Transformational Leadership Self-Efficacy

In accordance with new demands for morally conscious leaders, there seems to be a shift in leadership as the new generation of leaders embrace the transformational approach and start the leave behind earlier leadership approaches (^{Murray & Chua, 2014}). The works of ^{Burns (2010)} and ^{Bass (1985)} were instrumental in documenting the rise and influence of transformational leadership theory as a leadership approach that leveraged transactional relationships, charismatic qualities of the leaders, and morality. ^{Keating, Rosch, and Burgoon (2014)} argued that successful leaders engage in effective transformational and transactional behaviors, are confident in their ability to lead, and are motivated to do so. The increased level of importance placed on student leadership development over the last few decades has led to worthy efforts made by educational leaders to increase leadership self-efficacy among undergraduate students. Several studies have been used to argue that it is very important for educators to understand predictors of leadership in students to develop appropriate strategies aligned with student leadership development (^{Wisner, 2011}; ^{Caza & Rosch, 2014}; ^{Soria, Snyder & Reinhard, 2015}).

If problems in student leadership self-efficacy persist over time, these may affect their work during adulthood. ^{Courtright, Colbert, and Choi (2014)} studied 153 leaders working in fortune 500 companies and cautioned that low leadership self-efficacy could cause leaders to experience higher levels of stress and burnout than leaders with high leadership self-efficacy when addressing challenging assignments. Some of the strongest predictors of effective leadership in students include being self-aware and having the ability to relate to others (^{Wisner, 2011}), and self-efficacy (^{Watson, Donovan & Ruble, 2010}; ^{Keating et al., 2014}; ^{Burbank et al., 2015}). Moreover, ^{Barbuto (2000)} noted that it is important for educators to understand the initial conditions of their students, so they can adjust their pedagogy and perform adequately.

Regarding the importance of assessing student leadership self-efficacy, ^{Keating et al. (2014)} noted that students with low leadership self-efficacy who participated in leadership training showed less improvement in terms of leadership efficacy than students with moderate or high initial self-efficacy. A situation like this one clearly has implications for the success of the leadership training program, which educators should adjust to. Therefore, it makes sense for individuals interested in helping their students develop their leadership potential through formal education programs to take steps to monitor their students’ leadership self-efficacy scores. ^{Burbank et al. (2015)} used the S-LPI to measure leadership-self efficacy in students enrolled in one leadership course during their junior year. The students were asked to respond to the S-LPI on two separate occasions and reflect on what they believed were the reasons for changes in scores in the survey. Students who did not report any change in scores were also asked to reflect and report on the reasons behind that outcome.

The implication of ^{Burbank et al.’s (2015)} study was that having students measure their leadership efficacy and participate in formal leadership development programs increases their consciousness in terms of strengths and weaknesses and develops a better appreciation for their own leadership capabilities. They added that curricular and co-curricular programs that create opportunities for students to engage in leadership practices were perceived favorably by students who are in the process of developing their leadership behaviors through formal education. ^{Posner et al. (2015)} developed a three-year study to assess leadership development in undergraduate students. They used the S-LPI to gather responses from Canadian students during their first, second, and third years of college. The findings suggest that leadership development is moderated by academic program, and not by gender, place of residence, or place of origin. ^{Posner et al.’s (2015)} study, along with work conducted by ^{Caza and Rosch (2014)} point to the value of doing research like this outside the United States. While researchers have studied issues of diversity like race and how they moderate leadership development (^{Kodama & Dugan, 2013}), more work is needed in other countries. The present study is an effort to address this concern.

Research in foreign countries conducted with young adults may best be served by framing the studies under the transformational leadership approach. ^{Mortensen et al. (2014)} confirmed that younger generations will likely identify better with the relatively recent leadership approaches (like transformational leadership) than with earlier theories. The present study, which was conducted in Mexico, was framed under ^{Kouzes and Posner’s (2012)} five practices of exemplary leadership model, which is a well-established transformational leadership framework (^{Northouse, 2016}). The model will be described in detail as part of this review.

Leadership Approach and Gender

In Mexico, there continues to be a considerable gap in leadership roles between males and females (^{Moctezuma Navarro et al., 2014}; ^{Zabludovsky Kuper, 2015}). Even though ^{Posner et al. (2015)} concluded that gender does not moderate leadership development among undergraduate students, their study was developed in Canada, so their results may not be transferable to groups of students in Mexico. In a study conducted with 92 undergraduate students in the United States, ^{Rosch, Boyd, and Duran (2014)} found that males and females tend to establish their leadership goals differently. These researchers argued that women in the study indicated having greater interest for developing leadership traits than specific skills or behaviors. The men in the study indicated greater interest for developing specific leadership skills. Previous works on leadership and gender designed to compare male and female leadership characteristics or traits (^{Schein, 1973}; ^{Schein, 1975}; ^{Cohen, Ornoy & Keren, 2013}) have served to suggest that male personality is more closely aligned with leader effectiveness than female personality. These findings have prompted some scholars to question whether the trait leadership approach can be used effectively to assess female leadership potential (^{Chemers, 2000}; ^{Jogulu Wood, 2006}).

Since men continue to dominate top management positions in large corporations (^{Eagly & Carli, 2007}), it is understandable that undergraduate female students may feel the need to adopt a masculine approach to leadership. This strategy, however, may hurt them in the long-term for failing to comply with longstanding expectations regarding female roles in leadership positions (^{Leskinen, Rabelo & Cortina, 2015}). Works conducted under transformational leadership models have proven to be more appropriate for assessing leadership in aspiring and actual female leaders (^{Bass, Avolio & Atwater, 1996}; ^{Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003}). Moreover, the transformational approach seems to be more aligned with present day aspirations of leaders and their environments (^{Murray & Chua, 2014}). ^{Rosch et al.’s (2014)} findings suggest that the men in their study are more concerned with developing the proper skills to become effective leaders. The skills approach was developed by ^{Katz (1955)} as part of the University of Michigan studies in response to the failure of the traits approach to develop a consistent set of characteristics that decision-makers could use to identify effective leaders (^{Northouse, 2016}). ^{Katz’s (1955)} approach was effective in introducing the notion that leaders could be developed through training designed to enhance the proper management skills.

^{Katz’s (1955)} model was developed based on technical, human and conceptual skills that leaders could develop over time as they went through the different hierarchical levels within organizations. While this model provides a logical and actionable approach to leadership development, it does not have the theoretical support other approaches have developed over the years (^{Northouse, 2016}). On the other hand, Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership, a prominent transformational leadership model, has been widely used to measure student leadership (^{Posner, 2012}). Rather than using personality leadership models, which have been found to be biased against female leaders (^{Eagly & Carli, 2007}), or skills based models, which lack theoretical support (^{Northouse, 2016}), the present study was grounded on transformational leadership theory to ensure strong theoretical foundation and gender objectivity.

The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership Model

^{Kouzes and Posner (2012)} developed the five practices of exemplary leadership model by interviewing student leaders and asking them to talk about personal best experiences (^{Kibler, 2009}). The five practices in the model can be described as follows:

These five leadership dimensions can be assessed through the S-LPI. This 30-item questionnaire uses a 5-point Likert scale to measure the frequency with which students engage in the behaviors associated with each of the five practices. Further detail on this instrument is provided in the Methods section. Kouzes and Posner’s model has proven useful for aspiring leaders and educators charged with developing leadership behaviors with their students (^{Kibler, 2009}). Along with ^{Bass’s (1985)} Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), the LPI and S-LPI are among the most widely used transformational leadership instruments (^{Northouse, 2016}). To illustrate the widespread use of the S-LPI to assess student’s leadership competencies, ^{Posner (2012)} conducted an analysis of several works developed by leadership educators in many parts of the world outside the United States. Table 1 provides a summary of some of his findings.

Participants

Forty-six CETYS Universidad undergraduate students who are active participants in the FORTES program completed the S-LPI questionnaire. Forty-eight percent of the participants were enrolled in the Mexicali campus, 28 percent in the Tijuana campus, and 24 percent in the Ensenada campus. Students from the College of Business and Administration (CBA) accounted for approximately 70 percent of the participants, while students from the College of Engineering (CE) and students from the College of Social Sciences and Humanities (CSSH) accounted for 22 and nine percent, respectively. Overall, 46 percent of total FORTES students participated in the survey.

The participants were part of a purposive sample (^{Creswell, 2014}). All students involved with the FORTES program were invited to participate in the study at one of their weekly meetings. They were provided with an informed consent form and the S-LPI self, and they were asked to complete and return the forms at their convenience over the course of one week. Students who declined to participate did not return the forms. Those who participated in the study returned their signed consent forms and the completed S-LPI self-form to the faculty managers of the FORTES program. The students were asked to indicate their gender, campus, and College/School in which they are enrolled. The students were made aware that participating in the study was a voluntary activity and that their identities were not to be published or associated with individual cores.

Instrument

The S-LPI consists of 30 items designed to measure the five practices of exemplary leadership in ^{Kouzes and Posner’s model (2012)}. The five practices are: (1) model the way, (2) inspire a shared vision, (3) challenge the process, (4) enable others to act, and (5) encourage the heart. Each item in the S-LPI is evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. The S-LPI consistently meets the norms for reliability and validity (^{Posner, 2012}). After analyzing a database of 77,387 students, Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated and met reliability standards, and predictive validity was confirmed for the self and observer versions of the instrument (^{Posner, 2012}). The S-LPI was administered in its paper version. Permission to use the instrument was obtained from the publisher approximately one month before the participants were approached with the invitation to take the survey. The completed S-LPI forms are kept under lock in a cabinet located in the office of one of the authors of this paper.

Procedure

Several steps were taken to ensure that the data collection phase of the present study was conducted effectively and ethically. First, permission to use the S-LPI for academic purposes was obtained in writing from the publisher of the instrument. Second, students were verbally invited to participate in the study during one of their weekly FORTES meetings. Third, students who agreed to participate after the initial invitation were given informed consent forms to read, sign, and return. Last, the S-LPI was administered in its paper form to FORTES students who signed and returned their consent forms. The participants were given one week to return their completed forms. All participants in the study were age 18 or above.

Data Analysis

The data collected through the S-LPI questionnaires was processed with the assistance of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The analysis consisted of running descriptive statistics to identify mean scores, and independent samples t-tests to compare mean scores between males and females for each of the five leadership practices measured through the S-LPI. Alpha levels were set at .01 to minimize Type I error.

To facilitate the analysis, the items of the S-LPI were grouped according to their corresponding dimensions:

Once the data analysis phase was completed, the results were stored in a password protected laptop that is kept on a locked office. Furthermore, the names of the participants were not included in any of the reports created to interpret the data.