After completing the first assignment for ETL504, Teacher Librarian as Leader, the issue of how leaders lead has become a fixation. My blog post for the assignment ended up as “tell me how!” – having been in schools for decades and analysing all those leaders that I’ve come across, it now becomes – how does an effective leader lead? …so I’ve been off on a tangent ever since.
An obvious place to go was to explore the research of Daniel Goleman – known for his work on Emotional Intelligence, and there is a lot of that needed in order to be an effective leader.
In an article published in the Harvard Business Review in 2000, and in 2003 included in a compilation, Goleman explored the link between leadership and the personal qualities needed to be effective as a leader of schools… notes presented here have been taken from the article:

• 6 leadership styles reflecting different emotional intelligence components
• Emotional Intelligence (EI) is “the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively”
• Goleman describes four fundamental capacities of EI – self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills
• High impact leaders select from a range of leadership styles according to their situation. Ultimately, seamless application of their leadership style is the aim.

Goleman’s Leadership styles:

• Coercive – immediate compliance
• Authoritative – take charge to move teams towards the vision
• Affiliative – develop emotional bonds and harmony
• Democratic – build concensus through participation
• Pacesetting – set a pace and expect excellence and self-direction
• Coaching – develop individuals for future planning and role development

McClelland (cited by Goleman) found leaders with strengths in the greatest number of EI components exhibit the most effective leadership.
Six styles but only four have consistent effect on leadership outcomes. An authoritative leadership style was found to effect the climate most positively. In order after that it was affiliative, democratic and coaching styles.
All styles have some short-term benefits and cannot be relied upon singularly – a mix is necessary.
Goleman examined the effect on climate as defined by Litwin, Stringer and subsequently refined by McClelland and colleagues (flexibility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity, commitment).
He describes the link to improved financial results based on styles that positively affect the leadership climate.

Coercive

• least effective
• effects flexibility
• reduces sense of responsibility
• erosion of pride (rewards system)
• undermines motivation
• diminished clarity and commitment “How does any of this matter?”

Authoritative

• enthusiasm and vision are hallmarks of this style
• most effective regarding establishing clear goals
• maximises commitment
• defines standards through vision
• clear rewards
• freedom to be self-initiated and flexible

Affiliative

• value individuals above tasks and goals
• builds emotional bonds
• marked effect on levels of communication
• flexibility increases through trust
• positive feedback offered
• “masters at building a sense of belonging”
• emotional honesty
• use in conjunction with authoritative style

Democratic

• time spent on gathering team ideas and consequently effecting the level of buy-in
• builds trust, respect and commitment
• flexibility and responsibility are established
• high morale
• realistic about accomplishments as a result
• generates new ideas for fulfilment of the vision

Pacesetting

• use sparingly
• negatively impacts climate if not a measured, careful approach
• results in second-guessing of the leader’s intentions
• lack of establishment of trust – diminished flexibility and rejection of responsibility
• no feedback loop
• commitment to corporate vision suffers

Coaching

• described as “more like a counsellor”
• team members identify their strengths, weaknesses and aspirations
• encourages long-term planning and critical thinking
• clear agreements made about roles and responsibilities
• lots of instruction and feedback to inform planning
• delegate responsibilities
• research shows this style is used least often in schools
• “impact on climate and performance are markedly positive”
• constant dialogue required which effects communication levels and impacts on all areas of climate
• clearly delivers “bottom-line results”

Bibliography:
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2003). Best of HBR on leadership: Emotionally intelligent leadership : a collection of articles. Boston: Harvard Business School Pub.