Self-leadership is a process that involves the ability to motivate oneself to perform. Research indicates a positive correlation between self-efficacy and self-leadership. Indeed, self-efficacy levels serve as an important indicator for leadership development, with higher self-efficacy being positively associated with leadership potential. Self-leadership is also a fundamental precursor to effective leadership, as the ability to lead and motivate others begins with the capacity to lead and motivate oneself.

Several researchers have proposed that leadership development begins in childhood (e.g. Liu et al. 2019, Hailey and Fazio-Brunson 2020, Cannon et al. 2024), and self-efficacy is shaped by both past experiences and environmental factors. This study builds upon the premise that contextual factors during childhood, such as exposure to domestic violence, which is known to negatively impact self-efficacy levels, may also affect the process of leadership development. Childhood domestic violence is a traumatic event that can interfere with the formation of fundamental self-beliefs, especially self-efficacy. These beliefs are crucial in determining motivation, self-control and behaviour, according to social cognitive theory. Consequently, lower self-efficacy may later manifest as reduced engagement in self-leadership behaviour. Despite this knowledge, the relationship between childhood exposure to domestic violence and leadership development remains largely unexplored.

Based on a survey questionnaire conducted amongst respondents in the Netherlands, both with and without childhood experiences of domestic violence, this study examined whether such experiences lead to lower self-efficacy and self-leadership later in life. The sample comprised a randomly selected group of individuals, with 19.5% of respondents reporting experiences of domestic violence before the age of 18 years.

As a result, this study cannot conclusively determine that childhood experiences of domestic violence influence self-efficacy and self-leadership later in life. Factors such as learning from life experiences, therapy or educational programmes may mitigate the potential effects of domestic violence on self-efficacy and self-leadership. Future research is needed to explore whether experiences of domestic violence have a measurable impact on the development of self-efficacy and self-leadership in other samples and to identify factors that may diminish these effects over the course of an individual’s lifetime.

This study employed a combination of primary data collection, validated measurement instruments, secondary literature and analysis software:

Primary Data Collection:

• A survey questionnaire was sent to Dutch adults aged 18–84 years, chosen randomly through a data collection service;
• Out of 120 questionnaires sent out, 118 participants consented to participate;
• Childhood exposure to domestic violence was self-reported and 23 participants (19.5%) indicated exposure.

Measurement Instruments:

• Self-leadership: Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire (ASLQ; Houghton et al. (2012)), 9 items, Cronbach's α = 0.77;
• Self-efficacy: Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995), adapted to five items for consistency, Cronbach's α = 0.87.

Secondary Data / Literature Resources:

• Academic literature on self-efficacy, self-leadership and childhood domestic violence (Bandura 1977, Bandura 1986, Neck et al. 1995, Bandura et al. 1999, Sousa et al. 2010, Neck et al. 2014, Haj-Yahia et al. 2019);
• National domestic violence policy guidelines (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports 2025).

Analytical Tools:

• Data were analysed with PSPP, applying descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, linear regression and Welch's t-test because of unequal group sizes.

Conceptual Framework:

• Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1977, Bandura 1986) supported the study's hypothesis that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between early experiences and self-leadership;
• Trauma-informed leadership development literature guided the interpretation of non-significant effects of childhood domestic violence.

Self-leadership refers to an individual’s ability to influence and motivate themselves (Neck et al. 1995). Self-leadership differs from leadership, as the focus of self-leadership is on the “self” rather than on leading or motivating others. By motivating themselves to execute tasks that are unmotivating, individuals can enhance their overall performance. Scholars have identified different behavioural and cognitive strategies that contribute to personal effectiveness. Firstly, behavioural-focused strategies aim to increase self-awareness and facilitate behavioural management through techniques, such as self-goal setting, self-observation, self-reward, self-punishment and self-cueing (Furtner et al. 2018). Secondly, natural reward strategies focus on integrating enjoyable aspects into activities to enhance intrinsic motivation for specific tasks (Neck and Houghton 2006). Finally, constructive thought pattern strategies involve identifying and replacing dysfunctional thoughts and beliefs with those that enhance performance (Neck and Houghton 2006).

Self-leadership is strongly associated with self-efficacy, a core concept within social cognitive theory (SCT) that refers to an individual’s beliefs in their ability to execute specific tasks (Lovelace et al. 2007, Neck et al. 2014). Since self-efficacy is task-specific, individuals may have high perceived self-efficacy in one area, while experiencing lower self-efficacy in another. Self-efficacy is a powerful motivational predictor of performance as it determines the level of effort and persistence an individual invests in completing a task (Heslin and Klehe 2006). As such, higher self-efficacy increases the likelihood of success by encouraging the individual to take on more challenging tasks, exert greater effort and develop resilience when facing obstacles (Bandura 1977, Bandura 1986, Gist and Mitchell 1992, Bandura et al. 1999). These efficacy beliefs are derived from four major types of experiences: self-performance accomplishments (e.g. achieving success in challenging activities), vicarious experiences (e.g. improving task capabilities through exposure to models, increasing skills and observing others succeed), verbal persuasion or positive feedback (from a credible source such as a coach, teacher or parent) and psychological conditions and mood states (Bandura 1981, Bandura 1982, Bandura 1986). Greater self-efficacy is associated with a higher probability of developing leadership abilities (Chemers 2002, McCormick et al. 2002, Paglis and Green 2002).

Domestic violence is referred to using various terms, including intimate partner abuse, family violence, wife beating, battering, marital abuse and partner abuse (Hornor 2005). Childhood exposure to domestic violence can take different forms, such as witnessing violence, hearing violence, being used as a tool by the perpetrator or dealing with the aftermath of violent episodes (Edleson 1999). Importantly, numerous studies have shown that experiencing domestic violence during childhood contributes to emotional and behavioural problems (e.g. Davies and Cummings 1994, Edleson 1999, Onyskiw 2003, Katz et al. 2007, Holt et al. 2008, Sousa et al. 2010, Harrison 2021).

The definition of domestic violence used in this study was from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (2025) (in the Netherlands), provided in the Action Protocol Child Abuse and Domestic Violence:

“Domestic violence is violence committed by someone from the victim’s domestic or family circle. This includes physical and sexual violence, stalking and threats (whether or not this is accompanied by damage to property in and around the home)” (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.  

Conceptual model.

Research indicates that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between self-leadership and both performance and motivation (Prussia et al. 1998, Konradt et al. 2009, Hauschildt and Konradt 2012). Additionally, higher levels of self-efficacy have been linked to greater self-leadership (Job et al. 2010, Stewart et al. 2011, Hauschildt and Konradt 2012), and individuals with high trait self-efficacy tend to be better self-leaders (Williams 1997). This relationship may be explained by the tendency of individuals with greater self-efficacy to engage more frequently in self-leadership behaviour. This effect of self-efficacy on self-leadership can be influenced by learning interventions, as training programmes focused on enhancing self-leadership have been shown to increase self-efficacy (Neck and Manz 1996, Williams 1997, Elloy 2008, Lucke and Furtner 2017). Based on this information, we propose the following hypothesis: H1: Self-efficacy has a positive association with self-leadership.

Exposure to domestic violence is widely recognised by researchers as a factor that diminishes self-efficacy beliefs in children (Sachs-Ericsson et al. 2006, Sachs-Ericsson et al. 2011, Haj-Yahia et al. 2019). These experiences play a significant role in shaping self-efficacy beliefs and parents and caregivers also influence these beliefs through the experiences they provide for children (Meece 1997, Bandura et al. 1999). In this study, we hypothesise that childhood exposure to domestic violence decreases self-efficacy levels, which in turn, leads to lower levels of self-leadership: H2: Childhood domestic violence exposure is negatively associated with self-efficacy. H3: Childhood domestic violence exposure indirectly influences self-leadership through its effect on self-efficacy.

A survey questionnaire (see Suppl. material 1) with standardised scales was used to measure the study variables. Respondents were selected through random sampling with the assistance of a data collection service, based in the Netherlands. Study participants were randomly selected, based on two criteria: being aged 18 years or older and being either current or former members of the Dutch labour market or eligible to participate in it. A total of 120 questionnaires were received and 118 respondents consented to the use of their data for scientific research. The mean age of participants was 43.9 years, with ages ranging from 18 to 84.

Data were collected through an external data collection agency in the Netherlands. All participants remained anonymous and no personal identifiers were recorded. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose and provided informed consent prior to participation. Consent was obtained via the statement (see Suppl. material 2 included in the survey: ‘Met het invullen van deze vragenlijst gaat u ermee akkoord dat deze gegevens gebruikt worden voor een wetenschappelijk onderzoek’ (English translation: By completing this questionnaire, you agree that the collected data may be used for scientific research purposes).

Self-leadership was measured using an abbreviated version of the self-leadership questionnaire (Houghton et al. 2012), comprising nine items. The self-leadership questionnaire had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77. Self-efficacy was measured using the generalised self-efficacy scale from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), which originally consisted of four items. To ensure a consistent number of items across the scales and minimise potential confusion for respondents, the self-efficacy scale was adapted to include five items. The self-efficacy questionnaire had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. For self-leadership, the sample average score was 2.60, while for self-efficacy, the sample average score was 2.47.

The data were analysed using correlation and regression methods in PSPP. Initially, a descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the means and standard deviations of the study variables. A correlation matrix was utilised to examine the strengths of the relationships between the study’s key constructs (Table 1).

A correlation analysis was performed to identify the association between the two study variables (see Table 2). When including the entire sample (n = 118), the relationship between self-leadership and self-efficacy was significant, indicating a strong correlation between the two variables.

In this study, two groups were compared to assess whether domestic violence experiences during childhood have a moderating effect on self-efficacy and, subsequently, self-leadership. The group that experienced domestic violence during childhood comprised 23 respondents, whereas the group that did not comprised 95 respondents. Independent-samples Welch’s t-tests (see Tables 3, 4) were conducted to compare mean levels of self-leadership and self-efficacy between the two groups, because group variances were unequal. Group-level means and standard deviations were computed for participants who reported “Yes” versus “No” on childhood domestic violence exposure. In the tables, “df” indicates degrees of freedom and “Sig. (2-tailed)” refers to the two-tailed p-value.

The p-value for self-efficacy was 0.325, indicating that H2, which suggested that domestic violence experiences during childhood influence self-efficacy, was not supported. In particular, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding self-efficacy levels. Similarly, the p-value for self-leadership was 0.330, meaning that H3, which stated that childhood domestic violence experiences influence self-leadership via self-efficacy, was not supported. These findings suggest that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-leadership. In addition to the primary analysis, a linear regression was conducted to examine the potential influence of control variables, including age and employment status (i.e. employed, job-seeking or retired), on the relationship between childhood experiences of domestic violence and self-leadership. The results showed that none of the control variables had a statistically significant effect on the outcome variable, indicating that they did not confound the relationship under investigation.

This study investigated how exposure to domestic violence during childhood affects the development of self-efficacy and, subsequently, self-leadership in adulthood. The findings confirmed a strong positive correlation between self-leadership and self-efficacy, following current literature that people with higher self-efficacy would be more likely to engage in self-leadership behaviour (Hauschildt and Konradt 2012, Neck et al. 2014). This aligns with the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1977, Bandura 1986), which suggests that efficacy beliefs motivate goal-directed behaviour and foster self-regulatory strategies that are fundamental to leadership development. Contrary to expectations, childhood exposure to domestic violence was not a significant contributor to self-efficacy or self-leadership in adulthood. A potential explanation is the presence of resilience and mitigating factors over the life course, such as therapy, educational attainment, social support or individual coping mechanisms, which may buffer negative effects of early trauma (Sousa et al. 2010, Sachs-Ericsson et al. 2011).

When interpreting these findings, it is necessary to acknowledge several limitations. The limited number of individuals reporting childhood domestic violence (n = 23) means there was not sufficient statistical power to identify small-to-moderate effects. This value increases the likelihood of a Type II error. Future studies should aim to replicate these findings with larger and more diverse samples. This study relied entirely on retrospective self-reports of childhood domestic violence, which may have been influenced by recall bias or the under-reporting of domestic abuse due to the sensitive nature of the topic. As such, this may lead to underestimating or misclassifying exposure. Important variables that could influence the findings of this study, such as severity and duration, were not accounted for. Similarly, protective factors, such as personality traits or access to community resources, were not measured as potentially important moderating factors. Collectively, these limitations may help to explain the non-significant findings and highlight the need for further research in this area.

The findings have practical implications, including for leadership development programmes. Leadership potential can be increased irrespective of past trauma through coaching, mentoring and self-leadership training interventions (Neck and Manz 1996, Elloy 2008). At the theoretical level, this study offers a more nuanced explanation of leadership development. Self-efficacy can be influenced by adverse childhood experiences, yet they must not necessarily predetermine long-term self-leadership results. Future research must be directed at larger and more diverse samples, longitudinal designs to trace developmental trajectories over time and examination of mediating and moderating effects of social support, personality factors and intervention programmes. In addition, self-efficacy and self-leadership specific to a domain are likely to yield more precise information than generalised measures.

This study focused on the influence of childhood domestic violence experiences on self-efficacy and self-leadership. Future researchers should consider including broader aspects of leadership in their work. A key limitation of this research was the relatively small size of the study sample, which limited statistical power and the ability to generalise results. Future studies should be designed using larger, more diverse and representative samples to enhance external validity and robustness. In addition, due to the retrospective reports of what participants had experienced as children, recall bias and/or under-reporting may possibly occur due to the sensitive nature of domestic violence. These measurement limitations may, therefore, have influenced the accuracy of exposure classification and the resulting findings. The cross-sectional design creates limitations on the ability to track developmental changes over time. Future longitudinal or mixed-method studies should offer a more complete view of how childhood trauma impacts leadership-related beliefs and behaviour throughout the lifespan.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between self-efficacy and self-leadership. While no effect of childhood domestic violence experiences on self-efficacy and self-leadership was found, this does not imply that domestic violence experiences, or other contextual factors, have no influence on leadership development. It is possible that mitigating factors reduce the negative effect of domestic violence exposure on self-efficacy or self-leadership. Further research is needed to explore these mitigating factors and, thus, provide deeper insights into leadership development across the lifespan.

The present study aimed to add to the leadership development literature by investigating the impact of childhood domestic violence experiences on self-leadership. Self-leadership involves influencing oneself and utilising self-motivational techniques and research has previously established a positive correlation between self-efficacy and self-leadership. While prior literature suggests that childhood exposure to domestic violence lowers self-efficacy, there is little research on the enduring effect of this exposure on self-leadership. Our findings confirmed the positive correlation between self-leadership and self-efficacy, but there was no statistically significant impact of exposure to childhood domestic violence on these concepts during adulthood. Although this work failed to affirm the hypotheses, it contributes to leadership theory by contradicting assumptions regarding the long-term effects of early trauma on leadership ability. This study also highlights the heterogeneity of developmental paths and the possibility of resilience factors, such as therapy, education or supportive relationships, which may buffer the negative effect of such early experiences. In terms of practice, this study provides insights into the construction of inclusive and trauma-informed leadership development. Specifically, this work suggests that individuals with a background of adverse childhood experiences should enter leadership pipelines and that self-efficacy development through specific interventions can support leadership development regardless of an individual’s previous experiences of adversity. Future research needs to investigate how contextual and developmental mechanisms interact over time and impact leadership capabilities.

Prior to involvement, the participants were informed of the purpose of the study and asked for permission to use their data. Overall, 118 out of 120 participants provided their permission for involvement. Participation was voluntary and the participants could withdraw at any time. All the data obtained were anonymised to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of the participants. There was no personally identifiable information that was obtained or stored. The study adhered to ethical guidelines to ensure respect for participants’ autonomy and the safeguarding of information throughout the research.