maintaining a character,
and ToM, through imagining what the character’s beliefs and perspec­
tives might be within the fictional scenario. Overall, these studies
demonstrate the nature and structure of classroom activities can have
significant effects on the extent to which children can express agency
and practice socio-cognitive skills that give rise to leadership capacities.
Sports
In a recent review of research on adolescent girls’ leader develop­
ment, Eva et al. (2021) concluded that while it is widely acknowledged
that sport participation is important for leader development, there is
little analysis about why sports are strong modes of such development.
We propose that the experience of working together with a team and the
inherent challenges of the games provide opportunities to practice
agency, leadership, and socio-cognitive skills.
Studies of youth currently involved in sports have provided support
for this assertion (Pierce et al., 2020). Sports offer opportunities to
practice self-regulation through regulating physical, mental, and
emotional efforts toward improving sports-related skills and winning
games. Surveys of high school student athletes revealed that sports
participation was significantly associated with higher levels of
emotional regulation, a component of self-regulation (Hansen et al.,
2003; 2010; Larson et al., 2006). In particular, Hansen et al. (2010)
found that team sports participation fostered significantly higher levels
of development in several key leadership areas (identity work, initiative,
J.A. Cannon et al.
emotional regulation, teamwork and social skills, adult networks and
social capital, and interpersonal relationships), compared to individual
sports. They noted that the requirement of interdependency to perform
tasks with team sports likely explain differences in outcomes.
Additionally, participation in team sports offers an opportunity to
express agency through claiming informal leadership roles. For example,
in a study of athletes aged 15 and above, Fransen et al. (2014) proposed
that there are multiple leadership roles within a sports team (task leader,
social leader, motivational leader, and external leader), and found evi­
dence that different team members took on these various leadership
roles. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that the features of
sports activities offer clear affordances for the expression of leadership
agency and the development of socio-cognitive skills.
Extracurricular activities
Other leader development opportunities are afforded by participa­
tion in extracurricular activities such as church groups, leadership
programs, student government, community groups, and internships
(Murphy & Johnson, 2011). Given the range and variety of such extra­
curricular activities, we outline the elements across them that can lead
to growth in leadership skillsets and mindsets.
One element is the social novelty of extracurricular activities. We
propose that activities in which youth work with groups or individuals
who are unfamiliar to them may prompt greater growth in ToM. For
example, Larson et al. (2019) found that after participating in a lead­
ership exercise, teenagers developed an understanding of how children
differed in what they needed from their leaders. They also found that
holding formal and informal leadership roles in youth organizations
provided opportunities to exercise agency and helped teenage leaders to
develop a sense of responsibility for the needs of others. Other studies
have shown how extracurricular activities, particularly in service or
faith-based organizations, fostered growth in emotional regulation and
identity reflection (Hansen et al., 2003).
Crucially, participation in developmental activities must also be
accompanied by conscious reflection (i.e., metacognition) and choice to
become a leader or continue to lead others. For example, Harris and
Beckert (2019) noted that participants in youth leadership projects used
agentic language, claiming ownership over their work. In their study,
one interviewee noted,
“And by the end of the project I realized that this was something that
I started and I needed to take ownership for it and this is not the
adults’ project. This is my project and I need to stop asking for
permission and just do and take ownership of that” (Harris & Beck­
ert, 2019, p. 117).
The process of reflecting on leadership development experiences
helps youth develop a leader mindset and recognize themselves as
leaders.
In summary, participation in a range of activities can accelerate
youth leader development through practicing agency and the socio-
cognitive skills, paired with self-reflection to integrate the experiences
into one’s emerging sense of self as a leader. We emphasize that other
experiences not mentioned in this article may also be developmental, if
they share some of the same features as the ones described above.
Enablers/inhibitors of leader development through experiences
The research on leadership development experiences has indicated
that key enablers of leader development are relational interactions
during such experiences, such as with teachers, coaches, mentors, and
peers. Such developmental relationships have been critical for adult
leader development because of their utility in providing feedback,
coaching, and support for leadership growth (McCauley & Douglas,
1998). We argue that such relationships are even more critical for
helping child leaders derive meaning from their leader development
9
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
experiences. We focus specifically on the role of parents/caregivers,
teachers and coaches as developmental partners.
Parents/caregivers
Parents and caregivers can offer a supporting role to enhance, or
detract from, leader development through experiences. Parents can
provide support for leader development by having conversations and
encouraging youth to reflect about themselves as leaders (Komives et al.,
2005). These conversations can aid in metacognitive development and
help children develop a leader mindset. Conversely, parents who
micromanage their children’s lives (“helicopter” parents) may
discourage agency expression and leader development by hampering
children’s role in (a) choosing which leader development activities to
engage in, and (b) choosing how they express agency and leadership
while engaging in such activities (Liu et al., 2019).
Teachers and coaches
The behaviors of teachers in the classroom foster growth in socio-
cognitive skills and child leadership in several ways. First, they can
“permit” autonomy and child proactivity in the classroom in ways that
afford expression of the child’s agency (Baker, et al., 2023; Hedegaard,
2020). Second. they can provide playful experiences and classroom tasks
that are specifically designed to promote such agency and foster practice
of self-regulation skills (Baker et al., 2023; Rimm-Kaufman, et al., 2009).
Finally, they can provide prompts to children in their classroom to
reflect on their leadership experiences in ways that enhances their un­
derstanding of others (ToM), increases self-awareness of their own
thinking processes (metacognition), and integrates them into their
growing leader identity (autobiographical reasoning) (Davis, 2003;
English & Kitsantas, 2013).
Coaches support child leader development by modeling and cueing
the expression of self-regulation behaviors in particular contexts. For
example, Gould and Carson (2010) found that sports coaches’ behaviors
of goal setting, positive rapport, discussing competition strategies and
sports lessons were associated with high school youth development of
emotional regulation (a component of self-regulation), prosocial
behavior (i.e., theory of mind), and cognitive skills. In a study of athletes
aged 10–19, Cronin and Allen (2015) found that coaches’ autonomy
support (i.e., encouraging agentic behavior) played a positive role in the
development of youth skills including goal setting, personal and social
skills, and cognitive skills. In these two studies, we suggest that coaches
likely modeled metacognitive skills through discussing strategies for
games and teaching youth how to monitor their performance. If these
conversations occur in a team setting, coaches may also model ToM skill
through addressing teammates’ roles and perspectives.
The leader mindset
Other recent conceptual models of pre-adult leader development
have noted that early leadership development experiences and influ­
ential relationships (e.g., parents, teachers) not only foster growth in
leadership and socio-cognitive skills but also help to shape young
leaders’ mindsets (e.g., Liu et al., 2021; Eva et al., 2021). The leader
mindset can be conceptualized as including three mutually reinforcing
elements: leader knowledge structures (Hannah et al., 2010), leader iden­
tity (Hiller, 2005), and leadership self-efficacy (Dwyer, 2019). All three
elements of the mindset interact to shape choices in whether and how to
engage in leadership in various settings.
Leader knowledge structures
Leader knowledge structures have been defined as “…the in­
dividual’s mental organization of information in a particular perceptual
domain” (Hannah, et al., 2010, p. 414). Such structures encode infor­
mation about leader attributes and behaviors, with more elaborated
structures linking behaviors to situational contingencies (Dinh & Lord,
J.A. Cannon et al.
2012). Hannah et al. (2013) suggested that knowledge structures per­
taining to leadership help individuals create self-concepts around lead­
ership roles. These structures have been theorized to increase in
complexity according to the level of experience and deliberate self-
reflection and development. Indeed, children’s understanding of what
a leader is, and what leadership entails, has been found to emerge at an
early age and increase in complexity throughout development. Stavans
and Baillargeon (2019) found that children’s mental models for lead­
ership begin to emerge around age two. Vega (2020) reported that im­
plicit leadership theories (ILTs) of children in kindergarten and early
primary school tended to emphasize physical and spatio-temporal fea­
tures (e.g., physical power, being in the front of the line), whereas ILTs
of children in late primary school (grade 6) began to focus more on
humanitarian and environmentally concerned images of leaders. By
high school, ILTs resembled those found in adults in the workplace
(Frost et al., 2016). These studies indicate both the early emergence of
leader knowledge structures and their increasing complexity as children
gain more leadership experiences.
Leader identity
Leader identity has been defined as the self-identity of an individual
in the leadership domain (Hiller, 2005). Such identity is built upon the
foundations developed during childhood and continues to grow and
expand throughout adulthood (Day et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2021).
Identity formation more generally begins early in life – by age six,
children have a rudimentary self-concept, self-history and narrative
understanding (Dunlop & Walker, 2013). The process of incorporating
“leader” into one’s self-concept fundamentally involves agency – it de­
pends on an individual’s conscious choice to “claim” a leadership role
(DeRue & Ashford, 2010b), which then motivates further development
(Day et al., 2009). Also, leaders must actively choose to persist in
development (DeRue & Ashford, 2010a).
Leadership self-efficacy
Leadership self-efficacy provides individuals with the desire and
ability to persist in taking on leadership roles, enacting leadership
behavior, and actively developing as a leader (Day et al., 2009). This
type of self-efficacy refers to confidence in one’s leadership skills
(Dwyer, 2019), belief in one’s ability to apply relevant skills to influence
leadership outcomes, and ability to regulate one’s thinking and behavior
to move towards accomplishing desired leadership outcomes (Hannah
et al., 2012).
Influences of socio-cognitive skills on leader mindset development
We propose that advanced ToM and metacognitive ability can enable
children to more easily understand social nuances in leadership contexts
and reflect on what these mean for decisions about how to lead across
different situations. Accordingly, these skills foster growth in leader
knowledge structures, particularly in terms of how leadership may
change in different situations and when relating to different followers
(Black et al., 2016). The goal regulation aspects of self-regulation skill
promote greater engagement and persistence in leader development
activities (Murphy & Johnson, 2016). As success occurs through such
regulation, child leaders strengthen their leadership self-efficacy.
Finally, the exercise of autobiographical reasoning by reflecting on
such experiences enables greater leader identity development. Engaging
in personal reflection and biography results in the production of more
complex narratives of the self (Dunlop & Walker, 2013), and fosters
growth of the leader identity if this reflection is focused on one’s own
leadership experiences.
10
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Influences of leader development experiences on leader mindset
development
The content of leadership knowledge structures is influenced
strongly by childhood experiences. Hannah et al. (2013) noted that the
knowledge structures pertaining to the leader’s self-concept are formed
through social learning over time. Youth who seek out and engage in
more leadership development experiences would likely be exposed to a
wider range of leadership role models, which, combined with ToM
ability, would likely expand their understanding of how leadership can
be expressed across different situations.
Evidence from youth leader development literature has shown that
early leadership development experiences often trigger a shift in leader
identity. Active involvement in the community, such as in student
government and youth organizations, can help young leaders’ identities
increase in breadth and depth (Murphy & Johnson, 2011; Komives et al.,
2005; Liu et al., 2021). However, Meyer and Rinn (2021) noted that the
direction of the relationship between youth involvement and leader
identity is not clear, and more research in this area is necessary. In
addition, these authors noted that more research is needed to investigate
the role of youth programs in developing motivation to lead, of which
leadership self-efficacy is a precursor (Chan & Drasgow, 2001).
Enablers/inhibitors of leader mindset development
Research has found that the leader mindset is formed not just
through early exposure to leaders and leaderlike figures outside of one’s
control, but also through agency in seeking out role models and inten­
tional reflection (Fitzsimmons et al., 2013; Komives et al., 2005; Yeager
& Callahan, 2016). Early experiences of leaders provide a frame of
reference to draw from as the child matures. During adolescence, young
leaders can gain social feedback that reaffirms or changes their leader
identity. For example, when others do not respond to the adolescent’s
leadership style, they could either blame others or could revise their
identity to incorporate the feedback (Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010).
Individual differences
Research on leader schemas in the workplace has demonstrated the
existence of implicit gender (e.g., Koenig et al., 2011) and racial biases
(e.g., Ubaka et al., 2022) that can impair leader self-efficacy and one’s
leader identity before entering the workplace. Eva et al. (2021) found
adolescent girls faced barriers to leader emergence due to masculine
leader prototypes. They noted, “adolescent girls’ internal perceptions of
how women should lead influence the types of behaviors they are
comfortable engaging in (i.e., not wanting to seem ‘too bossy’ or ‘too
soft’)” (p. 11). Turman et al. (2018) emphasized the importance of youth
having leadership role models who share identity characteristics such as
gender or race, as these models tend to be more influential (Bandura,
1997). Depending on the presence of similar role models, youth may
perceive having a greater or lesser capacity to express agency in various
leadership situations regardless of what skills or abilities they possess.
Parents, mentors, and teachers
Developmental relationships are critical drivers of leader mindset
growth. Bandura’s (1997) social learning model describes how different
aspects of such relationships, such as vicarious learning, verbal
persuasion, and physiological arousal, can foster growth in leader self-
efficacy. Vicarious learning experiences include observing the suc­
cesses of peer leaders or leader role models. Individuals can build self-
efficacy by comparing their own leadership behavior to the behavior
of role models (Turman et al., 2018) or peers (Kodama & Laylo, 2017).
Verbal persuasion can include nomination for a leader development
program, encouragement from others (Murphy & Johnson, 2016), or
developmental feedback (Machida-Kosuga, 2017). Mentoring relation­
ships that offer such persuasion have been found to increase leader self-
efficacy (Crisp & Alvarado-Young, 2018). Finally, physiological arousal
 J.A. Cannon et al.
Table 2
Levels of Leader Complexity.
Level Description Examples from the literature

Level 1: Individual Leaders are authority figures with power, often holding a formal position. Leaders’ and followers’ • Preference for dominance in young children: Children ages 3–4 preferred dominant peers, 5-year-olds showed
leadership roles are distinct and non-overlapping. Leaders make demands and set objectives that others follow. conflicting preferences, and 8-year-olds strongly preferred the subordinate individual (Charafeddine et al.,
2016).
• Children ages 4–7 perceived authority figures as less likely to help others (Terrizzi et al., 2020).
• In children ages 7–14 narcissism associated with leader emergence and incorrect perceptions of being a more
effective leader compared to peers (Brummelman et al., 2021).
• Adolescents raised in high-conflict family environment tended to endorse tyrannical implicit leadership the­
ories 20 years later (Walker et al., 2020).
• Children ages 6–8 were found to prefer the more dominant and less trustworthy (i.e., authoritarian) face as
captain for their team if they experienced more stressors in life such as deprivation and poverty (Safra et al.,
2017).
• Researchers interviewed kindergarten through 4th grade students, asking “what is a leader?” Younger students
tended to provide leader-centric answers including, “A leader is someone who is at the front of the line.” and “A
leader is in charge.” (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 497-498).
• Physical and spatio-temporal implicit leadership theories were more common in kindergarten and early pri­
mary school compared to later ages (Vega, 2020).
Level 2: Relational Leaders exist in relationship with followers. Leaders’ and followers’ roles are fluid and can be shared. • Children’s leadership schemas tended to be more complex and abstract at older ages (Matthews et al., 1990).
leadership Leaders work to help and facilitate the accomplishment of collective goals. • Interviews of youth who participated in student government and youth organizations reveal this changing
mindset, “I can be a leader even when not being the leader.” (Komives et al., 2005, p. 605).
• Emergent leadership in group projects and group discussions enables children to practice shared leadership (Li
et al., 2007; Yamaguchi, 2001).
• Adolescent girls in a sports context focused on psychosocial aspects of leadership, such as friendship quality, in
their assessments of leadership (Moran & Weiss, 2006).
11

• When rating attributes of the self and attributes of an ideal leader, 4th grade students rated the leadership
attributes of setting and accomplishing goals, accepting criticisms and suggestions from others as lower for an
ideal leader than older students (grades 5 and 6) (Chauvin & Karnes, 1984). Older children showed a greater
prioritization of leadership traits of working with others than younger students.
• In a 6-month community-based program for developing leadership skills, all high school participants empha­
sized the importance of facilitation as a leadership attribute rather than instruction (such as “being the boss”)
(Parkhill et al., 2018). However, half the participants commented that they wanted to be in leadership roles but
had not had the opportunity (i.e., seeing leadership only as a position).
• Researchers interviewed kindergarten through 4th grade students, asking “what is a leader?” Older students
tended to provide more relational answers including, “Leaders stand up for themselves and others.” and
“Leadership means being kind, not mean, and [means] including others, and if you are kind to others it will
spread” (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 498).
• Socio-emotional and relationship-oriented implicit leadership theories were more common in children grades
3–6 compared to earlier grades. Humanitarian and environmentally-concerned ILTs became more common
starting in grade 6 (Vega, 2020).
Level 3: Collective Leaders’ purpose is to serve the needs of the organization or community. Leaders work to help their • A survey of a cross-cultural sample of high school students revealed that students believed good leaders cared
leadership team meet the needs of the broader community. Leaders facilitate the growth and leadership about others’ feelings, and honesty, social responsibility, and morality were the most important attributes of
development of others. leaders (Lee et al., 2020).

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx

• In response to a high school leadership curriculum, a student expanded her views of what leadership was:
Before the program, a student described leadership as “somebody who has enough power and the motivation to
influence other people to follow them.” After the program, the student said, “Leadership is about…keeping the
balance between community and business. You have to think about who your decisions will benefit and fighting
for what you think is right.” (Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008, p. 211).
• In the “generativity” stage of leader identity development, students recognized the larger purposes of leadership
and sought to develop others, regenerate and sustain organizations (Komives et al., 2005).
• College students who mentored younger students exhibited a higher level of generativity compared to college
students who did not (Hastings et al., 2015).
J.A. Cannon et al.
involves getting future leaders excited about becoming a leader.
Observing leader characteristics possessed by mentors can highlight the
gap between the type of leader one wants to be and one’s current status,
motivating and catalyzing further development (Priest & Middleton,
2016). Positional role models can also provide energy and momentum to
grow as a leader (Bowers et al., 2016).
Parents shape children’s leader mindsets directly and indirectly in
various ways. First, by modeling leadership behavior through the
parent–child relationship, parents can influence the development of
children’s leader knowledge structures (Keller, 1999; Walker et al.,
2020). They can also influence children’s views of their own leader
identity through narratives. Even as early as preschool age, parents tell
children stories about the family narrative (Fiese et al., 1995). Indeed,
leadership stories can be passed along from one generation to the next
(Zaccaro, 2014), and such stories may inspire greater motivation to lead,
including leadership self-efficacy. Parents can also encourage adoles­
cent’s leader identity formation through offering support and feedback
(Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010).
Mentors and teachers play a critical role in students’ identity
development through shaping their environment and experiences and
through providing feedback (Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010). One
leader reflected on positive feedback from her teacher that can act to
increase leadership self-efficacy, “I hope you grow into the beautiful
person that I see inside of you” (Jones-Morales & Konrad, 2018, p. 252).
Deutsch et al. (2017) noted how observing mentors spurred changes in
adolescent girls’ self-understanding and helped them consider new
possible future selves. In addition to direct mentoring relationships,
influential figures can also shape children’s and adolescents’ leader
knowledge structures, leadership self-efficacy, and leader identity.
Studies on children’s drawings of leaders reveal that children’s own
identity (e.g., their gender and religious identity) influences their
choices in which leaders to view as role models (Liu et al., 2012; Oli­
veira, 2016). In addition, positional role models such as community and
world leaders can be a source of motivation to lead (Bowers et al., 2016),
in part by influencing leadership self-efficacy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001).
Increasing complexity of leadership skillsets and mindsets
As children continue to express leadership agency and pursue leader
development experiences, their skillsets and mindsets continue to grow
in complexity across childhood and adolescence. Growth in cognitive
complexity enables an increasing capacity to understand and exercise
more complex forms of leadership. We propose that this leader devel­
opment process involves a progression across three levels of cognitive
complexity. Table 2 indicates these levels, along with supporting
research from the child development literature. These levels progress
from a simple, to a more complex and elaborated conception of what
leadership means: individual leadership, relational leadership, and
collective leadership. A similar progression has been proposed in the
extant leadership literature (Day & Harrison, 2007; Hammond et al.,
2017; Lord & Hall, 2005). Later levels of understanding include, rather
than abandon, previous levels (McCauley et al., 2006), enabling a wider
repertoire of potential forms of leadership to exercise and apply to meet
the specific needs of a situation (Hannah et al., 2013). The progression
from one level to another depends on the interplay of skill development,
relevant leadership development experiences (including exposure to
role models and mentors), and individual agency (e.g., intentional
reflection on experiences leading to an elaborated understanding of
leadership). As such, it is not tied to specific ages or age ranges. Below,
we describe each level with examples of how it can be manifested at
various ages.
Level 1
The first level of leader complexity refers to an understanding of
leadership as a hierarchical relationship. Leadership is associated with
12
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
power or authority, and leaders and followers have distinct roles (Barnes
et al., 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Thus, if someone with this under­
standing of leadership does not hold a formal leadership position, they
would not see themselves as a leader. A large body of literature has
documented a relationship between attachment styles during childhood
and leadership views in adulthood (e.g., Berson et al., 2006; Fein et al.,
2020; Keller, 2003). One specific example of such relationship is the
finding that adolescents raised in high-conflict family environment
tended to endorse tyrannical implicit leadership theories 20 years later
(Walker et al., 2020). These findings suggest that such negative envi­
ronments can hinder growth in leader complexity. Similarly, children
experiencing deprivation and poverty preferred a more dominant and
less trustworthy face as captain for their sports team (Safra et al., 2017).
This leader-centric view has been observed in research on children’s
views of leaders. For example, in a study of children in kindergarten
through 4th grade who were asked “what is a leader?”, younger children
tended to provide leader-centric answers including, “A leader is some­
one who is at the front of the line,” and, “A leader is in charge” (Bailey
et al., 2017, p. 497-498). These descriptions are similar to the physical
and spatio-temporal ILTs observed in young children (Vega, 2020).
Another example of such views comes from an interview of a college
student about her changing views of leadership: “When I was a girl, I
thought leadership was the person who could boss everyone around and
make them do what they wanted to do” (Komives et al., 2005, p. 605).
These level-1 views of leaders can develop into more complex forms,
depending on leadership development experiences, exposure to men­
tors, role models, and other influencers, and individual agency in
seeking out leadership opportunities and reflecting on the meaning of
leadership.
Level 2
At the second level of leader complexity, the understanding of
leadership expands to include views of leadership as a relationship (Uhl-
Bien et al., 2014). Leaders do not necessarily exert absolute power, and
care about followers’ and team members’ needs and opinions. Leaders
can also contribute to accomplishing group outcomes rather than
unilaterally directing followers to complete tasks (Zaccaro, 2007). Also
at this level, an understanding emerges that leadership can be shared.
This understanding of leadership can be observed in children’s and
adolescents’ behavior and views of leadership in situations involving
collaboration. For example, Bailey et al. (2017) found that after
participation in a leadership development program focused on teaching
self-efficacy and leadership skills, older students tended to provide more
relational answers to the question of “what is a leader?” including,
“Leaders stand up for themselves and others.” and “Leadership means
being kind, not mean, and [means] including others, and if you are kind
to others it will spread.” (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 498). This view aligns
with the humanitarian ILTs observed in late-primary-school children
(Vega, 2020). Additionally, in a 6-month community-based program for
developing leadership skills, all high school participants emphasized the
importance of facilitation as a leadership attribute. One noted that
leadership, rather than being “the boss,” was defined by guiding others
and giving others a chance to think through ideas (Parkhill et al., 2018).
Other experiences that promote the development of this view of lead­
ership include collaborative team projects in the classroom (e.g., Li
et al., 2007; Yamaguchi, 2001) and team sports (e.g., Moran & Weiss,
2006).
Level 3
The highest level of leader complexity includes an understanding of
leadership at the level of the community. This level of complexity re­
sembles the concept of “generativity” introduced in the leader identity
model proposed by Komives et al. (2005). Komives et al. described this
stage of leader identity as a commitment to a larger purpose and a focus
J.A. Cannon et al.
on serving and developing others. One example of this level of
complexity comes from a student who participated in a high school
leadership development program. Before the program, a student
described leadership as “somebody who has enough power and the
motivation to influence other people to follow them.” After the program,
the student said, “Leadership is about…keeping the balance between
community and business. You have to think about who your decisions
will benefit and fighting for what you think is right.” (Hoyt & Kennedy,
2008, p. 211). Other such opportunities to develop this complex un­
derstanding of leadership are through mentoring younger students (e.g.,
Hastings et al., 2015) and contributing to social causes (e.g., Turman
et al., 2018).
These three levels reflect increasing complexity of what leadership
means in terms of oneself, one’s relationships in collaborative activities
calling for leadership, and how one can act effectively as a leader in
different situations. It is based on a well-developed ToM that reflects
deep social understanding of different social nuances and stakeholders
across variable leadership contexts. They indicate increasing sophisti­
cation in leader identity (Lord & Hall, 2005) driven by the application of
autobiographical reasoning to the expression of different leadership
roles. The three levels also reflect increasing differentiation and
principle-based higher order integration (Lord & Hall, 2005) as growing
leaders learn how to align behavioral strategies to contextual contin­
gencies. This growth in complexity derives from children and adoles­
cents pursuing multiple and varied leadership experiences. Many
children (and indeed many adults) do not reach level 3 (or even level 2
complexity) because a) they do not express agency toward continually
pursuing leadership development experiences (Wallace & Zaccaro,
2022); b) they limit the range and scope of their pursued experiences; c)
they do not engage in metacognitive reflection and autobiographical
reasoning to derive deeper meaning from these experiences, and/or d)
they do not build a social network of parents, teachers, coaches, and
other role models who can enable and promote these meaning making
processes. Programs of child leader development that address these four
sets of neutralizing elements are likely to be more successful in growing
early leaders with complex leader skillsets and mindsets.
Conclusions and implications
Summary of major contributions
In this article, we argued for the importance of agency in the process
of early leader development and enactment, beginning in childhood and
progressing through adolescence. We described how children express
agency by actively shaping their own development as nascent leaders,
through (a) seeking opportunities to lead and influence peers, and (b)
reflecting on and integrating past experiences into one’s leader mindset.
In addition, we articulated four socio-cognitive skills – theory of mind,
metacognition, self-regulation, and autobiographical reasoning – that begin
to develop at an early age and provide a foundation for the enactment of
early leadership behavior. The expression of such skills also contributes
to continued growth in leader identity and leadership skill development.
We described how leadership skills and leader identity can be honed
through leadership development experiences, especially if such experi­
ences include elements of challenge, freedom to exert agency, working
collaboratively toward a shared goal, and engagement in complex or
reflective thinking or planning.
While these processes are, in part, driven by individual leaders’
agency and socio-cognitive skills, we also described how these processes
are shaped and influenced by various enablers and inhibitors: one’s
socioeconomic circumstances, individual differences, culture, and sig­
nificant relationships such as parents, mentors, and coaches. Finally, we
built upon previous theoretical work on leader complexity to offer ways
that it develops and is expressed in childhood and adolescence. We
proposed a trajectory of development in which individuals advance
through three levels of complexity, and we suggest potential behavioral
13
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
indicators of each level of development. Taken together, these ideas
offer new and important directions for child leader development prac­
tices and theories.
Practical implications
Our conclusions suggest several recommendations for anyone who
works with children and adolescents. These learning partners (Rob­
ertson, 2009) can include parents, teachers and administrators who
work in the education system, and coaches and mentors who work with
children in extracurricular contexts. First, given that children are active
agents in their own leader development, we recommend fostering and
encouraging their agency expression, rather than managing and
dictating how children should behave in all situations (e.g., through
“helicopter parenting,” Liu et al., 2019, p. 1227). We also recommend
that children be provided access to the developmental experiences that
particularly afford the expression of leadership agency (e.g., team
sports, leading team projects in the classroom, volunteering for a social
cause). Advice for adult developmental partnerships (e.g., mentors,
coaches) can also apply to aspiring child leaders. For example, the
literature on mentoring and coaching recommends that learning part­
ners can provide meaning-making (Merriam & Heuer, 1996; Smith,
2015) and feedback, especially after developmentally challenging ex­
periences (DeRue & Wellman, 2009). These forms of support can help
children and youth reflect upon and integrate leadership development
experiences into their identity as leaders.
We also offer recommendations to practitioners seeking ways to
accelerate child leader development through formal programs. Such
programs thrive when they include an assessment of strengths and op­
portunities for growth (Noe, 2017). Thus, the instructional design can
feature a targeted approach to leader development through first
assessing the four socio-cognitive skills and the three levels of
complexity. Second, based on these assessments, learning can be
directed to help nascent leaders improve in specific areas. For example,
if assessments show a need to foster metacognitive skills, programs
designed to target those skills (Marulis et al., 2020) can be integrated
into an individual child leader development plan. Further, the socio-
cognitive skills and levels of complexity could be used as metrics to
measure and evaluate the success of formal leadership programs. Wal­
lace et al. (2021) recommended that evaluators of leader and leadership
development programs be more specific about what outcomes are being
measured, and our model of early leader development suggests specific
target areas for such evaluation.
Theoretical implications
While we have some knowledge about how external influences in
childhood shape leadership outcomes later in life (e.g., Barling &
Weatherhead, 2016; Fitzsimmons et al., 2013), less is known about the
influence of child and adolescent decisions on their own leader devel­
opment. Our framework suggests that future theoretical and empirical
work should account for child and adolescent agency in shaping the
trajectory of leader development. Such research could involve an
exploration of how children actively seek out, respond to, reflect on, and
grow from opportunities to take on leadership roles. For example, little
understanding exists about how children’s and adolescents’ active
pursuits of leadership experiences shape long-term leadership outcomes.
In addition, the current findings on the role of active agency in leader
development provide an opportunity to examine and compare the
impact of youth development programs that take a youth-driven versus
instructor-driven approach. As noted by Karagianni and Montgomery
(2018), more rigorous empirical research is needed to investigate the
effectiveness of youth leadership programs. Using the perspective of
how much the program encourages or enables leadership agency may be
a fruitful avenue for research on its effectiveness.
Secondly, given the current gaps in the literature, our model can
J.A. Cannon et al.
offer an organizing framework for future empirical and theoretical work
on child and adolescent leadership. In particular, interdisciplinary
research is needed, incorporating research from developmental psy­
chology with education and leadership research. We hope our theoret­
ical model will inspire future empirical work to test the relationships
among the key elements, such as the influence of agency and develop­
mental activities on socio-cognitive skills. We also hope that this work
will inspire further collaboration between child development and lead­
ership development researchers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jessie A. Cannon: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation,
Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Stephen J. Zaccaro: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Thalia R. Goldstein: Re­
sources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Alanen, L. (1988). Rethinking childhood. Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 53–67.
Annesi, J. J. (2020). Effects of a teen resident camp leadership program on changes in
dimensions of self-control and interpersonal functioning, and their theory-based
relationships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 78, Article 101745.
Avolio, B., & Vogelgesang, G. (2011). Beginnings matter in genuine leadership
development. In S. E. Murphy, & R. J. Reichard (Eds.), Early development and
leadership: Building the next generation of leaders (pp. 179–204). New York, NY:
Psychology Press/Routledge.
Baader, M. (2016). Tracing and contextualizing childhood agency from historical and
systematic perspectives. In F. Esser, M. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.),
Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies (pp.
135–149). London/New York: Routledge.
Bailey, D., Hufford, M. M., Emmerson, M. S., & Eckert, S. A. (2017). Identifying and
living leadership in the lives of prekindergarten through 4th-grade girls: The story of
one intentional leadership identity development program. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 31(4), 487–507.
Baker, S. T., Le Courtois, S., & Eberhart, J. (2023). Making space for children’s agency
with playful learning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 31(2), 372–384.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Banks, M. V., & Salmon, K. (2013). Reasoning about the self in positive and negative
ways: Relationship to psychological functioning in young adulthood. Memory, 21(1),
10–26.
Barling, J., & Weatherhead, J. G. (2016). Persistent exposure to poverty during childhood
limits later leader emergence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1305–1318.
Barnes, A. C., Olson, T. H., & Reynolds, D. J. (2018). Teaching power as an inconvenient
but imperative dimension of critical leadership development. New Directions for
Student Leadership, 2018(159), 77–90.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4
(1, Pt.2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372
Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Attachment style and individual
differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 146(2), 165–182.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2018). A metatheory for cognitive development (or “Piaget is dead”
revisited). Child Development, 89, 2288–2302.
Black, H., Soto, L., & Spurlin, S. (2016). Thinking about thinking about leadership:
Metacognitive ability and leader developmental readiness. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 2016(149), 85–95.
Bowers, J. R., Rosch, D. M., & Collier, D. A. (2016). Examining the relationship between
role models and leadership growth during the transition to adulthood. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 31, 96–118.
Brummelman, E., Nevicka, B., & O’Brien, J. M. (2021). Narcissism and leadership in
children. Psychological Science, 32(3), 354–363.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.
Carey, S., Zaitchik, D., & Bascandziev, I. (2015). Theories of development: In dialog with
Jean Piaget. Developmental Review, 38, 36–54.
́ problem-and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based
Charafeddine, R., Mercier, H., Clement, F., Kaufmann, L., Reboul, A., & Van der
Henst, J. B. (2016). Children’s allocation of resources in social dominance situations.
Developmental Psychology, 52, 1843–1857. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000164
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86
(3), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481
14
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Chauvin, J. C., & Karnes, F. A. (1984). Perceptions of leadership characteristics by gifted
elementary students. Roeper Review, 6(4), 238–240.
Cheang, C. J., & Goh, E. C. (2018). Why some children from poor families do well—an in-
depth analysis of positive deviance cases in Singapore. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(sup1), 1563431.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). Leadership, change, and organizational effectiveness (Vol. 6). Santa
Cruz, CA: University of California.
Chen, J. J., & Kacerek, C. R. (2022). Leaders and followers during sociodramatic play: A
study of racial/ethnic minority preschool children from socioeconomically
disadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 36(3),
517–540.
Chernyak, N., & Kushnir, T. (2018). The influence of understanding and having choice on
children’s prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 107–110.
Choi, Y. (2018). A preschooler’s agency: Why relational types of agency emerge in peer
interactions? Early Child Development and Care, 190(10), 1525–1536.
Coyle, T. R., Elpers, K. E., Gonzalez, M. C., Freeman, J., & Baggio, J. A. (2018). General
intelligence (g), ACT scores, and theory of mind:(ACT) g predicts limited variance
among theory of mind tests. Intelligence, 71, 85–91.
Cragun, O. R., Olsen, K. J., & Wright, P. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research
great: A review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6),
908–936.
Crisp, G., & Alvarado-Young, K. (2018). The role of mentoring in leadership
development. New directions for student leadership, 2018(158), 37–47.
Cronin, L. D., & Allen, J. B. (2015). Developmental experiences and well-being in sport:
The importance of the coaching climate. The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 62–71.
Daher, W., Anabousy, A., & Jabarin, R. (2018). Metacognition, Positioning and Emotions
in Mathematical Activities. International Journal of Research in Education and Science,
4(1), 292–303.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection:
Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review
based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133–156.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373.
Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership
complexity through latent growth modeling. Leader Development for Transforming
Organizations, 41–69.
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.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader
development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. Routledge.
Derksen, D. G., Hunsche, M. C., Giroux, M. E., Connolly, D. A., & Bernstein, D. M. (2018).
A systematic review of theory of mind’s precursors and functions. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie, 226, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000325
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010a). Power to the people: Where has personal agency
gone in leadership development? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1),
24–27.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010b). Who will lead and who will follow? A social
process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 35, 627–647.
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859–875.
Deutsch, N. L., Reitz-Krueger, C. L., Henneberger, A. K., Futch Ehrlich, V. A., &
Lawrence, E. C. (2017). “It gave me ways to solve problems and ways to talk to
people” Outcomes from a combined group and one-on-one mentoring program for
early adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(3), 291–322.
Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits
for individual difference research in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4),
651–669.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A
twenty-year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of
World Business, 47(4), 504–518.
Duan, J., Ren, X., Liu, Z., & Riggio, R. E. (2022). Connecting the dots: How parental and
current socioeconomic status shape individuals’ transformational leadership. Journal
of Business Research, 150, 51–58.
Dunlop, W. L., & Walker, L. J. (2013). The life story: Its development and relation to
narration and personal identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37
(3), 235–247.
Dwyer, L. P. (2019). Leadership self-efficacy: Review and leader development
implications. Journal of Management Development, 38(8), 637–650.
Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for
sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216–238.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of
achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156.
English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in
learning, 7(2), 128–150.
Esser, F., Baader, M., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualising agency
and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies. London/New York: Routledge.
J.A. Cannon et al.
Eva, N., De Cieri, H., Murphy, S. E., & Lowe, K. B. (2021). Leader development for
adolescent girls: State of the field and a framework for moving forward.The.
Leadership Quarterly, Article 101457.
Fein, E. C., Benea, D., Idzadikhah, Z., & Tziner, A. (2020). The security to lead: A
systematic review of leader and follower attachment styles and leader–member
exchange. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 106–125.
Fiese, B. H., Hooker, K. A., Kotary, L., Schwagler, J., & Rimmer, M. (1995). Family stories
in the early stages of parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 763–770.
Fitzsimmons, T. W., Callan, V. J., & Paulsen, N. (2013). Gender disparity in the C-suite:
Do male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top? The Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 245–266.
Flavell, J. H. (1999). Cognitive development: Children’s knowledge about the mind.
Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 21–45.
Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2014). The
myth of the team captain as principal leader: Extending the athlete leadership
classification within sport teams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(14), 1389–1397.
Frazier, L. D., Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2021). The MAPS model of self-regulation:
Integrating metacognition, agency, and possible selves. Metacognition and Learning,
16(2), 297–318.
Frost, D. E. (2016). Development of implicit leadership theories prior to training or
employment. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 32(2), 555–568.
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning.
Cognitive Development, 10, 483–527.
Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2010). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors
and developmental benefits of high school sports participation. Hellenic Journal of
Psychology, 7(1), 298–314.
Goupil, L., & Kouider, S. (2016). Behavioral and neural indices of metacognitive
sensitivity in preverbal infants. Current Biology, 26(22), 3038–3045.
Gozali, C., & Paik, S. J. (2023). Nurturing focused motivation: Leadership development
in Indonesia. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(3/4), 348–368.
Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-
regulation. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in
parenting (2nd ed., pp. 89–110). Erlbaum.
Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., &
Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and
leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and
extraversion. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 482–494.
Hammond, M., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Beyond (just) the workplace: A
theory of leader development across multiple domains. The Academy of Management
Review, 42(3), 481–498.
Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the
developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8),
1181–1187.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self and means
efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118(2), 143–161.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W.
(2013). The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and
effects on adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 393–411.
Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., & Nobel, O. B. Y. (2010). Tactical military leader requisite
complexity: Toward a referent structure. Military Psychology, 22(4), 412–449.
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in
organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 25–55.
Hansen, D. M., Moore, E. W., & Jessop, N. (2018). Youth Program Adult Leader’s
Directive Assistance and Autonomy Support and Development of Adolescents’
Agency Capacity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(2), 505–519.
Hansen, D. M., Skorupski, W. P., & Arrington, T. L. (2010). Differences in developmental
experiences for commonly used categories of organized youth activities. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 413–421.
Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2016). Children’s stories as a foundation for leadership
schemas: more than meets the eye. In C. Peus, S. Braun, & B. Schyns (Eds.),
Monographs in leadership and management: leadership Lessons from compelling contexts
(Vol. 8, pp. 301–325). Emerald.
Harrell-Levy, M. K., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2010). Identity process and transformative
pedagogy: Teachers as agents of identity formation.Identity: An international journal of
theory and research, 10(2), 76–91.
Harris, A., & Beckert, T. (2019). Leadership emergence through volunteerism: A case
study of late adolescent exemplars. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(2), 110–125.
Hastings, L. J., Griesen, J. V., Hoover, R. E., Creswell, J. W., & Dlugosh, L. L. (2015).
Generativity in college students: Comparing and explaining the impact of mentoring.
Journal of College Student Development, 56(7), 651–669.
Hedegaard, M. (2020). Children’s Exploration as a Key in Children’s Play and Learning
Activity in Social and Cultural Formation. In M. Hedegaard, & E. Ødegaard (Eds.),
Children’s Exploration and Cultural Formation: International Perspectives on Early
Childhood Education and Development (Vol. 29, pp. 11–27). Switzerland: Springer.
Hernandez, M., & Iyengar, S. S. (2001). What drives whom? A cultural perspective on
human agency. Social cognition, 19(3: Special issue), 269–294.
Hiller, N. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity:
Constructs, correlates. and outcomes. The Pennsylvania State University.
Hiver, P., Zhou, S. A., Tahmouresi, S., Sang, Y., & Papi, M. (2020). Why stories matter:
Exploring learner engagement and metacognition through narratives of the L2
learning experience. System, 91, Article 102260.
Holden, G. W. (2010). Childrearing and developmental trajectories: Positive pathways,
off-ramps, and dynamic processes. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 197–204.
15
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Howes, C., Unger, O., & Seidner, L. B. (1989). Social pretend play in toddlers: Parallels
with social play and with solitary pretend. Child Development, 60, 77–84.
Hoyt, M. A., & Kennedy, C. L. (2008). Leadership and adolescent girls: A qualitative study
of leadership development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 42(3–4),
203–219.
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2007). Executive function and theory of mind: Predictive
relations from ages 2 to 4. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1447–1459.
Ibanez, A., Huepe, D., Gempp, R., Gutiérrez, V., Rivera-Rei, A., & Toledo, M. I. (2013).
Empathy, sex and fluid intelligence as predictors of theory of mind. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54(5), 616–621.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., & Krone, C. R. (2019). Nurturing nature:
How brain development is inherently social and emotional, and what this means for
education. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 185–204.
Jacques, S., & Marcovitch, S. (2010). Executive function. In W. Overton (Ed.), Handbook
of lifespan development (pp. 431–466). New York: Wiley.
James, A., & Prout, A. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. Lewes: Falmer
Press.
Janacsek, K., Fiser, J., & Nemeth, D. (2012). The best time to acquire new skills: Age-
related differences in implicit sequence learning across the human lifespan.
Developmental Science, 15(4), 496–505.
Jones-Morales, J., & Konrad, A. M. (2018). Attaining elite leadership: Career
development and childhood socioeconomic status. Career Development International,
23(3), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2017-0047
Karr, J. E., Rodriguez, J. E., Goh, P. K., Martel, M. M., & Rast, P. (2022). The unity and
diversity of executive functions: A network approach to life span development.
Developmental Psychology, 58(4), 751–767.
Kegan, R. (1980). Making meaning: The constructive-developmental approach to persons
and practice. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 58(5), 373–380.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership
theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589–607. https://doi-rg.mutex.gmu.
edu/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00033-8.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment
perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141–160.
Kim, S. (2021). Preschoolers’ leadership-followership communication in outdoor pretend play
on a child care playground. Kansas State University). Doctoral dissertation.
Klindt, D., Devaine, M., & Daunizeau, J. (2017). Does the way we read others’ mind
change over the lifespan? Insights from a massive web poll of cognitive skills from
childhood to late adulthood. Cortex, 86, 205–215.
Kloo, D., & Rohwer, M. (2012). The development of earlier and later forms of
metacognitive abilities: Reflections on agency and ignorance. In M. J. Beran,
J. L. Brandl, J. Perner, & J. Proust (Eds.), Foundations of metacognition (pp. 167–180).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kodama, C. M., & Laylo, R. (2017). The unique context of identity-based student
organizations in developing leadership. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017
(155), 71–81.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137
(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005).
Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 593–611.
Kuczynski, L., Pitman, R., & Twigger, K. (2018). Flirting with resistance: Children’s
expressions of autonomy during middle childhood. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(sup1), 1564519.
Kudo, F. T., Longhofer, J. L., & Floersch, J. E. (2012). On the origins of early leadership:
The role of authoritative parenting practices and mastery orientation. Leadership, 8,
345–375.
Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42
(5), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849
Larson, R. W., Raffaelli, M., Guzman, S., Salusky, I., Orson, C. N., & Kenzer, A. (2019).
The important (but neglected) developmental value of roles: Findings from youth
programs. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000674
Larkin, S. (2010). Metacognition in young children. Routledge.
Lee, S. Y., Matthews, M., Boo, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2020). Gifted students’ perceptions about
leadership and leadership development. High Ability Studies, 32(2), 219–259.
Li, Y., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I. H., …
Miller, B. (2007). Emergent leadership in children’s discussion groups. Cognition and
Instruction, 25(1), 1–2.
Lilgendahl, J. P., & McAdams, D. P. (2011). Constructing stories of self-growth: How
individual differences in patterns of autobiographical reasoning relate to well-being
in midlife. Journal of Personality, 79(2), 391–428.
Liu, L., Ayman, R., & Ayman-Nolley, S. (2012). Children’s image of leadership in China.
In Worldly leadership (pp. 105–134). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Liu, Z., Riggio, R. E., Day, D. V., Zheng, C., Dai, S., & Bian, Y. (2019). Leader
development begins at home: Overparenting harms adolescent leader emergence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 1226–1242.
Liu, Z., Venkatesh, S., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2021). Leader development across
the lifespan: A dynamic experiences-grounded approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 32
(5), Article 101382.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of
leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591–615.
Machida-Kosuga, M. (2017). The interaction of efficacy and leadership competency
development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017(156), 19–30.
J.A. Cannon et al.
Margoni, F., Baillargeon, R., & Surian, L. (2018). Infants distinguish between leaders and
bullies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(38), E8835–E8843.
Marshall-Mies, J. C., Fleishman, E. A., Martin, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Baughman, W. A., &
McGee, M. L. (2000). Development and evaluation of cognitive and metacognitive
measures for predicting leadership potential. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1),
135–153.
Marulis, L. M., Baker, S. T., & Whitebread, D. (2020). Integrating metacognition and
executive function to enhance young children’s perception of and agency in their
learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 46–54.
Maskell, S., McCarron, G. P., Cannon, J., Zhou, S., Zacarro, S. J., & Goldstein, T. R.
(2022). The Leadership Stories Our Youth Are Told: Characterizations of Leadership
Behaviors and Orientations in Popular Youth TV Shows. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 51(1), 114–127.
Mawson, B. (2011). Children’s leadership strategies in early childhood. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 327–338.
McCauley, C. D., DeRue, D. S., Yost, P. R., & Taylor, S. (2014). Experience-driven leader
development: Models, tools, best practices, and advice for on-the-job development. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental relationships. In
C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 160–193). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The
use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 634–653.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the
developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4),
544–560.
McLean, K. C., & Breen, A. V. (2009). Processes and content of narrative identity
development in adolescence: Gender and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 45
(3), 702–710.
Meder, B., Wu, C. M., Schulz, E., & Ruggeri, A. (2021). Development of directed and
random exploration in children. Developmental Science, 24(4), e13095.
Merriam, S. B., & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning-making, adult learning and development: A
model with implications for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15
(4), 243–255.
Meyer, M. S., & Rinn, A. N. (2021). Developing leadership talent in adolescents and
emerging adults: A systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 287–313.
Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016).
The development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental Psychology,
52(11), 1744–1762. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000159
Moran, M. M., & Weiss, M. R. (2006). Peer leadership in sport: Links with friendship, peer
acceptance, psychological characteristics, and athletic ability. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 18(2), 97–113.
Morrissey, A. M., Scott, C., & Rahimi, M. (2017). A comparison of sociodramatic play
processes of preschoolers in a naturalized and a traditional outdoor space.
International Journal of Play, 6(2), 177–197.
Moss, S. A., Dowling, N., & Callanan, J. (2009). Towards an integrated model of
leadership and self-regulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 162–176.
Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader
development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
459–470.
Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2016). Leadership and leader developmental self-
efficacy: Their role in enhancing leader development efforts. New Directions for
Student Leadership, 2016(149), 73–84.
Nesbit, P. L. (2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and
self-regulation processes in self-directed leadership development. Human Resource
Development Review, 11(2), 203–226.
Noe, R. A. (2017). Employee training and development (7th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments. In C. McCauley, & E. V. Velsor (Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 151–182). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: A meta-analytic review of the
relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance.
Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 179–212.
Olivares, O. J., Peterson, G., & Hess, K. P. (2007). An existential-phenomenological
framework for understanding leadership development experiences. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 28, 76–91.
Oliveira, K. A. C. (2016). Children’s implicit leadership theories in middle childhood:
Christian children’s perceptions in the Cavite province. Journal of Research on
Christian Education, 25(3), 251–272.
Osterhaus, C., & Koerber, S. (2021). The development of advanced theory of mind in
middle childhood: A longitudinal study from age 5 to 10 years. Child Development, 92
(5), 1872–1888.
Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children: From family to global human rights. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Parkhill, A., Deans, C. L., & Chapin, L. A. (2018). Pre-leadership processes in leadership
training for adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 375–379.
Pasupathi, M., & Mansour, E. (2006). Adult age differences in autobiographical reasoning
in narratives. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 798–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.42.5.798
Peterson, C. C., O’Reilly, K., & Wellman, H. M. (2016). Deaf and hearing children’s
development of theory of mind, peer popularity, and leadership during middle
childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 149, 146–158.
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
16
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Pierce, S., Erickson, K., & Sarkar, M. (2020). High school student-athletes’ perceptions
and experiences of leadership as a life skill. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51,
Article 101716.
Priest, K. L., & Middleton, E. (2016). Exploring leader identity and development. New
Directions for Student Leadership, 2016(149), 37–47.
Recchia, S. (2011). Preschool leaders in the early childhood classroom. In S. E. Murphy,
& R. J. Reichard (Eds.), Early development and leadership: Building the next generation
of leaders (pp. 39–58). New York: Psychology Press/Routledge.
Reitan, T., & Stenberg, S.Å. (2019). From classroom to conscription. Leadership
emergence in childhood and early adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(3),
298–319.
Ridell, P. M. (2017). Reward and threat in the adolescent brain: Implications for
leadership development. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 38(4),
530–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2015-0062
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009).
The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s
adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45(4),
958–972.
Rissanen, M. (2017). “It’s as if…” Preschoolers Encountering Contemporary
Photography. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 18(28), 1–29.
Robertson, J. (2009). Coaching leadership learning through partnership. School
Leadership and Management, 29(1), 39–49.
Safra, L., Algan, Y., Tecu, T., Grèzes, J., Baumard, N., & Chevallier, C. (2017). Childhood
harshness predicts long-lasting leader preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38
(5), 645–651.
Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional models of early social relations. Human Development,
18, 65–79.
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature
and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22.
Schlosser, M., 2015. Agency. In: Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy, Fall 2015 Edition.
Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and
adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education,
2(3), 114–121.
Schulz, E., Wu, C. M., Ruggeri, A., & Meder, B. (2019). Searching for rewards like a child
means less generalization and more directed exploration. Psychological Science, 30,
1561–1572.
Schulz, L. E. (2015). Infants explore the unexpected. Science, 348, 42–43.
Schwartz, S. J., Cote, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging
adulthood: Two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth and
Society, 37, 201–229.
Schwebel, D. C., Rosen, C. S., & Singer, J. L. (1999). Preschoolers’ pretend play and
theory of mind: The role of jointly constructed pretence. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 333–348.
Shin, M. S., Recchia, S. L., Lee, S. Y., Lee, Y. J., & Mullarkey, L. S. (2004). Understanding
early childhood leadership: Emerging competencies in the context of relationships.
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(3), 301–316.
Slot, P. L., Mulder, H., Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2017). Preschoolers’ cognitive
and emotional self-regulation in pretend play: Relations with executive functions
and quality of play. Infant and Child Development, 26(6), e2038.
Smith, C. L. (2015). How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership
perspective. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(1), 6–19.
Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., Kristen, S., & Perst, H. (2012). Metacognition in infants and
young children. In M. J. Beran, J. L. Brandl, J. Perner, & J. Proust (Eds.), Foundations
of metacognition (pp. 119–133). Oxford University Press.
Stavans, M., & Baillargeon, R. (2019). Infants expect leaders to right wrongs. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(33), 16292–16301.
Stavans, M., & Diesendruck, G. (2021). Children hold leaders primarily responsible, not
entitled. Child Development, 92, 308–323.
Strain, M. R., & Webber, D. A. (2017). High school experiences, the gender wage gap, and
the selection of occupation. Applied Economics, 49(49), 5040–5049.
Sugarman, J., & Sokol, B. (2012). Human agency and development: An introduction and
theoretical sketch [Editorial]. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 1–14.
Terrizzi, B. F., Woodward, A. M., & Beier, J. S. (2020). Young children and adults
associate social power with indifference to others’ needs. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 198, Article 104867.
Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Development of “agentic” regulation in cultural context: The
role of self and world views. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 19–26.
Turman, N. T., Garcia, K. C. A., & Howes, S. (2018). Deepening attention to social
location in building leader and leadership efficacy. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 2018(159), 65–76.
Ubaka, A., Lu, X., & Gutierrez, L. (2022). Testing the generalizability of the white
leadership standard in the post-Obama era. The Leadership Quarterly, 101591.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017). The effect of
productive classroom talk and metacommunication on young children’s oral
communicative competence and subject matter knowledge: An intervention study in
early childhood education. Learning and Instruction, 48, 14–22.
van Doeselaar, L., McLean, K. C., Meeus, W., Denissen, J. J., & Klimstra, T. A. (2020).
Adolescents’ identity formation: Linking the narrative and the dual-cycle approach.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 818–835.
Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development. In
C. D. McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook
of Leadership Development (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). San Francisco: CA7 Jossey-Bass.
J.A. Cannon et al.
Varpanen, J. (2019). What is children’s agency? A review of conceptualizations used in
early childhood education research. Educational Research Review, 28, Article 100288.
Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent
autonomy support, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-
analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 605–644.
Vega, C. E. (2020). Understanding the next generation of leaders: An exploratory study of
constructions of leadership during childhood. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wollongong).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Child psychology. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 5).
New York: Plenum Press.
Walker, D. O., Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., & Keller Hansbrough, T. (2020). Who might
support a tyrant? An exploration of links between adolescent family conflict and
endorsement of tyrannical implicit leadership theories. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 27(4), 340–356.
Wallace, D. M., Torres, E. M., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2021). Just what do we think we are
doing? Learning outcomes of leader and leadership development. The Leadership
Quarterly, 32(5), Article 101494.
Wallace, D., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2022). WHO WANTS TO BE HERE? Empirically
Investigating Motivation and Engagement During Leader Development. UMBC
Faculty Collection.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75
(2), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
Whitebread, D., & O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Preschool children’s social pretend play:
Supporting the development of metacommunication, metacognition and self-
regulation. International Journal of Play, 1(2), 197–213.
Wilcox, C. D. (2004). Order in the Kidsville Court: A study of the longitudinal co-
construction of child leader development and group activity development. (Doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University).
Wilson, M. S., & Yip, J. (2010). Grounding leader development: Cultural perspectives.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 52–55.
17
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx
Wolf, J. (2022). Implications of pretend play for Theory of Mind research. Synthese, 200
(6), 1–21.
Yamaguchi, R. (2001). Children’s learning groups: A study of emergent leadership,
dominance, and group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 32(6), 671–697.
Yamaguchi, R., & Maehr, M. L. (2003). A multi-method study of children’s emergent
leadership in collaborative learning groups. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 476660).
Yeager, K. L., & Callahan, J. L. (2016). Learning to lead: Foundations of emerging leader
identity development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 286–300.
Yuan, Y., Sun, X., Chen, Q., Liu, Z., & Xue, G. (2022). Family socioeconomic status and
youth leadership potential: Serial mediating effects of parental rearing behaviors and
youth self-esteem. Current Psychology, 41, 2034–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-020-00728-x
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62,
6–16.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2014). 2 leadership memes: From ancient history and literature to twenty-
first century theory and research. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership
and organizations (pp. 13–38). Oxford: University Press.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap
between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human
Resource Management Journal, 43, 367–380.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social
intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader
effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 317–342.
Zaccaro, S. J., Green, J. P., Dubrow, S., & Kolze, M. (2018). Leader individual differences,
situational parameters, and leadership outcomes: A comprehensive review and
integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 2–43.
Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity,
and the developing brain. Developmental Review, 38, 55–68.