Social/Emotional Competencies for School Leadership

1. Social/Emotional Competencies for School Leadership James D. A. Parker, Ph.D. Canada Research Chair in Emotion & Health, Trent University

2. Overview • introduction • background & overview of EI models • EI and success in various learning environments • EI and leadership • EI resources for the OPC project

3. Acknowledgements • Multi-Health Systems (Toronto, Ontario) • The Trinity Group (Huntsville, Alabama) • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada • Canada Research Chair Program • Canada Foundation for Innovation • Ontario Principals’ Council

4. Predicting success in life: What do we know about IQ? • predicts secondary school grades very modestly • does not predict success in post-secondary environments • predicts “job success” poorly • peaks in late teens, early 20’s • culture-bound

5. Thorndike (1920): “social intelligence” Wechsler (1940): “non-intellective abilities” Sifneos (1973): “alexithymia” Gardner (1983): “multiple intelligence” Sternberg (1985): “practical intelligence” Salovey & Mayer (1989): “emotional intelligence” Emotional and Social Competency: Historical Overview

6. EI(continued) • EI is a set of non-cognitive competencies and skills (i.e., not related to IQ) • emotional intelligence develops over time • changes throughout life

7. EI across the life-span Decade of life

8. When does EI change? (the importance of transitions) • from elementary school to high school • high school to the workplace • high school to university • from single to being married • transition to parenthood • losing a job (changing jobs) • from marriage to divorce

9. EI(continued) • can be improved through training and intervention programs • can be used to predict a number of “success in life” variables

10. Salovey & Mayer Model of EI Emotional Facilitation Emotional Perception Emotional Understanding Emotion Management

11. Bar-On Model of EI Interpersonal Abilities Intrapersonal Abilities Stress Management Abilities Adaptability Abilities General Mood

12. Parker, Wood & Bond Model of EI Emotional Understanding Psychological Mindedness Attentiveness (non-obliviousness) Emotional Self-Control

13. EI and success in various learning environments

14. Predicting Post-Secondary Success • trends in the research literature • or what have we learned after 100+ years of research?

15. Trends in the Research Literature (continued) How has success been defined? • academic achievement (e.g., GPA) • retention

16. Trends in the Research Literature(continued) Favorite predictors? • previous school performance (i.e., high school marks) • cognitive ability (IQ) • economic/demographic variables

17. How good are common variables for predicting success or retention?

18. Impact of Emotional Intelligence? • growing interest in a possible link between academic success and EI

19. Why students withdraw? • possible role of EI comes from research on why students drop-out or withdraw from post-secondary programs

20. Reasons students withdraw

21. Most common “personal problems” • problems making new relationships • problems modifying existing relationships (e.g., living apart) • difficulties learning new study habits • problems learning to be independent

22. Trent Academic Success & Wellness Project (TASWP) • phase 1 started in Sept. (1999) at Trent University • initial goal was to develop an assessment protocol to identify 1st-year students at risk for “failure” • focus was on full-time students coming to Trent within 24 months of graduation from high-school

23. TASWP (Trent participants)

24. TASWP(predicting academic success; Parker et al., 2004) • 2 groups of particular interest: • "successful" students (1st-year GPA of 80% or better) • "unsuccessful" students (1st-year GPA of 59% or less)

25. Two groups not significantly different on: • high school GPA • age • course load at start of year

26. * * * * p < .05 Mean EQ-i scores for 1st year students (GPA 80% or better vs. 59% or less)

27. Predicting “successful” students using EI

28. Predicting “unsuccessful” students using EI

29. TASWP(predicting retention; Parker et al., 2005) • 2 groups of interest: • students who withdrew at some point before the start of 2nd year • 2nd-year students at Trent (randomly matched with the 1st group on age, gender, and year starting at Trent)

30. Predicting students who persist using EI

31. Predicting students who withdraw using EI

32. Is there something unusual about Trent University? • 2002: US Pilot Project (N = 1,426; Parker, Duffy et al., 2005) • UNC Charlotte, U. Charleston, Georgia Southern U., U. Southern Mississippi, West Virginia U., Fairmont State College

33. Predicting “successful” students using EI

34. Trent Academic Success & Wellness Project (High School Performance; Parker, Creque et al., 2004) • May 2002: students (grade 9 to 12) attending a high school in Huntsville, Alabama (n = 742) completed the EQ-i:YV during a home-room period

35. 2 groups identified: • 138 students scoring at the 80th percentile or better (for their grade) on end of year GPA • 131 students scoring at the 20th percentile or less (for their grade) on end of year GPA

36. * * * * p < .05 Mean EQ-i:YV scores for high school students (80th percentile or better vs. 20th or less)

37. EI and Intervention

38. EI and Intervention: Youth Challenge Academy Study (Parker, Duffy et al., 2005) • residential training and mentoring program for at-risk youth (15 to 18 yrs) • improve life skills • improve educational level • improve employment potential

39. Outcome Study • 1283 young adults (15 to 18 yrs) attending the program in 6 locations in the U.S. (83% male) • participants completed EQ-i:YV at the start of program • subgroup (n =432) completed EQ-i:YV at the end of “Challenge” phase.

40. EI levels of 1283 individuals starting program vs. 1283 matched controls * * p < .05 * * Mean Score *

41. EI levels: completed program (n = 1053) vs. dropped out (n = 230) * p < .05 * * * Mean Score

42. EI levels: beginning vs. end of program (n = 432) * * * Mean Score * p < .05

43. EI and a post-secondary education(Parker et al., 2005) • from the TASWP a random subset of students (N = 238) completed the EI measure a second time • testing situation was approx. 32 months after the 1st testing session

44. Change in EI(cross-sectional vs. longitudinal samples) * * * * % Change *p < .05

45. EI and Leadership • emerging literature from various employment sectors

46. Trent leadership project • How to be an great failure trying to implement and manage change in an organization?

47. One • Ignore the need to make the case for change in the organization: use the “just do it!” approach to leadership as much as possible.

48. Two • Ignore the need to create deep or substantive structural changes: provide plenty of opportunities for members of your organization to pay “lip-service” to change.

49. Three • Engage as few people in the organization as possible in the process: stop at the top of the organization…or work your way from the bottom downward.

50. Four • Follow up on as few details in the process as possible: delegate and move on.