Teen Dating and the Rocky Road to Leadership

People who attain leadership positions in organizations have a story to tell. It usually highlights proven experience, the ability to communicate, attributes such as reliability and hard work, raw ambition and generous mentors.

People who reach for yet fall short of leadership have their own stories. Cronyism, discomfort with networking, and being at the wrong place at the right time are common themes.

In recent years, social scientists have uncovered evidence that these stories fail to account for key wayposts along the leadership journey — evidence that the journey begins years before individuals are hired for their first job.

Yes, individual factors such as personality, cognitive ability and organizational supports such as training can predict who will emerge into leadership. But these overlook life-shaping experiences in childhood through adolescence and young adulthood. Viewing leadership development over a lifespan, researchers have shown that factors such as socioeconomic status of parents, self-esteem and the ability to control emotions through adolescence can lay the groundwork for — or undermine — leadership in adulthood.

A new study adds to this body of evidence. As part of her doctoral work at Smith School of Business, Anika Cloutier explored the potential link between violence in adolescent dating relationships and leader emergence.

Why take this approach? Cloutier, now an assistant professor at Dalhousie University, says one of the markers of adolescent development is seeking meaningful relationships outside the family. “Given these are the very first relationships we form and experiment within this capacity,” she says, “they can create meaningful schemas that shape our perceptions of many other relationships, and they can shape how we view ourselves. Unfortunately, for some, these experiences can be quite negative and harmful.”

Avoiding leadership opportunities

Just how harmful could these early romantic experiences be for a future career path? Going into the study, Cloutier and her collaborator, Professor Julian Barling of Smith School of Business, figured that an adolescent who experienced dating violence would be less likely to occupy a future leadership role than those with positive experiences. This would be an indirect effect: They believed the key linkage between the two would be depressive symptoms. Depression is known to trigger social withdrawal and lower self-confidence and, for some, permanently alter one’s neurochemistry.

Beyond this key question, their study also tested the effects of parent–adolescent relationship quality, household incomes and gender to get a full picture. 

Similar studies are usually based on long-term data that track individuals over key developmental periods. This study was no different: Cloutier and Barling drew on four waves of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, a sample of more than 20,000 adolescents in the U.S. who were in grades seven to 12 during the 1994-95 school year, and who were followed for five waves (most recently 2016 to 18). Their sample involved 3,277 individuals.

After extensive analysis, the results largely confirmed their original thinking. Cloutier and Barling defined dating violence as psychological aggression such as insulting or belittling remarks and physical violence such as hitting and beating. Their study found that exposure to either psychological aggression or physical violence during developmental years each independently increased depressive symptoms six years later. This, in turn, decreased leader role occupancy six years after. 

The indirect effects of depressive symptoms on adult leadership were not as severe for adolescents brought up in households with higher income, likely due to access to better education and healthcare (the quality of the parent-child relationship did not have much of an effect).

Women affected more deeply

As they dug deeper into the data, Cloutier and Barling realized that psychological aggression in adolescent dating played out differently for men and women in the study. Although both experienced similar rates of psychological aggression, the negative spillover on depressive symptoms only emerged for women, and depression in turn only hindered women’s future leadership, says Cloutier.

What explains the bigger impact on women? The researchers suggest that traditional gender socialization is such that many men believe they have a greater right to authority in their partnerships with women. It has also been documented that women view romantic relationships as more central to their identity and, as a result, experience greater spillover into other parts of their lives.

There is, however, reason for optimism. The fact that the researchers found no direct link between psychological aggression or physical violence during teenage years and leadership positions in adulthood suggests that, with a bit of help, negative career outcomes can be avoided.

The researchers tested various options for what could overcome victimization during adolescence: positive parental relationships, access to mental health services, or the presence of a strong social network or mentor. None seemed to explain it.

One untested possibility is that some victims of teenage dating violence experience post-traumatic growth. “We believe it is highly likely that it is something about the person that allows them to grow from this experience and that allows for career success,” says Cloutier.

Lessons for schools and hiring committees

If these results hold up, they bear a clear message to school administrators. Adolescents usually struggle to navigate romantic relationships, for good reason. They may be ill-equipped to respond to psychological aggression or physical violence in dating relationships, the researchers note. Ideally, school teachers and counsellors could have a role in educating students on the consequences of dating violence. The unfortunate reality, as Cloutier points out, is that most educators receive no training on how to support victims of violence, while principals focus on other student health issues.

There is a message here for organizations as well. Cloutier says people in leadership or hiring roles could be sensitized on the fact that “everyone has a past with a story.” If nothing else, she says, “this would serve as a reminder that many people are the way they are for reasons that maybe beyond their control, and that can enable more empathy in decision-making.”

That does not necessarily address the phenomenon of some qualified employees self-selecting out of potential leadership roles because of life experiences that make them question their capabilities. Peer nomination or an opt-out approach whereby all qualified candidates are considered for an open leadership position are two ways to deepen the selection pool.

This recently published study is not Cloutier’s first that examined upstream effects of domestic violence during formative years. A related study from her dissertation found that adolescents who observed their parents engage in domestic violence towards each other were more likely to develop insecure attachment styles, which, in turn, decreased their likelihood of being in a leadership role as an adult.

Cloutier expects to build on this research stream, perhaps exploring why many workplaces protect perpetrators of domestic violence. “I believe domestic violence is a workplace issue,” says Cloutier. “The experiences we have at home naturally spill over into the workplace, not only affecting victims but colleagues as well. But we still know very little about how organizations can and should intervene.”