Abstract
This is an exploratory study that examines how leadership potential may initially develop in adolescent children through specific parenting practices. It investigates whether adolescent children raised in an authoritative parenting environment can be linked to transformational leadership. Additionally, this study looks at the healthy parent–child interaction that promotes emotional autonomy and mastery orientation. These important psychological dispositions may form the basis for transformational leadership thinking and behavior, especially in young nascent leaders.
Through the use of survey instruments, data from 245 adolescent boys and a few girls were collected. The results obtained help explain the possible interactions between parenting and leadership development in adolescents. The study revealed a positive relationship between authoritative parenting practices, emotional autonomy, mastery orientation, and transformational leadership.
Keywords
Literature review
While researchers have generated much in terms of understanding the effects of leadership, relatively little is known about its psychological and social development, especially during the formative stages of adolescence. Much of the leadership research over the last 50 years has focused on the different aspects of adult leadership. There has been very little research conducted on the origins of early leadership capabilities in adolescent youth.
Where will our future leaders come from? Will adult-based education programs be sufficient to serve the growing leadership needs of the world? Most adults have described that their most important leadership experiences and relationships occurred after they began their careers. However, some also report early life events as among their most important developmental leadership experiences (Van Velsor, 2011). Albeit, effective leadership skills and experiences develop primarily throughout a person’s life span, many of the fundamental skills and talents begin to develop at a much earlier age (Murphy and Reichard, 2011).
Early human development research (Cottrell, 1942; Mead, 1934; Sullivan, 1947; Thomas, 1927; Thomas and Thomas, 1928) found that personality development is the outcome of a progressive process of role differentiation and experiences involving two complementary phases. The first is the child’s psychological growth while interacting with persons within the home (mother, father, siblings, caretaker, etc.) and the second while interacting with individuals beyond the family, such as peers, teachers, and neighbors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979: 104). Additionally, according to Bronfenbrenner (1979), children interpret their environment and actively derive meaning from their interactions with parents and teachers. Parents and teachers have a significant influence on the child’s goal development abilities, how children perceive their abilities (e.g. efficacy beliefs), and how they cope with feedback on their performance (Friedel et al., 2007).
Implicit leadership theories have been for the most part based on mental models or schemas of leadership (Lord et al., 1984). Hunt, Boal, and Sorenson (1990) posit that individual differences in implicit leadership theories may be linked to early childhood experiences. Hall and Lord (1998) argue for including literature that deals with dyadic relationships such as parent–child relationships. Keller (1999) has also reported that variation in implicit leadership theories has been traced to parental traits. Preferential leadership images are mirrored descriptions of perceived parental traits regardless of whether the parents were characterized as dedicated or tyrannical. This suggests that parents may play a significant role in forming leadership perceptions and experiences (Keller, 2003: 143).
Most of the leadership research has focused on the adult individual in business, nonprofit, military, and social organizational settings. This is understandable, as organizations and institutions spend a significant amount of resources developing their managers. However, it is surprising to find that adult leadership interventions contribute only a small positive impact, approximately 9–10% of the variance in work outcomes (Avolio et al., 2009a). In short, if a leader’s childhood and adolescent experience is directly related to their adult leadership behavior (Schneider et al., 1999), then theories of leadership would be strengthened by studying leadership over an individual’s life span (Murphy, 2011).
Little leadership research has been conducted among youths. In contrast, in adult leadership research we know that verbal fluency, extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness to different experiences are related to leadership emergence and effectiveness (Antonakis et al., 2004; Bass, 1990). Extroversion in many studies has been shown to have the strongest correlation to adult leadership emergence and effectiveness, followed by conscientiousness, openness to new experiences, and a low level of neuroticism (Judge et al., 2002). In other research studies these same personality traits were also related to transformational leadership behavior (Ilies et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2004). Moreover, in the last decade, a number of studies were done on the genetic affects on leadership development. Generally, these studies indicate there are significant genetic influences on leadership emergence and leadership styles (Johnson et al., 2004). Additionally, these studies suggest that the genetic influence on leadership emergence accounts for 30% of the variance in the leadership variable, and up to 50% for the transformational style of leadership (Avery et al., 2007). This leaves a significant amount of variance that is not attributable to genetics. Therefore, justification exists to examine issues not addressed in these genetic studies, such as social constructs, gendered power relations, and environmental experiences that can affect leadership emergence and style, and also how these factors may interact with genetic factors.
Traditional leadership studies have conceptualized leadership behavior in terms of ‘traits’ and ‘styles’ of leaders in the context of follower types, different work groups, and the culture of the organization. These studies have been criticized for their myopic tendency to focus on psychological aspects of leadership because they tend to exclude the study of social structure and existential dimensions of the leadership process (Knights and Willmott, 1992).
Debates have called for a more critical study of the leadership process that might provide ‘startling insights’ and ‘real meaning’ (Greene, 1976; Mintzberg, 1982). A more critical type of research has been met by a new research movement entitled critical leadership studies (Collinson, 2011). Critical studies, look at the dialectical constructs of leadership, such as power relationships and identity constructs, through which leadership is reproduced, rationalized, resisted, and sometimes transformed (Banks, 2008; Fairhurst, 2001; Gabriel, 1997; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Nye, 2008; Sinclair, 2007). Keith Grint (1997) questions traditional leadership theories, such as trait, situational, path-goal, transformational, and leader–member exchange (LMX) theories, which focus on a particular ‘essence’ to leaders and their contexts (Collinson, 2005: 1423). For example, Grint’s work challenges the conventional contingency theory to suggest that accurate accounts of a situation’s context are crucial factors in the decision-making process of successful leaders, and that this is often derived in a socially constructed way (Grint, 2005b: 1467). There is a need for future leadership research to examine the shifting, multiple, contradictory, and ambiguous identities, and the asymmetrical power relationships of ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ to gain a clearer understanding of the leadership dialectics (Collinson, 2005: 1435).
This study explores the role that parental practices play, the significance of emotional autonomy, and development of achievement goal orientation as a mechanism that mediates the development of transformational leadership outcomes in adolescent youth. In studying leadership development in adolescents we will be able to obtain a deeper understanding of leadership. This includes the role that parents play in raising their children: does a specific parental strategy (e.g. authoritative parenting) produce emotional or psychological autonomy and achievement goal orientation and is this a mediating mechanism shaping leadership development in adolescent youth?
Studying youth development and leadership has the potential to contribute to the critical literature on leadership because it can point to mechanisms that neutralize typical gender, social class, and ethnicity effects. How, for example, does a working class boy who does not attend elite schools become a leader? Working class males and females have neither the social capital nor cultural capital to gain access to high-level leadership positions in government or business, yet they can demonstrate many transformational leadership characteristics. Still, the privileged elite child who attends the best universities and has generations of family and business connections can often not exhibit leadership skills. Thus, it is through understanding how child and adolescent development affect the leadership capabilities of youths that critical studies can be further developed. Next, we summarize the parenting styles associated with leadership qualities and their associated outcomes: emotional autonomy and achievement goal orientation. We link this literature to transformational leadership qualities and finally we propose several testable hypotheses.
Authoritative parenting style
Authoritative parenting has been shown to be an effective parenting practice based on the seminal work of Baumrind (1967, 1971), and Maccoby and Martin (1983). Authoritative parenting results in raising children who have a healthy psycho-social development, academic achievement, an aversion to delinquent behavior, and an avoidance of drug and alcohol usage (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986; Steinberg et al., 1989, 1992).
Researchers Oliver, A. Gottfried, Guerin, A.E. Gottfried, Reichard, and Riggio, (2011) examined the relationship between the adolescents’ parenting environment and transformational leadership in a 17-year longitudinal study. Predicated on the work done on the role of authoritative parenting and leadership by Avolio, Rotundo, and Walumbwa (2009b), researchers discovered a significant relationship between authoritative parenting and transformational leadership; it was, however, mediated by the participant’s self-concept, even controlling for socioeconomic status. In the past, leadership researchers have theorized the importance of high levels of self-awareness or self-concept clarity in forming the basis for effective adult leadership (Shamir and Eilam, 2005; van Knippenberg et al., 2005). Self-concept is an individual’s self-perception and is produced across an individual’s life experiences. For example, a positive self-concept is formed by a youth’s healthy school and peer-group experiences, as well as social class, gender, and cultural factors.
Consequently, the Oliver et al. (2011) study showed how a family that is open, supportive, and cohesive lays the foundation for a positive self-concept, and this leads to the development of transformational leadership qualities. Therefore, children who experience family environments in which parents treat the child in a democratic manner—as a valued member of the family unit, providing a participative familial role—develop a positive view of themselves, which facilitates the making of a transformational leader (Oliver et al., 2011). These crucial findings implicate the importance of positive family interactions, as represented by an authoritative parenting style, in the development of both a positive self-concept in youth and later, adult transformational leadership attainment.
Authoritative parenting is defined in terms of the level of demandingness and responsiveness of parents (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Authoritative parenting is where parents exhibit high-level expectations (or demandingness) of their children while at the same time providing the needed level of support and warmth, or what researchers’ term responsiveness. Parenting style research was based on the work of Baumrind (1967, 1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983). Their research focused on different parenting typologies, of which authoritative parenting style had the best outcomes with adolescent children. Adolescents growing up with authoritative parenting scored consistently higher on measures of psycho-social competency, academic achievement, and lower on measures of internal distress and problem behavior than did adolescents from authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful households (Baumrind, 1971; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al, 1992). Authoritative parenting practices provide a family environment where the parent–child relationship is conducive to socialization and parental teaching is well received by their children. For example, in an authoritative family environment, a parent would ask their child to do a task, be receptive to listen to the child’s feelings about the task, and if necessary engage with the child in a healthy dialog. However, in an authoritarian family, the parent would tell the child to do a task and would be disinterested in listening or engaging with the child. In a permissive family, the parents may ask the child to do a task, but allow the child to do as he or she chooses without any consequences. A neglectful family relationship has the worst outcomes; here, parents are usually preoccupied and there is minimal interaction with the child.
Authoritative parents respect children’s ideas, thoughts, and decisions. The authoritative environment also enforces strict limits and controls. A high level of demandingness is also present, placing certain expectations on the child’s effort and performance. Demandingness, however, is balanced by responsiveness, warmth, and support.
Authoritative parenting is an emotional context rather than a compilation of specific parenting practices (Steinberg, 2001). Parenting practices are viewed as specific actions that often have different meanings depending on the emotional climate in which they occur. Authoritative parenting can be operationalized as having three components: (1) nurturance and parental involvement make the child more receptive to parental influence; (2) combination of support and structure facilitates the development of self-regulatory skills; and (3) verbal give and take of a parent–child exchange in these families engages the child in a process that fosters cognitive and social competence, thereby enhancing the child’s behavior and emotion outside the family (Steinberg, 2001). Two significant outcomes of authoritative parenting are the production of emotional autonomy (Noom et al., 2001; Ryan et al., 1995; Schimitz and Baer, 2001; Silk et al., 2003), and mastery orientation in children (Aunola et al., 1999; Heyman and Dweck, 1992).
The research literature describes three dimensions of authoritative parenting practice that constitute its construct categories: (1) acceptance and involvement (2) autonomy granting, and (3) strictness and supervision (Glasgow et al., 1997; Lamborn et al, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). In this study, authoritative parenting is presented in the hypothesized model as an independent variable; the variables that are conceptualized as mediating variables are described next.
Emotional autonomy
Adolescence has long been viewed as a time when an individual begins to explore and examine the psychological characteristics of self in order to discover who they are, and how they fit in the social world they live in. Adolescents begin to separate themselves from their parents, develop their own identity, and take on new responsibilities. Some have referred to this period as the “storm and stress” years of adolescence (Steinberg, 2001). This process has been formally referred to as individuation, independence, autonomy, and detachment (Blos, 1979; Freud, 1958; Hill and Holmbeck, 1986). Psychoanalytic theorists have advocated that autonomy and detachment from parents is necessary for the healthy development of a sense of identity (Bloom, 1980; Blos, 1979; Freud, 1958). Blos (1962, 1979) claimed that one of the results of the second individuation process during adolescence is emotional autonomy. Emotional autonomy development produces self-reliance, confidence, and a healthy sense of one’s self.
During the early stages of adolescence (from 10 to 12 years of age), youth are defining themselves by what they can do and by the competencies they possess (Erickson, 1980). As the adolescent gets older (from 12 to 15 years of age), they start to clarify their role in the world and define their individuality (Furman, 2001). They look for models and heroes and try to integrate aspects of those ideals into their own value system (George and Alexander, 1993). Identity formation continues into late adolescence and does not fully develop until early adulthood (Linden and Fertman, 1998: 15). Between the ages of 11 through 15 years of age children are transitioning from early to middle adolescence, they go through a critical, and yet tumultuous time in their lives (Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986: 848). It is a time where the adolescent transitions to young adulthood. It is also a significant time where the young child emotionally separates from his parents, and begins to establish his own independent self. Emotional autonomy, which manifests itself in self-reliance, confidence, responsible behavior, and initiative, is presented as a mediating variable that is hypothesized to be a link to transformational leadership.
Achievement goal orientation
Mastery-orientation is a motivational dimension that is derived from achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Nichols, 1984). The foundation of achievement goal theory concerns itself with the motivational aspects of how individuals approach a task and how well they accomplish it (McGregor and Elliot, 2002). Or as Pastor, Barron, Miller, and Davis (2007: 9) have suggested, achievement goal orientation represents an individual’s purpose for engaging in achievement behavior, as well as evaluating one’s competence in the achievement skill or task. Previous research over the last 20 years has focused on two goal orientation constructs, mastery orientation and performance orientation (Ames and Archer, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). In later research, the valence of approach and avoidance were added, resulting in four dimensions (Pastor et al., 2007).
The first dimension of achievement goal theory, mastery orientation enables an individual to accept challenging situations and demanding tasks (Ames and Archer, 1988; Elliot and Dweck, 1988; Turner et al., 1998); it is assumed that the child will learn and ultimately succeed through hard work and perseverance (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Meece et al., 1988; Wolters, 2004). Mastery-oriented children engage in a task to gain an understanding or to develop the ability to do the task. Additionally, mastery-oriented children judge their performance in terms of improvement or progress over time (Friedel et al., 2007).
Adolescent youth with mastery orientation begin to realize a fully differentiated understanding of the connection between success, and ability and effort. At this age, adolescents start to understand that people vary in ability and can achieve the same outcome with different degrees of effort (Berk, 2003: 453; Butler, 1999). Mastery-oriented adolescents are autonomous individuals who are self-confident and self-reliant. These individuals are able to be decisive, they are hard working, persistent, readily accept challenges, and understand that they are in control of their own destiny or have an internal locus of control.
Mastery orientation has been linked to authoritative parenting practices and mastery teaching with children (Aunola et al., 1999). Aunola et al. (1999: 307–308) tested the development of specific psychological characteristics of children of six to seven years old from authoritative households. One of the characteristics tested was the control and coping beliefs authoritative parents pass on to their children in dealing with life’s problems and challenges. This is what they termed mastery orientation. Aunola et al. (1999) demonstrated that parents who reported higher self-esteem and frequent recourse to a mastery-oriented strategy practiced a higher level of authoritative parenting than other parents. Moreover, parents who used an avoidance-oriented rather than mastery-oriented strategy showed an increased feeling of powerlessness and stress in parenting. Parents’ low self-esteem was also found to exist with parental stress through frequent usage of task-avoidance strategies. These parents were found to predominately use an ‘authoritarian’, as opposed to an ‘authoritative’ style of parenting (Aunola et al., 1999: 312).
Research has shown that individuals high in mastery orientation believe in their ability to manage a situation and they tend to set clear goals and construct task-related plans. Their focus and high effort typically leads to success (Ames, 1992; Dweck et al., 1988; Pintrich, 2000; Urdan, 1997).
The second dimension of achievement goal orientation theory is performance orientation. Performance-oriented children perform tasks and show others their competence or ability at accomplishing the task, or the ease at which they can do the task (Friedel et al., 2007). That is, performance-oriented individuals are motivated to demonstrate their skills to their peers and friends, and subsequently evaluate their competence on how well they do compared to others (Pastor et al., 2007: 9).
As mentioned earlier, current studies on achievement goal orientation have expanded mastery orientation and performance orientation into an approach and avoidance dimension. The approach focus is where the individual is motivated to achieve a positive outcome; the avoidance focus is a maladaptive behavior where the individual desires to avoid having a negative outcome. For instance, the mastery-approach individual is focused on attaining knowledge and competence in mastering a skill or task. The mastery-avoidance individual, on the other hand, does not want to lose the knowledge gained or the skills acquired, or misunderstand the material. A performance-approach individual desires to show how competent he or she is by comparing their performance with others, whereas the performance-avoidance individual is motivated not to perform at levels lower than other individuals. The test results from these studies have been inconsistent and inconclusive, especially with measuring the valence of approach and avoidance dimensions of performance orientation to positive outcomes (Pastor et al., 2007: 10).
Task-avoidance behavior
Helpless individuals, on the other hand, exhibit a lack of belief in personal control and confidence in their abilities; this ultimately leads to passivity and task-avoidance behavior, thus increasing the chance of failure. Mastery-oriented children believe that their successes are due to their effort and abilities. Abilities are refined through experience and trials and provide the child with something they can count on when faced with a challenging situation. This incremental view of ability can be changed through effort, and influences the way mastery-oriented children interpret negative results such as failure (Heyman and Dweck, 1998; Berk, 2003: 453). A child who possesses a mastery orientation makes the connection that their outcomes in life are attributable to hard work, ability, and a focus toward learning (Dweck, 2000; Heyman & Dweck, 1992, 1998; Smiley and Dweck, 1994). Mastery-orientated children have a firm belief that they are in control of their lives, as opposed to performance-oriented individuals who are fixated on their own intellectual or social self-concept of themselves (Dweck, 2000; Smiley et al., 1994).
Mastery-oriented children attribute failure to factors that can be altered or controlled, such as insufficient effort or a very difficult task. Avoidance-oriented children on the other hand, give very discouraging explanations for their performance. They attribute failures, not their successes, to ability. When they succeed, they are likely to feel it is because of external events, such as luck or being in the right place at the right time. They hold a view of their ability that is fixed and cannot be improved through hard work or trying harder (Heyman et al., 1998). So when the task is difficult, these children get overwhelmed with anxiety and quickly give up by saying, “I can’t do this.” Berk (2003: 453) states that because these avoidance-oriented children fail to connect effort with success, they do not develop the meta-cognitive and self-regulatory skills necessary for high achievement, nor do they possess effective learning strategies, persistence, and a sense of control of their own individual outcomes. These children often protect themselves from feelings of failure, and select less demanding courses of action and careers (Berk, 2003).
Mastery approach and avoidance
Research related to performance-oriented children has resulted in inconsistent results about their behavior and beliefs. Researchers have used items to measure these orientations and have at times combined these items into a single scale, making the interpretation of the findings difficult (Friedel et al., 2007). Performance approach research findings have been linked to less adaptive outcomes, including children’s avoidance of academic challenges, use of self-handicapping strategies, and increased negative affects after realizing failure or difficulty (Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Midgley et al., 2001; Urdan, 1997). Current research does not support that performance-approach orientations are linked to positive outcomes. However, performance-approach orientation has been linked to test anxiety, shallow processing of material and decrease help-seeking behavior (Midgley et al., 2001). To the contrary, results from mastery orientation, primarily the mastery-approach dimension, show consistent findings across studies and it has been found to be linked to positive outcomes. Further work needs to be done to refine the dimensions that can more accurately measure performance-oriented achievement behavior in individuals. Because of the inconsistencies found in testing for performance orientation, this study chose to focus upon mastery approach and avoidance orientation.
It is hypothesized that the two mediating constructs, mastery orientation and emotional autonomy, will have positive effects on transformational leadership. They will serve as mediators to generate the kinds of leadership thinking and behavior in which the adolescent leader is challenged to develop and grow. The adolescent will be motivated to take on difficult tasks and risk failure, viewing it within the context of a learning opportunity. Emotional autonomy is comprised of two dimensions, (a) individuation and (b) non-dependency (Blos, 1979; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986), and mastery orientation is comprised of three dimensions, (a) success expectation and fixed intelligence, (b) task irrelevant or avoidance behavior, and (c) mastery belief (Aunola et al., 1999; Dweck, 2000; Heyman and Dweck, 1992). It is hypothesized that as mediating constructs, emotional autonomy and mastery orientation generate transformational leadership behavior and thinking in adolescents. These are described under the dependent construct group, transformational leadership. Transformational leadership has four dimensions: (a) idealized influence, (b) individualized consideration, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) inspirational motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1992).
Transformational leadership
There is a consensus among researchers that transformational leadership is one of the more effective styles of leadership (Bass, 1995; Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Transformational leaders are charismatic, arouse inspirational motivation, provide intellectual stimulation, and treat followers with individualized consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1994). These leaders transform their followers’ needs, values, preferences, and aspirations toward fulfilling their potential and produce high levels of performance, as compared to transactional leaders (Dvir and Shamir, 2003: 327–329).
Recently, a study was completed on participants in the Fullerton Longitudinal Study, where researchers examined adolescents over a 12-year period from the age of 17 to the age of 29. The study examined the affects of personality traits, intelligence, and social skills on leadership emergence and styles (Guerin et al., 2011). To study personality type and its relationship to leadership, researchers used the Five-Factor Model (FFM), which according to a study by Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) revealed a relatively strong correlation (R = .39–.53) between five personality traits and leadership emergence and effectiveness. Researchers assessed personality traits and intelligence in adolescents and sought to determine the relation to leadership emergence and transformational leadership behavior (Reichard et al., 2011). The Fullerton Longitudinal Study was framed on implicit leadership theory (Lord et al., 1984; Phillips and Lord, 1982) and leader categorization theory (Lord and Maher, 1991), where young children are thought to adopt a set of beliefs and characteristics of effective leaders that influence their mental image of a leader. Certain leadership prototypes develop and become dominant in most individuals’ assessments of what is an effective leader (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). Two of the most common effective leadership characteristics are personality traits: extraversion (Hogan et al., 1994; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991; Lord and Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 1984) and intelligence (Lord et al., 1986). Extraverted individuals who are loquacious, assertive, and energetic are seen as effective leaders more often than individuals who are introverted, quiet, and shy. In the Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) study they analyzed 37 primary studies and estimated a corrected correlation between extraversion and leader emergence to be .33. This study revealed that extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were significantly correlated in a positive way with transformational leadership. Additionally, it was found that not only is extraversion a very significant precursor to leadership potential, but that it is mediated by the individual’s social skills. Social skills consists of two dimensions: (1) social expressivity (ability to engage others in conversation, verbal speaking skills, and fluency), and (2) social control (social self-presentation and role-playing skills). It is believed that children who are extroverted build their social skills during early childhood and become competent at social expressivity and control during young adulthood (Guerin et al., 2011).
Prior research on leadership has also shown that there is a relationship between intelligence and leadership; however, the research outcomes from these studies have been mixed (Bass and Bass, 2008; Riggio et al., 2002). Strong verbal, reasoning and problem-solving abilities associated with high intelligence appear to improve and broaden a leader’s capacity to lead (Guerin et al., 2011). The Reichard et al. (2011) study, however, reported that high adolescent intelligence did not show a significant relationship to later adult leadership development.
Transformational leadership is concerned not only with the performance of followers but with developing followers to their fullest potential (Avolio, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1990). Northouse (2004: 174–178) summarized Bass et al.’s work on transformational leadership into four leadership factors. The first is idealized influence or charisma, where leaders act as strong role models; here, the followers identify and respect these leaders and want to emulate them. These leaders have elevated standards, and moral and ethical conduct. There is a high degree of trust between the follower and the leader. The second factor is inspirational motivation; the leader communicates high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to be committed, and to become part of the vision of the organization. Third is intellectual stimulation. Leaders encourage their followers to be creative and innovative and to challenge themselves. The leader is also at the same time supportive of the follower as they try new approaches and engage in innovative ways of dealing with organizational issues. The last leadership factor is individualized consideration; leaders provide a supportive climate in which they listen carefully to the individual needs of the followers. Leaders act as coaches and advisors while trying to have the follower become fully self-actualized.
These leaders transform their followers’ needs, values, preferences, and aspirations toward fulfilling their potential and produce high levels of performance, as compared to transactional leaders (Dvir and Shamir, 2003: 327–329). The four aforementioned dimensions of transformational leadership have been grouped into two dimensions: (a) idealized influence and individualized consideration, and (b) intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1992).
Figure 1 presents the hypothesized model showing the relationships between these four construct groups.
Conceptual hypothesized research model.
Within the proposed model, this study tests the following hypotheses:
H1 Authoritative parenting practices have a positive effect on emotional autonomy. H1a Hypothesis states that there is a negative relationship between authoritative parenting-acceptance and involvement and emotional autonomy–individuation and non-dependency. H1b Hypothesis states that authoritative parenting–strictness and supervision have a negative effect on emotional autonomy–individuation, and a positive effect on emotional autonomy–non-dependency. H1c Hypothesis states that authoritative parenting–autonomy granting has a positive effect on both dimensions of emotional autonomy. H2 Authoritative parenting practices have a positive effect on mastery orientation. H2a Hypothesis states that there is a positive effect between authoritative parenting–acceptance and involvement and mastery orientation. H2b Hypothesis states that authoritative parenting–strictness and supervision has a positive effect on mastery orientation (approach)–success expectation and mastery belief and a negative effect on mastery orientation (avoidance)–task irrelevant behavior. H2c Hypothesis states that authoritative parenting–autonomy granting has a positive effect on mastery orientation (approach)–success expectation and mastery belief and a negative effect on mastery orientation (avoidance)–task irrelevant behavior. H3 Emotional autonomy has a positive effect on transformational leadership development in adolescent youth. H3a Hypothesis states that emotional autonomy–non-dependency has a positive effect on transformational leadership. H3b Hypothesis states that emotional autonomy–individuation has a negative effect on transformational leadership–idealized influence and a positive effect on transformational leadership–intellectual stimulation. H4 Mastery orientation has a positive effect on transformational leadership development in adolescents. H4a Hypothesis states that mastery orientation (approach)–success expectation has a positive effect on transformational leadership. H4b Hypothesis states that mastery orientation (avoidance)–task irrelevant behavior has a negative effect on transformational leadership. H4c Hypothesis states that mastery orientation–mastery belief has a positive relationship to transformational leadership.
Method
Participants
This study was conducted on adolescent boys and a few girls enrolled in the Boy Scout of America (BSA) program in the State of Hawaii. There are currently more than 300 Scout Troops, Explorer, and Venture units representing approximately 3500 boys and girls enrolled in the Scouting program administered under the Aloha Council Boy Scouts of America for the State of Hawaii. The adolescent participants in the study ranged in age from 14 to 18 years of age and attend both public and private schools. In terms of ethnic background the scout participants were primarily Caucasian American, Asian American, Asian, and Pacific Islander.
Due to the age of the study group parental permission was required for each participant in the study. Only 363 respondents of the 3442 scouts provided permission to participate in the research. The low response rate as shown in Table 2 is due in large part to the sensitivity of the survey questions on parenting. Parents were very protective and cautious to grant permission for their child to participate, even though the name of the respondent would be anonymous. Further, of the 363 responses received 118 surveys were not used either because the scout participant was under the age of 14 (38) or there were missing values (80). Therefore, of the qualified responses received with permission from the parent, a net 245 responses or 68% were used in the study. The relatively small sample size does place limitations on this study and also raises questions about the developmental process of leadership. For example, what affect do social status, social networks, peer-groups, ethnicity, gender, cultural values, and beliefs have on the adolescents’ development? Additionally, how significant are these factors and do they affect all adolescents or just some, and if so, why?
The survey results utilized scout participants who were 14 years and older at the time of the survey. The scouting program admits boys as early as 11 years of age into their program. By selecting scouts 14 years and older, it was hoped to obtain a sufficient number of scouts who have had at least a minimum of one to two years in the scouting organization.
Some of the Explorer posts have girl members and 10 of these girls responded to the study. Though not significant in number, the purpose of including the girl participants was to broaden the scope and enrich the results of the research in studying adolescent leadership development. There is definitely a need to do further research work with girls in the future.
Demographics of research participants (n = 245).
BSA – Boy Scouts of America Program.
Survey response order.
Measures
We adapted five different measurement instruments that were combined and shortened to form one survey questionnaire. The five instruments are: The Parenting Style Index, the Emotional Autonomy Scale, the Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Personality Scale for Children, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 6S, and The Strategy and Attribution Questionnaire. Adolescent respondents answered 51 questions and 12 demographic questions in the survey form. The 51 questions represented the four latent constructs with 10 dimensions of the research model (Figure 1). The participants were asked to answer the questions using a 4 point Likert-type response scale, anchored with “strongly disagree” = 1, “disagree somewhat” = 2, “agree somewhat” = 3, and “strongly agree” = 4. Additionally, the scale included “don’t know or n/a” with no values. Therefore, a high score value indicated a strong agreement with the construct.
Authoritative parenting measures
We developed items to measure and ascertain the presence of authoritative parenting style perceived by the adolescent participant. The Parenting Style Index was used to accomplish this. It was developed by Laurence Steinberg and his colleagues (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994), and has been used extensively in studies involving adolescent development, academic achievement, and parenting.
Three dimensions from the index were used to assess the adolescents’ view of their parents. The first is acceptance and involvement, which determines the adolescent’s perception and the degree to which their parents are responsive, loving, and involved. “I can count on my parents to help me out, if I have some kind of problem.” “My family does things for fun together.” The second is a strictness and supervision scale, which measures the extent to which a parent monitors and provides limit setting behavioral supervision (Glasgow et al., 1997: 513; Steinberg et al., 1992: 1270). “How much do your parents try to know what you do with your free time?” Finally the third scale will measure autonomy granting by the parent to the child. Autonomy granting (reversed) measures the extent to which parents employ non-coercive, democratic discipline, and encourage the adolescent to express individuality within the family (Steinberg et al., 1992: 1270). “Whenever I argue with my parents, they say things like, ‘You’ll know better when you grow up’”.
Emotional autonomy measures
Autonomy has been determined to be a multidimensional construct involving affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains. The Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS) instrument was the first research tool designed to measure these factors of autonomy. Used by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986), this instrument measures the amount of psychological or emotional autonomy present in adolescents. The Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS) in full form consists of 20 items on a Likert subscale of four developed from Blos’s (1979) theoretical perspective of individuation. The subscales are 1) perceives parents as people, 2) parental deidealization, 3) non-dependency on parents, 4) individuation (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986). The EAS measurement instrument was shortened to include only those items measuring the dimensions of non-dependency and individuation. Dimensions of perceive parents as people and parental deidealization were not considered as important in measuring the amount of emotional autonomy for this study.
Non-dependency measures the extent to which the child is not dependent on their parents for support. “I go to my parents for help before trying to solve a problem myself.” “When I’ve done something wrong, I depend on my parents to straighten things out for me.” Individuation assesses the extent to which a child defines individual goals and aims separate and apart from what significant individuals, such as parents, may impose on them (Noom et al., 2001: 593). “There are some things about me that my parents don’t know.”
Mastery-orientation measures
A combination of two measurement scales, Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Personality Scale for Children (Dweck, 2000: 17–178) and the Strategy and Attribution Questionnaire (Nurmi et al., 1995), was used to measure the adolescent’s feelings about fixed intelligence and personality, and three dimensions of mastery orientation. “I can greatly change how intelligent I am.” “I have a certain amount of intelligence, and I really can’t do much to change it (reversed).” The questions measure the following three mastery subscales: (1) success expectations, (2) task irrelevant or avoidance behavior, and (3) mastery beliefs. The success expectation subscale measures the extent to which people expect success and are not anxious about the possibility of failure. “When I get ready to start a task, I am usually certain that I will succeed in it.” “When I go into new situations, I usually expect I will be able to do okay.” The task irrelevant or avoidance behavior subscale assesses whether people tend to behave in a way that prevents them from, rather than helps them carry out a task. “What often occurs is that I find something else to do when I have a difficult task in front of me.” “If I am expecting some difficulties, I usually find something else to do.” The mastery belief (reversed) subscale determines the extent to which people believe that they have personal control over the situation compared with the influence of external factors (locus of control), chance, or other people (Nurmi et al., 1995: 111) as factors which can change their outcomes. “How I succeed in different tasks depends on chance.” “In the long run, success in different situations depends little on one’s knowledge and abilities.”
Transformational leadership measures
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 6S (Bass and Avolio, 1992) was used to measure the adolescent’s description of his or her leadership style. The MLQ measures transformational leadership behavior in seven dimensional areas: (1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, (4) individualized consideration, (5) contingent reward, (6) management by exception, and (7) laissez-faire behavior. High scores on idealized influence and inspirational motivation are most likely to be related to positive effects (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bryman, 1992), and individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and contingent rewards are next (Northouse, 2004: 198). Factors 1 through 4 are highly related to transformational leadership characteristics, and factors 5 and 6 measure transactional leadership traits. Therefore, items measuring dimensions 1 through 4 were used for this research study.
Idealized influence measures whether you hold subordinates trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to their hopes and dreams, and act as their role model (Northouse, 2004: 197). “Others are proud to be associated with me.” Inspirational motivation assesses the degree to which you provide a vision, use appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and try to make others feel their work is significant (Northouse, 2004: 197). “I help others find meaning in their work.” Intellectual stimulation measures the amount you encourage others to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an environment that is tolerant of extreme positions, and nurture subordinates to question their own values and beliefs and those of the organization (Northouse, 2004: 197). “I enable others to think about old problems in new ways.” “I provide others with new ways of looking at puzzling things.” Individualized consideration shows the degree to which you show interest in others’ well-being, assign projects individually, and pay attention to those who seem less involved in the group (Northouse, 2004: 197). “I help others develop themselves.”
Results
Factor analyses
Before testing the hypothesized model, construct validity tests were done to determine the quality of measurement or the degree to which inferences of the factor variables could be made. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001: 582–583) have stated that we utilize factor analysis to apply to a single set of constructs to find which variables in a set of coherent subsets are relatively independent of each other. We combine into factors those variables that are correlated with each other but are largely independent of other subsets of variables. These factor groupings represent the underlying processes that have created the correlations among constructs. Once we have done this procedure, our objective is to demonstrate that scores on the latent variables (factors) covary with scores on the other variables, or that score on latent variables change with experimental conditions as prescribed by theory.
Utilizing confirmatory factor analysis procedures from AMOS 4.0, convergent and nomological validity tests were performed on the revised model components (Table 4). Convergent validity measures related items and their constructs with the objective that they be highly correlated to each other. The results of that test show that the hypothesized measurement model produced the following fit statistics: χ2 = 402.923, df = 305, NFI = .779, TLI = .916, CFI = .932, SRMR = .0597, RMSEA = .036, PCLOSE = .994 (.026–.045), and PCFI = .752. All items loaded well into their respective composites, and values were high and statistically significant at p < .001. Albeit, the χ2 is relatively high, the relative and absolute fit indices are satisfactory and the model parsimonious. Additionally, the PCLOSE value of .994 is high, indicating that the hypothesized model closely fits the data. Therefore, based on the discriminant and convergent validity test performed on the hypothesized model we can conclude that the model has satisfactory psychometric properties and warrants further substantive analysis and interpretation.
Authoritative parenting, emotional autonomy, and mastery orientation
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s reliability (n = 245).
Four-point Likert scale. ***Significant at p < .001; **Significant at p < .05.
Three-point Likert scale.
Five-point Likert scale.
Bold numbers indicate Cronbach’s standardized α.
EFA and CFA loading comparison and t-values by dimension.
Hypothesis 2 states that authoritative parenting practices have a positive effect on mastery orientation in adolescent children. Supporting sub-hypothesis H2c, mastery orientation is positively affected by one dimension of authoritative parenting, APG. This single dimension of parenting has a negative and significant relationship with mastery–task irrelevant behavior (MOT) (β = −0.34, p < .001), a mastery avoidance construct, and a positive and significant relationship with mastery belief (MOB) (β = 0.23, p < .001), a mastery approach construct. The relationship between APG and mastery–success expectation (MOS) was not deemed to be significant. Autonomy granting is measuring the extent to which parents use non-coercive and democratic means to manage their children in the household. Parents who provide this type of home environment raise children who develop a personal belief of controlling their own lives, and a negative relationship with task irrelevant behavior (mastery-avoidance behavior) or not wanting to tackle difficult problems or tasks. H2a (APA positively effects MOS, MOT, and MOB) and H2b (APS positively effects MOS and MOB and negatively effects MOT) were not supported by the findings to have any significant relationship with each other.
Emotional autonomy, mastery orientation, and transformational leadership
Hypothesis 3 states that emotional autonomy has a positive effect on transformational leadership–idealized influence in adolescent youth. Initial thought was that emotional autonomy would have a profound and positive effect on adolescents behaving and thinking as transformational leaders. The results, however, do not confirm our expectations. There is only one correlation between emotional autonomy and transformational leadership that was significant. The negative correlation between dimension EAI–individuation, and TLI–idealized influence (β = −.17, p < .05) revealed a significant negative effect, partially supporting H3b. No correlation was found to exist between EAI–individuation, and TLS–intellectual stimulation. Additionally, H3a was not supported, as the findings showed no significant relationship between emotional autonomy, EAN–non-dependency and leadership dimensions, TLI and TLS.
Hypothesis 4 states that mastery orientation has a positive effect on transformational leadership, idealized influence and intellectual stimulation in adolescents. As mentioned earlier, mastery orientation is made up of three dimensions. It was found that each of these three dimensions makes a significant contribution towards developing transformational leadership in adolescent youth. There exists a strong correlation of mastery orientation to transformational leadership. It was thought that either or both dimensions of emotional autonomy (EAN and EAI) would be significantly correlated with transformational leadership. However, as mentioned above, that was not the case as the results demonstrate that only a single correlation exists between EAI and transformational leadership–idealized influence. Mastery orientation was proven to be a much stronger mediator in generating both dimensions of transformational leadership. Supporting H4a, MOS–success expectation is positively correlated to, TLI–idealized influence (β = .40, p < .001), and TLS–intellectual stimulation (β = .33, p < .001). Supporting H4b, MOT–mastery task irrelevant behavior is significant and negatively correlated with TLI–idealized influence (β = −.15, p < .05), and dimension TLS–intellectual stimulation (β = −.14, p < .05). Lastly, partially supporting H4c, MOB–mastery belief was found to have a significant and positive effect on TLS–intellectual stimulation (β = .11, p < .10), and no significant linkage with TLI. In sum mastery-orientation mediates in a significant way on transformational leadership in adolescents.
Structural equation modeling
After examining the hypothesized model in Figure 1 we eliminated those items and composites that had low loadings or cross-loading problems and tested for convergence and goodness of fit of the model to the data. There were no particular problems noted in estimating and achieving convergence. The estimated standardized coefficients from the hypothesized model are listed in Table 5 as “Initial Coefficient.” Again using AMOS 4.0 we ran the revised hypothesized model, and utilizing the modification indices and careful theoretical reasoning we respecified the model in sequential steps. The first step was to covary the error terms between mediator dimensions MOS to MOT, then MOT to MOB. The next step was to covary the error terms between mediator dimensions EAN and EAI. The third and last step was to covary the error terms between dependent dimensions TLI and TLS. The drawing in Figure 2 represents the respecified model. The standardized coefficients from the respecified model are reported in Table 5 and noted as “Final Coefficient.” Comparisons of the initial and final coefficients indicate there is very little change to the coefficient outputs due to respecification of the revised hypothesized model. The final respecified structural model yielded the following statistical results: χ2 = 34.189, d.f. = 13, p = .001, SRMR = .0442, CFI = .938, NFI = .912, TLI = .786, RMSEA = .082, PCLOSE = .055 (.049–.116), and PCFI = .271. The results show a good fit of the data to the respecified hypothesized model shown in Figure 2. The χ2 and fitness values above support a strong relative and absolute fit of the data to the structural representation presented in the final model.
Respecified structural equation model. Standardized coefficients, R2, t–values, and p–values (n = 245). Bold type indicates significant at p < .05 or p < .001 as noted. Italics indicates significant at p < .10.
Mediation test.
Indicates Δχ2 are significant at p < .001.
Test of hypothesized model
Table 5 presents the estimated standardized coefficients from the final model depicted in Figure 2. Overall, it is estimated that the construct predictors of TLI and TLS have a reasonable explanation of its variance represented by percentages (R2 = .24 and .18, respectively). The product of the two R2 equals .043, which is the explanatory percentage for the dependent construct transformational leadership. The results also show an explanatory percentages for mediating dimensions of MOS, MOB, and MOT of R2 ([.03 x .07 x .12] = .0003), and emotional autonomy construct dimensions, EAN, and EAI, have a moderate predictive percentage of R2([.14 x .12] = .017).
Discussion
This research expands previous studies of adolescent development, emotional autonomy, and authoritative parenting to include mastery orientation and its relationship to transformational leadership. Previous studies showed that authoritative parenting is positively linked to the development of emotional autonomy, which results in a healthy psycho-social adjustment of adolescents. However, we wanted to take this even further. Using research in achievement goal theory, mastery orientation was used as a second mediator to test for any relationship with transformational leadership. Our results replicated earlier findings that established that authoritative parenting has positive and significant effects on emotional autonomy (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986). Additionally, as previously mentioned, mastery orientation (Aunola et al., 1999) also has a positive relationship to authoritative parenting.
Authoritative parenting
As hypothesized, even with the relatively small sample size, our study supports the fact that authoritative parenting has a beneficial and significant effect on the development of emotional autonomy and mastery orientation. Additionally, at the dimensional level, it was found that autonomy granting, a dimension of authoritative parenting, is a significant and positive link to mastery orientation. Autonomy granting was found to have a positive effect on emotional autonomy–non-dependency, mastery–task irrelevant behavior, and mastery belief. When parents create an environment in which children are able to establish their own individuality, it helps develop the child’s non-dependency on parents. Adolescents with mastery belief feel they are in control of their own lives, not their parents or other external factors. Additionally, parents granting autonomy foster personal responsibility and provide the adolescent a mastery and learning context for completing tasks and challenges.
Authoritative parenting (acceptance and involvement) was also found to have a significant and beneficial relationship to emotional autonomy–individuation and emotional autonomy–non-dependency. Parents who are responsive to their child’s needs provide the basis for adolescents to separate and learn independence. These adolescents are free to act and think autonomously from their parent, all the while knowing that their parents support them through their involvement and love. Authoritative parenting (supervision and strictness) also measures the amount of behavioral supervision and limit setting (Glasgow et al., 1997: 513; Steinberg et al., 1992: 1270). This dimension has a significant and beneficial effect on emotional autonomy–individuation. A fine balance must be maintained between these two dimensions: the more limits and controls a parent places on the child the less individuation develops.
Master orientation and transformational leadership
Although emotional autonomy (non-dependency) did not have a significant relationship to the generation of transformational leadership, mastery–task irrelevant behavior or mastery avoidance and mastery belief was found to have a significant linkage to transformational leadership. Mastery–task irrelevant behavior is a maladaptive response and has a significant and negative effect on transformational leadership–idealized influence. Idealized influence is the leader’s ability and role model activities that generate among those considered subordinates, trust, faith and respect, dedication, and facilitation of hopes and dreams (Northouse, 2004: 197). Mastery–task irrelevant or avoidance behavior also has a significant and negative effect on the intellectual stimulation aspect of transformational leadership. Intellectual stimulation is the amount you encourage others to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an environment that is tolerant of extreme positions, and nurture subordinates to question their values and beliefs and those of the organization (Northouse, 2004: 197). This dimension defines transformational leadership and differentiates this type of leadership from all others. Mastery belief has a positive and significant effect on transformational leadership–intellectual stimulation as well. A leader who manifests the traits of intellectual stimulation must be an individual who is in control, and understands that they determine their own outcomes, not someone else or luck.
In the final revised model presented in Figure 5 mastery orientation–success expectation has the highest coefficient of the three dimensions of mastery in mediating transformational leadership–idealized influence and intellectual stimulation. However, there are no significant linkages with any of the proposed independent variable dimensions. APA–involvement was the closest with (β = .10). Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed conceptual model apparently may not have included important exogenous variable(s) that would have had a significant and beneficial effect on mastery-orientation success expectation.
In sum, mastery orientation appears to play a major role as a mediator in the development of transformational leadership in adolescents, more so than emotional autonomy. However, emotional autonomy still plays a significant, yet a relatively lesser role in the development of transformational leadership characteristics.
Emotional autonomy and transformational leadership
Emotional autonomy does in one way have a significant effect on transformational leadership. The individuation dimension of emotional autonomy is the only significant and negative link to transformational leadership–idealized influence. We can deduce from this relationship that the formation of an autonomous individual affects the development of idealized influence in a transformational leader. That is, the effects of individuation formation provides the foundation to which a leader can hold subordinates’ trust, maintain their faith and respect, and so on without feeling insecure or a loss of control of their subordinates. We noted no significant relationships between emotional autonomy–non-dependency and both dimensions of transformational leadership.
Limitations of the study
A limitation of this study is the relatively small sample population (n = 245) from a single homogenous source, that is, the Boy Scouts organization. Although the Boy Scouts organization is one of the few national youth organizations that develop and emphasize leadership training and development of youth, it also primarily recruits boys. Even though the research sample included 10 girls (from Venture/Explorer posts), the size of the sample is too small to test for moderating effects. However, we tested the standardized correlations between dimensions with the data set excluding the 10 girls. There were no significant differences in the correlations from the two data sets, that is, the data set with boys only and the set with girls and boys. However, even though the elimination of girls from the data set did not significantly affect the statistical outcomes of the final model, because of the small sample size a conclusion cannot be reached regarding the girls in this study.
Gender is an important factor in leadership studies. Keith Grint (2005a) comments on gender research by saying that researchers try to discover the universal ‘essence’ of leadership but ignore the socially constructed nature of both ‘leading’ and ‘context.’ Grint further states that all accounts of leadership are derived from linguistic reconstructions that must be interpreted, and therefore are potentially contestable. As an example, in mainstream gender research on leadership, the literature tends to center on whether men or women adopt similar or dissimilar and/or better or worse leadership styles (Rosener, 1990). However, problems arise when dealing with complex relationships and interwoven processes such as gender issues, especially when researchers tend to over-simplify these binary oppositions (Collinson, 2005: 1435). Bowring (2004: 1431) reports that binary oppositions between genders reflect the dualism in which men are viewed as the universal, neutral subject and women as ‘the other.’ Critical leadership researchers, on the other hand, have argued that women are more relationship oriented and men more task oriented (Vinnicombe and Singh, 2003). Women tend to define success in terms of how well life is going in an emotional or interpersonal sense, and in terms of meeting a relentless number of interactions and demands from people at work and at home (Vinnicombe and Singh, 2003: 303). Therefore, critical leadership researchers recognize that individuals are inherently gendered in socially constructed ways and that the dialectics between men and women are inescapable factors of both gender and leadership dynamics (Bligh and Kohles, 2008: 188).
Another limitation is that the Boy Scout program appears to have parents who are more likely to be from middle-class backgrounds and from intact family units. As mentioned, what affect do social status, social networks, peer-groups, ethnicity, gender, cultural values and beliefs have on adolescent’s developmental processes? This should encourage future research to expand its scope to include other youth organizations and schools. A longitudinal study across time could also establish breath and generalizability of our research findings.
Additionally, the reliability measures of the various instruments used in this study scored relatively lower values than desired. Reliability measures the extent to which the survey instrument is free from random error (Hoyle et al., 2002: 83–84). The reliability of six of the 10 dimensions appears to be slightly lower than the desired .700 threshold. However, as each of the items loaded well within its respective dimension, and none of the items cross-loaded, it can be concluded that the items themselves are valid, but not as reliable. Reviewing numerous studies measuring the effects of achievement goal orientation on school achievement, lower than normal reliability scores were usually reported. In addition, some of the respondents were first-generation children from the Pacific Islands where English is a second language. These students may have had comprehension problems answering the survey questions.
In lieu of these limitations, this research still offers useful knowledge in the field of leadership studies and adolescent development. It shows the important possibility that authoritative parenting practices play, as well as the development of mastery orientation, in transformational leadership thinking and behavior of adolescent youth. It also promotes future studies that would account for other significant environmental factors, specifically the affects of gender and social class on adolescent leadership development.
Conclusion
This exploratory study advances the linkages between authoritative parenting, emotional autonomy, and mastery orientation. It positions these important issues in the context of leadership studies. Additionally, it suggests the possible connection between authoritative parenting practices and transformational leadership thinking and behavior in children belonging to a youth leadership organization.
Most of the work on adolescent development has been focused in the area of psycho-social development, cognition, and achievement/motivation. Most studies examine leadership dimensions in the context of adult world organizations, such as studies in the corporate, military, governmental, and in the nonprofit institutional settings. This study takes a different approach to leadership research; it examines the origins of leadership development specifically in the home and in a youth leadership organization. It presents the possibility that leadership develops early, and that authoritative parenting practices of involved and loving parents can make a significant difference.
This study has given a glimpse of how significant parenting is for the development of leadership potential in adolescent children. It takes a unique view of early leadership development that may even challenge existing theories about present leadership development practices for adults. Furthermore, research is needed to examine the power relations and identity constructs in leadership development and to encourage researchers to rethink leaders, followers, and contexts and well as their dialectical interrelations. Collinson (2011) has stated that this type of research will challenge traditional leadership researchers to be cognizant of their underlying theoretical assumptions and how it can shape leadership theory and affect future research. More importantly, continued research may someday provide the basis for organizations to properly select employees who have the necessary skills and psychological dispositions to succeed in leadership roles and positions.