Deepening leadership identity development

“What we know matters, but who we are matters more.”—Brené Brown, Daring Greatly (2012) The introductory quote above speaks to the power of both knowing and being in leadership identity development. After a nod to leader identity development, this volume primarily focuses on the leadership identity development model (LID; Komives et al., 2005, 2006). The origin of the LID model lies in a powerful question asked by Dr. Susan Komives, now professor emerita of the University of Maryland. Susan and colleagues Drs. Nance Lucas and Tim McMahon were working on the second edition of Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference (2007), which contained their relational leadership model, when Susan pondered “I wonder how people who identify as relational leaders came to be that way?” In her wise way, Susan had named a powerful omission in leadership education research. There existed numerous models proclaiming what leadership was, but very few that attempted to describe the process of how one comes to think of themselves as capable of leadership. Because of Susan's commitment to mentorship and her modeling of inclusive leadership, she invited four graduate students to join her in an examination of what we came to term leadership identity development—along with esteemed colleagues Drs. Susan Longerbeam, Felicia Mainella, and Laura Osteen, I was honored to join the research team. Grounded theory methodologists engage in a deeper literature review after data have been gathered to reflect on the emerging categories and theories. As we dove into the literature to make meaning of our findings, we found powerful existing frameworks examining leader (singular) identity development. Engle and Lord (1997) had done ground breaking work on the role of self-schemas, referring to a person's beliefs and experiences about themselves with respect to leadership. To quote Johnson, Murphy, and Riggio's article in this volume “Leader identity is considered to be both a precursor and an outcome of leader development” (2023). The same appeared to be true for leadership identity—it is both an input to, and product of, leadership development. Concurrently while we were publishing our findings, Lord and Hall (2005) published a cogent paper in Leadership Quarterly on identity, cognition, and leadership skill showing how leaders’ skills can evolve from novice, to intermediate, to expert skill levels. Day and Harrison (2007) were developing a multilevel, identity-based approach to leader development. These findings were congruent with what we were seeing in our data—the emergent grounded theory of leadership identity development evolving across stages of experience and development. Wielkiewicz's (2000) Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (LABS), which is an assessment of how student leadership attitudes and beliefs shift from hierarchical to systemic while in college (see article 9 of this volume for more on assessing LID), influenced our thinking of how students described the shift from stage 3 (leader identified) to stage 4 (leadership differentiated) in their leadership identity development journeys. The convergence of these research streams both informed and added confirmation to the LID theory and model. Fast forward to almost 20 years later and there has been a proliferation of research advancing the theory and practice of both leader and leadership identity development (see article 11 of this volume on Exploring the Utility, Limitations, and Possibilities of LID). Over 100 replication studies of LID now exist, many in the form of unpublished theses and dissertations. According to google scholar, the original LID studies (2005, 2006) have been cited close to 2000 times. A recent article mapping the field of leadership research in higher education noted "… [T]he highest loading article on leadership studies [was] the development of a leadership identity (Komives et al. 2005)‘ (Daenekindt et al., 2020). Further, LID has shaped leadership education and program design at numerous types of institutions to scaffold the development of leader capacities and perspectives. More important than the ubiquity of LID, is that scholars and leadership educators are adding needed criticality to research related to leader and leadership identity. They are interrogating LID to examine its intersections with other aspects of identity including gender, sexual orientation, citizenship status, race, and ethnicity. They are examining LID across diverse institutional contexts, including community colleges, selective colleges, HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions, medical and nursing schools, and engineering programs. They are exploring LID in curricular and cocurricular settings, including across different kinds of student involvement such as athletics, Greek life, student government, student organizations, student activism, and within leadership programs such as LeaderShape. Scholars are extending and refining models of both leader and leadership identity to examine pre- and post-college LID, lifespan approaches to leader development (Liu et al., 2021), and leadership educators' LID. Thankfully, methods to assess LID are also evolving (see article 9 for the latest on assessing and measuring leadership identity). This issue seeks to elevate and amplify these emergent and important studies, so that leadership educators can apply LID in deeper and more meaningful ways. The next section briefly reviews the articles included in this issue. The opening article, Deepening Leadership Identity Development (Owen), delineates key concepts such as identity, identity development, and leader/leadership identity development. It suggests that identity is socially constructed in that “one's sense of self and beliefs about one's own social group as well as others are constructed through interaction with the broader social context in which dominant values dictate norms and expectations” (Torres et al., 2009, p. 577). It explores areas of concordance and distinction across leader and leadership identity development models and suggests increasing convergence across these bodies of scholarship for deeper development. Developing Leader Identity Across the Lifespan (Johnson et al.), reviews foundational scholarship related to leader development, including implications of the integrative theory of leader development (Day et al., 2009) and the dynamic model of leader development across the lifespan (Liu et al., 2021). The authors provide a rationale for why college is a critical juncture for creating ethical and inclusive leaders for the future and offer suggestions for ways to enhance leadership education. Leadership Identity Development (McCarron et al.), presents scholarship related to how individuals develop the social identity of being collaborative, relational leaders interdependently engaging in leadership as a group process, or leadership identity development. The LID grounded theory and resultant model are explained (Komives et al., 2005, 2006), and resultant replication and translation studies are overviewed and thematized. This contribution also interrogates how issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion shape the development and enactment of leadership identity development, including structured inequalities and barriers to opportunity. Finally, the article concludes with examples of how institutions of higher education have utilized the LID framework for programs, policies, and institutional transformation. Social Identities and Leadership Identity Development (Fuselier & Beatty), explores how, as the concept of leader/leadership identity has evolved, questions have naturally arisen about how leadership functions as a form of identity among other multiple and often intersecting social identities. There is a growing body of scholarship examining leadership identity development among specific populations. This article reviews emerging scholarship addressing racial identity, gender identity, LGBTQ+ identities in diverse postsecondary institutional contexts. Finally, the article concludes with examples and implications for centering social identities for leadership educators who study, practice, and teach/develop leadership in higher education. Critical Perspectives on Leadership Identity Development (Chunoo & Torres), draws on critical race theory, intersectionality, critical feminism, queer and indigenous paradigms to critique existing approaches to leader/leadership identity development and to illuminate how people from marginalized and oppressed communities can experience more just and equitable pathways to leadership. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the social identity theory of leadership (Hogg et al., 2012) are reviewed. The article concludes with recommendations for practice about how to create new possibilities for leader/leadership identity development that counters patriarchal, white supremacist, hetero, and cis normative contexts. Liberatory pedagogies are suggested as ways to center social justice in leadership identity development. Centering Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) to Counter Dominant Narratives About Leadership Identity Development (Turman & Irwin), focuses on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, (HBCUs) Hispanic Serving Institutions, (HSIs) Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs; Gasman et al., 2015). These institution types are united by their commitments to racially and ethnically minoritized communities, expanding educational access, facilitating culturally affirming education, and developing collective and socially responsible leaders. The authors center leadership identity development (LID) at MSIs to decenter whiteness in leadership scholarship and enactment and elevate MSIs and their impact on students’ leader and leadership identity development. Student Involvement as a Catalyst for Leadership Identity Development (Haber-Curran & Pierre), explores the connection between student involvement and leadership identity development, focusing specifically on the cocurricular experiences of student clubs and organizations, student government, sororities and fraternities, and student recreation/athletics. Key considerations for infusing an intentional focus on students’ leadership identity development through student involvement opportunities are included. Leadership Identity Development in Curricular Settings (Odom & Dunn), highlights specific approaches to developing leadership identity in college students within an academic curricular context. The authors examine curricular contexts such as majors, minors, and certificates with an emphasis on leader and leadership development, as well as specific course activities used to engage students in developing their leadership identity. Assessing & Measuring Leadership Identity (Hastings & Sunderman), explores the numerous complexities involved in assessing and measuring leadership identity development. This article reviews leader and leadership identity as well as prior attempts to assess leader and leadership identity development. Recommendations for effective assessment and measurement practices when diagnosing development in leader and leadership identity are offered. Extending the Scope of Leadership Identity Development (Rocco & Priest), addresses limitations of the existing leadership identity development literature and offers suggestions for extending the scope of knowledge and understanding of the topic to evolve leadership education research and practice. Authors suggest utilizing multi-level, complexity, and systems views in the study of leadership identity development as a way to explore beyond constructivist, individual-focused conventions that undergird the extant literature. The article concludes with considerations for leadership educators to explore in efforts to expand and evolve their teaching, research, and practice related to leadership identity development. Exploring the Utility, Limitations, and Possibilities of the Leadership Identity Development (LID) Model (Bitton, Devies, Hassell-Goodman, Shetty, & Owen), returns to the initial call to interrogate leadership education's traditional marginalization of issues related to identity, equity, and power. The article summarizes a conversation with early career scholars who utilize the LID theory and model in their scholarship and practice. Authors offer thoughts as to which aspects of leader and leadership identity development remain most useful to leadership education and development, as well as ways this body of scholarship might also be incomplete and insufficient. They reflect on how leader and leadership identity development theorizing is related to identity, equity, and power. The article concludes with ideas about how the scholarship and practice of leadership identity development may evolve in the future. In closing, I have used the editing of this volume as an excuse to dig into this rich and varied scholarship. I am beyond honored to amplify and elevate the powerful research and practice which is deepening how we approach leadership identity development. A volume such as this does not happen without community. I am so grateful to series editors Kathy Guthrie and V. Chunoo, and to the inestimable founding editor, Susan Komives, for lifelong mentoring and friendship and for that initial invitation to be part of exploring leadership identity development. To Brittany Devies and Ravi Bhatt for careful editing and making my grasp of APA 7th seem far more advanced than it is in reality. To Adrian Bitton, Brittany Devies, Sharrell Hassell-Goodman, and Rebecca Shetty for a mind-expanding “futures of LID” conversation—the future of leadership education is in such capable hands. Thank you to all author teams for the gifts of your time and talent. And, as ever, to my family, friends, and feline support system—I am forever grateful. Julie E. Owen is an associate professor of Leadership Studies at the School of Integrative Studies, George Mason University, where she coordinates the leadership studies major and minor and is affiliate faculty with Women and Gender Studies and the Higher Education Program. Her most recent books are We are the Leaders We've Been Waiting For: Women and Leadership Development in College (Stylus, 2020), and A Research Agenda for Leadership Learning and Development Through Higher Education, co-edited with Dr. Susan R. Komives (Edward Elgar Press, 2023). Owen identifies as a white, currently-able, middle-class, cisgender woman working in the academy. She is committed to using her voice to advocate for positive social change leading to more equitable leadership for all, and to consider how identities and social power shape practice. Her research explores the intersections of leadership identity and women's adult development, as well as the scholarship of liberatory leadership teaching and learning.