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?
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.
