A Structural Equations Model of Perceptions of Student Leadership in Higher Education

Leadership Perceptions Leadership long has been a focus of higher education (Astin & Astin, 2000). Although defined in different ways, it resonates as a principle within many institutions. While the commitment to leadership development has remained strong, different perspectives on leadership have gained prominence, and many models, perceptions, theories, and definitions concerning leadership and leadership development have emerged (Bass, 1990). Rogers (1996) divided leadership thought into industrial and postindustrial paradigms. The industrial paradigm emphasizes conventional views of leadership that have dominated leadership perceptions throughout the twentieth century; it assumes leadership is the property of an individual, leadership pertains primarily to formal groups or organizations, and “leadership” and “management” are interchangeable. The postindustrial paradigm, which has emerged from more recent literature and thoughts on leadership critical of the industrial paradigm, assumes that leadership is based on relationships and does not belong to any individual, is meant to create change; and can be done by anyone. While the industrial paradigm has dominated perceptions of leadership, signs also exist of the postindustrial paradigm. Women and people of color tend to perceive leadership in a more nontraditional, nonhierarchical way (Kezar, 2000; Romano, 1996). Wielkiewicz (2000, 2002) measured student perceptions of leadership with the Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, including 28 items, half reflecting “hierarchical thinking” and the other half reflecting “systemic thinking.” Hierarchical thinking conceptualizes leadership as power-based, with those at the top exerting the most influence. Systemic thinking refers to the notion that anyone can exert influence. Willett and Licata (1990) reported that a poor social climate unsupportive of individual needs evokes challenges or revolts toward residence hall staff. Thus residence hall students are less likely to engage in brinkmanship when they perceive a positive social climate and leadership characterized by independence, emotional support from other residents, emphasis on academic achievement, and formal organizational structure. Student affairs typically has been the locus of student leadership development (McIntire, 1989), together with external leadership initiatives. Many of these leadership development initiatives fall within the industrial paradigm, focusing on skills, traits, and positions. However, approaches to developing student leaders differ (Roberts & Ullom, 1989). Student perceptions of student government, including residence hall associations, play an important campus role. Student government leaders are seen by most students as a powerful campus group, despite the fact that smaller numbers of college students are determining who comprises this group, with a general decrease in participation in student elections since 1978 (Levine & Cureton, 1998; Moore, 1995).