Insights into the student leadership transformation role can highlight the collective impact strategy paradigm. This strategy offers a perspective that can span the matrix of role players and the development of students, in a culture of evidence that informs co-curricular efforts (Culp & Dungy 2012). It is undeniable that student leaders are the future leaders of the country (Luescher et al. 2020); thus, understanding student leadership involves obtaining insight into the future leadership of a country. Currently an obstacle for student leadership in the researchers’ observation, is that students elected to governance structures are unlikely to have been intentionally and specifically equipped with the necessary graduate attributes to perform their mandated role. This limits their prospects even though they are presented with high-level leadership opportunities within university structures (Luescher-Mamashela & Mugume 2014; Mukoza & Goodman 2013). Contrarily, students in development programmes may develop and progress in leadership competencies, but the university seldom benefits because these students get involved in activities outside the framework of higher education legislation. Student activists, despite being influential, receive no development attention either.

Furthermore, the collective impact strategy should focus on developing student engagement and leadership within the co-governance framework of universities (Bengu 1996; Republic of South Africa 1997) towards their collective transformation role. This would enable universities to provide these (future) leaders with appropriate leadership nurturance (Sebola 2019). This article acknowledges the status quo with its challenges, potential resistance to change and varying investment in student leaders – matters embedded in institutional cultures (Bazana & Mogotsi 2017, Booysen 2016, Higham 2012; Thaver 2009). It aims to understand student leadership in a way that higher education and the student leadership community may productively revisit the implementation of student leadership to enhance the organisational effectiveness of student leadership with reference to student leaders’ transformation task.

A socio-analytic theoretical framework, which focuses on integrating and developing methodologies and theories that are based on psychoanalysis, group relations, social systems thinking, organisational behaviour, and social dreaming (Long 2017) was employed. Divergent from Freudian individual psychology of the repressed unconscious, socio-analysis as initially formulated by Bion and coined by Bain in 1999, explores the dynamics of the group–as–a–whole (the group/system) rather than the individual (Long 2013). According to socio-analysis, analysis occur on the individual and collective levels exploring conscious and unconscious dynamics (Long 2017), as is in social dream drawing (Mersky 2008).

A purposive and volunteered sample (eds. Leedy & Ormrod 2014) of six student leaders was included in data collection. Table 1 shows the description of the group of volunteered participants.

During the session, six dream drawings, which were allocated 1 h each, were explored in a three-step process. Firstly, each participant related their dream to the group and explained their accompanying drawing. Afterwards other participants could ask clarifying questions regarding the dream or its drawing. Secondly, the group members contributed free associations. Through these contributions, the dream becomes the dream of the group, to make further meaning about student leadership through the associative unconscious (Mersky & Sievers 2019). Thirdly, reflections about the social construction of student leadership at a South African university occurred. These reflections contributed to a meaning–making conversation about student leadership based on the dreams, dream drawings and the shared free associations (Mersky 2012). The researchers’ role included helping participants make links between the different drawings, identify themes that emerged from the dream drawings and link the emerging discourse to issues within the student leadership environment (Mersky 2012). Resultant preliminary hypotheses about student leadership in South Africa were tested with the participants in – session (Mersky 2008).

Data was collected in the form of transcribed text derived from in-session voice recorded data (description of the dreams, free associations and meaning making of the descriptions of dreams and drawings), photographs of the dream drawings, and the reflection notes that researchers took during each session.

The data analysis was initiated during the data collection session when researchers offered reflections to test the preliminary hypotheses, as described in the Instrument and Procedure section. Post-session, the transcribed text was studied by the researchers. For this, Clarke and Hoggert (2009) and Parker (1997, 2014, 2015), helped us bridge psychodynamics and discourse analysis. Bion’s (1961) foundational assumptions that groups experience anxiety to establish, organise and maintain themselves, was adopted along with Long’s (2013, 2016, 2017) work on organisational and social dynamics. These theoretical positions provided a framework from which to identify themes about the dynamics of student leadership. Hollway and Jefferson (2013) provided a framework from which to conceptualise the anxiety of the group which produces defences/defence mechanisms (Long 2017) leading to the ‘defended participant’. Consequently, discourses in the transcribed text were studied with the intention to link them with a ‘defended participant’ (Boydell 2009), who is group–as–a–whole (Long 2017). Literature on defences/defence mechanisms (Klein 1960; Kohut 2004; Lemma 2003) supported this understanding.

Connections between descriptions of the dreams and drawings, free associations as well as the reflections or meaning making conversation were made. These were then integrated into categories of data to create themes regarding student leadership at a South African university (Boydell 2009). From this an integrated working hypothesis (Figure 3), that suggests the underlying issues regarding student leadership in South Africa was constructed. This is a view on how the integrated themes, and the in–session tested preliminary working hypotheses, collectively makes sense (Mersky 2008). Finally, data analysis occurred during member checks when the integrated working hypothesis was tested. Six propositions regarding student leadership transformation role were extrapolated from the integrated working hypothesis (Figure 4).

Ethics clearance was obtained from the College of Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Review Committee, UNISA ethics committee (number: 2013/CEMS/IOP/00115). The appropriate director of Student Affairs granted permission to recruit student leaders for data collection purposes. The participants completed and signed an information sheet and consent form indicating their willingness to participate. To address possible emotional distress consequent to the research, a debriefing session was held after the data collection. Through the research gate keeper, arrangements were made with the student counselling centre to provide for emotional containment when needed. Each dream drawing was allocated a number, that is, 1, 2, 3 without linking the dream or the allocated number to the participant, for confidentiality purposes. Consistent with the philosophy of the method (Mersky 2008), no personal identifiable information was contained in the social dream drawings nor in the report thereof.

The discourse about a sense of belonging (Pule 2017) in the transforming university highlight identity and relational dynamics. Particularly, splitting (Kohut 2004) over race and gender generated discomfort within the group. This discomfort inspired the desire for a common vision, as evident in the quotation shown below. This common vision included contributing to the transformation agenda:

The experiences of a common vision are complicated by the leaders’ identity crisis pertaining to identity as leaders vs. identity as students. As students, identity (including on the basis of race and gender) often referred to loyalty to their constituency, their affiliation, and consensus with the student body in general. The elements of identity as students may clash with the common vision regarding identity as a student leader, compelling student leaders to wrestle with the splitting dynamics of the student identity. The following quotation illustrates this:

This identity crisis threatened their sense of belonging as students. Depending on their obligation to the Higher Education Act and related regulations or procedures, the participants could also feel torn regarding their obligation to management. Because SRCs and their related committees play a role within management structures, they may endure this crisis more than other student leaders. Trying to negotiate these issues seemingly could lead to a feeling of being alone. For example, in this quotation:

The quotation shows the black female student leader perceiving herself to be alone, without support or camaraderie towards her transformation-related portfolio. She also perceived that in being black and female, others did not understand her unique challenges as a student leader regarding her role. Bazana and Mogotsi (2017), noted the challenges and potential resistance to change as being embedded in institutional cultures. The quotation shown above suggests congruence with Le Grange (2011) and Thaver (2009) in that women and black student leaders uniquely experience historically White universities in their introduction of a culture of transformation in the country, integration of inter-cultural communities and resolving social tensions.

Drawing on Hollway and Jefferson’s (2013) concept of the defended participant, as researchers we made sense of the student leaders’ identity presentation by calling this phenomenon ‘defended student leadership identity’.

The participants talked about the need to employ defence as in this quotation:

As a result of navigating the transforming university, dynamics in student leadership elicit anxiety; this is ultimately responded to through defence mechanisms. Examples are demonstrating omnipotence (Lemma 2003), splitting (Kohut 2004), narcissistic injury and denial (Bion 1961; Kohut 2004), self-preservation and the depressive position (Bion 1961; Klein 1960). To illustrate taking up defence, the participants referred to the term ‘facelessness’ as demonstrated by the quotation and dream drawing (Figure 1):

Appearing faceless implies withdrawing from the spotlight. Potentially, this is an unconscious denial (Bion 1961) about facing the demands of the transformation. Furthermore, facelessness could be the unconscious denial (Kohut 2004) of the extent of reconciliation already achieved in South Africa.

Student leaders want to ‘leave a mark’ (Dream 4, chorus). Their compulsion to act as leaders who can deliver was indicated by their anxiety to have conversations about working with diversity dynamics. Diversity dynamics are interactional complexities based on an assumption of subjective identities which emerge from similarities and differences amongst people (May 2012). Talking about this was their action of contributing to the transformation mandate. Trust was highlighted as a key component towards having the emerging conversation. Defence mechanisms are used more when student leaders struggle to experience trust:

Student leaders may need support because of the blurry context of student leadership as illuminated through the following quotation:

The blurry context refers to student leaders not always having clarity and being uncertain whilst working with diversity dynamics. This makes the conversation about their anxiety even more daunting and motivates the use of defences. Consequently, it shows that student leaders need support. It seemed that they found the task of student leadership overwhelming and developmentally overbearing, such that instances of emotional labour were reported by some participants, as follows:

During member checks, one participant reported having been treated for major depressive disorder resulting from the combined pressures of her academics and student leadership role. This becomes a further indicator of student leaders’ need for support.

The stillborn dream drawing in Figure 2, highlighted the emotional labour experienced by student leaders. This circumstance is associated with their fear that they might not be able to deliver, as in the stillborn dream. They associated the stillborn metaphor with those leadership efforts that they or their constituencies, perceive to be unfruitful.

The themes contributing to the integrated working hypothesis are shown in Figure 3. The hypothesis indicates that the social construction of student leadership at a South African university comprises identity, mainly in student leadership; relational dynamics in higher education and within student leadership; and lastly, a conversation about the anxiety of working with diversity dynamics within which student leaders showed a need for support because of the defended student leadership identity that is presented.

The integrated working hypothesis was used to extrapolate six propositions relevant to the student leadership transformation role.

The findings show that the student leadership identity dilemma is marred by the identity crisis regarding identity as leaders versus identity as students. Consequently, the identity dilemma underlies how student leaders perform in their role, given that they engage through defences or a defended student leadership identity. Additionally, these defences are realised in the context of diversity dynamics. Thus, congruent with Speckman (2015), the leadership of students motivates them to explore their various identities in a dynamic and diverse environment. This is useful for their transformation role even though they may employ self-preservation (or omnipotence) as strategies (Bion 1961; Klein 1960) to cope. To aid their transformation, the psychological implication that is specific to the identity dilemma should be conceptualised in light of the tension that exists when engaging with difficult issues such as diversity dynamics, in higher education.

The participants expressed a wish to keep a consistent identity across various diversity aspects because of the belief that sameness encourages less conflict. Agazarian (2012) suggested that homogeneity within groups facilitates the integration of differences between members. Student leaders, therefore, attempt to achieve cohesion by striving toward a common goal or purpose through using relational dynamics to defend themselves from the discomfort proposed by difference. Leibowitz et al. (2007) found that a desperate need for commonality may predispose members to prioritise agreement at the cost of confronting problematic issues to the desired degree. The resultant tension can build up into a later expression of aggression. Possibly the #Fallist movement (Griffiths 2019; Swartz et al. 2019) was an example of this. Expressing contention creates relational muddying amongst student leaders. It could be within this relational muddying that the transformation agenda gets derailed or complicated. This outcome can become overwhelming; hence the student leaders fantasise about sameness to reduce the anxiety that they experience regarding the diversity dynamics encountered.

The data reveals the possibility that student leadership may be a space for making sense of diversity (dynamics) in South Africa because of the participants’ need (or anxiety) to have conversation about working with diversity dynamics. The identity dilemma and relational muddying within working with diversity and related dynamics results in complex diversity pathways. This is because of the findings that showed that the dynamics associated with sense of belonging in the transforming university generates the leadership identity crisis. This phenomenon has implications for both the themes of identity and relational dynamics. The complexity regarding the dynamics of working with diversity within student leadership positions these leaders to connect inconsistently with others, based on sameness or difference. For example, black female leaders can identify with white female leaders on the basis of gender whilst the two groups may have a different operationalisation, or ideas on operationalising transformation, based on their differing racial backgrounds. Simultaneously, the various identities of student leaders, including the aspects of the dilemmas this generates, are all key contributors to the conversation regarding working with diversity dynamics. To be hopeful about a bright South African future, to resolve their leadership identity, and to stay focussed on working with diversity dynamics, student leaders engage with changes in higher education by pursuing trust. Cilliers and May (2010) explained that trust is necessary for an organisation to function. Accordingly, student leaders referred to the need for safe spaces consisting of an environment of trust as a valuable component of the conversation about the anxiety of working with diversity dynamics.

In the absence of experiencing safe spaces and trust, student leaders employ facelessness to navigate the overwhelming student leadership task of the transformation role. However, if facelessness is the unconscious denial of working with transformation, then acknowledging the gains made in South African transformation (Bazana & Mogotsi 2017) may detract from their importance as student leaders responsible for transformation. During the social dream drawing, students stated: We are leaders without a cause. This suggests that their leadership task is something that they cannot always define. Simultaneously, their denial of the already attained gains of transformation can represent a denial of their newly acquired identity as a collective higher education entity (Albertus 2019). This implies there have been gains toward transformation in higher education, and that student leaders appear to be going through a process of finding, or settling, their identity in the context of these transformation advancements already made. Therefore, it becomes important to actively engage with them as significant mediators between university management and fellow students – their newly acquired identity within the context of transformation – to foster this integration.

Indications about emotional labour in student leadership emerged during data collection debriefing. Additionally, during member checks, we noted that one of the participants had been admitted to hospital resulting from pressures experienced, exacerbated by the student leadership role. Furthermore, the stillborn metaphor which represents an expectation or pregnancy that did not realise, highlights the emotional labour in student leadership. This labour heightens student leadership identity issues in the face of loss (i.e. in loss of return on their effort) (Lichtenthal & Breitbart 2016). In turn, this could then explain the centrality of identity in the conversation about anxiety in working with diversity dynamics in higher education where loss is represented by a sense of an unmet expectation (Campos, Besser & Blatt 2011).

According to seminal psychodynamic descriptions (Ribeiro, Ribeiro & Von Doellinger 2018), depressive states can represent disappointment or loss of an ideal, to which one responds with either a mourning effect, or melancholy. Such effects are indicated by reactions to the loss of a desired outcome, or to an unconscious process that is characterised by a significant decline in self-esteem (Klein 1960), visible through narcissistic introjections, guilt and helplessness (Campos et al. 2011). Therefore, the stillborn image becomes linked to narcissistic injury (Pule 2017); damage to the ego (Kohut 2004) in the sense of leadership identity and the unfruitful outcomes of the role. As with Ribeiro et al. (2018), Campos et al. (2011) and Kohut (2004), the emotional labour of student leadership is experienced as depression-like episodes (Klein 1960). To aid the transformation role, we therefore conceptualise the emotional labour of their leadership within the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) V boundaries, but also take a psychodynamic view thereof (Pule, in press). This may help to attend to their emotional labour in a manner which supportively highlights the unique experience of their transformation role.

Additionally, these depression states could suggest that student leaders are required to take on a task that is bigger than they are reasonably capable of doing. The combination of their current stage of life, the magnitude of their responsibility as per the Higher Education Act, and the ensuing identity dilemma including the expectation to rise above obstacles and challenges facing student leadership, may be too vast. Accordingly, these experiences may contribute to the depression-like episodes (Klein 1960) associated with such leadership. Therefore, the task of student leadership may blur the reasonable task of completing a degree and growing as an aspiring leader.

Given the student leaders’ emotional labour, psychotherapeutic/psychological support should be used more than it currently is to enhance organisational effectiveness (Lowman 2002, 2016). This psychological support should focus on the depression-like episodes that these leaders may experience during their term of office (Bowman & Payne 2011) and proactively equip student leaders with tools to engage with the emotional labour experienced (Avery 2004). Options of support could help student leaders to hold matters in perspective especially to remain aware that their studies are a priority alongside their role as student leader. Subsequently, this enhances their confidence in setting appropriate boundaries and delegation of responsibilities instead of unnecessarily assuming an overwhelming burden (Mortensen & Haas 2016; Trefalt 2013).

A multi-levelled (Culp & Dungy 2012; Evans et al. 2010; Keeling 2004, 2006) and systemic co-curriculum for student leadership development is proposed. This proposal serves to intervene socio-analytically (Long 2013) on individual, group and organisational levels (Lowman 2016). The proposal addressed the apparent fragmented student leadership (Getz & Roy 2013; Luescher-Mamashela & Mugume 2014; Mukoza & Goodman 2013), the blurry context and student leaders desiring a common vision. This therefore integrates and streamlines the effort of student leaders in their transformation role. The intervention would be based on viewing student leadership as comprising the student leader as an individual system (Agazarian 2012), the group system (Agazarian 2012) (i.e. SRCs and their subcommittees, including student leaders within leadership development programs and activists), and the organisation level which indicates student leadership comprehensively (Long 2013).

The intervention is proposed as follows: