Exploring the Contents of Leader Identity Development Across Life Domains

The way an individual self-identifies as a leader (leader identity) is a critical component of the leader development process (Day and Harrison, 2007). Since this recognition, the field has experienced increased attention (Epitropaki et al., 2017). In this way, the development of a leader identity naturally becomes a topic of importance given that organizations are interested in more effective leaders, considering the 60 billion dollars spent on leadership development programs by global organizations every year (Future Market Insights, 2024). However, despite some recent advances in understanding leader identity development, the discussion is often limited to a single life domain, most commonly work (Lanka et al., 2020) when leadership is understood to transcend a formal role or context (DeRue, Ashford and Cotton, 2009). The present investigation draws on theory of leader development across life domains (Hammond, Clapp-Smith and Palanski, 2017) to explore factors that promote and hamper self-identification as a leader. Through a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), 25 in-depth interviews focused on three different life arenas revealed four factors promoting leader identity development: being conceded responsibility, taking initiative, having an expanded understanding of leadership, and having a sense of purpose. Additionally, two factors served as obstacles: a feeling of incapacity, and self-focus. Implications for practice and theory are discussed. Specifically, the section distinguishes between internally- and externally-driven leader identity, how leader identity can be developed before and during the course of a research interview, and the role of purpose. On the obstacles side, the findings are firstly linked to the impact of leadership stereotypes (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). Also, foundational works such as social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and job demands-resources theory (Bakker, Demerouti and Sanz-Vergel, 2014) are incorporated in terms of how they may justify obstruction of positive change in leader identity.