Emotional Intelligence and Resilience Discussion
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF LEADERSHIP I N S C H O O L A D M I N I S T R AT O R S WANDA S. MAULDING, GARY B. PETERS, JALYNN ROBERTS, EDWARD LEONARD, AND LARRY SPARKMAN This mixed-method study of 48 P–12 school administrators across three southeastern states was done to begin investigation of the impact of nontraditional leadership factors. As evidenced by the results, there is a strong correlation between the factors of emotional intelligence and resilience and leadership success. Introduction Preparation of school administrators to lead the dynamic process of school improvement is the primary mission of educational leadership programs at institutions of higher learning. Whereas accrediting agencies such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) review the status and offerings of university programs that are guided by the criteria set forth in the Educational Leadership Constituent Council and other national standards, it remains the task of the university programs to ensure that degree candidates are exposed to the best and most current knowledge and practices in school administration. This is true whether the knowledge and practices fall 20 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 5, Number 4, 2012 ©2012 University of Phoenix View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.20240 within the conventionally recognized paradigms of school administration and organizational theory or are a part of the burgeoning study of less conventional concepts and theories related to school administrator leadership and organizational theory. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This mixed-methods study focused on the relationship between school administrator leadership and emotional intelligence (EI) and resilience. The purpose was to determine the relationship between emotional intelligence and resilience (two factors not generally characterized as leadership traits) and leadership success. PROBLEM STATEMENT Educational leaders, like leaders in all fields of endeavor, experience varying degrees of success. This fact leads one to ask what characteristics does the successful educational leader possess or develop through focused training that will enhance his or her potential for success. The problem is to determine if factors considered more nontraditional as leadership characteristics (such as emotional intelligence and resilience) have a positive relationship with successful leadership. Overview In a previous study focusing on the relationship between emotional intelligence as a leadership characteristic and student academic performance, the authors found only a tenuous connection, if any, between emotional intelligence and student academic performance. Based on these results, the authors speculated regarding the relationship between emotional intelligence and student academic performance that, One view might be that emotional intelligence is a part of that large gestalt of personality characteristics that make a leader a leader. That is, emotional intelligence is a contributing or intervening variable that when examined in combination with other positive leadership characteristics enhances the overall effect. Another possible view is that emotional intelligence is related to or is a characteristic that contributes to success as a leader through the perception of peers, subordinates, and the constituents of the school community as a whole (Maulding et al., 2010, p. 4). In retrospect, the authors could also have noted that emotional intelligence contributes to the success of a school leader based on his or her self-perception of both his or her own leadership and emotional intelligence. Stephens and Hermond stated regarding the relationship between emotional intelligence and student academic performance that “these leader’s [sic] characteristics may be more clearly reflected in measurement of school culture, teacher efficacy and teacher morale and have an indirect impact on student achievement” (Stephens, 2010). Equally, the resilience of the school leader may have an impact on the culture of the organization in either a positive or negative manner. The skills of today’s administrator include not only supervision of instruction and the curriculum but also provision of a safe and orderly environment coupled with the need for skills centered on analyzing data, ensuring the learning of each child in the school, and continuing the professional and ongoing development of the adults in the building. This new multifaceted responsibility requires a new type of leader (Grubb & Flessa, 2006). With so many factors impinging on the school over which the leader has no control, that is, world unrest and crises, natural disasters of catastrophic measure, and unsafe communities, adapting to this sort of intense, dynamic environment requires this new era of school leaders not only to be resilient but also to provide for the emotional support of the instructional staff (Bumphus, 2007). Research must be engaged to determine these nontraditional factors where influence can not only be measured but in the end implemented. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE LEADER Emotional intelligence stems from Thorndike’s (1921) work on social intelligence and Gardner’s (1983) on multiple intelligences. Emotional intelligence has been described by Salovey and Mayer (1990, p. 186) as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s own thinking and action.” Daniel Goleman (1995) has suggested that in the workforce there tend to be “stars” who seem to rise above the rest. He further contends that although it takes a particular IQ for success, some with the highest IQs never truly excel in life. Similarly, those with an average IQ necessary for a particular vocation may advance rapidly. Similarly, Sternberg (1996) stated that IQ alone is a weak predictor of job performance. In his 1995 book Emotional Intelligence Goleman defined it as “the capacity for reasoning our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing the emotional will in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. xii). In a recent dissertation study (Reed, 2005, p. 30), the author states that “new organizational performance theory suggests collective emotional intelligence may predict relationships between emotionally intelligent JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 21 leadership, organizational climate, and organizational performance.” In a study of nearly 4,000 executives and their employees by Hay/McBer (2000), 50% to 70% of the employees reported that they believed the working climate of the organization was linked to the emotional intelligence characteristics of the leader. Resilience has been described as the capacity to overcome adversity (Bosworth & Earthman, 2002). Some have postulated that the innate feature of resilience is akin to that of self-actualization. The Shores model of resilience (2004) proposes three principal domains of resilience in adults. The first domain, Love of Self, involves one’s direction and purpose in life. Love of Others, the second domain, includes supportive and meaningful relationships with others. The third domain, Love of a Higher Power, focuses on connecting with a source of inner strength. School leaders are not only faced with the responsibility of trying to ensure that all of the children placed in their supervision are in safe learning environments, but they are equally required to meet a plethora of federal, state, and local mandates. Hours for the school administrator are generally long and stress levels high. These things can discourage even the most dedicated school leader. A high level of resilience (Hoffman, 2004) can help the administrator function at the highest possible level even in the most difficult of circumstances. Blair (2002), in an in-depth examination of 12 schools, revealed that leaders who were successful in multiethnic contexts possessed the ability to demonstrate transformational leadership and change. In particular, “strong leadership” was characterized by more emotional forms of communication as well as such characteristics as “courage and perseverance (as well as resilience)” (pp. 184–185). “The wonderful, capable, positive and caring people who fill the ranks of educational leaders are tremendous assets to their organizations” (Hoffman, 2004, p. 38). RESILIENCE AND LEADERSHIP Every school administrator brings his or her own set of skills, values, and behaviors into the school organization. These trait differences are seen as the precursor risks and assets that help shape the leader’s successes or failures (Sergiovanni, 2001). Most leaders approach the challenge of leading in a mindful manner. 22 The best leaders identify mistakes early so as to avoid any crises that may arise. When evaluating the seriousness of a crisis, good leaders resist the temptation to oversimplify the situation. When certain situations become difficult or uncomfortable, many leaders also exhibit resilience (Issacs, 2003). In 2005, Mitroff advocated that organizations seek proactive leaders who think out of the box and use their creative thinking, emotional intelligence, and resilience to prepare for a crisis before one occurs. Resilience, a lifelong journey, enriches people’s lives and gives each a chance to experience fulfillment. It is an elaborate process of developing skills over a lifetime, even in the face of adversity (Rutter, 2005). In a 2002 article for the Harvard Business Review, Coutu describes the need for leaders to build resilient organizations. She argues that leaders must face the realities of the truth as a mechanism of survival. Furthermore she shares that leaders must help their organizational employees see the meaning in their circumstances, which happens through creating a strong value system. This notion is supported by the fact that when difficulties emerge, employees have their value system to fall back on. In order to build organizational resilience and a positive sense of school culture, school leaders must empower their constituents through their mission and vision statements. NONTRADITIONAL LEADER QUALITIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON SCHOOL CULTURE AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT In the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966) of the mid-60s, student achievement seemed to be a function of instructional quality and socioeconomic status. This construct was further supported by Sanders and Horn in 1998. However, in a report by Sweetland and Hoy (2000), the culture of an organization was deemed to distinguish organizations from each other and influence the behavior of its members. Winslow (2004) shares a study that references characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals. In conjunction with Edmonds’s (1977) effective schools correlates, a strong leader is one of the factors of successful schools. To that end, Winslow’s (1986) Organizational Climate model follows: JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls Defensive Climate Supportive Climate Evaluative Descriptive Problem Centered Solution Centered Procedure Oriented Vision Oriented Neutrality Empathy Individuality Collegiality Certainty Entrepreneurial Although the literature contains no studies directly examining the relationship between administrator resilience and student academic performance, a great deal of study and thought has been given to the importance and impact of high levels of resilience among school administrators. A possible link between successful administrators and student academic success is implied because teacher efficacy, morale, and school culture are enhanced through these nontraditional leadership indicators. A number of dynamic and purposeful factors lead to the product of an effective school leader. There is a plethora of literature that suggests how one manages emotion, identifies it, and perceives it as critical for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2000). Demands on today’s leaders in a constantly and rapidly changing society are great. Resilient leaders with high levels of emotional intelligence are becoming increasingly important (Bumphus, 2007). As Hoffman best put it, “support for and retention of these leaders is essential if organizations are to function at the highest possible level” (2004, p. 38). Quantitative Methods The quantitative element of this study addressed the following research questions: What is the relationship between emotional intelligence and school leadership? and What is the relationship between resilience and school leadership? Subjects for the study were members of the doctoral candidate program at a public university in the southeastern United States. All of the subjects are practicing administrators. The majority of the subjects in this study are employed as practicing administrators in various K–12 school districts spanning three states in the southeastern United States. A total of 48 candidates responded to surveys of leadership characteristics, emotional intelligence, and resilience. The instrument used for the leadership characteristic survey was the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—Form XII (LBDQ). For this study the questionnaire was used as a survey of leaders’ perception of their own leadership characteristics. This use aligns with the instructions in the LBDQ manual: “with proper changes in instructions, the questionnaire can also be used by a leader to describe his behavior” (Stogdill, 1963). The survey consists of 12 subscales. Those subscales are representation, demand reconciliation, tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, initiation structure, tolerance and freedom, role assumption, consideration, production emphasis, predictive accuracy, integration, and superior orientation. The LBDQ is widely recognized in the field as an appropriate measure of leadership characteristics. The instrument used for measuring emotional intelligence was the 125-item Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 2004a), which is a self-report of emotional and social intelligence behavior. This instrument is the most widely used measure of emotionalsocial intelligence to date. The Bar-On EQ-i:125 has a 5-point response scale ranging from very seldom or not true of me (1) to very often true of me or true of me (5). The Bar-On EQ-i:125 takes approximately 40 minutes to complete. Scores are given on the following five composite scales that comprise 15 subscale scores: Intrapersonal (comprising Self-Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, and Self-Actualization); Interpersonal (comprising Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship); Stress Management (comprising Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control); Adaptability (comprising Reality-Testing, Flexibility, and Problem-Solving); and General Mood (comprising Optimism and Happiness). The survey also generates a total EQ score. Scores are computer generated with raw scores being converted into standard scores based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This instrument has been rigorously tested for validity and reliability and has been normed for age and gender (Bar-On, 2004b). The Shores resilience instrument (2004) was used to attain a measure of administrator resilience. The assessment is separated into three subscales: Love of Self (LVOS), Love of Others (LVOO), Love of a Higher Power JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 23 (LVOHP); and a Total Resilience Score. The instrument uses a 6-point horizontal scale (ranging from “No Need” to “The Need Is Completely Fulfilled”). It was designed to measure an individual’s core resilience or driving force that leads one toward self-actualization. Model Summaryb Model R 0.635a 1 Adjusted Std. Error of DurbinR Square R Square the Estimate Watson 0.404 0.378 0.17664 2.008 a Predictors: (Constant), Shores_Score, EQ-I_Total. Qualitative Methods b Dependent Variable: overall_leader. The qualitative portion of this study addressed the following research questions: ANOVAb How would you describe your leadership? and What specific traits, characteristics, or qualities define Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 0.972 2 0.486 15.571 0.000a Residual 1.435 46 0.031 Total 2.407 48 Model your leadership style? Concurrent with the quantitative data collection, the qualitative portion of the study included responses to open-ended questions on the survey. The qualitative method facilitated study in greater depth, providing descriptions of relationships between the characteristics of emotional intelligence components in leadership practice. The reason for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data was to bring together the strengths of both forms of research to compare, validate, and corroborate results (Creswell, 2003, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Patton, 2002). The purpose of this mixedmethods study was to investigate students’ perspectives relative to leadership theory and practice. This study focused on the context of doctoral students who serve in an administrative capacity. The quantitative and qualitative research questions were addressed in the form of a survey questionnaire distributed directly to participants by the researchers. Themes were derived, coded, and analyzed from all qualitative data. The coding process involved using notes to classify and assign meaning to responses recorded by respondents of the study. Rubin and Rubin (2005) advocate taking a methodical approach to analyzing qualitative data. “The objective of qualitative analysis is to discover variation, portray shades of meaning, and examine complexity” (Rubin & Rubin, p. 10). Finally, both qualitative and quantitative data were compared and contrasted for final interpretation. Quantitative Findings Total scores for each of the instruments were subjected to a simple linear regression with leadership as the dependent variable and EQ-i and Shores resilience as the predictor variables. The results are as follows. 24 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 1 a Predictors: (Constant), Shores_Score, EQ-i_Total. b Dependent Variable: overall_leader. Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1 (Constant) 2.263 0.285 EQ-i_Total 0.009 0.003 Shores_Score 0.092 0.040 Model Standardized Coefficients Beta T Sig. 7.935 0.000 0.433 3.313 0.002 0.299 2.286 0.027 a Dependent Variable: overall_leader. The results of the regression model were statistically significant, adjusted R2 of 0.38 (F (2, 46) ⫽ 15.57, p ⬍ 0.001). The model indicates that nearly 38% of the variability in the leadership scores can be accounted for via the linear combination of the predictor variables. Coefficients for both EQ-i and Shores resilience predictors indicated statistically significant results, t ⫽ 3.31, p ⫽ 0.002 and t ⫽ 2.29, p ⫽ 0.027, respectively. For every unit increase in EQ-i or resilience, leadership scores increase by 0.43 and 0.30 units, respectively. Additionally, total scores for each of the instruments were subjected to a simple linear regression with EQ-i as the dependent variable and LBDQ and Shores resilience as the predictor variables. The results are as follows. Model Summaryb Model R 0.622a 1 Adjusted Std. Error of DurbinR Square R Square the Estimate Watson 0.387 0.361 8.22694 1.641 a Predictors: (Constant), overall_leader, Shores_Score. Dependent Variable: EQ-i_Total. b ANOVAb Model 1 Sum of Squares Regression 1967.130 df 2 Residual 3113.400 46 Total 5080.531 48 Mean Square F 983.565 14.532 Sig. 0.000a 67.683 a Predictors: (Constant), overall_leader, Shores_Score. Dependent Variable: EQ-i_Total. b Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 8.658 24.400 3.744 1.909 Overall_leader 20.444 6.170 Model 1 (Constant) Shores_Score Standardized Coefficients Beta the 0.05 level between the following EQ-i subscales: demand reconciliation (p ⫽ 0.002); persuasiveness (p ⬍0.001); role assumption (p ⬍ 0.001); consideration (p ⫽ 0.002); production emphasis (p ⫽ 0.002); integration (p ⬍ 0.001); and superior orientation (p ⫽ 0.002). Correlation analysis of the subscale scores comparing LBDQ to Shores resilience produced significant values at the 0.05 level between the following Shores subscales: stress management (p ⫽ 0.008); and adaptability (p ⬍ 0.001). T Sig. 0.426 0.072 0.263 1.961 0.056 0.455 3.313 0.002 a Dependent Variable: EQ-i_Total. The results of the regression model were statistically significant, adjusted R2 of 0.36 (F (2, 46) ⫽ 14.53, p ⬍ 0.001). The model indicates that over 36% of the variability in the EQ-i scores can be accounted for via the linear combination of the predictor (leadership and resilience) variables. The coefficient for leadership and Shores resilience predictors indicated statistically significant results, t ⫽ 3.31, p ⫽ 0.002. For every unit increase in leadership scores, the EQ-i scores increased by 0.46 units, holding all other variables constant. The resilience predictor variable was not statistically significant in this model. SUBSCALE SCORES Correlational analysis of the subscale scores comparing EQ-i to Shores resilience produced significant values at Qualitative Findings Six themes emerged from the data. In their role as educational leaders, the respondents relied heavily on their relationship-building skills. Leadership in one sense is to be experiential, specifically administered in a way that allows the leader to appreciate human resources fully by creating a method for acknowledging, appreciating, and understanding the culture. A respondent in the study stated, “The role of the school leader then becomes the most influential determinant as to whether or not a school is effective.” Incumbent in this skill [relationship building] is the ability to communicate, listen intently, and maintain an empathetic disposition that builds trust and understanding. Frequently, school change is thrust upon stakeholders in the school without genuine regard for the human relationships that exist in the building. Respondents noted that the goal should be a “working relationship” and not a “working tolerance.” Second, the respondents identified vision as more than a glimpse of the future but rather a compelling function that serves to inspire, motivate, and engage people. The nurturing of a shared vision was thought to be a valued process for all stakeholders. Vision develops “meaning” in the lives of stakeholders. School principals are identified as vision-casters and catalysts for establishing clear goals, measuring progress, and taking responsibility for results. Respondents noted that visionary leaders changed their schools by taking risks to challenge the status quo. The challenge is to create structures that institutionalize the vision. Third, the importance of leading schools and communities collaboratively to address issues within a framework of leadership practice is considered critical. The leader’s JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 25 ability to appreciate, respect, and learn from diverse viewpoints strengthens collaborative efforts. Effective collaboration produces a unified work and heightened understanding. Respondents felt there was a significant differentiation between collaboration and relationship building. Collaboration is a by-product of effective relationship building and therefore sequential in the process. The attempt to lead without an in-depth knowledge of human relationships “fails to build the trust.” Fourth, respondents identified the importance of communication. This process involves working collaboratively with the school community to identify discrepancies between current practice and desired outcomes for the future and to communicate change initiatives effectively to the school community. “School leaders must be instructional leaders with a strong knowledge base,” concluded one respondent. Leadership involves collecting, analyzing, and “using data” to communicate school needs in a clear and ethical manner. Another respondent stated, “It is my belief that leaders of organizations must possess knowledge, charisma, communication skills, energy, vision, and ethics.” Fifth, strategies and their implementation in the school community are considered an intellectual and inspirational exercise. Strategy is a pattern of behavior according to respondents. Leaders develop strategies to gain the cooperation of followers in order to achieve goals. Strategies mentioned in this study provided varied perspectives on issues that lead to specific actions. “By implementing strategies a manager is headed in the right direction en route to leading an institution toward greatness,” noted one respondent. Another stated, “The critical component of leadership is the ability to serve while creating a culture for individuals to be successful.” The collective ability of a culture to understand, adapt, and commit requires the leader to have a developed intellectual and inspirational capacity. Finally, “passion is the intrinsic value that all successful leaders have been able to rely on as they move their organization forward,” concluded one respondent. Continuing this thought another shared, “I think the qualities that define my leadership are passion, enthusiasm, energy, nurture, and reflection. I acknowledge my staff with gratitude, recognition, and appreciation. We genuinely like each other and what we do.” Effective school leaders 26 choose what to become involved in and are passionate about their involvement. They select causes that are important to them and work tirelessly to bring positive results. Commonalities in Quantitative and Qualitative Findings The seven themes suggested by the qualitative analysis correspond well to the subscale scores for both LBDQ and Shores subscale scores. In each instance, the emphasis is on collective achievement as that incorporates individual achievement and stresses positive achievement by all individuals and through them the organization. In comparing the subscale scores to the themes it is apparent that leadership is best served by democratic, collaborative effort. Discussion The findings of the study indicate that both emotional intelligence and resilience are significant predictors of leadership from the perspective of self-analysis of administrators whether subjected to quantitative or qualitative analysis. As a leader’s emotional intelligence and resilience increase, leadership capacity increases. These results would seem to indicate that the relationship between leadership characteristics and emotional intelligence and resilience is substantial. These factors (the positive influence of the leader) have been shown to have a positive and profound impact on teacher efficacy and school culture (Hattie, 2009), which in turn enhance student achievement. Conclusion Based on the findings of this limited study, it would seem that greater emphasis should be given to developing these skills and dispositions in school administrators. The emotional intelligence literature indicates that our EI grows as we age and that certain aspects of emotional intelligence can in fact be taught. Similarly, when coached, leaders can learn to be more calm and assertive and move forward more easily with increased resilience. Further study, however, should be directed toward establishing the mechanisms and factors that contribute to the development of both emotional intelligence and resilience. JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls Table 1. The Emergent Themes of Respondents* Theme Relationship Building Rank 1 Representative Statements having the ability to build relationships building strong relationships with stakeholders making genuine relationships every day build relationships build relationships and trust establishing a positive home-school relationship Vision 2 vision provides insight leader is a visionary with high expectations inspire my staff to share in the vision leader stresses the significance of the vision leadership style is visionary, based on relationships develop a vision and personal beliefs Collaboration 3 emphasis on collaborating and empowering professionalism, communication, collaboration foster collaboration by encouraging teachers depend greatly on collaboration team building and collaboration are important leader is a consensus builder through collaboration Communication 4 commitment, communication, and competence possess knowledge, charisma, and communication an effective leader communicates spend a great deal of time talking with employees often join in discussions eagerly able to say the difficult things to staff members Strategy 5 I look at what I want the end result to be planning by taking calculated risks learn to pick and choose battles you lead by example and model what you expect understand the role that politics plays emotional intelligence is critical in leadership Passion 6 a leader must be compassionate I believe in the power of passion quality that defines my leadership is passion I treat people with respect and kindness leader’s attitude and work ethic is known have the ability to share passions *Note: 1 ⫽ highest frequency theme. JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 27 References Bar-On, R. (2004a). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, description and summary of psychometric properties. In C. Coher (Ed.), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2004b). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual. New York. NY: MHS. Blair, C. (2002) School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111–127. Bosworth, K., & Earthman, E. (2002). From theory to practice: School leaders’ perspectives on resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 299–306. Bumphus, A., (2007). The emotional intelligence and resilience of school leaders: An investigation into leadership behaviors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Southern Mississippi. Cherniss, C. (2000). Emotional intelligencce: what it is and why it matters. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Coleman, J., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (OE38001; Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS5. 238:38001). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Coutu, D. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–51. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Edmonds, R. (1977). The search for effective schools. ERIC, ED142610. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Grubb, W., & Flessa, J. (2006). A job too big for one.: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518–550. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hay/McBer. (2000) Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness. London, England: Department for Education and Employment. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/ publicationDetail/Page1/RR.216 Hoffman, J. (2004). Building resilient leaders. Leadership, 34, 35–38. 28 Issacs, A. (2003). An investigation of attributes of school principals in relation to resilience and leadership practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University. Maulding, W., et al. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence of principals and student performance in Mississippi public schools. Academic Leadership, 8(4). Mitroff, I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis: 7 essential lessons for surviving disaster. New York, NY: AMACOM Books. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reed, T. G. (2005). Elementary principal emotional intelligence, leadership behavior, and openness: An exploratory study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rutter, M. (2005). The promotion of resilience in the face of adversity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation andresearch. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Shores, E. K. (2004). The development of a measure to assess core resilency in adults. Dissertation Abstracts International. 65(10). 5111. (UMI No. 3150254). Stephens, T., & Hermond, D. (2009). The level of emotional intelligence in principals of recognized and acceptable scvhools. Academic Leadership, 1(3). Sternberg, R. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for leader behavior description questionnaire—Form XII. Ohio: The Ohio State University Press. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School climate, teacher empowerment, and effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703–729. Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216, 271–275. JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls Winslow, E. K. (1986). Basic human elements in managing: A set of givens. Media Management Journal, 5. Winslow, E. K. (2004). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, problem-solving competencies, role perception and environmental adaptation. Unpublished dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Wanda S. Maulding graduated from the University of North Texas in 1998 and currently works at the University of South Alabama as an associate professor for the Department of Leadership and Teacher Education and as NCATE Coordinator. Gary B. Peters is an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He has a Ph.D. in educational leadership from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Jalynn Roberts received his PhD in higher education administration in May 2009 from the University of Southern Mississippi. Currently he is teaching research methodology and statistics courses to educators earning advanced degrees in K–12 and higher education administration. Edward Leonard is currently an adjunct instructor at the University of Southern Mississippi. He received his doctorate in 1984 from the University of Southern Mississippi. Larry Sparkman serves as the director of the Luckyday Foundation Citizenship Scholars Program, a privately funded scholarship and 4-year student development program that facilitates a living-learning community, service learning, and servant leadership at the University of Southern Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in higher education administration from the University of Southern Mississippi. JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 29 Copyright of Journal of Leadership Studies is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment