DEVELOPING RESILIENCY THROUGH THE

EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP STYLES:
(Effective Educational Leadership in the 21st Century)
(First impressions are Lasting impressions)
• Leadership style evoked the curiosity of scholars and
philosophers since the Golden Age of the Greek Philosophers.
Four hundred years before the birth of Christ.

• Plato examined leadership characteristics in people in his day

and founded the Academy, claimed to be the first university
in the Western World dedicated to training Philosopher-
Kings.

• Plato believed that leaders must be educated and that

Philosopher-Kings must be the embodiment of effective
leadership (7th book: The Republic).
• What are the behavior patterns and interpersonal skills that
predicts successful leadership?

• A leader’s character was referred to as ‘soft skills.’

• The available data suggest that it was through resilient leadership,

that is, the resourcefulness to overcome adversity at all cost that
propelled CNR from a humble beginning of 12 students to 38,000
women, after one-hundred years (CNR 2003 Report).

• Mother Gill’s exemplified resilient leadership and was able to

surmount the profound challenges of a complete lack of funds and
issues arising from the intrinsic nature of the learning environment.
• Goleman, (2000) declared that a common quality among the
most effective leaders has been identified as “Emotional
Intelligence,” or (E.I.) - the ability to manage ourselves and our
relationships effectively.

• As a result, he pointed out that social skills are juxtaposed to

cognitive skills as a catalyst for successful management and
leadership in today’s work environment.

• This explains the significant interest in E.I. in current leadership

literature and management circles.
 Emotional Intelligence is based
on five elements

1) Self-Awareness is knowing oneself or the capability of

making a realistic assessment of one’s strengths and
weaknesses, and the development of self confidence based on
self-worth.

2) Self- Regulation, the innate ability to control one’s emotions,

one’s impulses and to consistently exhibit honesty and
integrity.

3) Motivation denotes a strong drive to achieve beyond one’s

expectations or the expectations of others, and a leader’s
passion to achieve beyond money or status.
 Emotional Intelligence is based
on five elements

4) Empathy identifies a leader’s ability to understand the emotional

makeup of other people, and the ability to be objective in the decision-
making process.

5) Social Skills sums up a leader’s proficiency in managing

relationships and building networks. It also refers to the leader’s
ability to find common ground and build rapport.

(Harvard Business Review 1998)

• Successful leaders tend to have
strengths that spread across these five
competencies.

• Individuals are not known to be

competent in all five elements of E.I.
On the contrary, leaders tend to have
limited strength in each competency.
 SELF-AWARENESS

The Harvard Business Review (2001) pointed out that self-awareness

is the most important element of E.I. It was argued that knowing
oneself is the most important competency in leadership.

Indeed, it was Socrates who first chided us “…man know thyself.”

Self-awareness therefore enables individuals to monitor their moods

and to lead, and to inspire confidence in others. It also enables the
leaders to become aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Lack of
self-awareness can cause leaders to make unsound decisions that
often result in failure.
 SELF-REGULATION

Self-regulation is another element of E.I. referring to one’s innate ability

to free oneself from the shackles of one’s feeling, to gain control of one’s
feeling or emotions and to channel them into a meaningful manner.
When individuals are in control of their feelings and impulses, they are
capable of creating an environment of trust and fairness.

Goleman (1998) found that in organizations where self-regulation is a

common practice, politics and in fighting are significantly reduced,
thereby, increasing focus and productivity. Self-regulation enhances
integrity and the tendency to be less impulsive.

It enables leaders to draw a line in the sand, and tell workers what they
need to know rather than what they may wish to hear.
 MOTIVATION
Motivation is also an important element of E.I. It is the driving force behind successful leaders.
Motivated individuals are driven to achieve beyond their own expectations, and the expectations
set by their colleagues. They are highly passionate about their work, enjoy learning, take pride in a
job well done, and constantly strive to do even better. Another characteristic of motivated leaders is
that they remain optimistic even at times of seeming despair. They tend to use self-regulation and
motivation to overcome frustration and/or depression resulting from failure. As Goleman (1995
and 1998) points out, highly motivated leaders are committed to their institutions and are invariably
long-term employees who perform above and beyond status or money.

EMPATHY
Goleman (1998) argues that Empathy is perhaps the most easily recognized element in E.I. It is
clearly not adapting to other people’s emotions as your own or trying to please everyone. Instead,
empathy involves careful consideration of the feelings of colleagues together with other factors in
the decision-making process. Empathy is a major component of effective leadership, especially
because of increased need for teamwork, that is, sensitivity to various opinions and situations;
globalization, awareness of cultural and ethnic differences; and the necessity to retain talented
workers. Sometimes, empathy is not well respected in leadership circles and is viewed as a sign of
weakness. Leaders have to be careful not confuse sympathy with empathy. Simply put, Segal (1997)
refers to empathy as an individual’s ability to manage his/her relationship with others and the
skills to be objective in the decision making process.
 SOCIAL SKILLS
Social Skills the final element of E.I. being discussed, deals with one’s ability to
manage one’s relationship with others. Social skills should be considered
“friendliness with a purpose-” i.e., maintaining the ability to lead individuals
in desired directions. It also refers to the ability to find common ground and
rapport with others. Leaders who possess social skills know when to make an
emotional plea or when to appeal to reason.

King-Lawrence (2003) accepts the truism that leaders can not do all the work
themselves. She suggests that the leader’s task is to get the job done through
others (delegation) and social skills make that possible. She submits, as with
anything else in life that is worthwhile, it takes time and commitment to learn
to work through others. The available research also reported an inverse
correlation between technical skills and cognitive skills as one moves up in
leadership circles. However, intellectual or technical skill was of no
significance at the highest level of successful leadership. Instead, E.I. made the
crucial difference between a mediocre leader and an effective leader.
Tucker (2000), argued that since I.Q. and expertise are no longer
considered the bedrock of successful leadership, then E.I. needs to be
nurtured at least at the college level. It is of great significance to note that
the Peter Principle invariably referred to workers who were promoted
despite inadequate intellectual abilities and technical skills. Those
promotions were invariably based on longevity and nepotism. Today, E.I.
has taken on additional meaning; it refers to individuals who lack E.I. and
are doomed to become ineffective leaders.

Goleman (1998) declared that organizations whose leaders are

emotionally intelligent tend to be resilient regardless of potential
challenges now and in the future. Current research suggests E.I. to be the
wave of the future. It embraces leadership skills and gives the competitive
edge to organizations whose leaders are E.I. competent, that is a leader’s
ability to lead workers, inspire confidence, thus creating a work
environment which is resilient and effective.
 LEADERSHIP STYLES

Current research has identified six leadership styles:

1) Coercive (do what I tell you) - demands immediate compliance;

2) Authoritative (come with me) - mobilizes workers towards a common

vision;

3) Democratic (what do you think?) - builds consensus and team spirit

through participation;

4) Affiliative (people come first) - creates emotional bonds, harmony and

good rapport;

5) Pacesetter (do as I do now) - expects excellence and self-direction;

6) Coaching (try this) - develops people for the future.

 COERCIVE STYLE

The coercive style seems the least effective in many situations. It has a dictatorial
flavor, lacks flexibility, and uses top down decisions which kill initiative and new
ideas. Workers feel disrespected and lose a sense of responsibility and ownership.
They do not share ideas for fear they will be ‘shot down.’ It erodes workers pride
and motivation, and many of them tend to adopt a negative attitude towards a
leader- “I will not help the bastard.” Although this style has its negative effects
there are times when the coercive style can be used successfully, when change has
to take place immediately, for example, a change in teaching certification
requirements, and/or hiring practices. It is recommended in general that the
coercive style should be used with caution. It is only worthwhile in a real crisis
situation when every other method has failed.
 AUTHORITATIVE STYLE

The authoritative style is especially effective when a clear vision is needed and
the mission of the institution needs to be reinforced using strategic planning.
For example, when the enrollment of an institution falls below the expected
levels, it may be attributed to attrition. The leadership of the institution may
have to implement proactive enrollment and retention strategies. It may also be
attributed to the advisors’ failure to serve the students effectively, in which
case they may need to practice more hands-on effective counseling. Such as
patrolling corridors and meeting with students in their various locations and
under different circumstances helping to resolve challenges.

Because the authoritative leader states the end, he or she gives people much
leeway to use their initiative and buy ownership into their plan. Like anything
else the authoritative leadership style is not a panacea. It may run into snafus
when the leader is working with colleagues and experts who are more
experienced and knowledgeable than he/she is. The authoritative leader can
sometimes be seen as pompous and out of touch, even though the authoritative
leadership style in general may yield positive rather than negative results.
 AFFILIATIVE STYLE

The Affiliative Style stands in contrast to the coercive style. It is, “a people oriented
style.” The leader sees people as humans beings first, and workers second. It plays
to workers’ emotions more than task/goals. Affiliative leaders strive to keep
workers happy and build harmonious relationships on the job. They seek
unswerving loyalty of their followers, build good rapport, and share ideas. This
style encourages flexibility and leads to innovation and risk-taking. Unnecessary
restrictions are lifted, and workers get the job done in a way they think to be the
most effective. Affiliative leaders constantly acknowledge good workers and build
excellent rapport with workers. They do not have to depend on a one shot deal of
an annual review. They indicate in them a sense of belonging by celebrating, for
example, anniversaries, birthdays or taking their staff to lunch. This leadership style
is generally positive and useful in building team spirit, harmony, and fostering
trust. However, leaders have to be on their guard. The affiliative style should be
used in conjunction with other styles, for the affiliative style when used alone, can
lead to mediocre performance. Also, the leader has to be aware that praise for those
who are doing well can become punishment for those whose performance is poor.
 DEMOCRATIC STYLE

The Democratic approach leads to collaborative and collective decision-

making. Blanchard (1991) notes that democratic leaders fully realize why
“God gives the resilient leader two ears and one tongue.” They are
invariably attentive listeners and meet with less backlash and rejection.
This approach enables the leader to get peoples’ ideas, builds rapport,
respect, and commitment. It fosters flexibility and responsibility. It also
helps the leader to hear the “screeching wheels” and learn how to keep
morale high and set realistic goals. The major drawback of the Democratic
Style is that it can involve too many meetings and at times makes
consensus illusive. It can lead to confusion, the feeling of inept leadership,
and sometimes to conflict resulting from diversity of opinion in the
workplace.

The Democratic Style works best when leaders are uncertain as to which
direction to take. It works well in generating new ideas, but it is less
effective when employees are not well informed or competent enough to
make worthwhile decisions.
 PACE SETTING STYLE

The Pace-Setting Style is somewhat akin to the Coercive Style and should be
used with caution. Because it can destroy the tone of an institution, the leader
tends to be seen as a “slave driver” and seems to have little or no regard for
individuality amongst workers. Leaders seem to be concerned only with
exemplary high standards. The leader’s objective is always to do things better
and faster. He or she is quick to replace people who do not strive towards his or
her standards. Such leadership can lead workers to become overwhelmed
thereby destroying morale. Pacesetters expect people to know what to do in
order to excel. They often feel that the worker is a poor fit if he/she has to be
told what to do. Working for a Pacesetter invariable becomes a task of second
guessing the leader. Flexibility and responsibility are stifled and work becomes
routine and boring. The pace-setter tends to give no feedback and often takes
over assigned jobs. He/she considers nothing is ever well done. Despite these
flaws this style works well when all workers are highly competent, motivated,
skilled, and need little direction or coordination. Under these circumstances
work gets done on or ahead of schedule, but as with all other styles, it should
never be used in isolation.
 COACHING STYLE
Leaders who practice the Coaching Style help workers to become cognizant of their strengths and
shortcomings. Coaching helps make the connection between workers and their career goals. Leaders also
help workers to plan their long term goals, set them challenging tasks, and give constant feedback to
improve performance and achievement of set goals. They are experts in delegating tasks. The Coaching
Style is the least used leadership style. It is usually argued that the coaching style requires too much time
in a high-pressured work environment. However, experience has shown that with this style, the first
session is the most time-consuming. Furthermore, the time spent on coaching and teaching colleagues
can pay high dividends in terms of climate and performance. The Coaching Style works well when
people are aware of their weaknesses and want to improve their performance. The Coaching Style fails
when workers are not interested in improving their performances or changing their ways. Again this
style does not work well when leaders lack the expertise to help their followers to move along.
While some leaders may argue that it would be overwhelming to combine the
six styles of leadership, others may even claim that they use only two of the
styles. Nevertheless, leaders can either be coached into developing the other
four styles or they can build leadership teams using other people with
different leadership styles to complement their repertoire of styles. The idea is
that in the day-to-day work environment, the need may arise for the use of
anyone or a combination of the leadership styles discussed.
CNR’s century-old institution with its Ursuline
tradition personifies those leadership qualities,
leadership that seems to bestow credence in the
words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “This above all…to
thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the
night the day. Thou canst not then be false to any
man.”
In this discussion, we were engaged in a comprehensive
analysis/evaluation of the merits and demerits of the leadership styles in
vogue. We are convinced that leaders should always bear in mind a simple
truism that one can only be an effective leader if one has dedicated
followers. The available data demonstrate that research outcomes of both
the classical and the behavioral management theorists are the bedrock of
effective leadership. However, empirical data suggest that a leader’s
honesty, integrity, and humility constitute the core of resilient leadership.
The conclusion is that leadership is also a function of the followers’ perception
of their leader, more especially in the learning environment where ‘actions
speak louder than words’ and people learn more from a leader’s actions, than
his or her words. Ambivalence is not an option in resilient leadership. True
resilient leaders always have to ‘walk the talk,’ for there can be no dichotomy
between words and actions. Furthermore, effective leaders must always be able
to overcome challenges or obstacles that are inimical to the mission of the
institution.

In closing, resilient, effective leaders share much humility and integrity in

common with [Cue 40] Socrates who declared that the one respect in which he
is wiser than other men was his keen appreciation of his own ignorance of the
most important matters.

Thank you.