Consider two teenagers searching for summer work. One is offered an opportunity to assist a project manager at their uncle's construction company. The other submits a dozen retail applications, hoping for a call back. Who is more likely to hold a formal leadership position in their 20s?
Authors
- Steve Granger
Assistant Professor, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University
- Julian Barling
Distinguished Professor and Borden Chair of Leadership, Smith School of Business, Queen's University, Ontario
- Nick Turner
Professor and Future Fund Chair in Leadership, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary
Stories like this play out across families of different economic backgrounds every day. Our recent research shows that pathways to leadership often begin much earlier than many assume, and are shaped by social capital that accumulates throughout childhood and adolescence.
We studied more than 6,700 people born in the same week in April 1970 across Great Britain, tracked from birth to age 26 through the British Cohort Study .
Rather than measuring socioeconomic status at just one point in time, we were able to capture it repeatedly: at birth, and ages 5, 10 and 16. This gave us a rare opportunity to see how persistent exposure to either wealth or adversity shaped who went on to take up formal leadership roles as young adults and who did not.
Affluence versus adversity
Our findings revealed a striking pattern. Children who grew up in persistent wealth - whose parents consistently held managerial or professional occupations - were more likely to occupy leadership roles by their mid-20s.
Conversely, those who grew up in persistent adversity - whose parents consistently worked in lower-skilled or semi-skilled occupations, such as routine service, manual or support roles as defined in the U.K. National Statistics Socio-economic Classification - were less likely to hold similar leadership positions.
But what makes these findings particularly revealing is that persistent exposure to wealth or adversity isn't simply being on opposite ends of one continuum. Instead, they represent two very different paths that result in distinct socialization experiences.
On one hand, persistent wealth creates cumulative benefits by providing repeated access to resources, enriching experiences and better-connected social networks. On the other hand, persistent adversity can compound barriers , limiting opportunities for skill development, access to quality education and early exposure to professional environments.
Both paths land young people at very different career starting points that either open or close doors to leadership opportunities.
Pathways through social networks
For children from affluent families, leadership pathways often run through social networks. Access to what we call " nepotistic opportunities " - job connections through family and friends - partially explained why these children were more likely to emerge as leaders later on.
This isn't always blatant favouritism. Instead, it reflects how affluent families more easily provide access to " weak ties " - the kinds of looser connections that open doors to new information and opportunities.
Consider again the teenager whose uncle arranges a summer job on a construction site. They don't just earn money; they also learn about co-ordinating teams in professional environments and they form relationships. These encounters build social capital that can shape their path to leadership.
Not just a lack of connections
By contrast, we expected that children from disadvantaged backgrounds would show the mirror image of this pattern: that missing out on opportunities to build their social network would explain their lower odds of becoming leaders.
But our data told a different story.
Persistent early life adversity was linked to fewer leadership roles in adulthood, but not simply because of missed social opportunities. The teenager cold-applying to retail jobs does indeed face barriers to later leadership, but more complex and deeper-rooted factors are likely at play.
The disadvantages of growing up in persistent adversity may be rooted in other factors not measured in our study, such as reduced access to non-parental mentors , lower quality schooling or the toll of long-term economic stress on well-being .
What organizations can do
Addressing disadvantage requires tackling the deeper, systemic ways persistent economic wealth and adversity shape development. Employers can help level the playing field.
Acknowledging that social class differences exist in organizations is a crucial first step. This lays the groundwork for reducing bias in leadership recruitment, selection, retention efforts and improving access to leadership development.
Recruiting more widely through non-traditional networks and providing employer-sponsored preparation opportunities can make pathways into formal leadership positions more accessible. Dispelling myths about social class , for example through training, can also help reduce bias in selection and improve retention.
Finally, creating developmental networks and mentorship programs can provide the kind of career guidance and connections that affluent families often provide informally.
Leadership isn't predetermined
The influence of childhood conditions can have lasting effects on career trajectories . In our study, the effects of early socioeconomic status conditions were still visible when participants reached their mid-20s, long after they had finished school and entered the workforce.
Addressing leadership diversity requires not just workplace interventions, but also early investment in supporting childhood development across all socioeconomic backgrounds.
Investments in quality education, mentorship programs and opportunities for young people to build professional networks is crucial for creating more equitable pathways to leadership.
While our findings highlight advantages for affluent youth and barriers for disadvantaged youth, they don't dictate destiny. Among those who experienced at least some persistent adversity, 34 per cent still rose to leadership positions (compared to 46 per cent of those who experienced at least some persistent wealth).
What our research identifies is how socioeconomic status advantages and disadvantages compound over time, widening the disparity in social experiences that generate leadership opportunities.
Recognizing the distinction between these cumulative effects can help motivate us to create more equitable family and organizational systems where leadership potential is nurtured no matter where you start.
Steve Granger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Julian Barling receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Borden Chair of Leadership.
Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business's Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
