Student Perception On Leadership

High Ability Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20
Gifted students’ perceptions about leadership and

leadership development
Seon-Young Lee, Michael Matthews, Eunjoo Boo & Yun-Kyoung Kim
To cite this article: Seon-Young Lee, Michael Matthews, Eunjoo Boo & Yun-Kyoung Kim (2021)
Gifted students’ perceptions about leadership and leadership development, High Ability Studies,
32:2, 219-259, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2020.1818554
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1818554
Published online: 24 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 593
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chas20
HIGH ABILITY STUDIES
2021, VOL. 32, NO. 2, 219–259
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1818554
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gifted students’ perceptions about leadership and

leadership development
Seon-Young Leea,, Michael Matthews b,
, Eunjoo Booa, and Yun-Kyoung Kim a,
a,
Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; b,Department of Special
Education and Child Development, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Although leadership is widely considered an aspect of gift Gifted students’ leadership;
edness, few studies have examined gifted students’ beliefs leadership talent; leadership
regarding their own leadership abilities and their potential to motivation; life-goals
become leaders. We developed a survey and administered it
to a cross-cultural sample of 440 gifted and 303 non-
identified secondary age participants to elicit their percep
tions regarding good leaders and leadership, aspirations to
become leaders, and expectations regarding leadership
development for gifted students. Students overall expressed
a preference for leaders who are able to provide a vision for
the future and who care about others’ feelings. Responses
indicate that students believed honesty, social responsibility,
and morality to be the most important characteristics of
future leaders. Compared to non-identified students, we
found that gifted students showed greater aspirations to
become leaders, and their ultimate life goals and beliefs
regarding leadership as a part of their talents was associated
significantly with their leadership aspirations. We suggested
how salient dimensions of cultural difference may have influ
enced some specific results observed for gifted students from
South Korea versus the U.S. cultural context.
Gifted students are commonly believed to have a high potential to become

leaders in adulthood. Students identified as gifted are a diverse population
with heterogeneous interests and abilities; studies of the traits, aptitudes,
and behaviors of gifted and talented youth suggest on average they are
characterized by a high interest in social issues, advanced social responsi
bility, and high levels of civic engagement (Frasier,1991; Ritchotte, Suhr,
Alfurayh, & Graefe, 2016). They tend to be emotionally and ethically aware,
and may also be morally advanced in comparison to their age peers (Lee &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Neihart, 1999, 2006; Robinson, 2008; Tirri &
Nokelainen, 2007). Advanced emotional and social interests, civic
CONTACT Yun-Kyoung Kim [email protected] Department of Education, Seoul National

University, Seoul, South Korea
Author NoteThis work was supported by Global Research Network program through the Ministry of Education of
the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A2A2912130)
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
220 S.-Y. LEE ET AL.
awareness, and civic engagement all relate to leadership, so having these

traits may predispose gifted students to become leaders at a higher rate than
typically developing students do (Bruce-Davis, Gilson, & Matthews, 2017;
Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016; Matthews, 2015). Also, leadership histori
cally has been recognized as one of the domains in which gifted students are
likely to demonstrate outstanding performance or potential (e.g., Jenkins,
1936; Marland, 1972). As an aspect of giftedness, it follows that nurturing
leadership should be one of the goals of gifted education (Feldhusen &
Kennedy, 1988; Lee, 2015, 2017; Parker, 1983; Richardson & Feldhusen,
1988; Roets, 1981; Smith, Smith, & Barnette, 1991). However, despite the
high leadership potential of gifted students and some level of societal
expectations that they will take on leadership roles (Matthews, 2004),
identifying and developing leadership has not been a major concern of
gifted educators (Matthews, 2004, 2015; Passow, 1988). In an investigation
of the research literature in gifted education, Dai, Swanson, and Cheng
(2011) found only 16 of 1,234 articles published over a 12-year period had
addressed leadership giftedness. Few other traits associated with high ability
have received so much recognition yet so little formal scholarly study.
The Marland report (Marland, 1972) defined giftedness and gifted stu
dents, but Marland also identified explicit goals for gifted education: Self-
realization and social contributions. However, gifted education predomi
nantly has been focused on developing students’ academic abilities, while
fostering social responsibility frequently has been overlooked. There is little
consensus among scholars as to whether gifted students can or should be
expected to follow through on the fact that their abilities place them in
a position to make important positive contributions to society when they
grow up. Lee (2015, 2017)) asserted that gifted education ought to move
students toward pursuing social goals and that it should encourage these
learners to think beyond merely pursuing their own happiness. She also
expressed that there may be further controversy surrounding these goals in
settings where gifted education receives support from the national govern
ment. Unlike in the United States, in countries such as South Korea and
Singapore gifted education services evolved in the context of strong financial
and/or administrative support from the government. There is therefore in
these settings some pressure for gifted education to demonstrate within
a short period of time what it has accomplished with this support, yet this
desire may conflict with other goals of gifted education (Lee, 2015, 2017).
In South Korea specifically, gifted education has been supported by law
since its inception in 2000. As of 2016, 108,253 elementary to high school
aged students (about 2% of the school-age population nationwide) were
identified as gifted and have been served in a variety of programs and
schools for gifted education (Korean Educational Development Institute,
2016). With continuous support from the Korean government specifically in
HIGH ABILITY STUDIES 221
the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gifted

education has grown rapidly following a stated mission to raise creative
scientists who will lead the nation and the world. Consequently, identifying
gifted students and developing their giftedness in STEM areas has been the
primary focus for gifted students, parents, educators, and administrators;
social contributions have not had a prominent role in Korean gifted
education.
Lee (2017) proposed the idea of “talent dissemination,” meaning to share
one’s giftedness and talent with other people and societies, and suggested
that it should occur via leadership development. She argued that gifted
education should extend beyond talent development at the level of the
individual, and should foster societal responsibility by nurturing future
leaders. Historically, gifted education (particularly where its modern form
originated, in the U.S.) has been both loved and hated due to deep-rooted
perceptions that view it as elitist and therefore inequitable (e.g., Peters,
Gentry, Whiting, & McBee, 2019; Warne, 2019), so encouraging the gifted
population to assume leadership roles in service to society may help ame
liorate the negative aspects of public perceptions of gifted education.
Leadership in general has been studied for decades, but most studies
involving gifted students have been limited to general examinations of these
students’ perceptions about leaders and leadership (Lee & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2016; Matthews, 2004, 2015). Few if any studies appear to have
addressed gifted students’ leadership in cross-cultural perspective, or the
role of motivation in fostering leadership development among the acade
mically gifted population.
One specific area where research is limited is in examining how self-
perceptions operate as a motivating force in the emergence of leadership.
Authors of one study have suggested that gifted students’ belief in giftedness
as a developmental talent is likely to stimulate their desire to achieve their
potential giftedness (Murphy & Reichard, 2012). Access to leadership
experiences through well-designed educational programs appears to
enhance interest in leadership and increase participants’ motivation to
take leadership roles (Matthews, 2004; Sisk, 1993) and to develop their
high potential in leadership by working to become leaders (Feldhusen &
Kennedy, 1988). Because of the important role that motivations like these
(i.e., belief in one’s potential and participation in programming to develop
it) play in talent development (e.g., Simonton, 2020), it seems worthwhile to
examine the degree to which gifted learners are confident in perceiving their
leadership ability as one of their emergent talents, and whether such percep
tions facilitate the process of leadership talent development. Information
about the relationships between leadership motivation and leadership
experiences in and outside of school would help inform educational services
for nurturing the leadership talents of gifted students. Additionally,
examining these patterns in cross-cultural perspective may help illuminate

the components of leadership that are universal versus those that may be
more strongly influenced by culture. By examining these areas researchers
and educators can gain a better idea of what goals gifted education practi
tioners should pursue for society and also for individual gifted students.
Literature review
Conceptions of leadership
Leadership is a multi-dimensional concept that scholars variously have
framed as a personality trait, an act or a behavior, initiation and power
relations, and/or a process of influencing other people (Alvesson & Spicer,
2014; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016). Due to its multifaceted nature,
leadership cannot be reduced to a single concept; rather, it is
a constellation of related characteristics that can be extrapolated from the
study of eminent leaders (Yammarino, 2013). Komives, Lucas, and
McMahon (2009) summarized that the act of leadership is purposeful,
collaborative, and value-laden, and that it leads to positive changes for
society. They also observed that effective leaders possess a balance of
intrapersonal and interpersonal abilities that allows them to convince fol
lowers to make changes for the betterment of society.
These aspects of the leader’s role have led to the development of three
related foci in conceptualizations of leadership: Intrapersonal leadership,
interpersonal leadership, and a hybrid of these two. Intrapersonal leadership
defines leadership mainly based on those personality traits or characteristics
held in common across many leaders. (Bono, Shen, & Yoon, 2014; Piccolo
et al., 2012). Other key personality attributes of effective leaders include
humility, self-awareness, and self-regulation (Gardner, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2005).
Interpersonal leadership focuses instead on the interactions between
leaders and their followers (Bass & Bass, 2008; Chemers, 2002; Yukl,
2006). Leaders with interpersonal leadership skills are good at building
and maintaining relationships with other people and at persuading others
to follow their lead. Lastly, the hybrid style encompasses aspects of both
intrapersonal and interpersonal leadership. Leaders of this third type show
a balance of effective intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics (Bass &
Bass, 2008; Conner & Strobel, 2007).
Each of these approaches to understanding leadership includes some
amount of focus on personal characteristics, other people, and the relation
ships between the leader and his/her followers. Yet, none of these
approaches directly addresses the influence of specific sociocultural contexts
on the individual’s expression of leadership behaviors. Because leadership
embraces certain goals and values of the society within which it occurs, it
thus varies according to sociocultural context (Adler, 2002). Sociocultural
values influence perceptions of authority, self-identity, and preferences for
resolving social conflict (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Inkeles, 1997; Inkeles &
Levinson, 1969). These values also affect one’s mode of thinking and of
responding to the expectations of society (Dickson, Castaño, Magomaeva, &
Den Hartog, 2012) and thereby determine the preferred roles of leaders
within a given societal setting (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Therefore, we
frame leadership as not only a personal attribute, but also as a sociocultural
phenomenon that leads to positive changes for people and for their society.
Leadership behaviors
Leadership behavior studies in the United States

Leadership behaviors were first studied in the 1940s and 1950s (Day &
Antonakis, 2012; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). These early researchers suggested
taxonomies of leadership behaviors that consisted of two factors: caring and
initiation. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) framed leadership behaviors
according to the level of the leader’s authority and his/her followers’ free
dom within the relationship. These behaviors include telling (e.g., a leader
announces his decision), selling (e.g., a leader persuades followers), suggest
ing (e.g., a leader asks for questions), consulting (e.g., decisions are subject
to change), joining (e.g., a leader gets suggestions from followers), delegat
ing (e.g., a leader asks followers to make a decision within limits), and
abdicating (e.g., a leader allows followers to function within limits). They
suggested that a successful leader was one who was sufficiently aware of his
followers and of the situation to be able to adopt the most appropriate style
of leadership in any given situation. Blake, Mouton, and Bidwell (1962), in
a similar approach, recognized five styles of managerial leadership based on
the balance between organizational needs (e.g., production and profit) and
human needs (e.g., healthy relationships), and suggested that of these,
a team approach appeared to be most effective.
Much of the leadership literature since these beginnings has continued
this early focus on the business context. For example, Yukl, Wall, and
Lepsinger (1990) identified 14 relevant behaviors–planning and organizing,
problem solving, clarifying, informing, monitoring, motivating, consulting,
recognizing, supporting, managing conflict and team building, networking,
delegating, developing and mentoring, and rewarding – as expressions of
leadership in the context of managerial decision-making.
Other more recent work has focused more broadly, extending beyond the
business world to include other leadership settings. Goleman, Boyatzis, and
McKee (2002) suggested six types of leadership in organizations: command
ing, visionary, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coach leadership. In
this conceptualization, each style has a characteristic emphasis: immediate

compliance from followers (e.g., commanding), following one’s own vision
(e.g., visionary), personal feelings (e.g., affiliative), teamwork (e.g., demo
cratic), high performance (e.g., pacesetting), and personal development
(e.g., coaching).
In addition to focusing on the behaviors of leaders themselves, some work
has focused on the perceptions of those being led. Peterson and Peterson
(2012) surveyed 720 college students to identify their perceptions of ideal
managerial leadership behaviors. Using two previously published leadership
measures as sources, they asked students to choose the behaviors they
believed to be most critical for achieving organization goals.
Overwhelmingly, building trust was the most widely chosen behavior,
with just over 75% of respondents choosing it. Taking initiative, being
“friendly and considerate”, and “builds team” (p. 108) were the next most
widely chosen behaviors, being included in 62–63% of responses. Four other
leadership behaviors that were chosen by at least half of the respondents
included enthusiasm, delegation of authority, informing others about their
responsibilities, and keeping employees informed. Seventeen other leader
ship behaviors included in these authors’ survey were chosen as important
by fewer than half of the respondents.
Leadership also has been studied in other contexts, such as in the military
and on sports teams. Todd and Kent (2004) examined beliefs about peer
leadership among 375 adolescents who were involved in at least one sports
team. These students perceived hard work, respect for others, and high
performance as the three most important indicators of peer leaders. As
should be evident, leadership consists of a constellation of interrelated traits
and behaviors that often are known by different names in different fields of
study.
The setting in which leadership occurs is not the only relevant influence
on its expression. It should be evident that many of the characteristics
identified as important through these kinds of studies are also dependent
to some extent on cultural context. The origins of much of the literature on
leadership have been in data and scholarship based in the U.S. Though a full
review on this topic is beyond the scope of this paper, in considering
possible cultural differences, it is instructive to look also at some of the
few studies conducted in one of the two culturally distinct settings that are
the focus of our data collection efforts, South Korea.
Leadership behavior studies in South Korea

Kim (2009) identified factors influencing the development of leadership
among 2,343 middle school students in South Korea. Results showed that
affective (e.g., creative personality, happiness), cognitive (e.g., IQ, learning
style, metacognition), educational (e.g., learning activities, match between
learning style and actual experiences), and family factors (e.g., family
income, parental values, parental support, parenting style) accounted for
almost 80% of the variance in students’ leadership skills. Specifically, 11.7%
of the leadership skills were explained solely by affective factors and 5.5% by
cognitive factors. Creative personality (5.3%) and happiness (3.2%) were the
two affective variables contributing most to explaining these students’
leadership.
In another Korean study by Kwak, and Kim (2008), 1,479 middle and
high school students responded to survey questions about leadership, great
leaders, leadership education, and leadership skills. These Korean adoles
cents perceived leadership as the abilities to solve problems, care for other
people, and take risks, and they believed that leadership characteristics are
inborn. Despite this belief they also were eager to develop their own leader
ship skills through experiential learning, and they believed that leadership
courses ought to be provided in school for all students. It appears that in the
South Korean setting as well, the role of cultural context in leadership
behaviors can be inferred.
Giftedness and leadership
Despite the paucity of research in this area, overall it appears that intellec
tual giftedness is widely believed to be associated with leadership skills, as
evidenced by the ongoing inclusion of both areas in definitions of giftedness
dating back to the Marland (1972; see also Jolly & Matthews, 2014). It seems
likely that this belief may be based in observations of these students’ high
competence in specific component skills such as planning. This supposition
is supported by one of the few studies involving leadership perceptions and
gifted students, in which Muammar (2015) compared 56 gifted and 120
non-identified college students. Using a leadership characteristics inventory
with 34 items about leading self and others, effective communication,
problem solving, and planning skills, Muammar reported a significantly
higher mean for planning skills among gifted students than non-identified
students. Other leadership skills did not show significant differences
between the two groups in this particular study.
Despite a positive association between measures of intelligence and some
aspects of leadership ability, relatively few studies on leadership have
included gifted students as research participants (Bégin & Gagné, 1994).
The correlations between intellectual giftedness and leadership ability are
not consistently positive, but there is some evidence supporting a significant
relationship between the two. The broad variability in existing conceptions
of giftedness (McBee & Makel, 2019) makes it difficult to specify a single
definition for the construct. Moreover, developmental leadership studies
involving youth also lack a solid theoretical framework (Matthews, 2004),
and thus, conceptions of leadership and names for its associated traits and
behaviors have varied widely across researchers and studies. We attempt to
provide a clear operational definition of giftedness in the current study, but
we also utilize additional definitions from the literature when we judge it
appropriate to do so. For leadership, we draw upon various aspects of the
literature we reviewed and on focus group results to develop and refine
relevant survey items, as described below. But first, we continued to make
the case for considering leadership in cross-cultural context and among
students identified as gifted.
In a meta-analysis, Lord, de Vader, and Alliger (1986) confirmed
a positive association between perceptions of intelligence and leadership.
Aggregating data from Mann’s (1959) review of leadership and other leader
ship studies, the authors also reported finding relationships between leader
ship, intelligence, and other personality characteristics. Among the variables
they examined, the highest correlation was between intelligence and leader
ship (r=.52).
Kirton (1984) focused on the role of individual differences in creativity,
problem-solving, and decision making, and how awareness of these traits
of employees can help managers guide the process of organizational
change. While Kirton’s framework and its associated measure focus on
the business setting, creativity and problem-solving are both widely dis
cussed in the context of gifted education (e.g., Bruce-Davis et al., 2017;
Jolly, Matthews, Sidney, & Marland, 2014), suggesting that Kirton’s
approach also may be relevant in examining leadership among students
identified as gifted.
Life goals and leadership

A collection of relevant studies has demonstrated that gifted students’ life
goals indicate clearly their aspirations to become leaders (Bronk, Holmes, &
Talib, 2010; Shin, Hwang, Cho, & McCarthy-Donovan, 2014). Bronk et al.
(2010) interviewed 203 adolescents about their life purposes, comparing 100
gifted learners who attended middle and high schools for high ability
students with 103 typically developing students who attended nonselective
secondary schools. These authors identified four types of life goals based on
combinations of low or high prosocial orientation and engagement, and
labeled these goals with the terms drifting, self-oriented life goals, beyond
the self-dream, and purpose. (see Bronk et al., 2010; Damon, 2008; Damon,
Menon, & Bronk, 2003; Steger, Oishi, & Kashdan, 2009). Bronk et al. (2010)
reported additionally that gifted adolescents were likely to take social values
and careers into consideration in identifying their life goals, while their non-
identified same-age peers predominantly addressed personal hobbies, lei
sure, and only then careers as their priorities for setting life goals.
Moran (2009) offered an expanded conception of giftedness by incorpor

ating purpose in the form of intrapersonal intelligence. Using interviews
and surveys of 270 students ages 12 through 22, Moran found that among
the four types of purpose previously identified by Bronk and colleagues, one
quarter of the students identified their life goals as being consistent with
high levels of both prosocial awareness and engagement (e.g., purpose).
Moran asserted on the basis of this relatively low proportion that purpose is
an extraordinary and/or a precocious achievement, one that is manifested
only among a small fraction of youths.
Shin et al. (2014) examined life goals and self-reported purpose among
129 high-achieving students who attended one of the most prestigious
colleges in South Korea. The authors reported that these Korean gifted
students identified pursuing a social purpose within their ultimate life
goals and showed high levels of prosocial intention and commitment to
community work and society. They also expressed a high awareness of social
responsibility and an interest in serving their nation. This inter-relatedness
of life goals and social purpose, together with the evidence of leadership
interest and potential among gifted students in both the U.S. and Korea,
offers another source of support for our assertion of a cohesive relationship
between leadership, gifted-level academic ability, and social context.
Cultural influences on leadership

Societies vary in their characteristics and corresponding expectations of
their citizens, and these differences in turn can affect the expression of
leadership behaviors. There are various frameworks that have been devel
oped to understand the relative position of different societies in these areas,
and from among these, we selected three dimensions that seem the most
relevant to the constellation of leadership/academic giftedness/social con
text and purpose. Each framework suggests a continuum of behaviors along
which variation occurs in response to cultural and national differences.
These are power distance, cultural tightness-looseness, and individualistic
vs. collectivistic orientation. Specific cultural contexts and their associated
norms vary along each of these dimensions, and because of this, different
societies are likely to value and reward the expression of different constella
tions of personal traits in diverse arenas that may include leadership (Miao,
Humphrey, & Qian, 2018).
Power distance on a broad level refers simply to the equality of power
distribution in a society, which may range from low to high. Furthermore,
power distance informs both how inequalities are viewed, and how relatively
likely individuals are to adhere to existing power hierarchies (Hofstede,
1986; Hofstede & Minkov, 2010; Yoo, 2014). In settings with a high power
distance, leaders are less likely to show empathy for their followers, and
followers are unlikely to question existing inequalities in power distribution,

while the reverse is true in settings that have a low power distance. While
Hofstede (1986) grouped Korea together with other countries with a large
power distance and placed the U.S. into the cluster characterized by a low
power distance, these countries’ actual rankings are not extremely different,
with rankings of 27th and 15th place respectively among the 66 countries
evaluated. Thus, while power distance is slightly higher in Korea, it does not
differ greatly from the U.S. in this regard (also see Hofstede & Minkov,
2010)
Cultural tightness and looseness (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006; Gelfand
et al., 2011) offers a framework that considers cultural differences in terms of
the strength of social norms and the degree to which violations of these
norms are tolerated by other members of the culture. Loose cultures have
weak norms for behavior and a high tolerance for deviation from these
norms, while tight cultures are the opposite. In terms of the two settings in
the present study, the U.S. occupies a position around 1/3 of the way from
loose toward tight, while South Korea places only a few countries from the
tight end of this scale. In the context of the current study, this may suggest
that Korean students’ responses would be more homogeneous than those of
students in the United States’ cultural context.
The continuum between individualistic and collectivistic cultures refers
to what it sounds like, that is, to how tightly individuals’ obligations are
entwined within a social network. As with power distance, the work on
individualism/collectivism was developed in the work of Hofstede (e.g.,
Hofstede, 1986, 2011; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Among individualistic
cultures such as the U.S. (which occupies a position near the individualistic
end of this continuum), social networks are more loosely knit and include
fewer reciprocal obligations than in collectivistic cultures. Individualist
cultures also tend to prioritize the accomplishment of personal goals and
self-interest. In contrast, people in collectivistic cultures such as South
Korea (which falls more than 4/5 of the way along the scale from individu
alist to collectivist, ranking 56th among 66 countries examined) value the
welfare of the group more highly than the individual members’ desires.
Social networks in collectivist cultures carry stringent expectations for
reciprocal obligations between group members.
Because these obligations require leadership to fulfill, it seems likely that
the individualism vs. collectivism continuum may influence students’ per
ceptions and goals in the area of leadership. Specifically, students may feel
more compelled to express and develop their own leadership in a collectivist
culture than they would be in an individualist setting, because of the
collectivist expectation of reciprocal obligations; this may be expressed as
greater motivation or goal orientation related to taking on future leadership
roles. Preferences and values related to different types of leadership may also
differ, because we would expect a collectivist setting to constrain more

tightly the avenues through which such development is permitted to take
place.
To summarize, scholars have framed cultural variation along a variety
of contextual dimensions, and these seem likely to influence the expression
of leaders’ intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics and behaviors.
Among the three areas we considered, the greatest differences between the
U.S. and Korean context are in the area of individualism/collectivism.
Adolescents’ perceptions of interactions between a leader and his/her
followers are one way in which they identify capable leaders. Yet, most
previous studies involving high-ability learners have not involved
a comparison group (e.g., students not identified as gifted) and have
overlooked sociocultural influences on leadership by not including
responses from different cultures. Additionally, cultural factors potentially
enhancing and/or inhibiting students’ leadership aspirations have not been
considered. Leadership education must be based in a comprehensive
understanding of the conception of leadership and the needs of future
leaders within a pluralistic society, and it should also be attentive to
relevant cultural norms such as the degree of individualist vs. collectivist
orientation of the surrounding culture. We designed the study described
below to address these gaps in the literature and to provide descriptive
information leading to a better understanding of gifted students’ beliefs
regarding their own leadership and their desire to make changes suppor
tive of positive outcomes for other people and for society, as well as to
investigate cultural influences on youth perceptions of leadership across
two cultural contexts, South Korea and the United States.
Study rationale
In the current study, we examined how academically gifted and typically
developing students perceived leaders, effective leadership, their own leader
ship ability, and leadership development. We developed a survey for this
purpose, as we described in the methods section that follows. Survey ques
tions focused on students’ perceptions about leaders and leadership and
their beliefs regarding differences between gifted and non-identified stu
dents. Because we were not evaluating any specific programming, we elected
to use the broad theoretical framework of life goals/life purpose as an
organizing lens through which to conceptualize the survey questions’ devel
opment, as informed by our reading of the literature. Specifically, we
designed survey items to address respondents’ preferred types of leadership
in different hypothetical situations, their perceptions of leaders’ character
istics, their aspirations to take on leadership roles, and their beliefs regard
ing gifted students’ potential to become leaders.
Because leadership and leaders’ characteristics may vary according to the

sociocultural context in which they are expressed, we also designed the
study to compare students’ responses across cultures within the gifted
sample (i.e., Korean versus U.S. gifted students). As we described above,
among the three salient dimensions of cultural variation that we examined,
the individualism/collectivism dimension was the area in which the litera
ture showed the greatest differences between the U.S. and Korean cultural
contexts. South Korea is a collectivistic society where gifted education with
the support of the government has grown rapidly since the early 2000s
(Korean Educational Development Institute, 2016). In contrast the
U.S. represents an individualistic society, one whose federal definition of
gifted students was first specified nearly half a century ago but in which
there is very little federal support for gifted education. Thus, it is worth
comparing gifted students’ responses from these two nations because we
would expect to find leadership-related differences based on their differing
sociocultural contexts. We hope through these efforts to understand more
fully the nature of leadership perceptions and leadership development for
gifted students.
Our research addressed the following questions: (1) What are students’
preferred types of leadership and their perceptions of the characteristics of
effective leaders in the society and the classroom? (2) How do these students
perceive gifted students’ leadership and their own potential to become
future leaders? (3) To what extent are students motivated to take on leader
ship roles? Do their expressed life goals predict their leadership motivation?
(4) What variables correlate with gifted students’ beliefs regarding the
possibility of students like themselves becoming leaders in the future?
Using responses to these questions, we made comparisons as appropriate
between gifted and non-identified students, and across U.S. and South
Korean cultural settings within the gifted population sample from these
two countries.
Method
Participants and data collection
A total of 743 Korean and U.S. adolescents participated. The Korean sample
consisted of 300 gifted students (males = 82.7%, females = 17.3%) and 303
non-identified regular students (males = 63.0%, females = 37.0%), while the
U.S. sample included 140 gifted students (males = 35.7%, females = 64.3%).
Both groups of gifted students were academically superior, having been
ranked within the top 3% to 5% nationwide based on their academic
performance. The superior level of academic performance is the primary
criterion we referred to in making gifted Korean and U.S. groups
comparable, although specific criteria for admission to gifted schools (for

the Korean participants) and gifted programs (for the U.S. participants)
differed between the two nations as described below.
Korean sample
For the Korean sample, with the help of teachers from each school we
contacted students attending five specialized math and science schools for
gifted students and another five general high schools. A total of 10 teachers
from 10 different schools were selected because they were colleagues of the
researchers for this study. After getting permission from the school princi
pals, students, and their parents, a paper survey was mailed out to the
teachers from January to March, 2017. With the help of the schools in
soliciting students’ responses, the response rate was 99.8%, confirming
that all but a few students completed the survey after consenting to respond.
The three hundred Korean students in the gifted sample were identified
by their attendance at specialized (gifted) math and science schools in South
Korea. Considering that only students who have achieved national standar
dized test scores in the top 3% in the nation are admitted to these specialized
schools, these gifted students were academically superior compared to their
same-age peers. Overwhelmingly, they were male (82.7%; 17.3% female
students), which is in line with the typical gender proportion of gifted
science and math schools in South Korea (Korean Educational
Development Institute, 2016). Half (49.7%) were freshmen in high school
with less than 5 years of experience with gifted education (55.3%), and math
(74.0%) and science (73.0%) were the two most reported gifted education
subject areas.
In addition to the gifted sample, 303 non-identified (i.e., typically devel
oping) students were recruited for a comparison group. They attended
regular high schools in South Korea and had neither been identified as
gifted nor attended specialized gifted schools.
U.S. sample
From April to July of 2017, six hundred sixty students were contacted by
a talent development center in the U.S. via e-mail or the center’s social
network platform. They were all high school students who had taken or were
taking academic courses for gifted students at the center. Because a lower
response rate is typical of online surveys (Al Baghal, Sloan, Jessop, Williams,
& Burnap, 2019), the center also sent out several e-mails to the parents of the
students to solicit responses. Ultimately a total of 140 students, including 6
students who responded to a paper survey from home, participated in the
survey (response rate = 15.1%).
The U.S. students identified as gifted had qualified to participate in
specialized programs at a well-known regional talent search in the U.S.
(see Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). Initial eligibility for off-
level testing through the talent search program was restricted to students
who had scored in the 90th percentile or higher on a nationally normed or
state on-grade-level achievement test, who were nominated by teachers or
parents, and/or who had qualified for in-school gifted programs; thus, the
U.S. sample also was academically superior compared to typical age peers.
The majority of these students were female (64.3%, 35.7 males), which is
roughly consistent with the reported proportion of female students in gifted
programming overall in U.S. schools (approximately 55% female; National
Center for Education Statistics, 2008). Slightly more than half of the
U.S. sample were in grades 9 and 10, while the remainder were in grades
11 or 12. Like the Korean gifted sample, most reported having less than
5 years of experience with gifted education (68.6%). See Table 1 for student
information.
Survey development
The research team for this project included two experts on gifted education
and seven graduate students who previously had taught gifted students in
K-12 settings. First, a review of literature helped us identify major themes in
the prior research on leaders, leadership, leadership education and pro
gramming, and measures of leadership. Themes identified included
Table 1. Students’ demographic information (percentages by category).

Korean Sample U.S. Sample
Gifted Non-identified Gifted
(n = 300) (n = 303) (n = 140)
Gender
Male 82.7 63.0 35.7
Female 17.3 37.0 64.3
Grade
10th grade or below 49.7 48.8 57.9
11th grade 11.3 29.7 25.7
12th grade 39.0 21.5 12.9
No response - - 3.5
Year of birth
1998 - - 2.9
1999 36.0 28.4 6.4
2000 32.0 65.7 20.7
2001 28.7 5.6 29.3
2002 2.7 0.3 32.1
2003 .7 - 7.1
2004 - - -
2005 - - 1.4
Years of enrollment in gifted programs
None 9.0 - 2.9
Less than 1 year 9.3 - 20.0
1 to 2 years 22.7 - 24.3
2 to 3 years 17.3 - 13.6
3 to 4 years 15.0 - 10.7
5+ years 26.7 - 28.6
conceptions of leadership, roles and types of leaders, and leadership devel

opment. Following the review of literature, and based on a theoretical
framework that situates perceptions of leadership within the broader cate
gory of life purpose, team members constructed initial survey items based
on the theoretical framework (for parts 1 and 2) and drawing from pre
viously published items (for part 3). Our approach is consistent with how
both early (e.g., Blake et al., 1962; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958) and more
recent sources (e.g., Kim, 2009; Kirton, 1984) have studied leadership issues
in both U.S. and Korean settings.
Second, we conducted a focus group interview (FGI) with eight gifted
college students (males = 5, females = 3) at the most academically presti
gious university in South Korea, to examine how they perceived their own
leadership development and related education in school. These students
were recruited by the research team with the help of colleagues who had
known the students and who understood the purpose of the FGI. All FGI
participants reported having experiences with gifted education before col
lege and/or having been identified as gifted in adolescence. After students
provided consent, the FGI lasted for two hours, during which team mem
bers questioned students regarding their perceptions about leadership, the
characteristics of present and future leaders, their beliefs about leadership
development for gifted students, and their own experiences with the leader
ship programs and/or activities in the school (see Lee, Kim, & Boo, 2019 for
additional description of the FGI process and results). Because we con
ducted the FGI with the Korean sample only, the results of the FGI were
carefully reviewed by one of the U.S. co-researchers for this project in order
to review whether the students’ responses were skewed by their Korean
cultural background.
We used both the literature review and FGI results to identify main
themes to include in the final survey. For example, we identified conceptions
of leadership, leaders’ characteristics, leadership motivation, and leadership
development/education as primary themes of prior research in leadership.
We examined responses from the FGI participants about their beliefs
regarding leadership and leadership development, their expectations for
ideal leaders and leadership, and their motivations to take on leadership
roles and become leaders, and we considered these in formulating questions
and/or response options for the survey.
Survey translation. To support the validity of the survey in English,
research team members reviewed the literature and the transcribed FGI
data multiple times, then conducted an initial translation from Korean into
English. Two experts on gifted education from the U.S. reviewed and
evaluated the entire survey for its appropriateness and face validity for
U.S. students. In this role, one of the co-investigators of this study proposed
specific modifications to improve the survey translation (i.e., for appropriate
reading level, familiar phrasing of instructions for students in the U.S., and
related considerations). Correspondence with the Korean principal investi
gator went through 3–4 iterations of the survey to arrive at a mutually
acceptable English language version. Ultimately, we judged 31 items appro
priate in both Korean and English versions of the survey and finalized these
items to address the three themes of leadership, leaders, and gifted students’
own leadership ability.
Survey construction. The first part of the survey consisted of 18 items
assessing students’ preferences for types of leadership and leaders, ratings of
their own leadership ability, and experiences as student leaders. Specifically,
four items presented scenarios expressing different leadership roles and
asked respondents to rate these in terms of their preferred types of leaders
and leadership. Examples derived from our reading of the literature
included conflict resolvers (Goleman et al., 2002), adaptors vs. innovators
(Kirton, 1984), decision makers (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958), and
people vs. performance/outcome-oriented leaders (Blake et al., 1962). We
conceptualized these roles within the following situations: a school orches
tra, a school festival, a booth for the school festival, and a soccer team.
Following a similar development process, other survey items addressed
students’ previous leadership experiences, aspirations to become classroom
leaders, and perceived classroom leadership qualifications (5 item); stu
dents’ ratings of their own leadership abilities and self-efficacy (5 items);
and their perceptions about the characteristics and competencies of leaders
in society (4 items).
A second part of the survey included seven items. These examined gifted
students’ perceptions of their possibility of becoming leaders (4 items) and
their perceptions of their own responsibility to become good leaders for the
sake of society (2 items). One item asked the extent to which students
regarded leadership as one of the talents gifted students commonly possess.
Lastly, four items formed the third part of the survey. Three questions
examined students’ aspirations to become leaders and take on leadership
roles in the future, and one item measured students’ life goals. The life goals
item consisted of 18 statements drawn from the Educational Longitudinal
Study of 2002 Student Questionnaire (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2004, 2008) that initially were designed to measure students’
plans and expectations for the future. Each of the 18 statements asks respon
dents to rate the level of importance for each life goal on a three-point scale
(i.e., not important, somewhat important, very important). We conducted
exploratory factor analysis (with maximum likelihood extraction and direct
oblimin factor rotation) with the 18 statements and subsequently removed
four statements that failed to meet our minimum criterion of a primary
factor loading of .4 or above (Stevens, 1992), χ2 = 327.78, df = 87, p< .001 (see
Table 2 for factor loadings). The confirmatory factor analysis classified the
Table 2. Factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation of items
related to students’ plans and expectations for the future (NELS: 2002).
CL FC JS ED
Supporting environmental causes .74 −.07 .06 .02
Working to correct social and economic inequalities .68 −.02 −.17 −.09
Being an active and informed citizen .67 .01 −.13 −.19
Helping other people in your community .65 .15 .00 −.05
Being patriotic .45 .22 .15 .24
Living close to parents and relatives .35 .27 .24 .23
Finding a right person to marry and having a happy family life −.13 .85 −.01 −.03
Having children −.03 .72 −.02 .10
Being able to give your children better opportunities than you’ve had .16 .41 .17 −.04
Having strong friendships .13 .36 .07 −.09
Having leisure time to enjoy your own interests .09 .32 −.01 −.08
Being able to find a steady work .02 .01 .68 −.05
Getting a good job .02 −.02 .54 −.41
Having lots of money −.19 .13 .43 .03
Getting away from this area of the country .10 −.14 .17 −.12
Becoming an expert in your field of work .01 .01 .18 −.65
Getting a good education .07 .10 −.20 −.64
Being successful in your line of work −.06 .12 .20 −.53
Note. Factor loadings with absolute values higher than.4 are in boldface. CL = Community Leadership, FC = Family
Commitment, JS = Job security, ED = Expertise Development.
Table 3. Construction of the survey (survey items are in the appendix).

Number of
Theme Sub-themes Items
Leadership, leaders, and leadership Types of leadership 4
experiences Classroom leadership and leadership experiences 5
Leadership self-efficacy abilities 5
Leaders’ characteristics and competencies 4
Gifted students’ potential to become Gifted students’ possibility to become leaders 4
leaders Responsibility to become leaders 2
Leadership as a talent 1
Leadership motivation and life goals Aspirations to become leaders and take 3
leadership roles
Life goals 1
remaining 14 statements into four factors with mediocre model fit

(RMSEA = .09 and CFI = .83), which we labeled community leadership,
family commitment, job security, and expertise development. The commu
nity leadership factor consisted of five items about engagement in leadership
activities for local communities (α = .77), and the family commitment factor
was comprised of four items regarding dedication to a spouse and children
(α = .71). Job security consisted of three items about pursuing employment
and income (α = .60), and the expertise development factor incorporated
three items about becoming an expert, pursuing a good education, and being
successful in a domain (α = .69). Lastly, we computed average scores for all
four factors. The content areas addressed by these survey items are summar
ized in Table 3 (see also the final survey in Appendix A).
Data analysis
We analyzed survey responses using SPSS 21.0, first examining descriptive
statistics to assure that data were not skewed. We then used Chi-square tests
and independent samples t-tests to evaluate response choices and patterns
of responses between the pooled gifted versus non-identified students, and
between the Korean and U.S. gifted students. We conducted a logistic
regression to account for leadership motivation (i.e., desire to take on
leadership roles in the future) of students, including both gifted and non-
identified students, by the students’ preferred types of life goals. We con
ducted a second logistic regression to predict gifted students’ beliefs about
the possibility of gifted students like themselves becoming leaders in adult
hood (i.e., whether they think gifted students are more likely than typica
students to become adult leaders) using selected predictors such as students’
participation in gifted programs, their leadership experiences, and their
beliefs regarding leadership as one mode of talents for gifted students.
Results
Perceptions of leadership and leaders
Preferred types of leadership

Overall, students preferred those types of leadership that facilitate group
members’ involvement and demonstrate care for their feelings and personal
growth. When asked to choose their preferred type of leadership in solving
conflicts among the musicians in the school orchestra, the students rated
their preferences in the following order: Visionary (39.7%), affiliative
(23.6%), commanding (18.4%), and coaching (17.6%). When required to
make a decision to settle a disagreement among group members, students
favored the adaptor over the innovator type of leadership. More than half of
the students preferred the high adaptor and low innovator type, and about
one third preferred the high adaptor and high innovator type, while few
students indicated a preference for the low adaptor and low innovator type
or the low adaptor and high innovator type. The students indicated
a preference for incorporating all members’ opinions into decisions about
group activities. In organizing and running a booth at a school festival, more
than half of the students (54.2%) responded that if they were leaders, they
would make a general outline but rely on their classmates’ decisions. One
fifth of the students (20.5%) chose the abdicating leadership type that
encourages group members to make their own decisions without leader
input, while only 14.7% chose the joining type in which the leader integrates
others’ opinions but makes a final decision on his/her own. The least
preferred type was where the leader makes a decision alone and distributes
the accompanying work to others (10.5%). Lastly, when asked about
whether they were more people- versus task- or performance-oriented in

taking a leadership role, about half of the students responded that they
balanced people and task oriented leadership (49.3%), followed by 20.5%
people oriented and 19.5% task or performance oriented. Nearly one in 10
students indicated they would avoid this situation and ask for help from
other leaders (9.3%).
Differences between gifted and non-identified students

There were some differences in leadership style preferences between gifted
and non-identified students. Statistically significant differences were appar
ent in preferences regarding the level of group members’ involvement in the
decision-making process, χ2 (3, N = 742) = 41.76, p < .001, φc = .24. The
telling leadership style was favored more heavily by gifted (15.5%) than non-
identified (3.3%) students, while the abdicating leadership style was more
favored by non-identified (28.5%) than gifted (15.0%) respondents.
Another statistically significant difference was in the area of balancing
person and task/performance orientation, χ2 (3, N = 732) = 17.26, p = .001,
φc = .15 Gifted students had a greater preference than non-identified
students for task/performance-oriented leadership (gifted 22.5%, non-
identified 15.8%) and for the avoiding leadership style (gifted 12.2%, non-
identified 5.4%). A greater proportion of non-identified students preferred
people-oriented leadership, the option that is most attentive to others’ needs
and opinions (non-identified 23.6%, gifted 18.9%), and these students also
had some preference for a balanced approach that includes both people and
task/performance-oriented leadership (non-identified 55.2%, gifted 46.4%).
Differences within gifted students

Responses of the Korean and U.S. students revealed statistically significant
differences on all preferred types of leadership. In resolving conflicts and
tensions in the group, Korean students were twice as likely as U.S. students
to choose commanding (e.g., leaders make their own decisions; Korean 20.5%,
U.S. 9.3%) and more than three times as likely to prefer affiliative leadership
(e.g., leaders prioritize group members’ feelings; Korean 27.9%, U.S. 7.9%), χ2
(3, N = 437) = 44.85, p < .001, φc = .32. In contrast, the U.S. students slightly
preferred visionary leadership (e.g., leaders facilitate group members’ involve
ment to achieve the shared goal) and were more than twice as likely to prefer
coaching (e.g., focus on personal growth) leadership approaches than Korean
respondents did.
In the level (high vs. low) of adaptor versus innovator leadership types, we
found a statistically significant difference within the gifted student sample,
χ2 (3, N = 439) = 72.47, p < .001, φc = .41. Specifically, the Korean gifted
students expressed a greater preference for the adaptor leadership type
compared to their U.S. peers (e.g., high adaptor and low innovator;
Korean 67.6%, U.S. 31.4%). Conversely, the U.S. gifted students preferred
leadership with high levels of both innovator and adaptor types (e.g., high
innovator and high adaptor; U.S. 60.0%, Korean 19.4%).
The Korean and U.S. gifted students also differed in their preferred types
of decision-making as class leaders, χ2 (3, N = 440) = 139.70, p < .001, φc
= .56. The U.S. gifted students preferred the telling (U.S. 36.4%, Korean
5.7%) and joining (U.S. 31.4%, Korean 8.3%) leadership styles, while the
Korean students strongly preferred the delegating (Korean 64.0%, U.S.
32.1%) and abdicating (Korean 22.0%, U.S. 0%) approaches to leadership.
Noticeably, none of the U.S. students chose neglecting (i.e., abdicating)
leadership, the style in which the leader allows others to make plans and
decisions.
Lastly, there were differences in preferences for a person versus task/
performance orientation in solving problems in a group, χ2 (3,
N = 435) = 51.67, p < .001, φc = .35. Compared to the Korean students the
U.S. students were more likely to be task/performance-oriented (U.S. 35.7%,
Korean 16.3%) and were only one third as likely to balance work and
personal relationships (U.S. 22.1%, Korean 7.5%) in resolving issues in the
group. In contrast, the Korean students expressed a greater preference for
person-oriented problem solving (taking group members’ needs and feel
ings into account in solving problems; Korean 23.7%, U.S. 8.6%) or for
making decisions based on consensus among group members (Korean
52.5%, U.S. 33.6%).
Characteristics of good leaders

Leaders in society
We asked students to rank the characteristics they believe important for
leaders in their society. Of the 20 leadership characteristics included in the
survey, the most addressed characteristic was honesty (12.7%), followed
closely by responsibility (12.0%) and morality (10.6%). Differences were
found between the gifted and non-identified students, χ2 (19,
N = 1482) = 78.59, p < .001, φc = .23 and across cultures within the gifted
sample, χ2 (19, N = 880) = 109.12, p < .001, φc = .35. The gifted chose
morality (13.9%), honesty (11.8%), and responsibility (9.0%) as the three
most important characteristics of leaders, while the non-identified students
identified responsibility (16.5%), honesty (13.9%), and problem solving
ability (11.2%) as most important. For students identified as gifted, morality
(16.2%), honesty (13.0%), and responsibility (11.0%) were chosen by the
Korean students, while open-mindedness (11.8%), consideration for others
(10.7%), and problem solving ability (10.0%) were perceived by the
U.S. students as the most important characteristics of their society’s leaders
(see Table 4).
Table 4. Students’ ratings of the characteristics of good leaders.

Gifted Non-Gifted Total
Rank Korean American
1 Morality Open-mindedness Responsibility Honesty
Obs 97 33 100 188
Exp 83.2 18.1 72.7 188
Col% 16.2% 11.8% 16.5% 12.7%
Std. Res 1.5 3.5 3.2
Adj. Res 2.9 4.4 4.4
2 Honesty Consideration for Others Honesty Responsibility
Obs 78 30 84 179
Exp 70.9 13.0 76.4 179
Col% 13.0% 10.7% 13.9% 12.0%
Std. Res 0.8 4.7 3.2
Adj. Res 1.6 5.8 4.4
3 Responsibility Problem solving Problem solving Morality
Obs 66 28 68 158
Exp 53.9 22.6 56.5 158
Col% 11.0% 10.0% 11.2% 10.6%
Std. Res 1.7 1.1 1.5
Adj. Res 3.1 1.4 2.1
Student leaders in the classroom

Respondents rated the importance of four peer leadership characteristics in
the classroom. Responses in order from most to least important were:
conscientiousness (M = 4.63, SD = .56), interpersonal skills (M = 4.39,
SD = .70), service-mindedness (M = 4.29, SD = .70), and academic ability
(M = 2.93, SD = 1.06).
The gifted and non-identified students were statistically different in their
ratings of academic ability, t (740) = −4.82, p < .001, d = .37, with a higher
rating from the gifted group than their non-identified counterparts. Within
the gifted sample, academic ability and conscientiousness yielded significant
differences. The U.S. students perceived academic ability as being more
important than the Korean students did, t (439) = −10.74, p < .001,
d = 1.11; Korean students rated conscientiousness as being more important
for class leaders than the U.S. students did, t (220) = 3.03, p = .003, d = .32.
Gifted students and leadership motivation
Three quarters of students (74.3%) expressed aspirations to become leaders

in society, with interest in leadership expressed to a greater extent by
students in the combined gifted group than among the non-identified
group, χ2 (1, N = 742) = 31.45, p < .001, φc = .20. In reasons to take
leadership roles, the gifted and non-identified groups also differed signifi
cantly, χ2 (3, N = 553) = 25.99, p < .001, φc = .22. Specifically, compared to
the non-identified students, larger proportions of gifted students endorsed
having positive influences on society (gifted 66.8%, non-identified 52.6%)
and gaining self-identity (gifted 18.6%, non-identified 14.6%) as the main

reasons for their leadership aspirations. Non-identified students chose
recognition by others (non-identified 19.3%, gifted 10.0%) and wealth and
fame (non-identified 13.5%, gifted 4.7%) more frequently as reasons.
Although no statistically significant difference was found between the
Korean and U.S. gifted students in their leadership motivation, χ2 (1,
N = 440) = 3.12, p = .074, both groups of students differed in their reasons
to take on leadership roles, χ2 (3, N = 361) = 11.71, p = .008, φc = .18. These
reasons differed in the areas of positive influences (U.S. 77.2%, Korean
61.3%), self-identity (Korean 23.1%, U.S. 9.8%), others’ recognition
(Korean 10.1%, U.S. 9.8%), and wealth and fame (Korean 5.5%, U.S. 3.3%).
Among students who expressed having no aspiration to become leaders,
major reasons had to do with feeling the burden of responsibility (38.3%)
and lacking motivation (29.9%). A lack of experience (17.4%) and ability in
leadership (14.4%) were less frequently chosen as reasons. Within this
category, neither gifted vs. non-identified students, χ2 (3, N = 201) = 7.58,
p = .056, nor Korean vs. U.S. gifted students, χ2 (3, N = 90) = 7.70, p = .053,
differed significantly in their responses. In ranking their responses, 41.9% of
the Korean students referred to the burden of responsibility as the primary
reason for not becoming a leader when they grow up, while the lack of desire
to become a leader was chosen most frequently by the U.S. students (46.4%).
Leadership motivation and life goals

We conducted a logistic regression to examine variation in students’ leader
ship motivation by students’ preferred types of life goals. Four types of life-
goals (i.e., community leadership, family commitment, job security, and
expertise development) were entered as independent variables, and the
dependent variable was students’ willingness to take on leadership roles in
the future (coded: yes = 1, no = 0). The likelihood ratio test showed that the
logistic model was more effective than the null (intercept-only) model, χ2 (4,
N = 733) = 89.71, p < .001. The logistic model accounted for approximately
11.5% (Cox and Snell R2) to 16.9% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
leadership motivation. Two of the four life goals (community leadership,
OR = 1.66, p < .001, and expertise development, OR = 3.57, p < .001) were
significant predictors of students’ leadership motivation, while the other two
(family commitment, OR = 1.00, p = .998, and job security, OR = .80,
p = .177) were not significantly related to leadership motivation. Odds ratios
confirm that for students engaged in leadership activities in local commu
nities, the likelihood of having high leadership motivation was 1.66 times
greater than among the other groups of students. Similarly, students who
were interested in developing expertise had a higher likelihood (3.57 times
greater) of high leadership motivation than among the comparison groups.
Lastly, the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics was not
Table 5. Predicting students’ leadership motivation from four types of life-goals.

Exp (B)
Predictor B SE Wald df p (odds ratio)
Constant −5.43 .92 34.56 1 .000** .00
Community leadership .50 .14 12.78 1 .000** 1.66
Family commitment .00 .12 .00 1 .998 1.00
Job security −.21 .16 1.82 1 .177 .80
Expertise development 1.27 .17 51.40 1 .000** 3.57
Test χ2 df p
Overall model evaluation
Likelihood ratio test 89.71 4 .000
Goodness-of-fit test
Hosmer & Lemeshow 2.10 8 .978
*p <.05. **p <.001. Cox and Snell R2 =.115, Nagelkerke R2 =.169.
statistically significant, χ2 (8, N = 732) = 2.10, p = .978, indicating that the

null hypothesis of a good model fit to data was plausible (see Table 5).
Because we had included the entire sample of students, both gifted and
non-identified, for predicting the leadership motivation by the life goals, we
did not consider nationality or gender in the analysis. However, to confirm
that these were not relevant, we ran a subsequent check in which we did
include the students’ background information (gender and nationality).
Neither the students’ nationality, gender, nor the interaction between gen
der and nationality were statistically significant predictors (nationality,
OR = 1.91, p = .133, gender, OR = 1.15, p = .527, and nationality by gender,
OR = .87, p = .815). Hence, we conclude that students’ four types of life goals
were not likely confounded by nationality or gender, and that our initial
choice to not include nationality or gender in this analysis was appropriate.
Predicting gifted students’ being leaders

Using a second logistic regression analysis, we entered the three variables of
gifted students’ years of participation in gifted programs, their prior leader
ship experiences (i.e., having been in a leadership role), and their belief in
leadership as an aspect of talent, as potential predictors of their belief in
gifted students’ likelihood of becoming leaders in adulthood (coded yes = 1,
no = 0). The likelihood ratio test demonstrated that the logistic model was
more effective than the null (intercept-only) model, χ2 (3, N = 440) = 45.35,
p < .001. The three predicting variables explained about 9.9% (Cox and Snell
R2) to 14.7% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in gifted students’ perceptions
regarding the possibility of gifted students becoming future leaders.
Specifically, students’ belief in leadership as part of one’s talents,
OR = 2.05, p < .001, was a significant predictor of their perceptions. The
odds ratio demonstrated that students believing in leadership as a talent of
gifted students were twice as likely (2.05 times) as members of the
Table 6. Predicting possibilities of gifted students’ becoming future leaders.

Exp (B)
Predictor B SE Wald df p (odds ratio)
Constant −1.06 .45 5.78 1 .016 .34
Gifted program participation −.01 .02 .22 1 .636 .99
Leadership experiences .45 .36 1.67 1 .196 1.58
Leadership as a giftedness −.72 .12 37.96 1 .000** 2.05
Test χ2 df p
Overall model evaluation
Likelihood ratio test 45.35 3 .000**
Goodness-of-fit test
Hosmer & Lemeshow 8.29 7 .307
*p <.05. **p <.001. Cox and Snell R2 =.099, Nagelkerke R2 =.147.
comparison groups to believe that gifted students have a greater possibility

to become leaders. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics
confirmed that the logistic model was fit well to the data, χ2 (7,
N = 440) = 8.29, p = .307 (see Table 6). In this analysis, we examined only
the gifted sample because it was about the gifted students’ own perceptions.
When we included gender and nationality as potential predictors in con
ducting loglinear analysis, we found that nationality, gender, and the inter
action between the two were not significant predictors (nationality,
OR = 1.21, p = .644, gender, OR = .74, p = .387, and nationality by gender,
OR = 1.28, p = .664). This suggested that the gifted students’ nationality and/
or gender did not affect the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. Thus, we have not included these two variables in
the analysis, but used the students’ personal experiences with gifted pro
grams and leadership as predicting variables, consistent with our research
questions of interest.
Summary and discussion

In this study, we reported how over 400 gifted adolescents perceived leader
ship, leaders, and leadership development in comparison to their non-
identified peers. We also examined differences between students identified
as gifted from Korean and U.S. contexts. We observed differences in pre
ferred types of leadership, perceived characteristics of ideal leaders, and
confidence in gifted students’ present and/or future leadership roles.
In considering preferred expressions of leadership, overall, the gifted and
non-identified students gave the highest ratings to leadership offering
visions for the future and leadership demonstrating caring for others’ feel
ings. The majority of respondents favored the adaptor over the innovator
type, and wanted to maintain a balance between valuing people versus tasks
in taking a leadership role themselves. A hybrid leadership style that bal
ances intrapersonal and interpersonal leadership has been found among
efficient leaders (Bass & Bass, 2008; Conner & Strobel, 2007), and the
students in our study generally also favored this approach.
Some areas of difference were evident between the gifted and non-
identified groups, and between the Korean and U.S. gifted students, in
terms of the degree of support for group members’ involvement in the
decision-making process. First, the gifted students preferred leadership
that allows a leader the authority to make a decision for the group, while
the non-identified students looked for leadership that allows followers to
make a decision within limits imposed by the leader. A greater number of
gifted than non-identified students also chose task/performance-oriented
leadership as their preferred approach, the opposite of the people-oriented
approach favored most highly by the non-identified students. One of the
very few leadership studies we located that compared gifted and non-
identified students (Muammar, 2015) revealed advanced planning skills as
the only leadership characteristic that differed between these two groups.
Likewise, our sample of gifted students tend to have a more favorable view
of leaders who make their own plans and decisions. It is possible that this
reflects participants’ experiences with group work in school settings, where
it is not uncommon for gifted students to take on much of the group’s
responsibilities themselves in order to ensure high grades possibly, to make
up for classmates who are less inclined to contribute, or perhaps simply due
to having a strong or take-charge personality.
Among the gifted, the Korean students chose two opposing types, com
manding and affiliative, as the ideal leadership approach, and preferred the
adaptor leadership. In contrast, the U.S. students preferred visionary, coach
ing, and innovator types. These results suggest that the U.S. gifted students
valued the leader’s ability to provide a new vision, persuade other people,
and pursue changes and innovation for the good of society; this leadership
would be manifested in the interactions between leaders and followers (Bass
& Bass, 2008; Chemers, 2002; Yukl, 2006). The Korean students were split
between looking for a strong leader with authority, or a caring leader who is
attentive to others’ needs. They were more conservative in judgments about
the leader’s abilities to make a decision and to change society, compared to
their U.S. peers. The Korean students’ preferences for having a strong leader
may be related to the Korean cultural atmosphere; in a society with high
power distance, authority in leadership is more likely to be accepted by
followers, compared to in a short power-distance society (Hofstede &
Minkov, 2010). Also, South Korean society is generally identified as cultu
rally tight more so than loose (Gelfand et al., 2006, 2011); thus, the Korean
students’ conservative views on leaders’ capabilities are not surprising.
Differences within the gifted sample might be related to sociocultural values
that influence beliefs regarding leadership and authoritative figures (Adler,
2002; Aktas, Gelfand, & Hanges, 2015; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Inkeles,
1997; Inkeles & Levinson, 1969). Given that the Korean context has been
reported to have high power distance and cultural tightness and to be more
strongly influenced by collectivistic values than do the U.S. context (Gelfand
et al., 2006, 2011; Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede & Minkov, 2010), these results
are not completely unexpected either. We did not find evidence in the
literature or in our results to suggest that gender differences across our
samples would explain these observed differences, though that remains
a suitable question for future study.
Due to the lack of causal inference allowed by the current study’s design,
we cannot be sure whether the more conservative versus more progressive
cultural orientations in South Korea and the U.S. may directly have influ
enced preferences for certain approaches to leadership. However, it seems
quite plausible that social goals and values influence expectations of the
leader and his/her roles in the society (Dickson et al., 2012). Our study
supported this argument to some extent by showing differences between
two groups identified as gifted who had different cultural backgrounds. Yet,
because our survey items included differing situations (i.e., school orchestra,
classroom election, school festival, booth for a club) for each leadership
type, responses may not always have been consistent across the circum
stances. Therefore, caution is warranted in interpreting and generalizing
from these results.
Honesty, responsibility, and morality were consistently rated as the most
important characteristics these students expected of leaders in society.
Similarly, for class leaders, the students chose conscientiousness as the
most important characteristic, followed by interpersonal skills and service-
mindedness. The lowest rating was given to academic ability, which may not
be surprising given the overall high ability within the groups we surveyed.
These preferences all are consistent with prior literature, and particularly
with a prior study that reported that affective personality characteristics
were the most compelling leadership component for Korean middle school
students (Kim, 2009). Some differences were evident among the gifted
students in other areas; Korean students considered ethical attitudes and
responsibility as the key qualifications for leaders more than did their
U.S. peers, while U.S. students placed higher values on academic and
problem-solving abilities. Korean students first expected their leaders to
be highly moral and ethical, while the U.S. students looked initially to
a leader who would take initiative to resolve issues. Beliefs in leaders’
qualifications did not vary with the leader’s age (i.e., student-aged vs.
adult leaders).
Research traditionally has conceptualized leadership behaviors in terms
of planning, organizing, problem-solving, and conflict resolution (see Yukl
et al., 1990), but because so many studies on leadership have been based in
Western settings, responses from students in the United States might be
expected to be closer to the results documented in the literature (e.g.,

Kozub, 1993; Lord et al., 1986; Lord, Foti, & de Vader, 1984). This is what
we found in the current study. Compared to the Korean group, the
U.S. students were more likely to emphasize the cognitive credentials
deemed important for leaders and leadership in Western society.
Further, it may be the case that individualistic tendencies in U.S. culture
also encourage a stronger emphasis on leaders’ intrapersonal leadership
qualifications such as cognitive ability and high performance. On the other
hand, some leader characteristics – risk-taking, charisma, and creativity
(Kim, 2009; Kwak et al., 2008; Lord et al., 1986), for instance – were not
very salient among our sample. These differences might be due to evolving
societal perceptions regarding leadership needs; further studies should
follow up on this possibility by examining the historical development of
leaders’ roles within varied cultural settings.
It seems likely that differing experiences with leaders and in the practice
of leadership affect students’ motivation to develop their leadership in the
future. Students who had an interest in and/or were engaged in community
service and volunteering work, and who had a strong desire to develop
expertise and be successful in their interest areas, also had higher aspirations
to become leaders. Moreover, students who agreed more strongly with the
belief that leadership is part of their giftedness also expressed stronger
aspirations for their own future leadership. We suggest that leadership
education efforts in the future should focus on providing students with
opportunities to participate in various community and/or volunteering
services and to develop their interest areas, consistent with other suggestions
in the literature (e.g., Bruce-Davis et al., 2017).
Feeling a burden of responsibility (for Korean students) or low motiva
tion (for the U.S. students) were the primary reasons given by respondents
to explain their lack of interest or unwillingness to pursue leadership posi
tions. Given that gifted education in South Korea has enjoyed strong
national government support since its inception (Korean Educational
Development Institute, 2016), Korean students identified as gifted may
feel an associated sense of responsibility to apply their giftedness to leading
the nation through service. The collectivist cultural expectation of reciprocal
obligations (Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004) may be another
plausible factor boosting these students’ motivation to take on future leader
ship roles. However, due to the design of our study not permitting causal
inference, these are only conjectures at this stage. We hope that future
studies will be designed to validate these speculations.
A greater proportion of U.S. than Korean students expressed no motiva
tion to take on future leadership roles. Some of these respondents attributed
their low interest in leadership development to a lack of leadership experi
ences in school. Few prior studies have investigated the factors accounting
for enhancing and/or inhibiting leadership motivation, so these results

suggest again that there may be a need for high quality leadership training
and associated experiences that would involve students more strongly in
their community. Such work can provide students with opportunities to
develop their interests in service to others and to society (Bruce-Davis et al.,
2017; Lee, 2017).
Leadership education as typically provided does not appear to have
served gifted students well to date. Leadership programs were the response
receiving the least interest among the options for leadership education
included in our survey, a result that differs from previous research advocat
ing for greater use of leadership courses with adolescents (see e.g. Kwak
et al., 2008). Above all, the students we surveyed wanted additional support
from others, particularly mentors. In terms of the competencies they wished
to develop, the Korean gifted students rated collaboration and communica
tion skills most highly. Their strong interest in collaboration might be
related to the collectivistic cultural values that are pervasive in Korean
society (Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Although the
U.S. students considered advanced academic ability a prerequisite for
good leaders, they chose hands-on field experiences as most important in
applied leadership learning. The U.S. gifted students might not be exposed
to as many hands-on experiences as their Korean gifted peers are, and this
would be consistent with the smaller proportion of the U.S. students (75.7%
vs. Korean students, 95.3%) who reported having previous experience in
a leadership role. They may already have recognized their academic ability,
and now want to cultivate other skills through different field experiences.
Also, gifted schools in South Korea typically include a variety of hands-on
activities as part of their school curricula (Korean Educational Development
Institute, 2016); thus, the Korean students likely did not perceive a need to
have more hands-on experiences.
Limitations and suggestions for future study
An acknowledged limitation of this work is that the number of participating

students was not distributed evenly across Korean and U.S. respondents,
and the groups also differed substantially in gender proportion due to
differences in this aspect of the populations from which they were drawn.
A much lower response rate from the U.S. students is likely due to our
decision to use an online survey rather than a paper and pencil one for
reasons of logistics. Having an equivalent number of individuals within each
comparison group and between genders would have strengthened confi
dence in inferences based on these comparative results. Also, the lack of
a typically developing comparison group for the U.S. gifted students limited
our comparison of gifted and non-identified students. It is possible that
there may be gender differences in how students respond, and that these also
may differ across cultural contexts, but any such differences were not a focus
of our analysis. Though the gender distribution within our sample was
roughly consistent with populations in these settings, future studies should
resolve this sampling imbalance to strengthen the transferability of their
findings.
Though we observed some clear differences across groups, we were
unable to infer directly the causes of these differences due to the limitations
of the study design we chose for the current exploratory work. We suggest
that future investigations utilize additional study designs that may be better
suited to examining causal relationships between socio-cultural context and
gifted students’ perceptions of and motivations toward leadership and
leadership development.
We developed the survey used in the present study based on our com
prehensive review of prior research and the focus group interview (FGI)
results. We view our use of a broad range of theoretical approaches to the
main concept (i.e., leadership) as a strength in terms of comprehensiveness
of the resulting survey, but we recognize that this also could be viewed as
a weakness due to the complexity of responses generated. For example,
though the existence of various types of leadership has been widely sup
ported in the literature, many of these are inter-correlated and there is
substantial overlap among the different labels developed by different scho
lars and research traditions (though see the Semantic Scale Network at
https://rosenbusch.shinyapps.io/semantic_net for one effort to address this
widespread issue). The broad concept of leadership is also likely to be
inseparable from peoples’ perceptions of specific individual leaders in
their (unknowable) prior experience, which makes it difficult to assess
leadership independently of such influences. In addition, having a focus
group only in the Korean context is another limitation, although a co-
researcher from the U.S. did review carefully the ensuing revisions to
confirm that the FGI results were not unduly affected by the Korean back
ground of the FGI participants.
Lastly, having administered our survey both in Korean and English
language versions is inevitably a limitation that might affect the results we
have reported, even though we followed best practices in translation to
support the validity of the two survey versions. Additional evidence from
future studies in support of the validity and reliability of our survey would
strengthen confidence in the findings of the current study. Future studies
should seek to include different sources of information, including qualita
tive data, to examine more fully the complex and nuanced areas of leader
ship and leadership development.
In the current study we found that affective characteristics, both
intrapersonal and interpersonal, were the foremost traits students
considered in evaluating leaders, and yet problem-solving skills in asso

ciation with advanced academic ability also were considered an impor
tant aspect of leadership. No one, so far as we are aware, has established
the degree to which leadership is correlated with or depends on academic
giftedness, or vice versa. Though our results appear to support the
existence of some degree of relationship, consistent with prior lines of
evidence, this larger question lies well beyond the scope of this study.
Further studies also are needed to investigate whether and to what extent
students identified as gifted are able (and willing) to make use of their
abilities, in both academic and leadership areas, for the good of their
society.
Lastly, in this study we relied on students’ self-reported perceptions.
Teachers and peers are important (though not necessarily unbiased)
identifiers of students’ talents, and both teachers and peers play
a crucial role in the process of talent development. Understanding how
students’ teachers and peers conceive of leadership, and how their beliefs
may hinder or support individual students’ leadership development, will
help in designing more effective programming to develop leadership
abilities.
Conclusion
Gifted students in this study believed that leadership is an important aspect
of their giftedness and that as such, it should be developed. Compared to
non-identified peers, gifted students in both countries expressed a greater
motivation to take on leadership roles to serve the community and nation,
and they looked up to leaders who possess advanced ethics, integrity, and
conflict resolution skills. These findings remind us of the importance of
sharing collective goals and moral values and developing these via colla
borative, communicative, and problem-solving activities. These are the skills
that potential leaders, particularly those identified as gifted, are usually quite
eager to learn, and their leadership is a contribution our fast-paced global
society desperately needs. Leadership education programming can and
should be instrumental in preparing gifted students for roles as future
leaders. Of course, as with other enrichment-based programming, there is
no good reason to restrict any such offerings to only those participants
formally identified as gifted. We believe that effective leadership education
also might have the potential to counteract public misgivings related to the
education of gifted students. Overall, the different perceptions we observed
in gifted populations from different cultural backgrounds lend support to
the assertions that ideas about leadership do differ in some ways across
cultural contexts, and therefore, that leadership development practices also
should vary accordingly to be most effective. By beginning to consider
cultural differences in leadership perceptions among gifted students, this

study lays the groundwork for further studies to clarify these differences and
commonalities.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-
2016S1A2A2912130]. This work was supported by Global Research Network program
through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A2A2912130)
ORCID
Michael Matthews http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1695-2498
Yun-Kyoung Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-0398
References
Adler, N. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.).
Southwestern Publishing.
Aktas, M., Gelfand, M., & Hanges, P. (2015). Cultural tightness-looseness and perceptions of
effective leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2), 294–309.
Al Baghal, T., Sloan, L., Jessop, C., Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2019). Linking Twitter and
survey data: The impact of survey mode and demographics on consent rates across three
UK studies. Social Science Computer Review. [advance online publication]. doi:10.1177/
0894439319828011.
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2014). Critical perspectives on leadership. In D. Day (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 40–56). Oxford University Press.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. Free Press (Simon and Schuster).
Bégin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the
literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(2),
161–179.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Bidwell, A. C. (1962). Managerial grid. Advanced Management-
Office Executive, 1(9), 12–15.
Bono, J. E., Shen, W., & Yoon, D. J. (2014). Personality and leadership: Looking back,
looking ahead. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp.
199–220). Oxford University Press.
Bronk, K. C., Holmes, F. W., & Talib, T. L. (2010). Purpose in life among high ability
adolescents. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 133–145.
Bruce-Davis, M. N., Gilson, C. M., & Matthews, M. S. (2017). Fostering authentic problem
seeking: A step toward social justice engagement. Roeper Review, 39(4), 250–261.
Chemers, M. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational

leadership: Efficacy and effectiveness. In R. E. Giggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 105–118). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conner, J. O., & Strobel, K. (2007). Leadership development: An examination of individual
and programmatic growth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(3), 275–297.
Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted
education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010 (April). Gifted Child
Quarterly, 55(2), 126–138.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: How young people find their calling in life. The Free
Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during
adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128.
Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (2012). Leadership: Past, Present, and Future. In D. V. Day &
J. Antonakis Eds., The Nature of Leadership (2nd, 3–25). SAGE Publications Ltd.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0022
Dickson, M. W., Castaño, N., Magomaeva, A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2012). Conceptualizing
leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 483–492.
Feldhusen, J., & Kennedy, D. (1988). Preparing gifted youth for leadership roles in a rapidly
changing society. Roeper Review, 10(4), 226–230.
Frasier, M. M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 234–245.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership development:
Emergent trends and future directions. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa
(Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp.
387–406). Elsevier Science.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural
tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., & Yamaguchi, S.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332
(6033), 1100–1104.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of
leadership into the science of results. Little Brown.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: New perspectives.
Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493–504.
Inkeles, A. (1997). Continuity and change in popular values on the Pacific Rim. In
J. Montgomery (Ed.), Values and values diffusion in the Pacific Basin (pp.71-91). Pacific
Basin Research Center.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality and
sociocultural systems. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4, 418–506.
Jenkins, M. D. (1936). A socio - psychological study of Negro children of superior
intelligence. The Journal of Negro Education, 5(2), 175–190.
Jolly, J. L., Matthews, M. S., Sidney, P., & Marland, J. (2014). The Commissioner (1914-
1992). In A. Robinson & J. L. Jolly (Eds.), A century of contributions to gifted education:
Illuminating lives (pp. 289–301). Routledge.
Kim, M. (2009). The factors influencing leadership skills of gifted and regular students and
its implications for gifted education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 6(2), 49–67.
Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators—why new initiatives get blocked. Long Range
Planning, 17(2), 137–143.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2009). Exploring leadership: For college
students who want to make a difference. John Wiley & Sons.
Korean Educational Development Institute. (2016). National Statistics on Gifted Education.
Korean Ministry of Education.
Kozub, S. A. (1993). Exploring the relationships among coaching behavior, team cohesion, and
player leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
Kwak, K., & Kim, K. (2008). An analysis of Korean adolescents’ perceptions and their
educational experiences. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction., 12(2), 515–536.
Lee, S.-Y. (2015). Civic education as a means of talent dissemination for gifted students. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 307–316.
Lee, S.-Y., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). Leadership development and gifted students. In
R. J. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). Springer.
Lee, S.-Y. (2017, July 23). Talent dissemination: A path leading into the future GT education.
[Conference presentation]. 22nd Biennial World Conference, Sydney, UNSW, Australia
Lee, S.-Y., Kim, Y.-K., & Boo, E. (2019). Leadership development of gifted adolescents from
a Korean multicultural lens. In S. R. Smith (Ed.), International Handbook of Giftedness &
Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1–20). Springer International Handbooks of
Education. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_61-1
Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). A national picture of talent
search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55–69.
Lee, S.-Y., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). The emotional intelligence, moral judgment,
and leadership of academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
30(1), 29–67.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & de Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:
Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241–270.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to Congress by the U.S.
Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Matthews, M. S. (2004). Leadership education for gifted and talented youth: A review of the
literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 77–113.
Matthews, M. S. (2015). Creativity and leadership’s role in gifted identification and pro
gramming in the USA: A pilot study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 247–256.
McBee, M. T., & Makel, M. C. (2019). The quantitative implications of definitions of
giftedness. AERA Open, 5(1), 233285841983100.
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader
emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citi
zenship behavior. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 463–474.
Moran, S. (2009). Purpose: Giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20
(2), 143–159.
Muammar, O. M. (2015). The differences between intellectually gifted and average students
on a set of leadership competencies. Gifted Education International, 31(2), 142–153.
Murphy, S. E., & Reichard, R. (Eds.). (2012). Early development and leadership: Building the
next generation of leaders. Routledge.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Educational Longitudinal Study: 2002 Data
Files and Electronic Codebook System, Author
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Table 49. Percentage of gifted and talented
students in public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ ethnicity,and state:
2004 and 2006. Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/
dt10_049.asp
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the
empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17.
Neihart, M. (2006). Achievement/affiliation conflicts in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 28
(4), 196–202.
Parker, J. P. (1983). Integrated curriculum for the gifted: The leadership training model.
Gifted Child Today, 6(4), 8–13.
Passow, A. H. (1988). Styles of leadership training . . . and some more thoughts. Gifted Child
Today, 11(6), 34–38.
Peters, S. J., Gentry, M., Whiting, G. W., & McBee, M. T. (2019). Who gets served in gifted
education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63
(4), 273–287.
Peterson, T. O., & Peterson, C. M. (2012). What managerial leadership behaviors do student
managerial leaders need? An empirical study of student organizational members. Journal
of Leadership Education, 11(1), 102–117. Retrieved from http://journalofleadershiped.
org/attachments/article/104/Peterson%20and%20Peterson.pdf
Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The
relative impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(3), 567–581.
Richardson, W. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1988). Leadership education: Developing skills for
youth (2nd ed.). Trillium Press.
Ritchotte, J. A., Suhr, D., Alfurayh, N. F., & Graefe, A. K. (2016). An exploration of the
psychosocial characteristics of high achieving students and identified gifted students:
Implications for practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(1), 23–38.
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeifer (Ed.),
Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 33–51). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-
8_3
Roets, L. S. (1981). Leadership: A skills training program. Leadership Publishers.
Shin, J., Hwang, H., Cho, E., & McCarthy-Donovan, A. (2014). Current trends in Korean
adolescents’ social purpose. Journal of Youth Development, 9(2), 16–33.
Simonton, D. K. (2020). Galton, terman, cox: The distinctive volume II in genetic studies of
genius. Gifted Child Quarterly, 001698622092136. doi:10.1177/0016986220921360
Sisk, D. A. (1993). Leadership education for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, &
A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and
talent (pp. 491–505). Pergamon.
Smith, D. L., Smith, L., & Barnette, J. (1991). Exploring the development of leadership
giftedness. Roeper Review, 14(1), 7–12.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels
and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 43–52.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2th ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard
Business Review, 36(2), 95–101. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/
37505564/
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’
self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587–601.
Todd, S. Y., & Kent, A. (2004). Perceptions of the role differentiation behaviors of ideal peer
leaders: A study of adolescent athletes. International Sports Journal, 8(2), 105. Retrieved
from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/219892063?accountid=6802
Warne, R. T. (2019). An evaluation (and vindication?) of Lewis Terman: What the father of
gifted education can teach the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 3–21.
Yammarino, F. (2013). Leadership past, present, and future. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 20(2), 149–155.
Yoo, A. (2014). The effect Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have on student-teacher rela
tionships in the Korean context. Journal of International Education Research, 10(2),
171–178.
Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the managerial
practices survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp.
223–238). Leadership Library of America.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Appendix A
I.Demographics
Please answer each question as accurately as possible by checking the correct answer or
filling in the space provided.
1. What is your gender?
□ Male □ Female
2. What year were you born?
□ 1999 □ 2000 □ 2001
□ 2002 □ 2003
3. What grade are you in?
□ 9th grade □ 10th grade □ 11th grade
th
□ 12 grade □ Ungraded program
4. Which gifted programs or advanced activities do you take part in? (Mark ALL that
apply)
□ I am in (or have been) in the gifted pull-out class.
□ I leave my classroom to go to work with other gifted students a couple of times a week.
□ I take classes higher than other student my age.
□ I take honors level or AP classes.
□ Other (please specify:)
5. How long have you been taking part in the gifted programs or advanced activities you
mentioned above?
□ None □ Less than l year □ 1 ~ 2 years
□ 2 ~ 3 years □ 3 ~ 4 years □ 5+ years
I. LEADERSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONS
Part I. Leadership, Leaders, and Leadership Experiences (18 items)
A. Types of Leadership (4 items)

Q1. The string and wind instrument musicians of the school orchestra are blaming each
other for the poor performance. What would you do if you were the conductor?
□ I would settle the arguments with charisma as the leader.
□ I would persuade the orchestra players that good teamwork is needed for good
performance.
□ I would give advice to those who keep making mistakes on how to improve their
performance.
□ I would complement both groups on their musical skills.
Q2. You have to prepare for your audition for a school festival as a group. You are the
leader and want your group to sing, but your group members want to dance. What would
you do in the given situation?
□ I would follow the opinion of the group members and choose the dance.
□ I would persuade my group members to sing.
□ I would persuade my group members to both sing and dance.
□ I would suggest neither dancing nor singing and choose rapping.
Q3. You have to organize and run a booth for your club at a school festival. What would
you do if you were the club leader?
□ I would make plans as the leader and allocate the tasks among the members.
□ I would make final decisions based on the members’ wishes.
□ I would make a rough plan and let the team members decide the details.
□ I would let the team members plan and divide the tasks on their own.
Q4. Your school football team has to merge with another school’s team in order to join
the league. Five players of your team are supposed to be demoted and be the substitute
players. If you were the captain, what would you do?
□ I would select the five substitutes according to their performance.
□ It might put me in a difficult position, so I would ask our coach to make the decisions.
□ I would select the substitutes based on the members’ opinions and give them
encouragement.
□ I would make standards for selecting substitute players based on the team members’
consensus and apply them fairly.
B. Classroom Leadership and Leadership Experiences (5 item)
Q5. Have you been in a leadership role (e.g., a group leader, a class president, a school
president, a sports team captain, extracurricular leadership activities)?
□ Yes □ No
Q6. If you had a chance, would you be willing to be the class president?
□ Yes → (Go to Q7) □ No → (Go to Q8)
Q7. What is the primary reason that you want to be the class president? Why do you want
to become the class president?
Q8. What is the reason you are not willing to be the class president?
Q9. You will have a class presidential election tomorrow. How important do you consider
each trait to be?
Not At All Important Not Important Average Important Very Important
Interpersonal skills □ □ □ □ □
Academic ability □ □ □ □ □
Service-mindedness □ □ □ □ □
Conscientiousness □ □ □ □ □
C. Leadership Self-Efficacy and Abilities (5 items)

Q10. What do you think of your current leadership?
Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

□ □ □ □ □
Q11. If you became a leader, how confident would you feel to perform as the leader?
Very Unsure Somewhat Unsure Neither Confident Nor Unsure Somewhat Confident Very Confident
□ □ □ □ □
Q12. The following are the traits of many leaders. Assess your current leadership traits.
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

Goal-setting □ □ □ □ □
Planning and organizing □ □ □ □ □
Communication skills □ □ □ □ □
Sense of responsibility □ □ □ □ □
Problem-solving skills □ □ □ □ □
Q13. Do you think that everyone has potential to become a leader?
Definitely Not Probably Not Neutral Very Probably Definitely

□ □ □ □ □
Q14. Which of the following is the most important for you to improve your leadership
abilities?
□ Learning from role models
□ Specialized leadership development programs
□ Diverse group activities
□ Motivation to become a leader
□ Support and encouragement from others
D. Leaders’ Characteristics and Competencies (4 items)
Q15. Do you think the leaders in our society (e.g. schools, society, country, etc.) are
carrying out their roles well?
Not At All Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree

□ □ □ □ □
Q16. Please rate the following leadership characteristics for the leaders in our society (e.g.
schools, society, country, etc.).
Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

Conscientiousness □ □ □ □ □
Open-mindedness □ □ □ □ □
Honesty □ □ □ □ □
Responsibility □ □ □ □ □
Consideration for others □ □ □ □ □
Humility □ □ □ □ □
Morality □ □ □ □ □
Tolerance □ □ □ □ □
Charisma □ □ □ □ □
Leading by example □ □ □ □ □
Creativity □ □ □ □ □
Planning and organizing ability □ □ □ □ □
Being a visionary □ □ □ □ □
Strong communication skills □ □ □ □ □
Problem-finding ability □ □ □ □ □
Problem-solving ability □ □ □ □ □
Good judgment □ □ □ □ □
Expertise □ □ □ □ □
Strong collaboration skills □ □ □ □ □
Strong critical thinking skills □ □ □ □ □
Q17. Please choose THE MOST IMPORTANT characteristic and THE SECOND MOST
IMPORTANT one that the leaders in our society need to develop.
□ Conscientiousness □ Open-mindedness □ Honesty □ Responsibility

□ Consideration for □ Humility □ Morality □ Tolerance
others
□ Charisma □ Leading by example □ Creativity □ Planning and organizing
ability
□ Being a visionary □ Strong communication □ Problem-finding □ Problem-solving ability
skills ability
□ Good judgment □ Expertise □ Strong collaboration □ Strong critical thinking
skills skills
• The most important characteristic: ( )

• The second most important characteristic: ( )
Q18. Please choose THE MOST IMPORTANT characteristic and THE SECOND MOST
IMPORTANT one that you need to develop in order to take on future leadership roles in
society.
□ Conscientiousness □ Open-mindedness □ Honesty □ Responsibility

□ Consideration for □ Humility □ Morality □ Tolerance
others
□ Charisma □ Leading by example □ Creativity □ Planning and organizing
ability
□ Being a visionary □ Strong communication □ Problem-finding □ Problem-solving ability
skills ability
□ Good judgment □ Expertise □ Strong collaboration □ Strong critical thinking
skills skills
• The most important characteristic: ( )

• The second most important characteristic: ( )
Part II. Gifted Students’ Potential to Become Leaders (7 items)

A. Gifted Students’ Possibility to Become Leaders (4 items)
Q19. Do you think that gifted students will have different roles compared to non-gifted
counterparts when they grow up? (e.g., leaders, mentors, followers, politicians, innovators
etc.)
Definitely Not Probably Not Neutral Very Probably Definitely

□ □ □ □ □
Q20. Do you think that gifted students are more likely to become leaders in our society
when they grow up?
Q21. Please choose TWO characteristics related to the reason that you think gifted
students are more likely to become leaders in our society.
□ A high IQ □ Outstanding problem-solving skills
□ Having expertise in their field □ A sense of moral responsibility
□ Good social skills □ Getting much attention from other people
□ Being interested in social problems
Q22. Please choose TWO characteristics related to the reason that you think gifted
students are less likely to become leaders in our society.
□ High IQ and lower common sense □ Low problem-solving skills in
real life
□ Lack of general abilities other than expertise in their field(s)
□ Lack of moral responsibility □ Poor social skills
□ Lack of interest in social problems
B. Responsibility to Become Leaders (2 items)
Q23. Do you think that gifted students should become leaders in our society when they
grow up?
Q24. Do you think that gifted students should contribute to society (e.g. donate their
talents, provide social services, have a positive influence) by becoming leaders? Please
choose the statement that is THE CLOSEST to your opinion.
□ They do not need to contribute to society because it depends on their choice.
□ They should contribute to society because they have benefitted from educational
support.
□ They should contribute to society because they have many shareable talents.
□ They do not need to contribute to society because the most important thing is self-
actualization.
C. Leadership as a Talent (1 item)
Q25. Do you think that leadership is one of the talents that gifted students commonly
have?
Not At All Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree

□ □ □ □ □
Part III. Leadership Motivation and Life Goals (4 items)

A. Aspirations to Become Leaders and Take on Leadership Roles (3 items)
Q26. Do you want to take on leadership roles in the future?
Q27. Which of the following is CLOSEST to the reason that you want to take on
leadership roles in the future?
□ To gain self-awareness □ To have more money and fame
□ To influence the society in a positive way □ To be recognized by the people around me
Q28. Which of the following is CLOSEST to the reason that you don’t want to take on
leadership roles in the future?
□ Lacking experience in leadership roles □ Lacking the ability as a leader
□ Feeling the burden of responsibility □ Feeling no desire to become a leader
B. Life Goals (1 item)
Q29. How important is each of the following to you in your current and future life?
Thank you for responding!
Not At All Not Very

Important Important Average Important Important
Being successful in your line of work □ □ □ □ □
Finding a right person to marry and having □ □ □ □ □
a happy family life
Having lots of money □ □ □ □ □
Having strong friendships □ □ □ □ □
Being able to find a steady work □ □ □ □ □
Helping other people in your community □ □ □ □ □
Being able to give your children better □ □ □ □ □
opportunities than you’ve had
Living close to parents and relatives □ □ □ □ □
Getting away from this area of the country □ □ □ □ □
Not At All Not
Important
Important Average Important Very
(Continued)
(Continued).
Not At All Not Very
Important Important Average Important Important
Important Working to
correct
social and
economic
inequalities □ □ □ □ □
Having children □ □ □ □ □
Having leisure time to enjoy your own interests □ □ □ □ □
Becoming an expert in your field of work □ □ □ □ □
Getting a good education □ □ □ □ □
Getting a good job □ □ □ □ □
Being an active and informed citizen □ □ □ □ □
Supporting environmental causes □ □ □ □ □
Being patriotic □ □ □ □ □

Student Perception On Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Perception On Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Perception On Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Ability Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Gifted students’ perceptions about leadership and

Seon-Young Lee, Michael Matthews, Eunjoo Boo & Yun-Kyoung Kim

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1818554

Published online: 24 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 593

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Gifted students’ perceptions about leadership and

Gifted students are commonly believed to have a high potential to become

CONTACT Yun-Kyoung Kim [email protected] Department of Education, Seoul National

awareness, and civic engagement all relate to leadership, so having these

the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gifted

examining these patterns in cross-cultural perspective may help illuminate

Leadership behavior studies in the United States

this conceptualization, each style has a characteristic emphasis: immediate

Leadership behavior studies in South Korea

Giftedness and leadership

Life goals and leadership

Moran (2009) offered an expanded conception of giftedness by incorpor­

Cultural influences on leadership

followers are unlikely to question existing inequalities in power distribution,

differ, because we would expect a collectivist setting to constrain more

Because leadership and leaders’ characteristics may vary according to the

comparable, although specific criteria for admission to gifted schools (for

Table 1. Students’ demographic information (percentages by category).

conceptions of leadership, roles and types of leaders, and leadership devel­

Table 3. Construction of the survey (survey items are in the appendix).

remaining 14 statements into four factors with mediocre model fit

Preferred types of leadership

whether they were more people- versus task- or performance-oriented in

Differences between gifted and non-identified students

Differences within gifted students

Characteristics of good leaders

Table 4. Students’ ratings of the characteristics of good leaders.

Student leaders in the classroom

Gifted students and leadership motivation

Three quarters of students (74.3%) expressed aspirations to become leaders

and gaining self-identity (gifted 18.6%, non-identified 14.6%) as the main

Leadership motivation and life goals

Table 5. Predicting students’ leadership motivation from four types of life-goals.

statistically significant, χ2 (8, N = 732) = 2.10, p = .978, indicating that the

Predicting gifted students’ being leaders

Table 6. Predicting possibilities of gifted students’ becoming future leaders.

comparison groups to believe that gifted students have a greater possibility

Summary and discussion

expected to be closer to the results documented in the literature (e.g.,

for enhancing and/or inhibiting leadership motivation, so these results

Limitations and suggestions for future study

An acknowledged limitation of this work is that the number of participating

considered in evaluating leaders, and yet problem-solving skills in asso­

cultural differences in leadership perceptions among gifted students, this

Chemers, M. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational

A. Types of Leadership (4 items)

C. Leadership Self-Efficacy and Abilities (5 items)

Moran (2009) offered an expanded conception of giftedness by incorpor

conceptions of leadership, roles and types of leaders, and leadership devel

considered in evaluating leaders, and yet problem-solving skills in asso