Social/Emotional Competencies for School Leadership James D. A. Parker, Ph.D. Canada Research Chair in Emotion & Health, Trent University
Overview • introduction • background & overview of EI models • EI and success in various learning environments • EI and leadership • EI resources for the OPC project
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
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
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
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
EI across the life-span Decade of life
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
EI(continued) • can be improved through training and intervention programs • can be used to predict a number of “success in life” variables
Salovey & Mayer Model of EI Emotional Facilitation Emotional Perception Emotional Understanding Emotion Management
Bar-On Model of EI Interpersonal Abilities Intrapersonal Abilities Stress Management Abilities Adaptability Abilities General Mood
Parker, Wood & Bond Model of EI Emotional Understanding Psychological Mindedness Attentiveness (non-obliviousness) Emotional Self-Control
Predicting Post-Secondary Success • trends in the research literature • or what have we learned after 100+ years of research?
Trends in the Research Literature (continued) How has success been defined? • academic achievement (e.g., GPA) • retention
Trends in the Research Literature(continued) Favorite predictors? • previous school performance (i.e., high school marks) • cognitive ability (IQ) • economic/demographic variables
Impact of Emotional Intelligence? • growing interest in a possible link between academic success and EI
Why students withdraw? • possible role of EI comes from research on why students drop-out or withdraw from post-secondary programs
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
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
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)
Two groups not significantly different on: • high school GPA • age • course load at start of year
* * * * p < .05 Mean EQ-i scores for 1st year students (GPA 80% or better vs. 59% or less)
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)
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
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
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
* * * * p < .05 Mean EQ-i:YV scores for high school students (80th percentile or better vs. 20th or less)
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
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.
EI levels of 1283 individuals starting program vs. 1283 matched controls * * p < .05 * * Mean Score *
EI levels: completed program (n = 1053) vs. dropped out (n = 230) * p < .05 * * * Mean Score
EI levels: beginning vs. end of program (n = 432) * * * Mean Score * p < .05
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
Change in EI(cross-sectional vs. longitudinal samples) * * * * % Change *p < .05
EI and Leadership • emerging literature from various employment sectors
Trent leadership project • How to be an great failure trying to implement and manage change in an organization?
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.
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.
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.
Four • Follow up on as few details in the process as possible: delegate and move on.