Developing everyday leaders: a four-year study of undergraduates’ identity, motivation and civic values

Effectively developing young leaders will have long-lasting societal impacts and prepare us to meet the grand challenges of our time (Vogel, Reichard, Batistič, & Černe, 2021). Thus, leader development efforts should go beyond high-level leaders to support everyday people to develop their leadership capacity, regardless of their role or context (Riggio et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022). Understanding how to identify, develop and produce the next generation of everyday leaders is a priority for undergraduate leadership educators (Mitchell & Daugherty, 2019; Murphy and Reichard 2011).

Everyday leadership is “the behaviors enacted by individuals who, regardless of formal title or authority, influence others to achieve shared objectives for the betterment of the collective” (Liu et al., 2022, p. 5). Even without formal roles, individuals can positively impact others across various life domains. Everyday leaders, also referred to as engaged followers, support their communities as proactive, prosocial contributors, acting as both leaders and followers (Riggio et al., 2020). This dual role underscores the broad applicability of everyday leadership across contexts.

Everyday leadership is a five-dimensional construct encompassing: (1) leadership behaviors at work, (2) civic engagement, (3) taking charge of projects, (4) voice and (5) individual innovation, both within and beyond the workplace (Liu et al., 2022). These behaviors reflect responsibility, initiative and community contribution (Riggio et al., 2020), expanding leadership beyond organizations to include families, schools, social groups and communities (Hammond, Clapp-Smith, & Palanski, 2017).

In this study, we align everyday leadership with three proactive behaviors accessible to college students: (1) community service (e.g., volunteering in hospitals, working with children, serving unhoused populations), (2) civic engagement (e.g., voting, political volunteering, attending demonstrations) and (3) leadership positions outside formal employment (e.g., campus organizations, religious groups, sports teams). These domains reflect students' early opportunities to apply leadership skills developed through ULE and demonstrate how such behaviors can emerge and strengthen during the college years.

Our study builds on the only existing empirical investigation of everyday leadership. In a 21-year quasi-longitudinal study, Liu et al. (2022) found that everyday leadership predicted transformational leadership and leader role occupancy. They identified two key motivational antecedents: (1) self-motivation in leadership and (2) affective-identity motivation to lead. Leader identity also mediated the relationship between affective-identity motivation and everyday leadership, even when controlling for extraversion and family environment.

Extending these findings to the ULE context, we examine motivational and identity antecedents of everyday leadership. We hypothesize that students entering college with a stronger leader identity and MTDL will be more likely to engage in ULE programs and, ultimately, practice everyday leadership, especially those with strong civic values. In doing so, we expand Liu et al.’s (2022) model to this formative educational period when identity, motivation and behavior are actively shaped.

A key antecedent of everyday leadership is motivation to develop leadership (MTDL), one of the core psychological mechanisms comprising leader developmental readiness (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). MTDL is defined as the “motivation to improve or develop leadership-relevant task and relational skills, attributes, and competencies through effort” (Maurer, Hartnell, & Lippstreu, 2017, p. 486). Individuals high in MTDL are more likely to engage purposefully in developmental opportunities both within and beyond the workplace (Avolio & Hannah, 2008; Walker & Reichard, 2020), making it a consistently supported predictor of leadership growth.

MTDL directs a person's effort and attention toward leader development, enhancing their ability to focus, persist and benefit from developmental experiences (Rosch & Villanueva, 2016). Sustained motivation is particularly important for everyday leadership, which develops over time and requires continuous self-directed learning (Shults, Reichard, Diaz, Pitichat, & Kea-Edwards, 2022). Army officers higher in MTDL set more effective development goals (e.g., specific, appropriately challenging), which in turn predicted stronger intentions to develop, especially when they believed they had the means to do so (Reichard, 2006). This pattern illustrates how MTDL supports purposeful engagement, adaptability, and resilience in leadership growth (Kea-Ewards, 2022; Hannah & Avolio, 2010).

Evidence from non-ULE contexts further supports MTDL's role in everyday leadership. In a year-long study of 151 employees, MTDL predicted leadership capacity and career success, including promotions, increased responsibility and pay, more strongly than motivation to lead (Maurer et al., 2017). While conceptually related, MTDL and motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001) are distinct constructs that differentially predict leadership development outcomes (Rosch & Villanueva, 2016). Self-motivation and affective-identity motivation to lead predict everyday leadership behaviors (Liu et al., 2022). Finally, using a cross-lagged panel design, Wallace and Zaccaro (2022) showed that MTDL predicts leader development engagement over time. Taken together, theory and evidence consistently show that MTDL drives the proactive pursuit and perseverance necessary for everyday leadership development.

Participation in leadership programming during college helps explain how students' early MTDL translates into later everyday leadership. Leadership program participation refers to students' engagement in didactic or co-curricular leader development activities (e.g., leadership courses, study abroad andis internships) throughout college. Students with high MTDL are more likely to self-direct their efforts toward such opportunities, focusing their energy on developing leadership skills, knowledge and abilities (Rosch & Villanueva, 2016; Walker & Reichard, 2020) and applying them beyond the classroom.

Through ULE programs, students gain exposure to leadership in diverse contexts, including community service and social activism (Martinez, Sowcik, & Bunch, 2020). These experiences broaden their understanding of leadership and increase the likelihood that they will apply newly acquired skills in everyday contexts. Meta-analyses show that leadership training improves leadership behaviors (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, & Salas, 2017), and ULE experiences foster leadership practice in and beyond traditional work settings (Hammond et al., 2017).

Empirical findings further support this link. In a study of college juniors, Wallace and Zaccaro (2022) found that MTDL predicted engagement in an immersive three-day leader development program. In another study of 373 participants, these authors found that MTDL was positively correlated with intentions to pursue experience-based leader development within six months, underscoring its role in driving participation.

Building on this evidence, we propose that participation in leadership programming partially mediates the relationship between MTDL and everyday leadership. Specifically, we expect that students with higher MTDL at college entry will participate more frequently in leadership programs over four years, thereby increasing their likelihood of practicing everyday leadership.

Leader identity can serve as the psychological bridge linking students' MTDL with engagement in leadership behaviors. Leader identity reflects the extent to which individuals see themselves as leaders and incorporate leadership into their self-concept (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Lord & Hall, 2005). Over time, leader identity develops across four dimensions: strength, integration, level, and meaning (Hammond et al., 2017) and serves as a proximal indicator of long-term leader development (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Day and Dragoni (2015) point out that an individual's MTDL skills becomes more likely as leader identity develops. As leader identity strengthens, individuals become more motivated to develop leadership skills, shaped by an interplay of personal traits, social relationships, and experiences. (Lord & Hall, 2005).

In the context of ULE, Komives et al. (2005, 2006) proposed the Leadership Identity Development (LID) model as a framework for student leadership growth. The model outlines a progression from initial awareness of leaders (Stage 1) to integrating “leader” into one's self-concept (Stage 6) and incorporates evolving beliefs about leadership and how it functions. While LID encompasses both identity change and shifting conceptions of leadership, our study focuses on its leader identity dimension. As students advance through the stages, educators can reinforce self-efficacy and leader identity through targeted programming.

Stronger leader identity motivates individuals to pursue leadership development and exhibit leadership behaviors (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Because leadership is socially constructed (Gerstner & Day, 1997), daily interactions reinforce one's identity as a leader (Lord & Hall, 2005). Students with strong leader identities are more likely to seek out complex developmental experiences and broaden their understanding of leadership beyond formal roles (Day et al., 2009; Day & Harrison, 2007). This process is cyclical: leader identity fuels engagement in new experiences, which builds skills and further reinforces identity (DeRue, Conlon, Moon, & Willaby, 2009).

Empirical studies support this relationship. Reichard (2006) found that Army officers who rated leadership traits as similar to themselves (a proxy for leader identity) reported higher MTDL. Moreover, leader identity has been linked to motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), motivation to engage in leadership (Kempster, 2006), and improvements in leadership skills over time (Miscenko, Guenter, & Day, 2017). Leader identity also predicts engagement in developmental opportunities across work and non-work domains (Hammond et al., 2017). Accordingly, although measured at the same time in this study, we expect students with stronger leader identity will also report higher MTDL.

Finally, we propose that civic values positively moderate the relationship between leadership program participation and everyday leadership. Values are central beliefs about means (how to act) and ends (what outcomes are worth pursuing) that guide behavior (Pascarella, Ethington, & Smart, 1988). Civic values reflect the importance individuals place on being civically and socially engaged citizens (Lott & Eagan, 2011).

Because one's values direct their effort and attention (Rosch & Villanueva, 2016), students with low civic values may apply ULE-acquired leadership skills toward personal rather than civic goals (e.g., career advancement). Conversely, students high in civic values tend to use their leadership training in community service, civic action, and informal leadership (core aspects of everyday leadership).

Empirical research supports the interrelationship between leadership participation, civic values, and civic behaviors. Academic and social involvement positively influence civic values (Rhee and Dey, 1996), and students in leadership training report higher civic values and stronger volunteering habits (Lott, 2013). Education plays a key role in fostering civic values and the skills for civic engagement (Hillygus, 2005; King & Mayhew, 2002; Lopez et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Specifically, Pascarella et al. (1988) found that participation in social leadership activities was significantly correlated with humanitarian and civic values.

Despite these established links, no prior studies have tested whether civic values amplify the effect of leadership program participation on everyday leadership. Our study addresses this gap by examining civic values as a moderator.

This study used archival data from a larger longitudinal project on ULE initiated in 2011. Researchers collected quasi-longitudinal survey data from leadership scholarship students at a large Midwestern land-grant university, surveying incoming cohorts from 2011 to 2018. Across these eight years, 1,848 students completed the Time 1 (T1) survey at the start of their first year, and 995 completed the Time 2 (T2) survey four years later. However, only 183 students completed both surveys. After excluding cases for missing data and outliers, the final sample included 155 participants.

Measures varied slightly across waves. Leader identity, civic values, everyday leadership (i.e., civic engagement, community service, leadership positions), and demographics were assessed at both T1 and T2. MTDL was measured only at T1, while leadership program participation was measured only at T2.

Participants were 155 undergraduate leadership scholarship students or students enrolled in an introductory leadership course during their first semester. At T1, their average age was 18. Most identified as female (72.9%) and Caucasian (86.5%), with the remaining participants identifying as Hispanic (7.1%), African American (2.6%), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.9%), Native American (0.7%), or other/mixed race (1.2%). Academic performance was high, with an average ACT score of 28 (SD = 3.8) and a high school GPA of 3.87 (SD = 0.17).

Everyday leadership was measured with three latent variables: civic engagement, community service, and the number of leadership positions in college.

Civic Engagement. Civic engagement was assessed using a 21-item, 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Never” to 5 = “Regularly”) measuring frequency of participation in community and political activities. Items were drawn from three validated sources: 10 from Flanagan et al.’s (2007) civic competence and engagement scale (e.g., “I have worked with a group to make my community a better place”), 4 from Keeter et al.’s (2002) political involvement scale (e.g., “I have contacted an elected representative about an issue that was important to me”), and 7 from the CIRP Your First College Year Survey – HERI UCLA (2022) (e.g., “I have tutored another student,” “I have voted in a student election”). The combined scale showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.85), and items were averaged to produce a composite civic engagement score.

Community Service. Community service was measured using 12 items developed for this study. Participants rated how often they engaged in various volunteer activities during college (e.g., “Tutoring/teaching,” “Counseling/mentoring,” “Conflict mediation”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Never” to 5 = “Regularly”). The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.75), and items were averaged to produce a composite community service score.

Number of Leadership Positions. Following Reichard et al. (2011), participants reported the number of leadership positions held across seven college-relevant domains (e.g., campus organizations, religious groups, varsity sports). Within each domain, they specified how many roles they held as founder, leader, member, or volunteer during college. Participants could enter any numeric value, and totals were summed across non-employment domains, with all roles and domains weighted equally. Reported leadership positions ranged from 0 to 29 (M = 6.2, SD = 5.27). Due to positive skew (skew = 2.73), winsorization was applied for analysis.

Leader identity was assessed using a two-step method. First, participants listed up to ten traits they believed defined an effective leader, reflecting their implicit leadership theory (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Reichard et al., 2021). Traits included those commonly observed outside of work settings (e.g., “Intelligent,” “Good listener,” “Charismatic”). Second, they rated how similar each listed trait was to themselves on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “Not at all like me” to 7 = “Exactly like me”). This approach aligns with the idea that individuals who see themselves as possessing leadership traits are more likely to identify as leaders (Engle & Lord, 1997). By using participants' self-generated traits, the measure anchored leader identity in their personal implicit theories rather than predefined notions of “leader.” These ratings had acceptable reliability (α = 0.80) and provided justification to combine into a single score for analysis. To take into account the different number of traits or characteristics that participants provided, trait ratings were averaged, rather than summed, to produce a composite score.

MTDL was measured using three items from Reichard (2006) assessing agreement with statements about leader development (e.g., “I will participate actively in leader self-development because learning to lead well is an important part of my future career”). Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). These three items were selected from a larger set of items to balance both a high degree of relevance to students and the overall length of the survey. The three-item scale demonstrated strong reliability (α = 0.90) and scores were averaged to produce a composite score.

Leadership Program Participation was measured by summing the number of leadership courses and experiences participants reported completing during college, as indicated in the T2 survey. Participants selected from a list of 18 options (e.g., “Introduction to Leadership,” “Leadership in Practice,” “Study abroad,” “Internship,” “Leadership minor”), with each selection counted as one instance of participation. Seventeen participants also provided additional entries via an “other” option. A non-weighted total of selected courses and experiences was used as the score, ranging from 0 to 10 (M = 1.82, SD = 1.96). Although positively skewed (skew = 1.97), the variable was not transformed to preserve variability.

Civic values were assessed using 15 items drawn from three sources. Five items came from Pascarella et al.’s (1988) humanitarian and civic involvement scale (e.g., “It is important for me to influence social values”), two from Lott and Eagan's (2011) Civic Values Scale (e.g., “It is important for me to help to promote racial understanding”), however, these scales utilized a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “Not important” to 4 = “Essential”). Eight additional items were developed specifically for college students (e.g., “It is important for me to help others improve their lives”) and all 15 items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Not at all important” to 5 = “Very important”) in this study. The scale provided strong reliability (α = 0.90) and items were averaged to create a composite score for civic values.

Participants' responses were matched using email addresses provided at T1 (start of the first year) and T2 (end of the fourth year). A total of 183 participants completed surveys at both time points, forming the initial sample before exclusions for missing data and outliers. As previously noted, all Cronbach's alpha values indicated acceptable or higher reliability, allowing for the creation of composite scores for multi-item measures: leader identity, MTDL, civic engagement, community service, and civic values. Participants were listwise deleted (n = 24) if they were missing single-item values (e.g., leadership program participation, number of leadership positions) or over 10% of items on multi-item measures. This approach resulted in 159 participants before outlier removal.

We conducted assumption checks for structural equation modeling, including normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity. Because the number of leadership positions was positively skewed, we applied winsorization. Post-transformation, skew (1.77) and kurtosis (3.01) were within acceptable limits (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). All other variables met normality assumptions. Variables were then standardized to aid interpretation and reduce multicollinearity. Scatterplots and residuals supported linearity; however, homoscedasticity was violated for leadership program participation (Breusch-Pagan, p < 0.001), warranting caution when interpreting related results. Four multivariate outliers were identified via the Mahalanobis method (±3 SD), following a significant Henze-Zirkler test (p < 0.001), reducing the final analytic sample to 155 participants. Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 1.

To assess representativeness, we compared the demographics of excluded versus retained participants. Gender (67.9% vs. 72.9% female) and ethnicity (96.4% vs. 84.5% Caucasian) were similar across groups. ACT scores also did not differ significantly (M = 27.29 vs. M = 28.14; t = 1.33, p = 0.190). Given these similarities, analyses proceeded with the 155 retained participants.

Before specifying the model, we examined bivariate correlations to assess initial relationships between predictors and outcomes. Leader identity at T1 was positively correlated with MTDL at T1 (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). MTDL at T1 was positively related to leadership program participation at T2 (r = 0.28, p < 0.001) and to all three components of everyday leadership: civic engagement (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), community service (r = 0.30, p < 0.001), and number of leadership positions (r = 0.35, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that students with higher MTDL early in college report greater involvement in the leadership program and more everyday leadership behaviors by their fourth year.

Leadership program participation at T2 was also positively correlated with civic engagement (r = 0.19, p = 0.015), community service (r = 0.17, p = 0.030), and number of leadership positions (r = 0.19, p = 0.027). Similarly, civic values at T2 were significantly related to each everyday leadership component (i.e., civic engagement (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), community service (r = 0.26, p < 0.001), and leadership positions (r = 0.17, p = 0.037), but not to leadership program participation (r = 0.02, p = 0.717).

Although not included in our hypothesized model, leader identity and MTDL at T1 were both positively associated with civic values at T2 (r = 0.26, p = 0.001 for both). ACT scores were negatively correlated with leader identity (r = –0.28, p 0.001) and MTDL (r = –0.27, p 0.001) at T1, while gender was positively correlated with MTDL at T1 (r = 0.20, p = 0.027). Based on these findings, ACT scores and gender were included as control variables in the structural model.

Everyday leadership as a single latent factor was supported by the fit of the measurement model (χ² ratio = 37.26, p = 0.136, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.11, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.94), and these fit indices are within or close to recommended levels (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006; χ² ratio ≤3.0, RMSEA ≤0.08, SRMR ≤0.08, CFI ≥0.90, GFI ≥0.95). Tolerance levels were above recommended thresholds (e.g., 0.10) for all three variables, civic engagement = 0.55, community service = 0.57, and number of leadership positions = 0.75, suggesting no issues with multicollinearity were found. Also, correlations between variables were significant, but not strong (r < 0.60 for all three relationships).

Additionally, a separate factor analysis was conducted to determine if a measurement model that separates civic engagement and community service into a separate sub-factor than the number of leadership positions held. This sub-factor model (e.g., everyday leadership is comprised of factor 1, civic engagement and community service, and factor 2, number of leadership positions) was compared to the single-factor structure using a Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-squared test (2001) to test if the restricted model (i.e., two sub-factors) would be a better fit for the data. Results of the test indicated there was not a significant difference between the two sub-factor and the single factor models (χ² difference = −14.57, p = 0.959) and thus the two sub-factor model would be preferred over the single factor model. Considering the limitation of the single item measurement of number of leadership positions held, however, further factor analysis should be conducted in future studies.

Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the hypothesized model. We used the lavaan package in R statistical software to test whether the model fit the data. The hypothesized model (i.e., Figure 1) demonstrated a decent fit to the data (χ² ratio = 1.77, p = 0.009, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.92), and these fit indices are within or close to recommended levels (Lance et al., 2006). Model parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimation method to correct for non-normality and remaining outliers. Results demonstrate that civic engagement, community service, and the number of leadership positions loaded well onto the single factor of everyday leadership (civic engagement β = 0.80, p < 0.001; community service β = 0.76, p < 0.001; leadership resume # of positions β = 0.53, p < 0.001). The hypothesized model explains 59.29% of the variance in everyday leadership, 89.49% of the variance in leadership program participation, and 62.25% of the variance in MTDL. The standardized effects for the hypothesized model are shown in Figure 2.

Hypothesis 1 stated that MTDL is positively related to everyday leadership. Observation of the path from MTDL to everyday leadership supported Hypothesis 1. The relationship was positive and significant (β = 0.32, p = 0.005), establishing MTDL at the beginning of college predicts everyday leadership four years later. In examining the proposed mediation, hypothesis 2 stated that leadership program participation would at least partially and positively mediate the relationship between MTDL and everyday leadership. Results demonstrated MTDL was positively related to leadership program participation during college (β = 0.25, p < 0.001), supporting the first half of the mediation. However, leadership program participation during college was not associated with everyday leadership (β = 0.04, p = 0.666), thus leading to a non-significant indirect effect (β = 0.01, p = 0.658). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted that leader identity is positively related to MTDL at the beginning of college. Leader identity was significantly and positively related to MTDL (β = 0.41, p < 0.001) after controlling for ACT scores and gender, supporting hypothesis 3. Lastly, hypothesis 4, which proposed that civic values would moderate the relationship between leadership program participation and everyday leadership, was not supported, as civic values did not significantly moderate that non-significant relationship (β = −0.01, p = 0.880). However, civic values were significantly and positively related to everyday leadership (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), suggesting supplementary analysis should include civic values in providing a better-fitting model.

Discovering a significant relationship between civic values and MTDL in our correlation matrix and reiterated by the modification indices function in R, we decided to test and compare an alternative model that would use civic values at T2 to moderate the relationship between MTDL at T1 and everyday leadership at T2 to improve model fit (see Figure 3). Although MTDL was still significantly related to everyday leadership (β = 0.33, p = 0.008), model fit became slightly worse, as civic values at T2 was still significantly and positively related to everyday leadership in our alternative model (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) in a direct relationship but not in a moderating relationship. Our alternative model had a poor fit (χ² ratio = 2.27, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.093, SRMR = 0.08, CFI = 0.87, GFI = 0.91), performing worse than our hypothesized model on those same indices. AIC comparison indices were very similar between our hypothesized model (AIC = 2236.93) and our alternative model (AIC = 2238.13). Due to the stronger fit indices, we use our hypothesized model as our final model.

Everyday leaders are arguably the leaders who make the most significant impact on society (Liu et al., 2022). They have this impact because they approach everyday situations intentionally, use their voice, take responsibility and initiative on projects, and contribute innovative ideas to solve problems (Liu et al., 2022). College is a critical time for the development of everyday leaders; during this period students solidify a leader identity and leverage their MTDL toward participation in leadership programs. The present study empirically tested the antecedents of everyday leadership across the four college years. Overall, the findings show positive relationships between leader identity, MTDL, civic values, and everyday leadership behaviors beyond formal work settings. Two themes emerged from the results, each with implications for leadership educators.

The first key theme centers on the relationship between leader identity and MTDL, and their long-term impact on everyday leadership. Consistent with prior research (Reichard, 2006; Liu et al., 2022), we found that leader identity predicted MTDL, which in turn significantly predicted everyday leadership behaviors nearly four years later. These findings align with leader development theory, which suggests that individuals high in MTDL actively seek developmental experiences and prioritize leadership growth (Walker & Reichard, 2020; Rosch & Villanueva, 2016).

For practitioners, our findings suggest that students entering college with strong leader identities are more likely to possess higher MTDL, increasing their participation in ULE programs and ultimately leading to greater everyday leadership by graduation. As such, ULE curricula should intentionally foster leader identity and MTDL early in the college experience. Training interventions can effectively increase both (Lacerenza et al., 2017), for instance, by targeting students' implicit leadership theories, (mental models of effective leadership), and broadening their understanding of what it means to be a leader (Lord et al., 1984; Reichard et al., 2021).

A second theme concerns the hypothesized mediating variable, leadership program participation. We expected the students who participated in leadership programs during college to demonstrate higher levels of everyday leadership behaviors after four years. Results indicated that participation in leadership programs did not mediate the relationship between MTDL and everyday leadership. Additionally, we hypothesized that those with higher civic values would amplify the effects of ULE program participation on everyday leadership. However, because there was no significant relationship between leadership program participation and everyday leadership, civic values did not moderate this relationship. Civic values, however, were significantly and positively related to everyday leadership, suggesting a direct association with civic or community service behaviors.

Several possible explanations may account for the lack of a significant relationship between leadership program participation and everyday leadership. One explanation involves a potential misalignment between program content and our operationalization of everyday leadership, which emphasized civic engagement, community service, and leadership outside work contexts. Students participating in ULE programs may focus more narrowly on career-oriented goals (e.g., building résumés for employment or graduate school), which may not align with the civic dimensions captured in our measure. However, given the direct link between civic values and everyday leadership, ULE programs that foster civic values may be more likely to produce students who engage in these behaviors by graduation.

Another explanation involves goal orientation. Students with a performance goal orientation may approach leadership programs primarily to enhance their credentials, whereas those with a learning goal orientation are more likely to integrate leadership experiences as opportunities for personal growth (Culbertson & Jackson, 2016). In today's high-pressure academic environment, students may feel compelled to overextend themselves for future career advantages (Flaherty, 2023), which may limit meaningful engagement with developmental content. Students with a developmental mindset are better positioned to benefit from feedback, challenges, and training (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). ULE programs should address this by emphasizing learning goals early in the curriculum.

Finally, the lack of mediation may also reflect broader training transfer challenges, or the gap between acquiring knowledge and applying it in real-life contexts. Factors such as delivery format (e.g., spaced, in-person training), leader developmental readiness (Day & Dragoni, 2015), and purposeful engagement (Walker & Reichard, 2020) all influence outcomes. To improve transfer and developmental impact, researchers recommend incorporating personalized feedback, structured self-reflection, and explicit instruction on self-directed leader development (Soderhjelm, Nordling, Sandahl, Larsson, & Palm, 2021; Walker & Reichard, 2020).

For leadership educators and program designers, these findings highlight opportunities to assess and cultivate MTDL and civic values early in students' college experience. Assessments can be embedded in first-year orientation, leadership courses, or co-curricular portfolios to guide tailored pathways. Curricula can use reflective exercises to challenge implicit leadership theories, incorporate peer feedback, and scaffold progressively complex leadership roles. Programs can connect leadership learning to civic engagement projects, aligning skill-building with the civic dimensions of everyday leadership.

This study contributes to the leader development field by advancing understanding of the emerging concept of everyday leadership within the context of ULE. We demonstrate how leader identity and MTDL influence participation in college leadership programming and, ultimately, everyday leadership behaviors. Our conceptual model highlights the role of leader identity in shaping MTDL and the downstream effects on real-world leadership practice, particularly when civic values are present.

Notably, our predominantly female sample offers important insights for scholars and practitioners interested in leveraging the college years as a critical developmental period for women, before they enter workplaces where gender bias may limit leadership opportunities. Findings suggest early cultivation of leader identity, MTDL, and civic values can help mitigate later inequities.

As one of the few empirical investigations of everyday leadership, this work advances implicit leadership theory and leader identity theory (Vogel et al., 2021). A key innovation was our measure of leader identity based on participants' own implicit leadership theories. This approach allowed individuals to define leadership traits themselves and then assess their similarity to those traits, which strengthens ecological and theoretical validity.

Several features bolster the study's rigor. First, the quasi-longitudinal design tracked students across four years, a necessary approach for studying developmental processes (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Second, the naturally occurring quasi-experimental context, where students self-selected into leadership programs, adds ecological validity. Finally, the study advances theory by empirically testing how developmental antecedents translate into everyday leadership over time.

Despite its strengths, the study has limitations. The sample was ethnically homogenous and from one Midwestern public university, limiting generalizability. The sample size was relatively small due to the longitudinal design. Although two time points of analysis provide important insights, three or more time points would be needed to offer true longitudinal findings. Additionally, no established scale exists for everyday leadership, so we used self-reported behaviors as proxies. Our operationalization of everyday leadership excluded workplace behaviors, which are part of the original construct (Liu et al., 2022). Given the age and likely limited work experience of our college sample (average age ∼22), we focused on non-work domains such as civic engagement and community service.

Several ideas for future research emerged from this study. First, it would be beneficial to have a validated scale to measure everyday leadership behaviors, rather than proxies. A measure should capture actual engagement in various everyday leadership activities rather than self-report proxies for engagement. Second, this study utilized composite score averages of individual measures (e.g., civic engagement) for the measurement model of Everyday Leadership. Future research will benefit from examining different potential factor structures and item loadings to create a more parsimonious scale. Lastly, we used a specific operationalization of leadership program participation that may not have captured the breadth of leadership participation students go through. To this end, the study could have benefited from accompanying qualitative data to gather more themes for everyday leadership and uncover its connections with leadership program participation. Beyond the operationalization of measures, future studies with a larger and more representative sample would help shed light on how everyday leadership manifests and emerges.

Everyday leaders positively impact the people around them at work and in their communities. The college years are ripe for developing everyday leadership behaviors in students. Everyday leadership is in its nascent stage of theory and research but holds promise as a broad and impactful leader development outcome, especially for college students. This study helps uncover the underlying psychological and developmental mechanisms that drive everyday leadership. Critical antecedents of everyday leadership are leader identity, MTDL and civic values. Moving the needle on these three factors early in a student's development increases the chances that they become everyday leaders when they graduate.