1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction and Background
Success, thriving, or influencing others can depend on leadership style. For an
organization, community, or family to be successful, a single person is required to lead,
and the success can be associated with that leader’s quality. A quality leader possesses
leadership skills, character, communication, and the ability to guide people to a common
goal. Specifically, a high-quality leader in the work environment will make it hard for
employees to leave. However, a low-quality leader can make it easy for employees to
leave. High employee turnover can cost organizations money, time, and overall
organizational success. Leadership directly impacts employees’ long-term commitment to
a company’s mission, vision, and growth (Kurniawati et al., 2022). Moreover, recent
research has shown that the quality of leadership for adults, which is determined by their
positive influence in organizations, is correlated to attachment security (Kurniawati et al.,
2022).
Furthermore, what makes a quality leader, how are they developed into that, and
what life journey of growth must they embark on? What leadership style and ability to
connect must a leader embody to influence, inspire, and cause engagement in the
company mission? What type of leader is a low-quality leader, and as mentioned above,
what influences cause them to become that type of leader? In this study, I explored how
childhood trauma and attachment security (anxiety and avoidance) are related to the
development of adult leadership styles (transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire).
2
Thus, this study aimed to understand how attachment security and trauma relate to
different leadership styles.
Over the last 50 years, studies of leadership styles and behaviors have found that
transformational leadership is the best (Burns, 1978; Underwood, 2015). This leadership
behavior is people oriented, meaning these leaders develop, coach, and mentor people to
be their most powerful selves. Additionally, the transformational leadership style is
highly relational, as it has been shown to create a high commitment in followers,
improving attitudes in work environments and self-growth (Hansbrough, 2012;
Underwood, 2015). Second, researchers have discovered that followers seek similar
personality characteristics in a leader. Transformational leadership is one that followers
are drawn to when they need to improve in areas and perceive that the leader has the
quality they want to develop. For example, a leader could inspire through their
communication, and a follower lacking communication skills and self-confidence can
learn from that person (Hansbrough, 2012).
The transactional style of leadership has a focus on goal orientation. This style
can cause an organization to be numbers focused and reward based on performance,
creating a highly competitive environment (Reis-Neto et al., 2018). This style of
leadership rewards and punishes people psychologically or materially. For example,
teams or individuals may receive a large bonus if they meet company goals. If teams and
individuals do not meet goals, they may be required to work extra hours (Reis-Neto et al.,
2018). Employees who fail to achieve goals could feel disappointed, make excuses, and
3
possibly be punished by the organization (Reis-Neto et al., 2018). Again, this leadership
style is goal oriented and ensures that goals are met.
The laissez-faire leadership style reflects apathy, lack of focus, low-quality
leadership, and accountability and creates a hostile work environment due to the leader
needing to be more caring (Ekmekci & Tosunoglu, 2016; Underwood, 2015). This type
of leader would be characterized as destructive to organizations. This leadership style is
defined as lacking presence or zero leadership. For example, they do not focus on the
needs of the employees or those they lead. Not only that, but past research has also shown
that these types of leaders with this style do not meet followers’ expectations, are not role
models, and are unengaged with conflicts, ultimately impacting the organization
negatively (Ekmekci & Tosunoglu, 2016). The past research also determined that laissez
-faire leadership does not seem to empower followers or prepare them with a vision of
the future. Thus, the laissez -faire leader leaves their followers visionless, and followers
are likely to become disengaged (Ekmekci & Tosunoglu, 2016).
Through research formalized by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (1991),
attachment security explains how early connections between caregivers and infants
influence relational connections into adulthood. Attachment security demonstrates high
balance and internal control in emotional self-management. Attachment-avoidant is
defined as self-confident individuals who have a low emotional display and lack of
internal control. Attachment anxiety is defined as individuals displaying more
disconnection and anger emotions in relationships (Underwood, 2015). Attachment
security is related to leadership style, as previous studies show that certain attachment
4
types correlate with leadership styles. For example, Underwood (2015) found that
transformational leaders display a secure attachment style because transformational
leaders are most likely to create high-quality, healthy work environments due to their
people-oriented focus (Ekmekci & Tosunoglu, 2016; Underwood, 2015)). What is not
known in studies is how trauma and attachment security are related to the development of
leadership styles in adulthood. Attachment security for this study was measured using
attachment anxiety and avoidance. Furthermore, attachment security and trauma have
been individually investigated with leadership styles, but not simultaneously (Reis Neto
et al., 2019; Underwood, 2015).
Chapter 1 will present the background to the study, the problem statement, the
purpose of the study, research questions and hypotheses, the theoretical framework, the
nature of the study, the definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, delimitations,
significance of the study, and previous research on attachment and leadership styles.
Chapter 2 will include the literature review, Chapter 3 will cover the research method,
Chapter 4 presents the study results, and Chapter 5 includes the discussion, conclusions,
and recommendations.
Background
Although researchers have studied the issue of how leadership styles are
developed, they have not included the impact of trauma in the leadership development
process, which this study aims to research. Leaders set the overall organizational
environment, and if a leader has poor leadership skills, it creates an unhealthy
environment for followers. For example, poor leadership could look like weak
5
communication skills, lack of interest in followers’ well-being and focus on productivity
rather than developing people. All these leadership behaviors could negatively influence
employee retention. Previous studies have focused on leadership styles and attachment
security but have not also examined childhood trauma (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Oedzes et
al., 2019; Underwood, 2015). These studies explored the relationship between attachment
security and how it could predict leadership style. These studies found a direct correlation
between attachment security and transformational leadership, but it is unclear regarding
other leadership styles. This study included childhood trauma and attachment security in
relation to all three adult leadership styles.
Leadership theories address the influence of hierarchal structures on the work
environment and team performance in that they bring an understanding of how power
dynamics influence leader–follower relationships. The leader–follower relationship
influences how a team functions and whether it has low or high retention and can create a
healthy or unhealthy work environment. Research has shown that the lack of strong
leader–follower relationships due to poor leadership can create organizational challenges
and impact growth. For example, leader behaviors are important, focusing on team
development versus driving the business numbers, which can negatively impact
employee retention in the long run because underperforming followers will not stay long
(Oedzes et al., 2019).
Researchers have investigated how an individual leader’s role can foster positive
outcomes in organizations and in achieving goals and objectives (Oke et al., 2019). For
example, a transformational leader is an authentic leader and will exhibit behaviors that
6
demonstrate and allow employees to be innovative and themselves. Furthermore, a
transformational leader is associated with an authentic leader, and this behavior style
could create spaces for safe environments and healthy cultures to develop, allowing for a
culture of growth, development, collaboration, and long-term commitment from
followers (Guenter et al., 2017).
The gap in the literature is the association of how childhood trauma and
attachment security influence the development of leadership styles in adults (Underwood,
2015). For instance, Underwood (2015) communicated the relationship of leadership
style with attachment security in that they discovered that secure attachment has a
relationship to transformational leadership. However, a gap in the research is how
childhood trauma and attachment security influence the development of leadership styles
in adults, transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles. Previous studies have
shown a strong relationship between transformational leaders and high attachment
security (Bass, 2000; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Underwood, 2015).
Problem Statement
The situation or issue that prompted this research study is that in current literature,
it is not known how childhood trauma and attachment security are related to adult
leadership style. Childhood trauma and attachment security can create challenges in
learning how to meet needs in healthy ways, which can be due to high trauma and
attachment insecurity. This research explored what predicts leadership styles in adults
due to childhood trauma and attachment security. Previous research on these specific
variables of leadership style and attachment security found a correlation between the two
7
(Bass, 2000; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Eldad & Benatov, 2018; Underwood, 2015). More
specifically, insecure attachment style was negatively related to transformational
leadership, and high attachment security was related to transformational leadership.
Purpose of the Study
This quantitative study examined how childhood traumas and attachment security
are related to the development of certain adult leadership styles: transactional,
transformational, and laissez-faire. Attachment security was measured by attachment
anxiety and avoidance (ee Hazan & Shaver, 1990). This study examined whether
childhood trauma and attachment security may predict an adult’s leadership style. This
study predicts that if a person is transformational, they will have low childhood trauma
and attachment security. This study also predicts that if a person has high trauma and
attachment insecurity, they will have a laissez-faire leadership style. Thus, an adult with
high trauma and attachment insecurity (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) has a leadership style
that is less effective due to being less transformational.
Research Question and Hypotheses
RQ: Does childhood trauma, measured by the adverse childhood experience
(ACE) scale and attachment security (measured by attachment anxiety and attachment
avoidance) relate to leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)?
H01a: There is no relationship between trauma and transformational leadership.
Ha1a: There is a negative relationship between trauma and transformational
leadership.
8
H01b: There is no relationship between attachment security and transformational
leadership.
Ha1b: There is a positive relationship between attachment security and
transformational leadership.
H02a: There is no relationship between trauma and transactional leadership.
Ha2a: There is a positive relationship between trauma and transactional
leadership.
H02b: There is no relationship between attachment security and transactional
leadership.
Ha2b: There is a negative relationship between attachment security and
transactional leadership.
H03a: There is no relationship between trauma and laissez-faire leadership.
Ha3a: There is a positive relationship between trauma and laissez-faire leadership.
H03b: There is no relationship between attachment security and laissez-faire
leadership.
Ha3b: There is a negative relationship between attachment security and laissez-
faire leadership.
Theoretical Framework
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory (SCT), developed by Albert Bandura (1977), is the theory
that grounded this study. This theory focuses on watching, modeling, and imitating the
behaviors of others. This theory is used to examine how environmental experiences and
9
cognitive factors interact to influence behaviors. The logical connections between the
framework presented and the nature of this study include the theoretical framework of
SCT (Bandura, 1977) and the impact of childhood trauma on an individual. SCT connects
to the nature of the study in that it addresses the learning and experiences that occur
environmentally (relationally with attachment security) from early childhood into
adulthood. This study will predict and conclude how both attachment security and
childhood trauma factors contribute to developing adult leadership styles.
Attachment Securities
The second theory utilized in this study was attachment theory developed by John
Bowlby (Slater, 2007). Attachment securities are developed by engagement from primary
caregivers from the time an individual is born. Attachment security is defined by how
well people can connect and disconnect in relationships and balance and exhibit internal
control in emotional self-management (Bowlby, 1982). This study measured anxiety and
avoidance (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Attachment anxiety is defined as individuals
displaying more disconnection and anger emotions in relationships. Attachment
avoidance is defined as individuals who are self-confident but have a low emotional
display and lack of internal control. This interaction creates an internal working model of
relationships used throughout an individual’s life. This internal working model is a theory
of four attachment styles: secure, anxious–ambivalent, disorganized, and avoidant.
Second, Bowlby’s attachment theory explored how early relationship connections and
disconnections developed from primary caregivers influence children’s ability to connect
well into adulthood (Slater, 2007).
10
Leadership Theories
The first two leadership styles are transformational and transactional, created by
James MacGregor Burns (1978). Transformational leadership is a style that causes a
change in individuals and social systems. This type of leader is transformed by
developing followers into leaders using motivation and morale and being an intentional,
people-oriented role model (Burns, 1978). The transactional leadership style has more
structure and checks and balances and is goal-oriented (Burns, 1978). Kurt Lewin
developed the third laissez-faire leadership approach. Laissez-faire is a laid-back, hands-
off type of leadership style (Ekmekci et al., 2016).
Nature of the Study
The research question was answered by a regression design to address this
quantitative study. The specific research design is comparative. I surveyed 124
supervisor/manager-level leaders of profit and nonprofit organizations. The recruitment
process involved social media advertisements on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. I
used the experiences in close relationships (ECR) to measure attachment security (Fraley,
2000). Second, I used the multifactor leadership scale (MLQ) to measure the three
leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Lastly, the ACE scale was used to measure
levels of trauma (Felitti et al., 2019). The survey took an average of 15-20 minutes to
complete.
I used SPSS software and SurveyMonkey for this planned research design.
SurveyMonkey was used to collect data from 124 participants, supervisor/manager level
leaders of nonprofit and profit organizations. To have strong power to conclude
11
accurately about the population, the rule of thumb is no fewer than 50 participants for a
regression, increasing when more variables are being evaluated (Wilson et al., 2007). In
this study, the power was .95, the effect size was .15, and three predictors exist. For this
study to have a strong effect size or success, the sample size minimum was 119
participants. This number was calculated using G*Power software, which determines the
needed effect size based on the variables, research design, and methods for the study
(Kang, 2021).
With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the ad was posted on social
media to recruit participants. The data points from this survey were the scores from the
ACE, attachment security, and one of three leadership styles from the completed
questionnaires. With this study, I aimed to bring awareness to the association between
leadership style and childhood trauma from the data.
Definition of Terms
Attachment security: How well people can connect and disconnect in
relationships, balance, and exhibit internal control in emotional self-management
(Bowlby, 1969; Flaherty & Sadler, 2011). Attachment security means having high levels
of warmth and balance of control (Underwood et al., 2016) and is represented by a
predictable, safe, affectionate bond with the primary caregiver (Bowlby, 2007). For
example, with this attachment security, the person has a positive view of self and others.
A securely attached person will be comfortable with emotional intimacy, healthy
boundaries, and trusting others.
12
Attachment anxiety: Individuals displaying more disconnection, anger, and
instability in emotions in relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). For example, the person
in the relationship has a negative view of self and a positive view of others but has high
codependence due to a fear of abandonment.
Attachment avoidance: Self-confident individuals who have a low emotional
display and lack of internal control (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). For example, the person in a
relationship has a positive view of self and a negative view of others. This style will
struggle with emotional intimacy, hold rigid boundaries, and find it difficult to trust
others.
Laissez-faire (non-leadership): A hands-off, let-things-ride approach (Northouse,
2010) to influencing individuals in the workplace. Laissez-faire leadership is described as
the absence of leadership and the avoidance of intervention (Ekmeckci & Tosunoglu,
2016).
Leadership: Leaders are agents of change whose actions can affect others more
than the acts of others can affect them. Leadership from this perspective occurs when a
member of the group modifies the skills of others in the group toward a common goal
(Reis-Neo et al., 2018).
Social cognitive theory (SCT): A behavior change theory focusing on the
importance of self-regulation as a source to direct life comprised of three components:
self-monitoring, self-judgment, and self-evaluation (Bandura, 1986; Tougas et al., 2015).
Transactional leadership: Goal-focused, this type of exchange involves a leader’s
direction or mutual discussion with the followers with a punishing reward system that
13
allows them to achieve the desired goals. The punishment and the reward can be
psychological or material (Reis-Neo et al., 2018).
Transformational leadership: A people-focused approach that causes a change in
individuals and social systems. This style creates valuable and positive change in the
followers to develop them into leaders by coaching or mentoring them (Roberts, 1985).
Trauma: An emotional or physical response when one experiences physically
harmful or life-threatening events or circumstances that can cause adverse risks to one’s
mental and physical well-being for an extended period (Felitti et al., 1998).
Assumptions
This study assumed that participants would answer all questions to the best of
their ability and knowledge based on their life history. It was assumed that participants
would be honest with all their responses. Also, the study assumed that participants could
understand the terms and what the questions asked of them to give a valid answer. Thus,
the test questionaries and instruments could be used effectively and appropriately to yield
positive results for this study.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of this study would be if participants do not respond correctly to a
question and do not feel safe answering questions relating to sensitive issues. The
participants could have limited time to complete surveys due to their schedules or time
constraints with work, family, or other obligations. Furthermore, the comparative study
could show a relationship between variables without controlling or manipulating the
study. Moreover, not controlling the study is a limitation because that process does not
14
guarantee the researcher’s ability to determine causation. Lastly, nonrandom sampling is
another limitation because I was not selecting a specific sample and used a convenience
sample. Lastly, the approach used was convenience sampling, which allowed for gaining
information from participants who were easy to access for the research.
The delimitations for the study are those under 18 years of age due to the inability
to monitor SurveyMonkey and adding the need for parental consent could create
participant challenges. They are additionally, wanting those with more leadership
experience. Non-leaders are not allowed to participate in the survey because this study
focused on understanding leadership styles. Those who are 18, the age of consent in most
states in the United States, are allowed to participate in this study if they have leadership
experience.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because the original contribution was to examine the
relationship of childhood trauma and attachment security with the development of adult
leadership styles. Furthermore, the research could help future leaders understand the
influence of childhood trauma and could aid organizations in becoming more trauma
informed as they endeavor to create safer and healthier environments in their companies.
When leaders lead well, research has shown that retention is high and impacts
organizational success overall.
Second, this study could hopefully help organizations create best practices for
coaching leaders who are not leading well in their positions. Low-quality leading could
be due to unknown internal triggers, and the findings of this study could help leaders be
15
more intentional about healthy habits they must implement to influence better
environments at work and home, resulting in long-term success. Leaders from small
grassroots to large movements create waves of social change when a leader is self-aware,
healthy, and people focused. The research could shed some light on how to help low-
quality leaders who have suffered trauma develop into stronger leaders; thereby, families,
communities, and organizations ultimately benefit.
Summary and Transition
Improved leadership could influence homes, communities, and the world, creating
positive social change. This study aimed to bring awareness of how leaders are made, and
organizations can create interventions for leaders to improve when that is understood.
Moreover, this study examined how childhood trauma and attachment security influence
the development of leadership styles in adulthood. If leaders have an opportunity to
understand themselves, then those they lead benefit considerably and some people,
places, and things benefit as well.
To achieve the goals of this study, Chapter 2 introduces the literature review of
trauma, attachment theory, and leadership theory and how it is essential to understand
how they influence one another. Chapter 3 will discuss the research design and how this
design is connected to the problem statement to justify the reason for this study and the
quantitative study method. Chapter 3 also discusses instrumentation, recruiting
participants, data analysis, and ethical considerations.
16
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
In this quantitative study, I examined how childhood trauma and attachment
security may influence the development of three adult leadership styles: transactional,
transformational, and laissez-faire. Studies have identified a gap in the literature
concerning the relationship between childhood trauma(s) and attachment security and
how these variables can influence the development of leadership styles in adults,
specifically transformational, transactional (Burns, 1978), and laissez-faire leadership
(Ekmekci et al., 2016). Past research studies have shown that attachment security and
leadership styles can influence environments, particularly work environments in
organizations. For example, transformational leadership is associated with maintaining
steady employment (Neto et al., 2018). Because leaders are change agents (Neto et al.,
2018), their actions directly impact people and organizations.
Attachment security can contribute to how healthy interactions occur between
leaders and followers. Attachment security helps explain how a person connects or
interacts with others, which develops out of primary caregiver relationships from early
childhood (Underwood et al., 2016). Current research into how attachment security
correlates with leadership style development has shown that adult attachment influences
leadership styles. In studies of leadership style and attachment security researchers
investigated transformational leadership and style in adults (Hansbrough, 2012; Neto et
al., 2018). Underwood et al. (2015) found a relationship between dismissing attachment
and the laissez-faire leadership style (Underwood et al., 2016). These studies brought
17
awareness that the leadership style of adults is impacted by attachment style, which also
influences work environments. However, it is still unclear how attachment security, in
combination with trauma during childhood, may also relate to these leadership styles,
which a gap addressed in this study.
In addition to attachment theory, the theoretical framework of SCT (Bandura,
1977) was used to examine how modeling can influence the development of leadership
styles. What is not known is how trauma and attachment are associated with leadership
style development in adults. Research is still needed to investigate how trauma from
childhood, attachment security (meaning attachment anxiety and avoidance), and
leadership style in adults are related. This chapter will provide an overview of the
literature, definitions of leadership, review the theoretical foundations of SCT, leadership,
and attachment security, and provide a thorough literature of the variables associated with
this dissertation.
Literature Search Strategy
The articles in this section were found using the EBSCO database, with
publication dates ranging from 1950 to 2023. The APA PsycArticles, APA PscycBooks,
APA PsycExtra, and APA PsycInfo databases were also used. The keywords searched in
the Academic search premier database were leadership, social learning theory, social
cognitive theory, Albert Bandura, John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth, attachment theory,
adult leadership styles, transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, family systems, and
childhood traumas.
18
Research Gap
Leadership is a process in which an individual influences other group members,
allowing an organization to achieve its goals and succeed in its vision (Van Jarsveeld et
al., 2019). Leadership styles are a way or method used to get followers to move an
organization into success based on one’s style of leading (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019).
Some examples of leadership included transformational leadership, which is people
oriented; transactional leadership, which is goal oriented; and laissez-faire, which is a
relaxed approach. In further sections, these three approaches will be reviewed.
The problem that this research sought to solve is determining how leadership
styles are influenced by attachment and childhood trauma. The broader goal of this study
was to explain ways to help adults be positive, strong, and healthy leaders who influence
all aspects of life, including their followers, to be better positively. Many studies have
examined the relationship between attachment securities and leadership styles in the
workplace (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Underwood, 2015). For instance, Hazan and Shaver
(1990) found that leaders with a secure attachment and transformational leadership styles
promote happy followers. Transformational leaders demonstrate sensitivity and
awareness to their followers (Popper & Mayseless, 2003). Other studies have also found
correlations between attachment style and leadership variables (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Popper et al., 2000; Popper & Mayseless, 2003). Although there is some
information about attachment style and leadership styles, there is another variable that
has not yet been investigated, which is childhood trauma.
19
Therefore, there is a gap in the literature regarding trauma and leadership styles.
Studies have examined leadership and attachment (Khorakian & Sharifirad, 2019;
Underwood, 2015), showing that transformational leadership is highly related to secure
attachment. Additionally, these studies found that a person with an insecure attachment
would develop a transactional leadership style. However, there is a lot that is unknown
regarding how the level of trauma, together with attachment style, influences the
development of leadership styles in adults.
Thus, the gap that exists in the literature is how childhood trauma and attachment
security influence leadership style in adults. Past studies have investigated leadership
styles and attachment securities but have not examined the role of childhood trauma. To
address this gap, this research was designed as a quantitative study that addresses
attachment and trauma to see how both variables influence leadership styles. The study
will use inferential quantitative analysis techniques for this study to help fill this gap,
notably linear regression.
Theoretical Foundation
Social Cognitive Theory
SCT, developed by Albert Bandura (1977), is one of the theories that grounded
this study. SCT, originally known as social learning theory, focuses on watching,
modeling, and imitating the behaviors of others and plays a significant role in developing
leadership skills and styles (Schunk & DiBendetto, 2020). Schunk and DiBendetto (2020)
defined SCT as the social environment’s critical role in motivation, learning, and self-
regulation. This theory is used to examine how environmental experiences and cognitive
20
factors interact to influence behaviors. Initially, Bandura sought to examine aggression in
adolescents.
In his research in the late 1950s, Bandura concluded that aggressive behaviors
come from boys suffering dependency anxiety stemming from rejection and punishment
(Grusec, 1992). The results of this research show that early negative interactions
influence how children develop emotions and how they regulate them. Bandura’s SCT
was influenced by operant tradition or operant theory developed by B.F. Skinner (Grusec,
1992). Instead of mechanistic conditions explaining behavior, Bandura focused on how
individuals process information (Grusec, 1992). Thus, observational learning, self-
regulation, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism were identified. With these concepts
in mind, it is also important to note that Bandura’s theory has a premise of agency: a
person can influence notable events in their lives (Schunk & DiBendetto, 2020). This
happens by an individual using their cognitive and self-regulation capabilities. For
example, an individual could set a goal to go to the gym three times a week for 1 hour to
lose 5 pounds in a month. This approach shows how individuals can create a strategy,
monitor it, and make necessary adjustments until the goal is reached (Schunk &
DiBendetto, 2020).
Observational learning has four components that are valid and can be applicable
when processing information. For observational learning to occur, Schunk and
DiBendetto (2020) described these components as the following: an individual must stay
focused on the model, mentally keep what the model performed, then do the task they
witnessed the model do, and have the motivation to do the task. A key component of
21
motivation for repeating the task is the perceived positive outcomes. Social interaction
with observers helps to model the behavior that influences the outcome or meets the
initial expectation (Schkunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). People learn from watching what
others do in social settings (Nabavi & Bijandi, 2012). For example, a child observes how
a parent holds a spoon a certain way, and they do not spill food. After the child observes
the parent for a few weeks, they hold it like their parent, reducing food being spilled. The
first component is that the person must pay attention to what is modeled, whether live or
symbolic. The critical factor is the attention paid to the model. The model is not
exclusively a person; it can also be a thing, for example, television, if it is attention
grabbing (Grusec, 1992).
Self-regulation is the next component of SCT, defined as people maintaining
constancy by developing their internal standards. Bandura found that people will bring
their self-reactions into judgment when they do a task. Actions that meet their standards
are met with positive internal self-talk, and actions that do not are met with negative
internal self-talk (Grusec, 1992). The standards come from the adult that the child has as
their model. If an adult in their life praises them for doing the dishes well, despite some
mistakes, this teaches them how to have compassion. Suppose an adult in their life
harshly criticizes them for their small mistakes when doing the dishes. In that case, this
will teach them to become hypercritical, creating internal standards and rules that a child,
as an adult, lives by as they move through their life (Grusec, 1992). Lastly, self-
regulation is primarily developed by external input and reinforced by social, cultural, and
environmental factors. For example, emotional regulation can be learned from a child
22
watching a parent when they are angry. The parents may throw objects when they are
angry. Thus, the child internalizes that throwing objects is how they stop being angry
(Grusec, 1992).
Bandura first introduced the concept of self-efficacy in 1970, and it is a crucial
component of self-regulation. These concepts came about when Bandura was researching
modeling and its impact on the treatment of phobias (Grusec, 1992; Nabavi & Bijandi,
2012). Self-efficacy is when a person learns how to create specific beliefs, negative or
positive, areas concerning their abilities and characteristics. These two components, self-
efficacy and self-regulation, will ultimately guide the effort they put into achieving a new
behavior or activity (Grusec, 1992).
The history of past events can influence a person as it relates to what they can or
cannot achieve in a particular area. The person observing what others can achieve in
comparison to their ability to achieve in that area guides self-efficacy. For example, if a
person wanted to build a table, they would consider how well the table was built,
something before, whom they saw, whether they did it well, and what skills they must
acquire to build a table. The prevailing belief is, “Can I do this or not?” (Grusec, 1992).
As Bandura developed this component, he realized that parents foster this through their
responsiveness to babies by communicating and creating enriching learning
environments. When a child does something well or engages in an activity, the parent
affirms them (Grusec, 1992). Self-efficacy, thus, is a crucial component regarding
someone’s willingness to try something new or not based on the history of support from a
primary caregiver.
23
Bandura’s last concept with SCT is reciprocal determinism. This concept says that
behavior, the environment, cognition, and various personal factors will influence each
other, thus being a part of the decision-making process (Grusec, 1992). When making
decisions, people will consider what they learned from their models, abilities, and
standards. For example, when a child watches their parent pour a bowl of cereal, they will
watch the entire process, and when they feel confident doing it on their own, the child
will do it precisely as they have seen from start to finish by their parent. Based on what
they previously learned, the child will learn this sequential order of pouring the cereal
first, taking the milk out of the refrigerator, and how much milk they pour in. Reciprocal
determinism relates to attachment theory (to be discussed next) in that it considers the
determinants, and the challenges people experience.
Moreover, it considers that some people lack plasticity in their human behavior to
grow or move away from negative patterns. For example, a person from a single-parent
home struggles with time management and is consistently late for work because their
favorite TV show comes on late. The person may have grown up in an environment
where self-discipline may not have been modeled. Therefore, their internal working
model did not learn or model the importance of self-discipline and accountability. As a
result, this person struggles to get to work on time because they choose fun over getting
to work promptly (Grusec, 1992).
Bandura argued that people contribute to their lives by choosing, influencing, and
creating environments. Bandura (2020) discussed this from the agentic perspective of
SCT: people play a part in their self-development. Bandura (2020) also communicated
24
that based on belief systems, people must be able to navigate life by practicing good
judgment, understanding their capabilities, anticipating responses to problems, navigating
sociostructurally opportunities, and self-governing their behaviors. Through life
experiences, humans develop competencies, beliefs, self-efficacy, and regulation
capacities, further setting a person up for positive or negative outcomes (Grusec, 1992).
Leadership Development Through Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), developed by Albert Bandura (1982), emphasizes
observational learning and the reciprocal interaction between a person's cognitions
(thoughts, beliefs), behaviors, and environment (Ishaq et al., 2021). Within leadership
contexts, SCT posits that followers can learn vicariously from their leaders, potentially
modifying their own behaviors based on these observations (Ishaq et al., 2021). Leaders
who exhibit positive behaviors, such as effective communication and a focus on solutions
during challenging situations, can serve as role models, influencing followers to adopt
similar strategies (Ishaq et al., 2021). Conversely, leaders who display negativity or
blame can potentially have a detrimental impact on follower behavior. This highlights the
importance of leader self-awareness and the potential influence of their actions on
follower development.
A study by Ishaq et al. (2021) investigated how leaders' personalities influenced
their approach to workplace challenges. The study found that leaders who displayed
extraversion and openness to change were more likely to exhibit innovative behaviors
and effectively manage work demands (Ishaq et al., 2021). These findings suggest that
leaders who embody these traits can positively influence followers to develop similar
25
characteristics, potentially leading to a more innovative and adaptable work environment
(Ishaq et al., 2021). Organizations can benefit from fostering leadership development
programs that emphasize the importance of positive leader behaviors and their potential
impact on follower development and overall organizational effectiveness.
A key concept within SCT relevant to leadership development is self-efficacy,
which refers to an individual's belief in their capabilities to achieve specific goals
(McCormick, 2001). In the context of leadership, self-efficacy reflects a leader's
confidence in their ability to effectively guide and motivate followers towards achieving
organizational goals (McCormick, 2001). Research in sports psychology demonstrates a
link between self-efficacy and performance; a decline in self-efficacy can contribute to
decreased athletic performance (McCormick, 2001). Similarly, leadership development
programs that focus on building leaders' self-efficacy can contribute to their overall
effectiveness.
SCT emphasizes agency, the ability of individuals to self-regulate their thoughts,
motivations, and behaviors (McCormick, 2001). This concept contrasts with behaviorist
perspectives that view individuals as primarily reactive to their environment. Two key
cognitive components for leadership development within SCT are personal goals and
self-efficacy. Personal goals encompass an individual's needs, motives, and values, and
are influenced by environmental factors such as work and home settings (McCormick,
2001). Self-efficacy, on the other hand, reflects an individual's belief in their ability to
accomplish specific tasks and their confidence in possessing the necessary resources
(McCormick, 2001). These cognitive components influence self-regulation, ultimately
26
impacting a leader's development and success (McCormick, 2001). Additionally, a
supportive environment with strong relationships is crucial for leadership development,
as individuals do not function in isolation; their environment shapes their performance
demands and motivations (Khorakian & Sharifirad, 2019).
Childhood trauma can be a significant obstacle in a leader's development of
strong self-efficacy. Trauma can negatively impact self-esteem and the ability to form
healthy relationships in adulthood (Evgin & Sumen, 2022). Early childhood trauma can
place a child in a survival mode, potentially leading to the development of coping
mechanisms that may not be conducive to effective leadership (Evgin & Sumen, 2022).
The effects of childhood trauma can extend into adulthood, making it difficult to establish
and maintain healthy, secure relationships (Evgin & Sumen, 2022). This can hinder an
individual's ability to effectively lead and motivate others. Furthermore, the absence of
positive role models during childhood can further disadvantage individuals with a history
of trauma, as they may lack strong, supportive, or confident figures to emulate in
leadership positions.
SCT provides a valuable framework for understanding leadership development.
By emphasizing the importance of observational learning, self-efficacy, and a supportive
environment, SCT can inform the development of effective leadership training programs.
Further research is needed to explore the specific ways in which childhood trauma may
impact the development of leadership skills and how leadership development programs
can best support individuals with a history of trauma.
27
Attachment Theory
This dissertation is also situated in attachment theory. Attachment theory by John
Bowlby (1982) explored how early relationship connections and disconnections develop
from primary caregivers, determining the child’s ability to connect well into adulthood.
Bowlby (1982) defined attachment as how a person attaches to or relates to others and is
influenced by the primary caregiver in childhood. Bowlby (1982) also proposed that
attachments included behavioral systems, with a cognitive part of mental representations
of the attachment figure, the self, and the early experiences that influenced the creation of
their inner world. Bowlby defined these representations as a person’s internal working
model in the subconscious mind (Slater, 2007). For example, a child growing up with
secure, healthy boundaries and consistent primary caregivers will develop a positive,
confident, hopeful internal working model of themselves, which they can use as the basis
for future relationships.
One’s attachment security is revealed when the person who is the dependent,
which could be a child or partner in a relationship, is scared, ill, or discomforted in
conjunction with knowing if a caregiver or partner will respond (Bowlby, 1982). Bowlby
would eventually explore how babies respond to these situations by observing them. With
these observations, attachment security, which is described as how well the person can or
cannot feel safe and secure with the primary caregiver, may or may not form. A person
feels secure or insecure based on the response of needs and how consistently or
inconsistently one’s needs are met (Bowlby, 1982).
28
John Bowlby’s work on attachment theory began in the early 1930s when he
began collaborating with young boys who struggled with adjusting to unhealthy
behaviors. What he found from observing these young boys was a disruption in their
connection with their mothers and that these disruptions could continue to develop into
adulthood (Slater, 2007). The dominant theories at the time were psychoanalytic and
social learning theories. However, these theories did not satisfy his current observations
of babies and mothers and how they managed distress when separated for an extended
period (Slater, 2007). Therefore, Bowlby sought a new way to explain child and
adolescent behavior. Bowlby believed that a child’s relationship with a primary caregiver
could explain one’s relationship behaviors.
First, Bowlby determined that intimate attachment bonds and the ability to form
social relationships are directly related to the early environment of childhood interactions
with the primary caregiver (Bowlby et al., 2007). For example, a child is more likely to
form a secure attachment when a primary caregiver consistently responds immediately to
their cry. However, when a primary caregiver is inconsistent in responding, the child
could develop an anxious attachment security. Anxious style is when a person is unsure
about their style and safety being met consistently with a primary caregiver or partner.
An anxious person has a high fear of abandonment and needs constant reassurance
(Bowlby et al., 2007). What Bowlby communicated to the psychological community, in
essence, is that childhood attachment can evolve because of biological-based desires from
the closeness that had a basis in the relationship with a primary caregiver, such as a close
parent, often the mother (Slater, 2007).
29
Past research has explored how attachment theory is crucial in understanding
protective factors in social and emotional development (Slater, 2007). Attachment
anxiety or avoidance is when a person does not feel safe and secure and may occur due to
inconsistencies in word or deed from a primary caregiver or partner. The person will
struggle with intimacy and closeness and may form low self-esteem. For example, in
early childhood, these types of experiences, going to daycare, being in the hospital for an
extended amount of time, fostering or adoption, parental death, and divorce, are all
experiences that can influence the development of attachment insecurity in children,
which could also influence future relationships in adulthood. These experiences create
fear of not feeling safe and secure and getting needs met consistently. Fear is a significant
component of attachment insecurity (Slater, 2007). Bowlby also communicated that
attachments are organized due to how the person views proximity with the primary
caregiver. Attachment styles are organized in mind by mental representations; the self
and environment create the experience of how close or attached one is to the primary
caregiver (Slater, 2007). Bowlby defined this organized system in the subconscious mind
as the internal working model (Slater, 2007).
Mary Ainsworth (1978) was another architect of attachment theory, and she
studied how infants and mothers interact in a way that makes a child feel comfortable
exploring an environment. More specifically, Ainsworth studied how a child interacts
with the primary caregiver after a brief separation (Slater, 2007), resulting in three
attachment categories: securely attached, anxiously attached, avoidant, and anxiously
30
attached ambivalent/resistant. The fourth attachment security, disorganized disoriented,
would be defined later (Slater, 2007). This information is discussed in the next section.
Attachment Styles
Attachment style is developed in relationships because of group and family
dynamics. Attachment style begins at birth and can develop or change into adulthood. At
birth, babies become aware of the different caregivers in their lives, who are dependable
and who are not (Bowlby, 2007). Bowlby (2007) discovered in his early research that
babies have settled on showing one personal preference by 6 months. By 9 months, the
attachment bond is established with the primary caregiver, in most cases, the birth mother
(Bowlby, 2007). Last, by 12 to 14 months, the babies’ bond with the primary caregiver is
cemented.
After this research and observation, Bowlby concluded that attachment theory is a
comprehensive relationship-based theory of personality development and how people
progress through life psychologically (Slater, 2007). Attachment theory also addresses
how the trauma of separation can influence the mechanisms and emotions that come from
the separation from the primary caregiver. For example, these feelings, such as fear,
anxiety, anger, sadness, and despair, are due to sudden or prolonged separation from
primary caregivers and partners. These childhood traumas and experiences can develop
and increase the prevalence of abandonment issues, co-dependency, low self-esteem,
mental health disorders, anxiety, and depression (Ishaq & Sumen, 2022). These feelings
can disrupt personality development and style, forming an attachment style (Slater,
2007). Lastly, attachment theory recognizes the subconscious mind and the defense
31
mechanisms that protect an individual from anxiety from future interpersonal events. For
example, a potential future breakup, creating separation anxiety, abandonment issues, or
provoking anger can contribute to the development of defense mechanisms (Slater,
2007).
The four types of attachment are as follows:
• Secure style: This attachment style has high levels of warmth and balance of
control (Underwood et al., 2016) and is represented by a predictable, safe,
affectionate bond with the primary caregiver (Bowlby, 2007). For example, with
this attachment security, the person has a positive view of self and others. A
securely attached person will be comfortable with emotional intimacy, healthy
boundaries, and trusting others.
• Dismissive (avoidant) style: People with dismissive attachment security are self-
confident but low emotional expressiveness (Underwood, 2015). For example,
with this attachment style, the person in the relationship has a positive view of
self and a negative view of others. This style will struggle with emotional
intimacy, hold rigid boundaries, and find it difficult to trust others.
• Preoccupied (anxious) style: Preoccupied individuals will likely have extreme
anger/ and or aggression and challenging discomfort in relationships (Underwood,
2015). For example, the person in a relationship has a negative view of self and a
positive view of others but has high co-dependence due to the fear of
abandonment. Preoccupied people will have porous boundaries due to their high
anxiety and fear of being disconnected from their relationships.
32
• Disorganized (fearful–avoidant) style: Disorganized individuals have low self-
confidence, self-image, and balance of control (Underwood, 2015). Additionally,
they experienced a less predictable bond with a primary caregiver, which impacts
future relationships (Bowlby, 2007). For example, in relationships, the person will
have a negative view of self and a negative view of others; they have high
ambiguity, going from trusting to not trusting others due to their level of fear.
This person is uncomfortable with intimacy and could go from having porous to
rigid boundaries.
Adult attachment style is commonly measured by using the relationship
questionnaire. This questionnaire was developed by Hazan and Shaver in 1987, initially
with three categories. Then Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) developed the test into the
‘Relationship Questionnaire’ with four categories, each representing the four attachment
securities. The test is simple, with the participant putting a checkmark next to the
statement that best reflects their attachment security. The test measures secure,
dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment using a 7-point Likert scale (Underwood
et al., 2016). Attachment theory also communicates an explanation for feelings that relate
to the trauma of loss, separation, or abandonment. The trauma of separation and loss
creates feelings of fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, and despair. If strong enough, these
feelings can disrupt personality development, influencing how a person develops ways of
relating to others as they move into adulthood (Slater, 2007). Ainsworth also documented
the behaviors accompanying attachment security, including consistency in style and
inconsistency in fearful attachment security (Bartholomew et al., 1991). Attachment
33
security is indicated by having low levels of attachment avoidance and low levels of
attachment anxiety. The other three attachment styles have either high attachment
anxiety, avoidance, or both.
Attachment Security and Leadership Style
Recent research has addressed the correlation between attachment security and
leadership style development in adults in the workplace. An adult with a secure
attachment is more favorable in the workplace and could have better connections than
others (Underwood et al., 2016). An adult with a fearful attachment to security will likely
experience challenges with workplace relationships (Underwood et al., 2016).
Additionally, as previous studies have discovered, a transformational leader is associated
with attachment security because this style is secure, emotionally intelligent, and
confident. A transformational leader tends to be good at motivating, is more inspirational
and secure, and uses solid beliefs and ethics when leading (Underwood et al., 2016). A
leader with a fearful attachment security may be less trustworthy and exhibit a laissez-
faire leadership style (Underwood et al., 2016).
Attachment security and leadership styles are connected because attachment
security explains how people connect with others. A secure, attached adult will have
behaviors of warmth, confidence, and balance of control, allowing them to be adaptable
in personal and workplace relationships (Underwood et al., 2016). Furthermore, this
behavior reflects a transformational leader because they display giving, encouraging, and
empowerment behaviors in how they lead (Underwood et al., 2016). The childhood
34
experiences, negative or positive, influence how a person develops their attachment,
subsequently impacting the development of leadership styles.
Leaders with different leadership styles will develop and display different
personality traits. More specifically, different attachment securities reflect different
personality traits (Underwood et al., 2016). For example, a leader with solid confidence
and high morals will be seen as a transformational leader with a secure attachment,
according to the study done by Underwood. (2015), the Relationship Questionnaire and
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were used with 83 respondents out of 250 further
to investigate the correlation between leadership style and attachment security. The
research concluded that a leader’s attachment security influences the adult’s leadership
style (Underwood, 2015). The research found that a trusted leader is connected to
transformational and secure attachment securities. In contrast, an untrustworthy leader is
connected to a laissez-faire and insecure attachment securities (Underwood, 2015).
However, more research is needed to understand how trauma is related to attachment
security and leadership style development in adults.
Children desire to feel safe, and when this is not established in their life with a
primary caregiver from birth into infancy, it can disrupt their emotional and relational
development with themselves and others (Mrazkova & Lisa, 2022). Another way to
explain attachment is how a person will manage themselves positively or negatively
when interactions are stressful with others. For example, when a person cancel plans at
the last minute, a secure person will adapt and be able to move on. A person with an
insecure attachment may see this last-minute cancelation as a moment of rejection
35
(Mrazkova & Lisa, 2022). Childhood neglect, emotional or physical, is a traumatic
experience that can create insecure attachment. For example, when a primary caregiver is
inconsistent or unavailable in meeting their child’s needs, it impacts the child’s need for
comfort and style, knowing their need will be met (Mrazkova & Lisa, 2022). This
research hopes to explain how trauma impacts leadership style development in adults.
Literature Review
Definition of Leadership and Origins of Leadership Styles
Leadership is described as a process in which the individual influences other
group members, allowing an organization to achieve its goals and succeed in its vision
(Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019). Leadership styles are a method used to get followers to move
an organization into success (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019). Lastly, Van Jarsveeld et al.
(2019) defined leadership styles as consistent behaviors that a leader does in various
approaches to influence an organization’s effectiveness in their market objectively. These
approaches include transformational leadership, which is people-oriented; transactional
leadership, which is goal-oriented; and laissez-faire which is a relaxed approach.
The first two leadership styles are transformational and transactional, created by
James MacGregor Burns (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership is a style that
causes a change in individuals and social systems. This type of leader is transformed by
developing followers into leaders using motivation, morale, and being an intentional,
people-oriented role model (Burns, 1978). The transactional leadership style has more
structure, checks, and balances, and is goal-oriented (Burns, 1978). Kurt Lewin
36
developed the third leadership style – the laissez-faire approach. Laissez-faire is a laid-
back, hands-off type of leadership style (Ekmekci et al., 2016).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is a style that brings change to individuals and
systems. The primary purpose of this leadership style is to turn followers into leaders.
Turning followers into leaders is done by the leader activating identity, defining the
mission individually or organizationally, and modeling leadership for the followers
(Burns, 1978). The exchange between leader and follower would bring about a mutual
leveling up of morale and motivation. This behavior ultimately led Burns (1978) to
describe two types of exchange with a leader: transforming and transactional. Burn’s idea
of transforming is that leaders exemplify morale that fuels the team, organization, or
community. Another contributor to this leadership style is Bernard Bass, who shed light
on the psychological mechanisms that described both transformational and transactional
development developed by Burns (1978). Bass (1985) introduced the term both terms for
leadership styles. A transformational leader hits these marks: followers feel trust,
admiration, loyalty, and respect toward their leader (Bass, 1985). Transformational
leaders can exhibit charisma to motivate followers to connect with their mission and
vision (Bass, 1985). Bass argued that a leader could be both transformational and
transactional. Additionally what studies found is that these two can be positively
correlated due to how they focus on motivating followers by building trust and setting
clear expectations, because the overall goal is to increase follower performance (Bass et
al., 2003).
37
A transformational leader impacts an organization positively through these four
behaviors: individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,
and idealized influence. Individualized consideration is the ability of a leader to
recognize their follower’s needs and address them (Bass, 1985). Intellectual stimulation
is how the leader can get their followers to think by positively challenging them and
inviting them into the growth process. This process depends on the leader is openness to
external input (Bass, 1985). Inspirational motivation is described as the leader being able
to communicate vision powerfully and clearly to inspire their followers to action. Lastly,
idealized influence is defined as the leader being the role model exhibiting high ethical
behaviors, including pride, respect, and trust. The qualities are summed up as leader
integrity (Bass, 1985).
A study showed how a transformational leadership style helped to build
confidence in the environment. Nurses reported that they usually have a higher quality of
life and job satisfaction when their leader shows a higher level of commitment to the
development of followers, empowering work environment, and effective decision-making
(Sabbah et al., 2020). The outcome of a leader demonstrating high commitment to their
followers in the context of educational and health systems in Pakistan and Turkey is
leadership effectiveness with male and female leaders. Four hundred MLQs were
distributed for this study, and 174 females and 130 males responded (Begum et al., 2018).
The results of this study showed that females scored higher with a transformational style
than men. The educational and health systems benefited more from Transformational
38
leadership and found it to be the most effective with their followers (Begum et al., 2018).
Followers can feel supported and connected with this style of leadership.
Some studies have provided recommendations for promoting transformational
leadership. In a study done at Haramaya University to explore the impact of selective
leadership style on the corporate success of 80 participants, they measured through
(MLQ) transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Haile, 2017).
The study results showed that both the above leadership styles, transformational and
transactional, positively impacted corporate businesses. The recommendations for
Haramaya University from this study are that leadership should intentionally guide
followers to be better leaders themselves (Haile, 2017). In addition, a strategy is needed
to have a reward system in place for followers to recognize when splendid work is being
done. Lastly, leaders must endeavor to be transformative by creating meaningful and
challenging work for their followers and being aware of individual needs for growth and
development (Haile, 2017).
Transactional Leadership
The transactional leadership style has more structure, checks, and balances, and is
goal-oriented (Burns, 1978). Transactional leadership is defined as a leader focusing on
outcomes versus the employee. It is based on an achievement gains reward system. The
transactional leadership style has the employees more focused on themselves and their
achievements rather than the team’s achievement (Aboramadan & Kundi, 2020). A
transactional leader will focus more on the system than the employees in the system. This
type of leader will watch the highest performers that benefit the system, increasing higher
39
outcomes. Those that are outperformed are not kept. This behavior creates a highly
competitive environment (Aboramadan et al., 2020). When a transactional leader guides
followers, the environment has qualities of competitiveness, less collaboration among
employees, each follower is more concerned about their interests and performance, and
employees are rewarded based on individual performance rather than group performance
(Aboramadan et al., 2020). Lastly, this environment can have low trust and a high
turnover rate due to employees being unable to keep up with high-performance demands
in the workplace (Aboramadan et al., 2020).
The study by Aboramadan et al. (2020) utilized social exchange theory, which
says that followers respond positively or negatively to the behaviors of their leader
through an agreement of mutual reciprocity (Aboramadan et al., 2020). For example, if a
leader gives a follower a pass on being late to work consistently, the follower could be a
strong ally against other followers who may not like the leader. A questionnaire was
utilized for research into transformational and transactional leadership styles on work
outcomes, 1200 tests were sent out, and 555 participants returned. The study utilized
MLQ. In comparing the transactional leadership style versus the transformational
leadership style, the study showed that transformational has a higher impact on outcomes
of employees in work engagement, affective commitment, and organizational citizen
behavior (Abormadan et al., 2020). In a quantitative study with twenty-five principals
and 230 teachers to explore the relationship between principals’ self-perceived and
teachers’ self-perceived leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction, it was found that
40
transactional leadership style scores had a positive correlation with teacher job
satisfaction.
In contrast, the laissez-faire leadership style negatively correlated with low job
satisfaction (Muhamad et al., 2020). Thus, what can be concluded is that transactional
leadership’s reward system based on performance helped increase teacher job satisfaction
(Muhamad et al., 2020). As Haile (2017) discussed, the transactional leader can
positively impact an organization due to the reward system it sets up to incentivize an
employee to work harder. The leader engages with the followers by monitoring their
behavior to ensure they meet the organization’s outcomes. Studies have shown a positive
influence because of the reward exchange between leader and follower (Haile, 2017). The
individual follower can benefit because they reach their goals, which benefits the
organization. However, the organization suffers if the individual does not meet their goals
(Haile, 2017).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire is a French term first utilized in the political and economic sectors,
referring to minimal government engagement. Kurt Lewin developed the third laissez-
faire approach. Laissez- faire is a laid-back, hands-off type of leadership style (Ekmekci
et al., 2016). However, as it relates to leadership, it simply means a hands-off, minimal
direction or guidance from a leader to a follower (Ekmekci et al., 2016). Another way to
describe this leadership style is an absent or avoidant leader. Lewin wrote that this type of
leader ignores all responsibilities and neglects the role assigned to them (Ekmekci et al.,
41
2016). Lastly, this leadership style has zero presence, resulting in followers having no
leader to follow (Ekmekci et al., 2016).
This leadership style does not often support an organization’s values, interests,
and mission. Due to the lack of concern or care, the leader’s behaviors will be passive
rather than active in leading, allowing any and everything to happen under their
leadership. Organizational trust breaks down, and soon, the environment can become
unhealthy (Ekmekci et al., 2016). Organizational trust is vital to an organization’s ability
to thrive and experience growth in all areas, particularly the economy, and staff. The
strength of organizational trust correlates to positive outcomes, which in turn points to a
company’s ability to retain highly qualified employees (Ekmekci et al., 2016).
As discussed, a laissez-faire leadership style can impact job performance with
principals’ leadership style and how they lead their schools. Those principals with this
leadership style are passive, allowing anything to happen, negatively impacting teachers’
determination and job satisfaction (Muhammed et al., 2020). Teachers lack the incentive
and support when a leader is not engaged in helping the organization or the leader to get
better. In a study done to explore employee retention in the hotel industry, laissez-faire
leadership was studied to see the impact it has on keeping employees engaged (Geh Ming
et al., 2021). As reported, this style does not get involved in followers’ affairs, providing
little guidance, feedback, or rewards. If followers are highly skilled and motivated, this
approach collaborates with individuals and teams; however, the challenge with this
leadership style remains that the leader may lack the competence to supervise (Geh Ming
et al., 2021). The study revealed that this leadership style did not keep employees at the
42
hotel because of poor leadership. This type of leadership creates a lack of trust between
leader and follower (Geh Ming et al., 2021).
Lastly, this type of leadership can impact the well-being of the followers. In a
study done in Lebanese hospitals, leadership style was assessed to help the nursing
environment be stable, and this style was evaluated (Sabbah et al., 2020). The results
showed that most nursing leaders view them as transformational and transactional,
creating a healthy and stable environment. However, those who reported their leader had
passive management styles, and there was less reported enthusiasm at work. This type of
leader avoids conflict, delays decision-making and actions and does not fulfill leadership
responsibilities (Sabbah et al., 2020).
Measuring Leadership Styles
In understanding leadership measurement, discussing how several factors can
influence the leadership style developed is essential. As discussed above, Adults can
embody distinct leadership styles based on different influences. Further below, we
discuss how trauma influences leadership style. In addition, as discussed above,
attachment security plays a crucial role in leadership style development. Another factor
connecting trauma and attachment security is emotional intelligence. Emotional
intelligence is one’s ability to perceive, appraise, and express emotions accurately and
adaptively. It is one’s ability to understand emotions and have a strong knowledge of
inner workings (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). This self-awareness leads to the
understanding that a person can change into a different leadership style from the one
initially assessed as they address the areas of emotions that childhood trauma has created
43
emotional issues resulting in less warm, open, and inviting behaviors connected to
transformational leadership. Accurately defining individual and group emotions in
followers is a relational component of transformational leadership, leading to
organizational efficiency (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014).
In a study by Ramchunder and Martins (2014), leaders exhibiting idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration were reported to be
more effective in the workplace. These results mean that these leaders managed and led
well because they understood their emotions and how to influence others’ emotions to be
their best selves (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). In this study to see who makes the best
leader in a police context, the researcher discovered that those who can monitor and
manage emotions correlate with a transformational leadership style. Thus, if one can
grow in understanding their emotional state and that of others, they can move from a
different state of leadership style (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). These studies provide
support for studying childhood trauma and attachment security and its association with
leadership style in adults.
Multiple Leadership Questionnaire
The multiple leadership questionnaire is a tool used to determine the leadership
styles of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire a person has developed (Van
Jarsveeld et al., 2019). In a particular study involving the influence of leadership style in
the academic area, research was conducted on how these styles influence student
performances. How well a school is led can significantly influence the success of the
overall school (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019). Leadership is vital in maintaining balance in
44
several areas that lead to successful schools. Areas include management, culture, goal
setting, and policies and procedures (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019). The most common tool
to measure leaders is the MLQ. The MLQ is a 36-item, five-point Likert scale test used to
determine if a person is transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire in their leadership
style (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019).
Reis Neto et al. (2019) used the MLQ in a study to measure the individual
performance of a follower by assessing their leader’s transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire styles. The assessment of leaders and followers on how well a follower
performs the activities connected to their job researched their interaction with the leader
and their style (Reis Neto et al., 2019). It was a quantitative descriptive study, with a
research population of professionals and followers working in three companies of trade
and enterprises. Three hundred nine people participated in the research, which yielded
that the transformational leadership style positively affected individual performance more
than transactional and laissez-faire due to the higher relational behavioral component of
transformational (Reis Neto et al., 2019).
Lastly, a quantitative study explored leadership style (democratic, autocratic, and
laissez-faire) and the potential impact on employee motivation in bureaucratic
environments that used the MLQ (Fiaz et al., 2017). Democratic leadership is close to
transformational because it is relationship-based with the follower. Autocratic leadership
is closely related to transactional leadership, which focuses more on performance (Fiaz et
al., 2017). The researchers used a multiple regression analysis with three independent
variables (leadership styles of autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire) and one
45
dependent variable (employee satisfaction) to complete the study. The sample study
included 110 high- to mid-level managers of companies.
Furthermore, what was discovered by this study is that autocratic and laissez-faire
leadership styles create leadership deficits in organizations’ ability to keep followers
motivated (Fiaz et al., 2017). In contrast, the democratic leadership style keeps people
motivated and working well. Thus, the MLQ helped the leadership to see the usefulness
in helping the organization assess performance and motivation and increase the
productivity of followers when they understand how they are leading based on leadership
style (Fiaz et al., 2017).
Another study on leadership explored the correlation of leadership styles impact
on performance and was comprised of 300 people, leaders, and followers. This study
utilized the MLQ (Neto et al., 2018). Furthermore, this previous research is essential to
this current research in that it shows that a leader has influence on followers and
environments. Leaders can move an organization positively or negatively. Organizations
are made up of people who, as a result, will perform or underperform based on their
leaders’ ability to lead them (Neto et al., 2018). This study revealed that in the past,
individual performance, or a one-dimensional perspective, was based solely on the
person. However, in recent times, due to unstable economies, companies have stepped
back to realize that an employee’s performance is multidimensional, with the leader
being a factor in their performance (Neto et al., 2018). Lastly, the leader can directly
affect the behavior and attitude of their followers, ultimately impacting an entire
organization (Neto et al., 2018). The following section will review the literature on
46
trauma, the factors that contributed to the development of trauma from childhood to
adulthood, and the impact of trauma on leadership style development in adults within the
gap of this study.
Trauma
Traumatic stress in the general population is prevalent in childhood. The trauma
experience is correlated to the stress process or how children process their stress
(Tinajero et al., 2019). Trauma is experiencing severe interpersonal or external conflict
that interrupts normal developmental processes, resulting in a possible lifetime of
emotional, behavioral, and psychological dysregulation (Milot et al., 2016). Another
definition by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) defines trauma as
experiences that lead to the threat of the life or physical integrity of a child or someone
who has a close relationship with the child. The resulting experience creates extreme fear
and hopelessness, which the child does not have the capacity or skills to cope with
(Rosen et al., 2018). Childhood trauma or child abuse is a specific type of trauma when,
during this time frame, children have experienced primary caregiver neglect, also known
as child maltreatment (Milot et al., 2016). It is essential to note the long-lasting impact of
maltreatment on children in the developmental stages of their lives, which can negatively
impact children from cognitive to physical deficits. Child neglect is defined as an
experience where they receive minimal care from a primary caregiver (Milot et al., 2016).
The most prevalent form of childhood trauma is maltreatment, with rates of 163
children out of one thousand for physical neglect and 184 children out of one thousand
for emotional neglect (Widom, 1999). Neglect is also defined by Marc and Hanfy (2016)
47
as when a parent fails to provide for the good of their child’s development. The areas of
neglect can be health, education, emotional, nutrition, shelter, and safe inhabitable living
conditions (Marc & Hanafy, 2016). Physical neglect or lack of care could be not
interacting with the child by not giving the child a physical touch. Emotional neglect
could be a lack of emotional support, comfort, or words (Marc & Hanafy, 2016).
A research study by Widom (1999) discovered the link between neglect and
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in children developing into adulthood.
The results of this study yielded a minor significance of PTSD symptoms. However, it
laid the groundwork for future studies in which the combination of childhood neglect and
other forms of maltreatment increased the risk of PTSD symptoms into adulthood, such
as dissociation, avoidance, and hyperarousal behaviors (Milot et al., 2016). Around the
world, distinct types of traumas or childhood abuse are reported differently from
childhood in men versus women. For example, in countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and
Turkey, more men reported they experienced sexual and emotional abuse in childhood.
Whereas in countries like Denmark, Germany, the USA, and South Korea, more women
reported they experienced more sexual and emotional abuse in childhood (Khan et al.,
2021).
Demographic differences were also examined regarding childhood trauma. Meng
and D’Arcy (2016) sought to fill a gap as they found that many studies regarding
childhood trauma and gender were unclear due to the inconsistency of measurement
tools. Their study aimed to clarify the long-term risks of childhood abuse in people and
the correlation between substance use and mental health disorders (Meng & D’Arcy,
48
2016). The study had over 25,000 respondents, men, and women ages 15 and older,
answering the survey focused on mental health and childhood abuse from the Canadian
Community Health data, a cross-sectional survey that collected data about 12-month
mental health status, as reported by individuals. The Composite International Diagnostic
Review was also used to capture mental health information. The disorders assessed were
major depressive, bipolar, anxiety, and substance use disorders, which were the
dependent variables (Meng & D’Arcy, 2016). The independent variable in the study was
childhood maltreatment, which used the Childhood Experiences Survey. The study only
had adults report traumatic experiences before age 16 (Meng & D’Arcy, 2016). The study
showed that men were more likely to be exposed to physical abuse, interpersonal
violence, and other forms of abuse compared to women. In contrast, women were more
likely to experience sexual abuse (Meng & D’Arcy, 2016). Consistent with previous
studies, as discussed above, the types of abuse and prevalence between genders seem
different.
In addition, childhood abuse is consistent with previous studies correlating to a
higher prevalence of mental health and substance disorders in both men and women.
Women have a higher prevalence of alcohol use than men (Meng & D’Arcy, 2016).
Trauma and abuse have other adverse risks in the realm of substance use into adulthood.
In a more recent study of trauma, adults who had negative experiences of physical
violence, parental separation or divorce, or mental illness of a family member often later
had alcohol dependence issues (Kosecka & Stelmach, 2020). Furthermore, from their
childhood events, men reported more physical violence, sexual abuse, and emotional
49
neglect, and in addition to these events, women reported experiences of emotional abuse
and physical neglect (Kosecka & Stelmach, 2020). Lastly, in a 12-month follow-up, it
found that women who had trauma in addition to substance use issues had a higher
prevalence of relapse than those without a trauma diagnosis (Kosecka & Stelmach, 2020).
Trauma can inhibit recovery in adults and increase the prevalence of other issues of
substance use and mental and physical disorders in adults seeking a life of recovery.
Primary Caregiver Risk Factor for Trauma
The primary caregiver relationship is vital in providing stability for children when
experiencing high stress levels. A primary caregiver is a person who supervises the
child’s physical or emotional needs (Milot et al., 2016). An example of a high to low-
stress situation would be a parent showing up and being consistent or inconsistent with
picking a child up from school on time. The child watches other parents picking their
classmates up on time; however, the child’s parent is late consistently, causing the child
to be last. Internally, they feel unimportant, creating a stressful experience. Stressful
experiences create a state of internal emotional instability within a child due to
inconsistent behaviors from a primary caregiver (Milot et al., 2016). Neglectful primary
caregivers put children at a greater risk of long-lasting stressful psychological states and a
more significant disadvantage in dealing with daily challenges (Milot et al., 2016). For
example, when a child struggles with zipping up their coat and lacks help from a primary
caregiver, it may create a stressful state for the child, knowing that help is not immediate
or coming.
50
Another determining factor in risk factors in childhood trauma is how
communication occurs between primary caregivers and the child. A study was conducted
on child and mother interaction by examining if a neglectful caregiver is a risk factor for
their child’s development (Milot et al., 2016). The research investigated specifically if a
primary caregiver, in this instance a mother, contributed to their child developing PTSD
behaviors due to their neglectful behaviors (Milot et al., 2016). The study found that
neglectful behaviors of primary caregivers can contribute to a child developing PTSD
behaviors. The study showed that a mother’s communication quality is a factor in
increasing or decreasing the potential for PTSD symptoms to show up in their child
(Milot et al., 2016).
In addition to primary caregiver and child interaction, attachment security is
determined by the child’s ability to share positive and negative emotions. This exchange
helps a child learn from their primary caregiver and develop their ability to self-regulate.
This behavior connects to SCT in the observation and modeling component (Ishaq et al.,
2021). This mechanism of the parent-child affective relationship points to whether a child
will develop PTSD symptoms into adulthood (Milot et al., 2016). The primary caregiver
has a role in how well a child develops attachment security in future relationships due to
the amount of positive or negative interactions.
Impacts of Trauma
There are other numerous ways that childhood trauma can show up into
adulthood. Adverse sleep patterns or disruption is one of them. Recent studies have
revealed that a child who has experienced many traumatic events is associated with sleep
51
disorders or poor sleep (Tinajero et al., 2020). This issue was assessed with actigraphy
and reports in sleep diaries (Tinajero et al., 2020). Sleep disturbances include shorter
sleep, longer sleep expectancy, more physical movements while asleep, and poor sleep
experiences (Tinajero et al., 2020). Another factor that is a symptom of trauma and
influences poor sleep is hyperarousal when untreated, resulting in the disorder of
insomnia. When EEG activity during non-rapid eye moments was monitored, it showed
that participants with a history of childhood trauma versus those without had a higher
beta EEG activity (Tinajero et al., 2020). This study means that the trauma-impacted the
brain’s normal functioning, demonstrating the challenge in that first hour of sleep for the
brain to shut down due to the increased hyperarousal that comes from experiencing
trauma. This study reveals an association between childhood trauma exposure and sleep
disruption in adulthood (Tinajero et al., 2020).
Additional research has also shown that adults who have experienced trauma as
children have a higher risk, compared to those who have not, of potentially developing
attachment anxiety or avoidance, maladaptive schemas, dissociative behaviors, affect
dysregulation, and a possibility for borderline personality disorder (Farnfield & Onions,
2021; Van Dijke et al., 2018). These types of psychological challenges can stem from
developmental traumas. Developmental traumas refer to ongoing abuse and neglect that
goes beyond just one incident but repeated ordeals, such as a child being sexually abused
daily by a primary caregiver versus one incident occurring from a primary caregiver or
someone close to the child (Farnfield & Onions, 2021). For instance, Van Dijke et al.
(2018) sought to understand the interrelationship of bipolar disorders and childhood
52
trauma with adult psychiatric patients of 449 people ages 17 to 63 years. They discovered
that those who had experienced sexual trauma in early childhood had a positive
correlation, highlighting that they developed anxious or avoidant attachment security
(Van Dijke et al., 2018).
Furthermore, the study discovered that childhood trauma could affect the core
attachment fears of closeness and abandonment, increasing the symptoms of Borderline
personality disorder severity in adults (Van Dijke et al., 2018). Lastly, attachment anxiety
and avoidance research are being studied, which begins to develop in early childhood,
starting in infancy. When a person does not attach securely as a child, it will show up in
adulthood (Bowlby, 2007; Farnfield & Onions, 2021).
ACEs Development
In 1989, Vincent Feletti published his first Adverse Childhood Experiences
(ACE) study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (Feletti, 2019). Following
that time, many other studies into trauma have been researched globally. This study,
conducted in the late ‘80s, came from Feletti and his colleagues, who were researching
the impact of weight loss on their patients. They found that obesity was a subconscious
result of unresolved trauma in childhood (Feletti, 2019). Obesity was the chosen defense
mechanism to protect themselves while harboring shame, secrecy, and social taboos they
had experienced from childhood. This study was groundbreaking for developing the ACE
scale (Feletti, 2019). In one instance, in interviewing a client, she had reported she was
sexually abused at age ten by her grandfather, and that is when she started to gain weight,
with her abuse happening for ten years. These stories repeated themselves, resulting in
53
186 reports of this type of history (Feletti, 2019). Feletti involved his colleagues in the
study, which resulted in 286 interviews, with 55% of patients reporting childhood sexual
abuse in their obesity program. This study began the gathering of several other types of
childhood abuse. Years later, this study is still working to see that sometimes it takes
years for biomedical outcomes to develop and show up in a person’s life (Feletti, 2017).
Based on self-reporting from childhood, the ACE scale assesses the long-term
risks of abuse and dysfunction in the household. It measures these outcomes of disease
risk factors, quality of life, health care utilization, mortality, and incidences (Feletti et al.,
2019). These areas comprise the 10-question scale, grouped into two categories: abuse
and household dysfunction. The scale examined seven areas: physical, sexual, and
psychological abuses, exposure to substance abuse, mental illness, violent treatment of
mother or stepmother, and criminal behavior (Silverstein et al., 2023). The scoring
reveals a high or low prevalence of health risks, drug usage, and relational issues. For
example, with a score of five or more, those individuals are seven to ten times more
likely to report substance use issues in adulthood (Silverstein et al., 2023). Silverstein et
al. (2023) describe ACEs as being able to quantify several adverse health outcomes in
adulthood, such as heart disease, obesity, and non-medical substance use.
Childhood maltreatment and house dysfunction have been linked to the
psychosocial problems that adults experience. Problems include suicide attempts, alcohol
abuse, intimate partner violence, depressive disorders, hallucinations, and poor mental
health functioning (Arincorayan et al., 2017). Not only that but in the ACE study
conducted by Feletti and colleagues (2019), they found that childhood maltreatment and
54
household dysfunction were associated with the leading causes of death in adults
(Arincorayan et al., 2017). The continued work following Feletti with the ACEs,
specifically with urban populations of young adults from economically impoverished
areas, found that their ACE score was high. As a result, they were more likely to have
symptoms of depression and engage in drug-using and antisocial behaviors (Arincorayan
et al., 2017). The more adversity a child experiences, the more likely they will exhibit
psychosocial and physical problems in adulthood (Arincoryan et al., 2017). However,
studies also reveal that not every person who has adverse childhood experiences will
exhibit dysfunctional behaviors due to them becoming resilient (Arincoryan et al., 2017).
Resilience is when a person can overcome adverse challenges that threaten growth or
change in life, resulting in positive outcomes (Arincoryan et al., 2017).
Research has pointed to the correlation between various health risks, engagement
in substance use, and developing co-occurring issues or disorders in adults. Co-occurring
means a substance use problem and a mental health problem co-occur (Larkin et al.,
2017). This co-occurring challenge ultimately interferes with an adult’s healthy aging
process due to them having high ACEs. Some research lacks how trauma affects adults
developing co-occurring disorders later in life. Within this, ACE works to examine how
substance use disorders are connected to health and social problems and how generalized
anxiety disorder is related to higher ACE scores (Larkin et al., 2017).
Coping Mechanisms and Strategies for Trauma
Developing coping strategies following traumatic experiences is essential in
supporting physical and cognitive development. Intensive psychological treatments
55
involve play and art therapy, group therapy, family therapy, and psycho-educational
classes (Ziegler, 2015). A therapy that encompasses some of these is trauma-focused
cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), an evidenced-based treatment approach for ages
three to eighteen who remember having experienced at least one traumatic experience.
Drs created TF-CBT. Drs Anthony Mannarino, Judith Cohen, and Esther Deblinger in
2006 with a focus on psychoeducation for children and parents to give them coping skills,
help re-regulate emotions, and address maladaptive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions
(Cohen et al., 2012). It is used for children and adolescents and supports parents or other
primary caregivers. This approach focuses on decreasing negative and behavioral
responses from the child or adolescents experiencing sexual abuse, maltreatment,
physical abuse, loss, or complex traumas. Furthermore, the approach seeks to create an
environment that is supportive and conducive to them changing their beliefs and learning
to cope with emotional distress.
The TF-CBT approach draws on family therapy, attachment theory, neurobiology,
behavioral therapy, and developmental neurobiology (Cohen et al., 2012). A child or
adolescent could be in this therapy from four to six months. This therapy was studied
against regular play therapy to treat PTSD and relational and emotional issues in
children: 209 8–14-year-olds with their primary caregivers were randomly assigned one
of the treatments. The results of the study showed that those who had TF-CBT showed a
significantly more improvement and reduction of symptoms relating to depression,
PTSD, and behavioral problems (Cohen et al., 2004). Furthermore, these therapies aim to
56
bring back the confidence and ability to bond, thereby creating secure attachments with
primary caregivers, which was also the result of TF-CBT (Cohen et al., 2004).
Within the therapeutic process, children receive five new skills: making good
decisions, self-love and self-care, spiritual health, cooperation, and empathy (Ziegler,
2015). These all help a child regain their power. These strategies can also work for adults
who have not worked through their traumatic experiences.
The opportunity to gain experience in practicing self-improvement happens when
children begin to learn how to celebrate life with family meals, gardening, and outdoor
trips. With that in mind, children become more active, and Yoga is a coping activity as it
helps a person to become centered, aware, and develop better self-compassion (Arabella
et al., 2022). Yoga is an activity that engages the mind, body, and spirit combined with
physical movements. These practices have been shown to help those who have
experienced psychological trauma to see an improvement in their mental health (Arabella
et al., 2022).
Adults can also utilize yoga or mental health therapy when learning to cope and
heal from childhood trauma. Additionally, adults can participate in psychotherapies such
as dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), which focuses on acceptance and change created
by Marsha Linehan in the 1970s. (Su & Stone, 2020). DBT is usually done as group
therapy, creating social support for the adults, and learning emotional regulation skills,
self-awareness, and self-acceptance skills. In addition, adults can start music and art
therapy, engage in community engagement to overcome anxieties and triggers, and
exercise (Su & Stone, 2020). People who experience extreme psychological distress can
57
take medications such as antipsychotics and mood stabilizers in hopes of reducing
emotional distress, allowing them to participate in therapies (Su & Stone, 2020). These
therapies, coping skills, and psychoeducation are opportunities for those adults in
leadership roles to gain internal stability and heal from their trauma as they gain self-
awareness and self-acceptance.
Attachment Security and Trauma
Depending on the intensity, a person’s trauma can inhibit the reduction of
stressors and other issues. For instance, researchers explored trauma with 382 adults who
reported issues with obsessive-compulsive disorder as adults (Tibi et al., 2020). The
study hoped to see the protective factors needed to reduce obsessive-compulsive disorder
over 4 years. Those participants who saw a continued reduction after 4 years improved
through extensive cognitive behavior therapy, a protective factor, and improved
attachment security (Tibi et al., 2020). This research shows that a secure attachment is a
protective factor that helps an adult to overcome adverse issues, such as trauma.
Another previous study investigated factors that lead people to use substances,
analyzing the strength of protective factors in early childhood to adulthood. In this case,
protective factors mean a supportive family environment, less conflict between primary
caregivers, and children experiencing affection (Lee et al., 2020). When a child has better
communication with their parents, it reduces the likelihood of them using substances. The
study utilized the Family Interactional Theory (FIT), which says that an environment
with less conflict and greater parental affection decreases the likelihood of children using
substances as they develop into young adults to early adulthood (Lee et al., 2020).
58
Furthermore, in previous studies, it has been concluded that parent and family factors are
big influencers on the future substance use of children (Newman et al., 2008). Thus, the
result of parental and family factors influencing the prevalence of substance use leads to
the understanding that when primary caregivers and children have strong attachment
security, studies have shown that it decreases the likelihood of using substances such as
alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.
One of the attachment security-strengthening behaviors is communication. When
communication is solid and consistent, communication reduces adolescent substance use,
resulting in a preventative protective factor (Newman et al., 2008). Again, these studies
show that the primary caregiver and the type of environment created through relational
connection, communication, and physical presence influence how the child grows up
with either increased or decreased potential to use substances due to the strength of their
attachment security (Lee et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2008).
Some studies have shown that another type of trauma, betrayal trauma, can lead to
attachment insecurity when trust becomes broken. Betrayal trauma is when person
experiences trust violation from their partner. For example, a betrayal could be an affair
outside of a marriage or a committed couple. Specifically, this type of relational trauma
can break the secure bond (Butler et al., 2022). When this attachment bond becomes
shaken, it creates a dynamic of leaning in and out of each partner due to their moments of
ambivalence (Butler et al., 2022). This behavior is how the mind safeguards further
trauma for the couple to work through the healing process to establish a stronger bond
(Butler et al., 2022). The way forward from betrayal trauma is for each partner to work to
59
become dependable, accessible, responsive, and engaged to the needs of their partner to
re-establish a secure attachment (Butler et al., 2022). The following section will further
address the correlation of attachment security, trauma, and influence on leadership style.
It will discuss how the higher attachment security a leader has, the better a leader can
address their trauma.
Attachment Security, Trauma, and Leadership
Attachment security is related to higher emotional functioning, which allows a
person to form healthy relationships with other adults. On the other hand, low attachment
security is related to emotional dysregulation, severe depression, low intimacy, and, in
some cases, delinquent behaviors (Fuchshuber et al., 2019). These behaviors show that
emotional functioning in adulthood is linked to attachment security. For example, when a
follower is given feedback based on having high attachment and emotional functioning,
they will respond positively by viewing it as a growth moment. Meanwhile, a person with
low attachment and emotional functioning will view feedback as a critical defeating
moment. Leadership influences an organization’s performance (Fein et al., 2020).
Leadership is the person’s ability to use social influence to move a group toward common
goals.
Trauma can positively or negatively influence how a leader develops and leads.
Previous research has shown that a military leader who would be a transformational
leader may experience a change in style when they experience trauma. The reason is that
the trauma causes a decrease in their emotional vulnerability (Kramer & Allen, 2018).
However, the specific outcomes of the type of leadership style are not yet known due to
60
minimal empirical studies. What can be determined from the literature is that growth can
happen from adverse challenges in leadership.
Attachment security plays a role in a leader’s ability to lead in that leadership
influence is connected to relationships. Relationships are strong in trust, mutual respect,
and care for the followers (Fein et al., 2020). This type of leader has a secure attachment.
As Bowlby and other researchers have discovered, attachment theory’s strong premise is
that adults desire proximity, a haven, and a secure base for relationships (Fein et al.,
2020). Researchers have also discovered that employees have reported that a supervisor
or a manager is one of the most influential people in their lives. Including how well they
performed in the workplace and stayed engaged (Eldad & Benatov, 2018). What is not
known is the relationship with all three variables of attachment security, trauma, and
leadership development in adults being researched to see how they interact with one
another.
Conclusion
This chapter reviewed studies on leadership, leadership styles, SCT, attachment
theory, attachment security, leadership styles, and trauma. This literature review mainly
looked at the interaction of leadership and attachment studies from past research and
juxtaposed the potential influence of childhood trauma (Underwood et al., 2016). This
section reviews the interactions, especially with leadership and attachment security,
trauma, and attachment security, and how leaders can address their childhood traumas
healthily, for example, through individual and group therapies, Yoga, and building a
support system. What is also made aware in this section is that no current studies have
61
examined trauma’s influence on leadership style development and attachment security.
Therefore, this study examined how trauma and attachment influence adult leadership
styles. The following chapter will describe the research design and approach for this
quantitative study, the recruitment of participants, instrumentation and materials, data
collection, data analysis, possible threats to validity, and ethical considerations.
62
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between
childhood trauma, attachment security, and the adult leadership styles of transactional,
transformational, and laissez-faire. In this chapter, I will discuss the research method
used, specifically the study design, participants, instrumentation, research procedures,
and data analysis. I discuss the framework for ethical considerations for the participants,
as some questions could be triggering, and the survey methods used to gather the data.
Research Design and Rationale
The quantitative, comparative study was conducted to answer the following
research question and hypotheses:
RQ: Does childhood trauma, measured by the ACE scale and attachment security
(measured by attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance) relate to leadership style
(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)?
H01a: There is no relationship between trauma and transformational leadership.
Ha1a: There is a negative relationship between trauma and transformational
leadership.
H01b: There is no relationship between attachment security and transformational
leadership.
Ha1b: There is a positive relationship between attachment security and
transformational leadership.
H02a: There is no relationship between trauma and transactional leadership.
63
Ha2a: There is a positive relationship between trauma and transactional
leadership.
H02b: There is no relationship between attachment security and transactional
leadership.
Ha2b: There is a negative relationship between attachment security and
transactional leadership.
H03a: There is no relationship between trauma and laissez-faire leadership.
Ha3a: There is a positive relationship between trauma and laissez-faire leadership.
H03b: There is no relationship between attachment security and laissez-faire
leadership.
Ha3b: There is a negative relationship between attachment security and laissez-
faire leadership.
The research study employed a quantitative methodology with a comparative
design to examine if trauma and attachment security are associated with adult leadership
style development. Using quantitative methods was the best approach in the pursuit of
obtaining statistical analysis of measured variables while exploring numerical patterns
(Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). The specific design was a quantitative methodology
with a comparative design. This study also collected data that can be analyzed
statistically rather than using a qualitative approach that uses interviews and coding
(Szymanski, 1993). This approach allowed for the data to be easily transformed into the
comprehensible presentation of tables and graphs.
64
Second, this study did not use a qualitative methodology because this study was
not going to be centered on understanding subjective lived experiences. Furthermore,
attitudes and behaviors were not studied over time in a specific group within a
population, which would be the goal of content analysis. Content analysis focuses on the
characteristics of a sample population and how those factors influence a population. Data
from this research were analyzed using statistical techniques, providing an objective
measurement form. Inferential statistics is a technique that utilizes sample data to
generalize an outcome to the population of interest. Furthermore, using standardized
measures allows for a study’s replicability (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Thus, the
approach for this study was quantitative as opposed to qualitative.
Estimating (inferring or generalizing) information is powerful in empirical
research. The rigorous empirical approach to research was appropriate for this study
because inferences were made based on data gathered from an appropriate sample of the
target population. Last, the quantitative methodology aligns appropriately with the
problem statement, research questions, and hypotheses for this study because of the
collection and analysis of numerical data. Past research that examined the predictive
relationship between attachment security and leadership styles utilized quantitative
methods. For example, Underwood (2015) aimed to determine how the two variables
related to determining leadership style are developed based on attachment security in
adults. This quantitative study allowed me to use numerical data and inferential statistics
to assess and compare the relationship between three variables. Qualitative methodology
was initially considered, but with further exploration, direct contact and personal
65
interviews would not meet the objective needs of this study. Numerical data were needed
to examine the relationship between trauma, attachment security, and leadership styles.
Therefore, the quantitative approach was justified.
Methodology
In the following sections, I explore population, sampling and sampling
procedures, procedures for recruitment and data collection, and instrumentation.
Population
The population for this research was individuals in positions of leadership. Adult
leaders were the target population. The sampling frame was adult leaders, team leaders,
supervisors, and managers, including executive-level leaders in profit and nonprofit
organizations. The participants were a minimum of 18 years of age with at least 1 year of
leadership. The reason for the age limitation is that the ACE (the measure used to identify
trauma in this study) is designed for 18 years and above in the way it measures childhood
trauma. Most leaders in the population who are working in profit/nonprofit are over 18,
so this was a reasonable exclusion criterion. Additionally, the age for adulthood is 18,
which helps with not needing parental consent, making it easier to recruit for this
research.
Sampling and Sampling Procedure
The specific research design surveyed 124 leader participants in various levels of
profit and nonprofit organizations with adults, based on the result of a power analysis that
was discussed. A study should be able to, from a scientific perspective, reach a
significant effect so that it can be considered evidence based (Kang, 2021). If a study
66
does not have a large enough sample size, it does not have enough data to find an effect if
an effect exists (Kang, 2021). According to Wilson et al. (2007), a study like this needs a
power of .95, an effect size of .15, and three predictors to have a strong power or ability,
yielding 119 participants needed. Furthermore, to accurately conclude the population, the
rule of thumb is no fewer than 50 participants for a regression increase when more
variables are being evaluated (Wilson et al., 2007). The last variable to consider with
sampling is the rate of attrition. To control attrition, I added 10% of participants to
increase my sample size to 131 participants to account for participants who may not
complete the survey or if they provide insufficient data. Therefore, 157 participants were
recruited for this study, and 124 completed the study, exceeding the needed amount.
Thirty-three participants did not complete the survey.
Recruitment Procedures
An online questionnaire was developed using Survey Monkey. This online survey
platform was the medium to collect data to investigate trauma, attachment security, and
leadership style. For this study, the participants were recruited through social media
advertisements focused on leadership groups and various leadership networks. These
recruitment approaches represent a convenience sample. A convenience sample gets
anyone willing to participate in a study and is the most approachable or easily accessible
to the researcher (Scholtz, 2021). The advertisement was posted on my social media
accounts, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The advertisement described the nature of
the study (see Appendix A for a copy of recruitment materials). Those interested clicked
the link on social media, bringing them to the survey.
67
The limitations of this study were that the participants did not respond to all the
questions. The reasons for this lack of responses are unknown, but perhaps answering in-
depth questions may have been overwhelming or a question triggered them. To address
the concerns, participants skipped the questions that made them feel uncomfortable or
stopped participating in the survey, as there were 33 incomplete surveys. Another area for
improvement for participants was the lack of availability to complete the survey due to
their schedules or time constraints. Furthermore, there needed to be more access for
participants to come back to the test to complete it in multiple settings.
Data Collection
For this study, I used SurveyMonkey to collect data. The participants were
recruited to complete an online survey with valid, reliable measures. The ECR was used
to measure attachment security, a predictor variable. To measure leadership style, I used
the MLQ-Self, which measured transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles;
this was measured as an independent variable. Last, to measure the dependent variable
for this research study, the ACE was utilized (see a copy of the survey in Appendix B)
Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs
Attachment Security
An instrument that measured attachment security is the ECR (Fraley et al., 2011),
a 36-item questionnaire that measures attachment in parental, platonic, and romantic
relationships. A copy of this test is included in Appendix B. The ECR allows a researcher
to have a more comprehensive view of relationship interactions to determine if an
individual has high or low attachment security by examining their level of attachment
68
avoidance and anxiety (Brennan et al., 1998). This test measures these two factors in
adult attachment: avoidance and anxiety. Avoidance involves fear of dependence and
interpersonal intimacy, an excessive desire for independence, and a high reluctance to
share intimate information. Anxiety is defined as a person experiencing interpersonal
rejection, abandonment, and a high need and desire for approval from others, including
distressed feelings when a partner is unavailable (Brennan et al., 1998). A Likert scale
format is utilized for participants to rate their response to each question from disagree
strongly (1) to strongly agree (7). It uses continuous scores, resulting in strong statistical
power. For this test, Items 1–18 focus on anxiety, and 19–36 focus on avoidance. Some
sample questions from anxiety are: (a) I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love, (b) I
often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me, and (c) I often worry that my
partner doesn’t love me. Some sample questions from avoidance are: (a) I prefer not to
show a partner how I feel deep down, (b) I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners,
and (c) I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings.
To score this variable, the average of Items 1–18 is taken for the anxiety score,
and the average of Items 19–36 is used for the avoidance score; both were used for this
study. This test is highly reliable because it targets specific measures of mother, father,
best friend, and romantic partner, with overall reliability in a test–retest of .80 and above
(Fraley et al., 2011). In another study using the ECR, there was high internal consistency
with alpha coefficients of .91 in anxiety and .94 in avoidance (Brenk-Franz et al., 2018).
When an individual has higher scores, it represents more anxiety or avoidance.
69
Leadership Styles
The test that measured transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles was the MLQ (Bass, 1985, 2019; Underwood, 2015; Van Jaarsveld et al., 2019).
The test used for this research is the MLQ Self, which has 45 items (Bass, 1985, 2019;
Underwood, 2015; Van Jaarsveld et al., 2019). This test measures these subscales within
the leadership styles:
Transformational (5-I’s)
Idealized attributes (builds trust)
Inspirational motivation (acts with integrity)
Intellectual stimulation (encourages innovative thinking)
Individual consideration (coaches and develops people)
Transactional (constructive & corrective)
Contingent reward (rewards achievement)
Management by exception—active (monitors deviations & mistakes)
Laisses-faire (passive & avoidant)
Management by exception- passive (fights fires)
Laissez-faire (avoids involvement). (Underwood, 2015; Van Jaarsveld et al.,
2019)
Participants self-rate themselves as people in leadership positions and are asked
how frequently they behave with the (MLQ). The sample questions from the survey (see
Appendix B) will ask a participant, as a leader: “I talk optimistically about the future, I
spend time teaching and coaching, I avoid making decisions.” The participant then
70
chooses one answer from the following: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 =
sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently if not always. Participant responses are
averaged across each subscale for analysis.
The MLQ has been utilized across several studies to evaluate leadership styles in
different sectors. Additionally, it has shown increasing reliability and validity in research
completed by Van Jarsveld et al. (2019) into how leadership style influences school
performance, the work environment, and job satisfaction in Kwaulu-Natal, South Africa.
The MLQ has substantial validity and reliability evidence, according to Cronbach’s alpha
reliability above .80 for all MLQ scales (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This study has yielded
strong validity as it was able to help see the different perspectives of teachers and
principals in how they lead, showing the lack of team cohesion impacting the students
(Van Jaarsveld, 2019). Teachers had an average of 2.83 with a transformational style, and
principals had an average of 3.15. In transactional, teachers had an average of 2.56, and
principals had 2.48. In the passive avoidant, teachers had a 1.15 average, and principals
had a .54 average.
The scores are added based on how the participant answered and showed the
highest scoring in each leadership style, determining the dominant style. For example, in
the Transformational area, a score of 1.5 in the area of “inspires others” would mean
they do that occasionally. The average score would be 3.08, meaning they “inspire fairly
often”. The data and average scores were calculated via the SPSS program utilizing
descriptive statistics. This measure is an excellent tool for individual and group
assessments, which take about 15 minutes to complete (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
71
Trauma
The ACE was used to measure the level of trauma a person has in this study. In its
20-plus years, the ACE has been used in medical research with the CDC and Kaiser
Permanente, involving 17,337 people. These individuals consisted of middle-aged and
middle-class adults providing their current medical and mental health history, social
function, and life span with ten categories of adverse experiences from childhood (Felitti,
2017). These experiences are from what an adult has experienced through infancy,
childhood, and adolescence.
The ACE questionnaire comprises ten questions that give the participant a yes or
no option. If the participant answers yes, that is one point toward their final score. The
leading question for context at the beginning of the questionnaire asks: “During your first
18 years of life, you were growing up…”
Some test sample questions are.
1. Did a parent or other adult in the household swear at you, insult you, put you
down, humiliate you? or Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be
physically hurt?
2. Did a parent or other adult in the household o often or very often Push, grab, slap,
or throw something at you? or ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were
injured?
3. Did an adult or person at least five years older than your e ever Touch or fondle
you, or have you touch their body in a sexual way? Or Attempt or have oral, anal,
or vaginal intercourse with you?
72
Once completed, the checkmarks are added up. Once added up, this gives a person an
ACE score of one to ten. Research has shown that the higher the number, the increased
prevalence of substance use, physical and mental health issues, and other possible chronic
life issues such as legal troubles (Burkey et al., 2020). For example, a person who scores
a four or more is likely to have drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempts. Those
scoring six or more died early by at least 20 years, to those with no reported ACE score
(Burkey et al., 2017). Counseling resources were made available for those with high
scores.
The validity of this scale is based on its self-reporting nature. In the study that
Felitti et al. (2019) conducted on childhood exposures and clustering health risks, they
discovered that of those who reported no childhood exposures, 56% of them did not have
any of the ten risk factors explored. Risk factors such as smoking, severe obesity, and
physical activity, to name a few (Felitti et al., 2019). The ACE questionnaire has been
found to have internal consistency and validity with clinical and non-clinical samples.
Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha; the ACE was administered in
a study of 101 women who resided in foster care during their childhood. The result of the
study yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81, determining sufficient internal consistency
(Bruskas, 2013). The entire scale can be seen in Appendix B.
Data Analysis Plan
This research study used a linear regression analysis. Regression analysis helps to
bridge the gap for the researcher, allowing them to predict the relationship between the
dependent variable and one or more independent variables (Wagner, 2019). This study’s
73
dependent variables are leadership styles (transformational, transaction, laissez-faire),
and the independent variables are ACES and attachment security (as measured by
attachment anxiety and avoidance). Linear regression analyses were used to analyze the
relationship among these variables. Three different linear regression models were
conducted, with each leadership style denoting a different model. All models will include
attachment and trauma as independent variables. SPSS was used to answer this study’s
research questions. The first sample of data was imported to SPSS, allowing extraction of
the .sav file, then double-clicking to import the data from Survey Monkey. The researcher
inspected the data to ensure the data imported works. The next step was to standardize the
variables in regression analysis. To do this, the variables in the data set were examined
using descriptive statistics in SPSS.
There were multiple steps in completing the regression analyses. Step one
included the predictor variables, which included the measures of ACES (childhood
trauma) and two measures of ECR (attachment anxiety and avoidance). The attachment
security variables (attachment anxiety and avoidance) were calculated and entered
separately per instructions for the scale. The dependent variable was leadership styles, as
measured by the MLQ (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). These steps
were done three times for each leadership style with the same predictor variables (ACES,
attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance).
Threats to Validity
Validity is the cornerstone of research defined. A definition of validity by Cook
and Campbell (1979) said it is the most incredible obtainable estimate of the truth or
74
falsity of proposals (Szymanski, 1995). Concerning quantitative studies, validity seeks to
make clear subjective bias. The areas that could threaten validity are statistical
conclusion, internal validity, construct validity, and external validity (Gundry, 2019).
Statistical conclusion validity is described as the strength of the presumed cause and
effect of the data (Gundry, 2019), this is demonstrated in statistical power. The strength
of statistical power comes from meeting the minimum set for participants in the research
(Gundry, 2019).
As stated above, this research will require 119 minimum participants to meet
statistical power. The step to address this is that at least 600 surveys were sent out to get
statistical power, and 131 were recruited to account for attrition. Cognitive bias means
that if something triggers a negative thought, their innate desire to do well, to figure out
how to cheat, and be over-concerned with the outcome of their answers (Gundry, 2019).
The step happened by communicating with test participants that their answers would not
be considered right or wrong and to be aware of their feelings and thoughts while testing
to ensure that they do not give answers based on their reactivity.
Lastly, external validity seeks to answer the question of can the research findings
be generalized to other populations, situations, and specific people groups (Gundry,
2019). As mentioned above, this study has three variables that explore the human
experience of childhood through adulthood. Additionally, participants were to answer a
question, “For this item, select 1,” to know that they were reading the directions in each
section thoroughly.
75
Data Storage
To maintain data confidentiality, in alignment with the IRB, the Ethical Principles
of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2010), the
Walden IRB, and federal guidelines, according to 45 CFR 46.115 for the Department of
Health and Human Services determine all data was stored for 3 years on a password
protected device. After 3 years, data will be destroyed by permanently deleting all digital
files.
Ethical Procedures
This research had a couple of ethical concerns due to the sensitive nature of
answering questions about trauma in childhood. Due to this, steps were taken to
communicate therapeutic resources available to test participants before beginning the
questionnaire. This was disclosed through the consent form and the debriefing statement
at the beginning and end of the survey pages. Participants can skip any questions without
penalty or stop the study if stressed. Additionally, test participant names were kept
anonymous. The researcher will take steps to keep responses confidential, as the
researcher can only access the results. The scales utilized in this study have been
previously used in other research; therefore, it was concluded that extreme distress might
not be present in the participants. The samples of informed consent (Appendix C), online
survey via SurveyMonkey (Appendix B), and social media posts (Appendix A) can be
found in the appendices.
Participant recruitment can begin after the Walden Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval. Before starting the survey, participants will read the informed consent
76
form and then select “I agree to participate in this study” before being able to start the
online survey. Participants can stop at any time during the survey if they experience
triggering moments from the questions, and this was shared with them in the consent
form. Participants also have the option to skip questions if, at any time during the survey,
they feel uncomfortable. Participants will not be penalized if they do not finish the
surveys, and this information was provided in the informed consent form.
Summary
The research from this present study examined how childhood trauma and
attachment injury influence the development of leadership styles in adulthood. A survey
was utilized for this quantitative study. The ACE will measure trauma, the ECR will
measure attachment security, and the MLQ will measure leadership style. These tests
have been used for many years in myriad studies, exhibiting strong validity and reliability
for this research. In addition, a multiple regression analysis was used to measure the
variables using (SPSS) software. Lastly, this chapter discussed the research design and
rationale, the methodology, threats to validity, and ethical procedures. Chapter 4 will
discuss the results of the data analysis in detail.
77
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if childhood trauma and attachment
security, measured by attachment anxiety and avoidance, are related to adult leadership
styles, including transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. The research question
for this study is: Does childhood trauma and attachment security relate to leadership style
(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)? The criteria for the study focused on
adult leaders eighteen and older in leadership positions in the United States. In this
chapter, I describe the study participants and review the findings of this study by
analyzing the data. This chapter will focus on data preparation and data analysis.
Data Collection
After approval from the IRB, study participants were recruited using Facebook,
Instagram, and LinkedIn. To begin the research, I posted a flyer on the above social
media platforms on January 31, 2024, stating that I was researching to understand
leadership experiences. That information from this study could help inform leadership
development. Leaders were invited to participate in an online survey about childhood
trauma, attachment, and leadership styles. For example, the survey was posted on
Facebook in the Sioux Falls Therapist and Black Professionals groups of Sioux Falls. It is
unknown how many participants came from each social media platform, as
SurveyMonkey does not track that information. The post had a link to a SurveyMonkey
for those interested.
78
Additionally, I set up the post to run in an advertisement format on Facebook and
Instagram for $80. The advertisement was set to run in the United States for 1 month. The
survey was responded to well, receiving at least five to 10 respondents daily. However, it
stagnated for a few days. The shares of the original post, which other social media
followers shared organically through snowball sampling, helped to meet the sample size
needed to complete the study. This study had a total of 57 shares on social media. I knew
to stop when I reached the goal of 119 completed surveys on March 8, 2024. I had
planned for the advertisement to run until I reached that number. My goal was to get that
number within 7 weeks. As a result of these approaches, the total number of participants
who at least started the online survey was 157.
Sample Characteristics
The data were collected within 6 weeks through SurveyMonkey. A total of 157
participants contributed to the online survey. However, of the 157 participants, only 124
completed all items in the survey. Due to incompletion or missing data, 33 participant
surveys were deleted from the study. From Chapter 3, the sample size needed for
sufficient statistical power was 119 participants. Thus, the survey had enough participants
to complete analyses.
Details of the study sample can be found in Table 1. Participants were
predominantly female (58.1%), ages 25–61. The remaining participants were male
(41.9%), ages 21–76. The mean age for participants was 45.10 years (SD = 12.88). For
ethnicity, many participants were White (46.8%), Black or African American (45.2%),
Hispanic or Latino (5.6%), Asian (.8%), American Indian (.8%), or another race (.8%).
79
Among participants, 53.2% working in a for-profit job setting, and 46.8% indicated
working in a nonprofit. Concerning relationship status, 56.5% reported being married,
3.2% widowed, 12.1% divorced, 1.6% separated, 4.8% cohabitating with a significant
other, single, never married, 21% and .8% preferred not to answer. The mean for years of
leadership was 15.04 years (SD = 11.87).
The means of leadership style and attachment are presented in Table 2. Out of a
scale of four, the participants averaged 3.12 (SD = .51) in transformational leadership,
2.37 (SD = .58) in transactional leadership style, and .97 (SD = .60) in laissez-faire
leadership. These results showed that most participants possessed characteristics of a
transformational leadership style. Lastly, the mean for attachment anxiety was 2.77 (SD =
1.33) and 2.73 (SD = 1.21) for attachment avoidance.
80
Table 1
Demographic Information for Study Sample (N = 124)
Variable
Frequency
Gender
Female
72
58%
Male
52
42%
Age
21–30
13
10%
31–40
41
33%
41–50
28
23%
51–60
21
17%
61–70
16
13%
71–76
5
4%
Ethnicity
White
58
47%
Black
56
45%
Hispanic
7
6%
Asian
1
1%
American Indian
1
1%
Another race
1
1%
Relationship
Married
70
57%
Widowed
4
3%
Divorced
15
12%
Separated
2
2%
Cohabiting with a significant other or in a domestic partnership
6
5%
Single, never married
26
21%
Prefer not to answer
1
1%
Years of leadership
1
8
7%
2
1
1%
3
8
7%
4
6
5%
5
10
8%
6
4
3%
7
4
3%
8
7
6%
9
2
2%
10
9
7%
12
1
1%
13
2
2%
14
1
1%
15
11
9%
16
1
1%
17
3
2%
18
1
1%
19
2
2%
20
16
13%
22
1
1%
25
10
8%
30
4
3%
34
1
1%
35
4
3%
37
1
1%
39
2
2%
40
2
2%
50
1
1%
70
1
1%
81
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted but not before coding and scoring the
measures that contained the online survey questions for the study. The independent
variables mentioned above for this study are attachment security (measured by
attachment anxiety and avoidance) and childhood trauma (measured using the ACE
scale). The dependent variable is leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire). The first step in this process was to download the research data from
SurveyMonkey and export it into SPSS. The next step was to clean the data by removing
incomplete data from participants in the data set in SPSS. I removed 33 incomplete
surveys. The next step in the process was to identify the variables in the data set in
preparation for analyses. For example, I renamed the variables for each measure, which
included the ACE, MLQ, and ECR scales, to each response by naming them ACE1, or
MQ1, or ECR1 according to the number of questions for each measure.
The next step of the initial analyses was to compute the means, standard
deviation, Cronbach’s alpha, and zero-order Person correlation between the key
variables. These preliminary analyses were conducted to check each scale’s reliability,
examine the variables’ distribution, and identify outliers (Jhangiani et al., 2019). The
variable that needed to be reverse coded was the ECR due to how the measure was
developed. For example, Items 9 and 11 are high numbers that represent low anxiety
rather than high anxiety and, therefore, need to be reverse coded. For this scale, the first
18 items measure attachment anxiety scale, and Items 19–36 measured attachment
avoidance. Once items were reverse coded, I calculated the mean of attachment anxiety
82
and avoidance by taking the mean of the first 18 items for anxiety and the mean of the
second 18 items for attachment avoidance.
The MLQ was calculated by averaging the scores for the items on this scale. This
scale had 45 items in it. The score can be calculated by summing the items and dividing
them by the number of items that make up that leadership style. For example, Items 10,
18, 21, and 25, corresponding to transformational leadership, were averaged to get a
score for this leadership style. Transactional score, for example, had Items 1, 11, 16, and
35 added and divided by 4. Laissez-faire had items 5, 7, 28, and 33 added and divided by
4. No items needed to be reverse coded for this measure. Finally, the ACE had 10 items
calculated by adding all the yeses to get the score. Yes was coded as 1, and no was coded
as 0 in SPSS. The variables’ ranges, means, and standard deviations were calculated by
analyzing, selecting descriptive statistics, and selecting the variables of ACES,
transformational, transactional, laissez-faire styles, avoidance, and anxiety (see Table 2).
Table 2
Range, Means, Standard Deviation, and Cronbach’s Alpha for Variables (N = 124)
Variable
Range
Mean
SD
Cronbach’s alpha
ACES
10
3.04
2.53
.90
Anxiety
5.06
2.77
1.33
.90
Avoidance
4.61
2.73
1.21
.94
Transformational
2.58
3.12
.51
.89
Transactional
3.13
2.37
.58
.62
Laissez-faire
2.5
.97
.60
.75
Next, I used the scale reliability function on SPSS to calculate internal reliability
by clicking on analyze, scale, and reliability analysis. The Cronbach’s alphas were
acceptable for this research study, ranging from .62 to .90. To calculate the Pearson
83
correlations, I analyzed correlation and bivariate. I then picked out the dependent
variables and the independent variables. The correlations are presented in Table 3. ACES
was positively associated with attachment anxiety (r = .21) and avoidance (r = .26).
ACES was not associated with the three leadership styles. Transformational (r = –.16) but
had a low correlation with transactional (r = .01). Attachment anxiety had a positive
association with attachment avoidance (r = .57) and laissez-faire leadership style
(r = .46). Attachment avoidance had a positive correlation with laissez-faire leadership
style (r = .21) and negative association with transformational leadership (r = .21). Last,
transformational and transactional leadership style had a positive correlation (r = .49).
Table 3
Pearson Correlations of Variables
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. ACES
---
.21*
.26**
–.16
.01
.02
2. Anxiety
---
.57**
–.28
–.06
.46**
3. Avoidance
---
–.19*
–.04
.21*
4. Transformational
---
.49**
–.32
5. Transactional
---
.02
6. Laissez-faire
---
Note. * = Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed); ** = Correlation is
significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Tests of Assumptions for Linear Regression
This study’s design was comparative and involved conducting linear regressions.
The variables included ACE, a yes and no question, causing it to be measured nominally,
and the MLQ and ECR (anxiety and avoidance) were on a continuous measurement scale.
Anxiety and avoidance were measured separately. All three scales could be put in a linear
84
regression analysis in SPSS. Testing normality for the first assumption of regression
analyses required a linear relationship between the criterion and predictor variables. A
P-P plot of leadership style (transformational, transactional, and Laisses Faire) criterion
variable and the predictor variables of (ACES and attachment security) were plotted on
SPSS. A visual inspection of these scatterplots showed that a linear relationship was met
between the variables, as there were no significant outliers on the diagram. The VIF
values were below 10, confirming a lack of multicollinearity. Upon visual inspection,
homoscedasticity was met, and the plotted residuals of the variables in this study showed
a normal distribution. Outliers were also examined, including any variables +/–3 standard
deviation of the mean, but none were found.
Results
For this study, three separate linear regressions were run. The three regressions
were to analyze (a) transformational leadership, (b) transactional leadership, and (c)
laissez-faire leadership styles. To run each regression analysis, I clicked on analyze,
regression, and linear and used the MLQ scores as dependent variables (transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire). The independent variables were ACES and ECR
(attachment anxiety and avoidance) scores.
The first regression model predicted transformational leadership with ACES and
the ECR (attachment anxiety and avoidance) as predictors. Results showed that the model
was good, even though only one predictor was significant (see Tables 4-6). There was no
statistical significance between the dependent variable and ACES (B = –.02, p = .29) and
attachment avoidance (B = –.01, p = .81) as they relate to transformational leadership
85
style. However, attachment anxiety was related to transformational leadership style (B =
–.10, p = .02). The R2 value displays a small effect size, where this model explains 8% of
the variance in transformational leadership. Thus, my alternative hypothesis is partially
supported.
Table 4
Model Summary of Transformational Leadership
Model
R
R square
Adjusted R square
Std. error of the estimate
1
.29a
.08
.06
.49
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Avoidance, ACES, Anxiety
Table 5
ANOVA Results Predicting Transformational
Model
Sum of
squares
df
Mean
square
F
Sig.
Regression
2.89
3
.96
3.89
.01
Residual
29.73
120
.25
1
Total
32.62
123
Note. Dependent variable: transformational; predictors: (constant), avoidance, ACES,
anxiety
Table 6
Regression Coefficients Predicting Transformational Leadership Style
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standard
error
Standardized
coefficients
t
Sig.
(Constant)
3.47
.12
28.59
<.001
ACES
–.02
.02
–.10
–1.07
.29
Anxiety
–.10
.04
–.25
–2.29
.02
1
Avoidance
–.01
.05
–.03
–.24
.81
Note. Dependent variable: Transformational
86
Next, I conducted the second regression model where the dependent variable was
transactional leadership style, and the independent variables were ACES and the ECR
(attachment anxiety and avoidance) (see Table 7- 9). This analysis showed no statistical
significance. There was no statistical significance between the dependent and individual
variables: ACES (B =.01, p = .79), attachment anxiety (B = -.03, p =.59), and attachment
avoidance (B = -.01, p = .90). Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted for this hypothesis.
Table 7
Model Summary of Transactional Leadership Style
Model
R
R square
Adjusted R square
Std. error of the estimate
2
.06
.01
–.02
.58
Note. Predictors: (Constant), avoidance, ACES, anxiety
Table 8
ANOVA Results Predicting Transactional
Model
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
2
Regression
.19
3
.07
.19
.90
Residual
40.72
120
.34
Total
40.91
123
Note. Dependent variable: transactional, predictors: (constant), avoidance, ACES, anxiety
87
Table 9
Regression Coefficients for Transactional Leadership Style
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standard
error
Standardized
coefficients
t
Sig.
(Constant)
2.44
.14
17.19
<.001
ACES
.01
.02
.03
.26
.79
Anxiety
–.03
.05
–.06
–.55
.59
Avoidance
–.01
.05
–.01
–.13
.90
Note: Dependent Variable: transactional
Finally, the third regression model tested the dependent variable of laissez-faire
leadership style with independent variables of ACES and the ECR (attachment anxiety
and avoidance; see Tables 10–12). There was no statistical significance between the
dependent and individual variables of ACES (B = –.00, p =.38) and attachment avoidance
(B = –.00, p = .51). However, there was statistical significance with the relationship
between laissez-faire and attachment anxiety (B = .20, p = <.001), which means that there
is partial support for the alternative hypothesis.
Table 10
Model Summary of Laissez-Faire Leadership
Model
R
R square
Adjusted R square
Std. error of the estimate
3
.47
.23
.21
.53
Note. Predictors: (Constant), avoidance, ACES, anxiety
88
Table 11
ANOVA Results Predicting Laissez-Faire
Model
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
Regression
9.877
3
3.292
11.615
<.001
Residual
34.015
120
.283
3
Total
43.893
123
Note. Dependent Variable: Laissez-faire; Predictors: (Constant), Avoidance, ACES,
Anxiety
Table 12
Regression Coefficients Predicting Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standard
error
Standardized
coefficients
t
Sig.
(Constant)
.47
.13
3.62
<.001
ACES
–.02
.02
–.07
–.88
.38
Anxiety
.23
.04
.52
5.25
<.001
3
Avoidance
–.03
.05
–.07
–.66
.51
Note. Dependent Variable: Laissez-faire
The null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses were partially supported. ACES
and avoidant security were not related to laissez-faire leadership. However, this study did
show a positive relationship between anxious attachment and laissez-faire leadership
styles.
89
Summary
In this chapter, the research question and hypothesis were assessed, which aimed
to decide if childhood trauma and attachment styles were related to leadership styles in
adults. The data was collected through Survey Monkey, with 157 participants
contributing to the survey. After the data was cleaned, the researcher found that 124
participants had completed the survey. Thirty-three participants were removed from the
survey due to missing data. Using linear regression, the researcher’s findings did not
support the study’s hypotheses. The findings showed that anxious security was related to
two leadership styles in adults, but no other variables were significant concerning
leadership styles. Transformational and transactional leadership were positively
correlated which is consistent with past research. Chapter 5 will discuss the findings and
limitations of this study.
90
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
It is not known how childhood trauma and attachment security are related to adult
leadership styles (transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire). Researchers have
shown relationships between leadership styles and attachment and discovered that secure
attachment is positively related to transformational leadership. This research study was
prompted because, in the current literature, childhood trauma has not been factored into
the above variables. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine how
childhood trauma and attachment security (measured by anxiety and avoidance) are
related to the adult leadership styles of transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire.
In this quantitative study, my hypotheses were partially supported by the findings.
The findings established that attachment security—specifically attachment anxiety—was
related to two leadership styles in adults. The findings from this study also support
previous research in the positive correlation of transformational and transactional
leadership styles. However, childhood trauma was not related to any of the three
leadership styles. In this chapter, I discuss the findings, limitations, recommendations for
future studies, and implications of study results.
Interpretation of the Findings
The current study had these findings: (a) attachment anxiety was positively
associated with laissez-faire leadership and negatively associated with transformational
leadership, (b) attachment avoidance had no relationship with leadership styles, and
(c) childhood trauma did not have a relationship with leadership styles. Results from this
91
study support previous research on attachment security. For example, the results of this
study show a relationship between low anxiety and transformational leadership, which is
supported by previous studies (Neto et al., 2018; Underwood, 2015). Yet, the results of
this study are inconsistent with other studies that examined childhood trauma and
leadership styles (Fein et al., 2020; Fuchshuber et al., 2019), as the current study did not
find a significant relationship between leadership styles and ACEs. Generally, this
study’s results support the three theories the research was grounded in.
Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance and Leadership Style
There are some possible explanations for the study findings. First, attachment
anxiety was related to the transformational leadership style because a leader with
attachment anxiety may be less trustworthy, which is the opposite of a transformational
leader with attachment security (Underwood et al., 2015). Moreover, this is evidenced by
previous research; a laissez-faire leader demonstrates apathetic behavior, lack of focus,
low-quality leadership, and lack of accountability, and creates a negative environment
(Neto et al., 2018; Underwood, 2015). These behaviors of laissez-faire leaders are similar
to individuals with attachment anxiety, who exhibit fear of abandonment, low self-
esteem, lack of self-control, mistrust of others, and poor boundaries (Bowlby, 2007;
Underwood, 2015). Essentially, the relationship between attachment anxiety and these
two different leadership styles is because anxiety is similar to the traits of a laissez-faire
leader and antithetical to the traits of a transformational leader.
Furthermore, previous studies relate to this study in that most leaders had a
transformational style, which is associated with low attachment anxiety (Anselan &
92
Mulder, 2020; Bass & Riggio, 2005; Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998). Attachment anxiety
can hinder leaders from becoming transformational, which is consistent with previous
studies (Haile, 2017; Underwood, 2015). Moreover, previous studies have shown that a
transformational leader is confident, consistent, secure, and steady; however, attachment
anxiety is not these behaviors (Sabbah et al., 2020). The results of this study could have
occurred because the leaders, especially those with many years of leadership experience,
have grown in confidence and attachment security, possibly by putting themselves in
healthy relationships and environments, allowing attachment anxiety to diminish.
Because this study is cross-sectional, however, evidence is needed to support this
rationale.
Furthermore, with attachment anxiety, there is a lack of ability to manage high-
stress situations, as individuals with this attachment insecurity will lack skills to regulate
themselves emotionally (Mrazkova & Lisa, 2022), making them less reliable leaders, the
very opposite of transformational leaders. Therefore, to explain the rationale of the results
further, leaders in a positive environment could help them become transformational. This
idea is supported theoretically by Bandura with SCT in that being in an affirming
environment can help change negative behaviors through self-agency. Self-agency is a
component of SCT that allows people to self-regulate their thoughts, motivations, and
behaviors (McCormick, 2001), thus reducing anxiety and increasing transformational
leadership behaviors.
Next, attachment avoidance was not related to any leadership styles. The
implications for the data are that people with relational styles of attachment avoidance
93
may be the determining factor in them not becoming transformational leaders.
Underwood et al. (2016) communicated that transformational leaders have attachment
security. An attachment-avoidant person will have a negative view of others, cannot
emotionally connect, and will hold rigid boundaries (Bowlby, 2007; Underwood, 2015),
and these behaviors do not relate to transformational or transactional leaders. Though not
studied in this research, this type of attachment would make it challenging to lead and
develop healthy connections with followers and for followers to connect with their
leader.
Explaining the results and where leaders can grow and mature in the right
environment is another consideration. Leaders need the right person to help them grow in
positive attributes and behaviors (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). Perhaps this study’s
participants were either consistently low on attachment avoidance or found ways to
manage these avoidant behaviors as leaders (see McCormick, 2001). Perhaps some
leaders may not have experienced adverse issues in childhood, resulting in no attachment
avoidance in adulthood (Gondek et al., 2021; Karatekin & Hill, 2018). Further study is
warranted, as the years of leadership may have a relationship with childhood trauma,
therefore reducing this variable’s association with leadership style.
Moreover, attachment avoidance was not found to be associated with any
leadership styles, as previous studies have discussed (Underwood, 2015), because
attachment avoidance is an absence of leadership (Ekmeckci & Tosunoglu, 2016).
Furthermore, the statement is not true of the participants from this study because they
identified themselves as leaders to meet the testing criteria. Lastly, another point to
94
consider supporting the results is that these leaders could have addressed areas of concern
for their behavior, fear of dependence, and interpersonal intimacy, which could explain
the findings of no association between attachment avoidance and leadership styles (see
Brennan et al., 1998). When people are not anxious or avoidant, they can be secure; this
relates to leadership in that security in leadership means they will demonstrate stable,
consistent, and positive behaviors, which aligns with previous research (Oke et al., 2019).
This type of leader (i.e., secure) attracts followers (Simsa & Trotter, 2020). However,
more empirical data are needed to support these claims.
ACES
Another finding in this study is that there was no relationship between childhood
trauma and leadership styles. Previous research and current leadership research discussed
that great managers are leaders of influence who perform well in the workplace, create
stable and safe environments, and keep healthy relationships with their followers (Eldad
& Benatov, 2018). These studies imply that a person with unresolved trauma could have
poor relational connections, low self-esteem, and lack confidence, which is the opposite
of a transformational leader (Rosen et al., 2018; Salehzadeh, 2017). There are a few
explanations for why ACEs may not relate to the different leadership styles.
ACES did not relate to transformational leadership, as this study showed. This
result of the study is possible because a transformational leader demonstrates emotional
intelligence and can self-regulate and manage their stressors (Tinajero et al., 2020). What
is not known from the study is what the participants who identified high trauma did to
reduce the adverse effects of their trauma from childhood or adverse issues. Adverse
95
issues that an adult could have from childhood are low self-esteem, hypervigilance, and
emotional regulation issues (Tibi et al., 2020). Past research that supports the current
study communicates that trauma is not permanent. This statement was not studied;
however, the participants could have engaged in one or more of the following positive
behaviors to reduce their trauma: therapy, a close friendship, or a significant other who
has behaviors of consistent communication and healthy relational interactions (Newman
et al., 2008). Lastly, a transformational leader has a desire for growth and development;
perhaps these participants utilized those to help overcome their trauma to succeed in all
aspects of their lives (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014). These positive behaviors from
previous research could explain why the null hypothesis was found.
ACES and transactional leadership did not have a relationship with each other.
Even though transactional leadership is goal-oriented in nature, it still is not related to
trauma. This lack of relationship could be because participants again recognized
behaviors they would like to address within themselves to be better leaders. Previous
studies show that transactional leaders can still motivate followers positively and
successfully (Ramchunder & Martins, 2014; Underwood, 2015). Transactional leaders
are associated with getting things done, using rewards and punishments, and achieving
goals due to their ability to focus. As the results show, trauma is none of these things,
which probably explains why there was no relationship with transactional leadership
(Feletti, 2019; Haile, 2017).
ACES and laissez-faire leadership did not have a relationship with each other.
Laissez-faire leaders have a hands-off approach, letting things ride with their followers
96
(Ekmeckci & Tosunoglu, 2016). Regardless of this, one would think that trauma should
be a factor in this leadership behavior because of how it can create negative self-view,
unhealthy relational patterns with self and others, and poor views of self and others
(Feletti, 2019). However, an assumption that could contribute to this null finding is just
poor parenting. What is not known by the participants is the type of attachment style their
primary caregivers had. Previous studies have examined parental style as a factor
associated with shaping leadership behaviors (Eldad & Benatov, 2018), but it is not clear
how this relates to laissez-faire leadership. Parental styles shaping adult leadership could
explain why ACES and laissez-faire leadership had no relationship. Thus, future studies
should also focus on parental attachments and leadership styles.
There is little past research on how trauma correlates with adult leadership styles;
however, what we do know about trauma is that trauma can be treatable. The ways
trauma is treatable is if a person engages in healthy relationships, a therapeutic process,
and ultimately, developing healthy coping mechanisms can see the reduction of the risks
of trauma (Ziegler, 2015). Trauma-focused therapy could be weekly or bi-weekly,
depending on the severity. Coping skills such as deep breathing exercises, drawing, or
working out. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 2, the trauma-focused cognitive
behavioral therapy approach draws on family therapy, attachment theory, neurobiology,
behavior therapy, and developmental neurobiology (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2018). The entire purpose of this therapy is to restore bonds and confidence and create
secure attachments. Trauma starts with unhealthy relationships but is also healed through
healthy relationships, as these are ways for a person to begin to address their childhood
97
trauma to move towards relational wholeness. Some individuals/leaders included more
healthy and strong relationships in their adult lives. Some may have sought out
professional help by going to therapy to address their trauma, which could be why trauma
did not show a strong relationship with leadership styles and explain the null finding.
Implications
Theoretical
Albert Bandura created SCT in 1977, which focuses on watching, modeling, and
imitating the behaviors of others, playing a significant role in how developing leaders can
develop their skills and styles (Schunk & Dibendetto, 2020). Additionally, SCT explores
how environmental experiences and cognitive factors relate to behaviors. The findings in
this research further showed that a person’s environment or adverse life experiences
could not relate to who or what they achieve in adulthood. Negative experiences such as
childhood trauma, which aligns with the environmental and cognitive factors of SCT, are
types of development challenges. However, another component of SCT is self-efficacy
(Grusec, 1992), which is connected to modeling, in which a person can learn how to
create specific beliefs concerning their abilities and characteristics in particular areas.
Modeling or observational learning is where a person observes another person’s
behaviors and is influenced by them. Through higher education and years of leadership, it
could be that a teacher or mentor showed positive behaviors that these leaders used to
improve their lives. This theory thoroughly helped to support the research and does not
need any changes because what was concluded is that trauma was not related to adult
leadership styles. The results of this study support this theory.
98
Attachment theory by John Bowlby explored how early relationships with
primary caregivers can establish healthy attachment or detachment styles that go well into
adulthood (Bowlby, 1982). Bowlby proposed that attachments included behavioral
systems, with a cognitive part of mental representations of the attachment figure, the self,
and the early life experiences that ultimately created the inner world, known as the
internal working model (Slater, 2007). The findings also support that in attachment
theory and leadership theories, attachment anxiety appears to contribute to
transformational and transactional leadership styles, which continue to be in alignment
with previous research (Neto et al., 2018; Underwood et al., 2016). This theory fully
supports the research and does not need further changes.
The current research supported the leadership theories by James MacGregor
Burns of transformational (people-focused) and transactional styles (goal-focused) (Bass,
1985), and Kurt Lewin developed the laissez-faire style (Ekmekci et al., 2016)
(easygoing) support the current research. The evidence of this current research supports
this theory because transformational leaders have low anxiety and low avoidance, and
transactional and avoidant leaders have high anxiety and high avoidance. These behaviors
align with these theories’ descriptions (Bass, 1985; Ekmeckci et al., 2016).
Transformational leadership style is associated with change in individuals and social
systems, developing leaders using motivation and morale (Burns, 1978). Lastly, this
concludes that transformational remains people-focused, transactional is goal-focused,
and laissez-faire is unengaged (Underwood et al., 2016) because of the high correlations
99
between attachment anxiety and avoidance in the two leadership styles, which the study
revealed.
Last, in alignment with previous research, transformational and transactional
leadership styles were positively correlated. The study done by Bass et al. (2003)
supported this association as they discovered that these two leadership types both seek to
improve follower performance. Though the processes are different, the goal is the same.
A transformational leader will use motivation and coaching, while a transactional leader
will use reward and punishment to improve their followers’ performance and behaviors
(Bass et al., 2003).
Positive Social Change
It is also essential for society to note that relationships, healthy or unhealthy in a
person’s life, can determine the course of their future. However, as some participants
reported, their high achievements in higher education do not mean the end of their future.
Future studies should examine what specific help, such as therapy or other forms of
treatment, leadership classes, were sought that could have mitigated leaders from being
affected by their childhood trauma. The research brings awareness to businesses, leaders,
and employees that if they want to create a healthy, thriving organization, the leadership
will need most managers, supervisors, or their higher-up structure to have a secure
attachment style. The reason is that previous research (Bass,1985; Bass & Riggio, 2005;
Underwood et al., 2016) and the current research show that this is related to a
transformational leader. Transformational leaders want to see their followers grow and
see them more successful than they are. For leadership, this creates a people-focused,
100
coaching, and development environment (Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019). A transformational
leader is associated positively with society and organizations. This study showed that
anxious attachment security could become a barrier to styles in adult leaders.
Additionally, this further implies that a person who could be prone to negatively
influencing the environment has low self-esteem and co-dependency. Thus, the negative
behaviors could make the business leader, team, or organization unstable, which could
how this leadership approach may impact employee retention (Underwood et al., 2016;
Van Jarsveeld et al., 2019).
The research from this study aimed to help leaders understand if childhood trauma
and attachment security were related to leadership style. Childhood trauma impacts in
various ways can have long-term risks on relationships from private to professional. The
results of this study help to show that a person can have longevity in leadership and
graduate college and graduate school despite having high trauma from childhood.
Creating a positive life despite high trauma is impactful for an individual as it can give
hope that they can become much more than what happened to them in their childhood.
This survey shows that a group of people can become resilient in the face of adversity,
become better for themselves, and end the generational trauma cycles. Also, the positive
social change with attachment security is that as leaders show up in the organizations,
communities, and families they lead, they can create healthy spaces for growth and thrive
with their followers. We know that attachment security has leaders showing up
confidently, having a positive self-view, and having a positive view of others. With this
101
type leading the way in most spaces, what type of world could be created for future
generations?
Organizations will benefit from this study as they can see that cognitive and
environmental factors can contribute to leaders developing into strong, healthy leaders
despite adverse early-life risks. Organizations can create or implement training tracks that
help leaders become aware of trauma challenges by developing self-awareness courses,
ensuring employees know how and when to use EAP services, and connecting with
support in the community for trauma recovery. Organizations can bring awareness to
leadership teams that may be struggling and can help them increase relational awareness
through training about attachment and leadership styles. This awareness will help create
better organizational health. Transformational leaders are people-focused and can
increase the positivity in an organization. Supplying those leaders with insecure
attachment styles with emotional intelligence training could be vital in the health of a
leader and the organization they lead to increase efficiency. Based on the results of this
study, the message for society is impactful in that it shows people, against all odds, can
finish better in life than they started, despite the trauma they experienced early in life.
Limitations of the Study
This study was able to increase awareness of childhood trauma and lack of risks
in adult leadership style development. Additionally, this study brought further awareness
to studies that have already investigated the research into the relationship between
attachment styles and leadership styles. The limitation was the data being collected on
social media. Even though it was posted on three different social media platforms,
102
Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, it was ultimately just one medium. This method
limited the study because some businesspeople do not use social media enough to have
noticed a study to participate in. If leadership groups or networks had been contacted, this
could have even reached this specific population for this survey.
This study lacked diversity regarding ethnicity, as white and Black participants
were the highest, and Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian participants were the lowest.
The origin state of South Dakota has a small minority population where the researcher
resides and has limited connections on social media with minority groups and
individuals. Another limitation of the study was not knowing if participants who scored
high in childhood trauma received therapy or sought help. This study also limits
generalizability because it is leadership-focused; not every person online could take it.
So, the study’s results do not apply to a broader population.
Another limitation was that this research was a cross-sectional study. A cross-
sectional study utilized the ACES, ECR, and MLQ because these questionaries pointed to
a specific childhood time, current relationships, and reporting on the participants’
leadership behaviors. The limitation is that it is hard to establish associations with
relationships or to analyze behaviors over time. Future studies should include a
qualitative study to find out what participants could have done in adulthood to reduce the
association of trauma with their childhood. Additionally, future studies should include
questions about specific interventions that the participants can report that helped them to
become better leaders, such as whether they could have started as laissez-faire or
transactional leaders.
103
Recommendations
This research study brought attention to childhood trauma and its possible risks
for adults in general. As it was discovered in this study, childhood trauma did not have
any relationship to leadership styles in adults. Attachment security was measured with the
ECR (attachment anxiety and avoidance) as the current research showed that anxious
attachment security relates to adult leadership style. Past and current research has shown
that attachment styles are related to adult leadership style types (Underwood, 2015;
Underwood et al., 2016). Attachment styles begin to develop in early childhood, and poor
primary caregivers create a risk of disruptions in emotional and relational areas
(Mrazkova & Lisa, 2022). A transformational leader positively impacts an organization
(Bass, 1985). Future researchers should focus on qualitative studies because what is not
known, especially with leaders with years of experience who have high trauma but are
unaffected, is what they did to grow. Those leaders should be interviewed, especially
those with high trauma (a score of three or higher) and a transformational leadership
style.
Secondly, another recommendation is to form a focus group to concentrate on the
longitudinal changes in the leader’s life. The focus group will hopefully allow them to
gain insights by way of life interventions on how a leader may have started as a laissez-
faire type of leader and then developed into a transformational leader. The type of life
interventions a leader could have tried, such as mental health therapy, obtaining a life
coach, or, if needed, addiction treatment. To find common themes among the group, this
could create other training material or a training development track for leaders learning
104
how to recover from childhood trauma—additionally, providing a necessary tool for
those leaders who have experienced trauma but did not seek help and have an anxious or
avoidant attachment style, which is not only their work but their home life.
Future studies could add a control variable, as this study did not have one, to
strengthen the internal validity of their research better. Lastly, a focus group that is
explicitly for minority populations to gain a better understanding of their leadership
experiences is another recommendation in the United States, as this study had a tiny
minority population with Hispanic and Asian Americans. At what age did they possibly
get a mentor? What specific intervention was associated with positive change in their
life? These are some focused questions that are connected to SCT.
Furthermore, what was reported in the study is leaders having high trauma.
However, it was not related to their leadership style, as most reported a transformational
leadership style. Their cultural experiences with a highly familiar correlation with their
attachment security are essential to understanding how a person leads in the work
environment (Balikici, 2018).
Conclusion
The results of this research revealed that childhood trauma does not correlate with
leadership styles in adults. I assumed that childhood trauma would determine if a leader
would have a transactional or laissez-faire style. Another finding from this research study
was that anxious security had a relationship with the laissez-faire style of leadership of
adults. However, the results did not support the hypothesized interaction of relationships
between the variables. However, the data provided valuable insight that warrants further
105
qualitative testing. Insight into the results, such as years of leadership, is valuable to
being a transformational leader.
