Page 1 of 9
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 1
Publication Date: January 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.101.13806. Hoogsteen, T. J. (2023). Bringing Relationships out of the Shadows: Relationship Building as a Foundational Social Resource and
Mediator of Context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(1). 219-227.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Bringing Relationships out of the Shadows: Relationship
Building as a Foundational Social Resource and Mediator of
Context
Hoogsteen, T. J.
Royal Roads University
ABSTRACT
Leithwood (2017) outlines personal leadership resources (PLR) and Leithwood et
al. (2019) claimed these resources can account for a great deal of variation in school
leadership practice. In addition, these leadership resources are recognized in
several documents related to leadership standards. Although other leadership
resources exist, Leithwood (2017) and Leithwood et al. (2019) claim that the PLRs
in these documents are included because there is significant evidence to warrant
their inclusion. This article, however, provides evidence that the list of personal
leadership resources required for successful leadership is incomplete, and neglects
to recognize the importance of the ability to build relationships. Moreover, this
article attempts to further the argument forwarded by Hoogsteen (2020) that
personal leadership resources mediate context and leadership practice, and this is
accomplished only through the construction and maintenance of productive
relationships with school staff, district personnel, and the community at large.
Key Words: Relationships, Leadership, Personal Leadership Resources
INTRODUCTION
Fullan (2019) endeavors to explain the success or failure of leaders through a concept he terms
nuance. Despite the attempt, he fails to capture how leaders become “nuanced'', save for a few
occasions. First, at the outset of the book he states that nuance is not obtained by seeking the
obvious but by seeking meaning with your people (p. 2) and at the end of the book where he
asserts that nuance “taps into the inner workings of productive human interaction” (p. 125).
This article, though, is not about nuance, per se, but it is about the effectiveness of leadership
and its reliance on interconnections between people. To begin, there is a need to look at an area
with a long history in leadership literature, leadership traits (Northouse, 2016). According to
Leithwood (2017), leadership traits have recently proven to be powerful explanations for
leaders’ success. It has been argued that conceptions of leadership traits reproduce biased
representations of leadership (Evers & Lakomski, 2022), Leithwood et al. (2019), on the other
hand, concluded that a small set of well-defined traits, or ‘personal leadership resources’, show
promise in accounting for a significant amount of the variation in school leadership practice.
The latter article was influential in the conceptual analysis by Hoogsteen (2020) which argued
that personal leadership resources act as a mediator between context and leadership practice.
As Leithwood (2017) explains, personal leadership resources can be classified in three types,
cognitive, social, and psychological. Cognitive resources include problem-solving expertise and
domain-specific knowledge. Social resources which are instrumental to leadership success are
the ability to perceive emotions, manage emotions, and act in emotionally appropriate ways.
Page 2 of 9
220
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 1, January-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The final type of personal leadership resource, psychological resources, consist of optimism,
self-efficacy, resilience, and proactivity. These PLRs have been touted in the literature as
mentioned in Leithwood et al. (2019) and have been featured in documents meant to inform
leadership practice such as the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF). As such, Leithwood
(2017) goes on to state that while there are many characteristics associated with the practice
of leadership, the OLF only considers those for which there is compelling evidence suggesting
that they are instrumental to leadership success (p. 38).
However, as Leithwood et al. (2019) acknowledge, the personal leadership resources listed
above show promise in explaining a high amount of the variation in practices enacted by school
leaders, but further research is required. Thus, the purpose of this article is to continue the
conversation around personal leadership resources and will center on two main ideas. First,
the argument will be presented that the list of personal leadership resources which are
essential to practice is incomplete, even if compelling evidence does not exist, and should
include another overarching social resource, relationship-building. Leithwood (2012)
recognizes the ability to develop and maintain relationships as being foundational to school
leaders, and even though the three social resources listed in Leithwood (2017) are factors in
school leaders’ success in building relationships, they are not enough on their own. Second,
although Hoogsteen (2020) suggested that PLRs mediate leadership practice and context, the
article did not sufficiently explain how this occurs. By including relationship-building skills as
a personal leadership resource, this article will attempt to bridge the gap in the theory set out
by Hoogsteen (2020).
RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING AS A SOCIAL RESOURCE
Current literature on personal leadership resources highlights perceiving and managing
emotions and acting in emotionally appropriate ways as factors in building and sustaining
relationships. But they are not all encompassing, and when available research is integrated it
becomes evident that there are other aspects of building relationships which allow for a more
robust depiction. Moreover, the concept of relationship-building as a skill or trait is not
revolutionary. In fact, as far back as the 1950’s, theorists from Ohio and Michigan State
universities, classified relationship building among the top two or three most important
dimensions of effective leadership (Leithwood, 2017). A more recent study conducted by
Friedman (2020) found that intra-personal human ability, in other words relationship-building
skills, can be regarded as a “super” ability because it is the most fundamental ability of
leadership and especially foundational to the areas of external relations, staff management, and
instructional leadership.
Far too often though in leadership-focused literature, relationship building is viewed as
practice-based or a domain of practice, as evidenced by the synthesis of Leithwood et al.,
(2019), in which there is a domain of practice classified as Building Relationships and
Developing People. For instance, one particular study by Moolenaar and Sleegers (2015)
examines the significance of leaders’ relationship building and focuses on the principal as
advice giver and collaborator as the main strategies. Essential as a role in which principals
serve and important school processes which stimulate the development of relationships they
do not speak to the necessary skills/abilities/traits that a leader must display in order to be
successful in this domain.
Page 3 of 9
221
Hoogsteen, T. J. (2023). Bringing Relationships out of the Shadows: Relationship Building as a Foundational Social Resource and Mediator of Context.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(1). 219-227.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.101.13806
On the contrary, relationship building as an attribute features in a case study by Adams et al.
(2020), however, the qualitative data presented within the article is limited, and leans heavily
toward the leader showing understanding of teachers’ personal circumstances, or personal
regard for others. A recent qualitative analysis of principals during COVID lockdowns noted
similar findings in that attending to humanistic needs of teachers was the highest priority
regardless of the situation (Gonzales et al., 2022). Although this action is incomplete, it is
nonetheless an important strategy for leaders to apply in an effort to build and/or maintain
relationships and trust.
Robinson (2011) renders another view of building relationships and outlines the elements of
building relational trust. Viewed as a crucial capability, or skill, that leaders should possess,
building relational trust includes personal regard for others. However, it is just one aspect of
building relational trust. The remaining determinants for building relational trust are
interpersonal respect, competence in leadership role, and personal integrity. Even though each
determinant is described in more individual detail, the focus of the application of the skill
outlined by Robinson (2011) is using Open-to-Learning conversations as a way to display and
build each facet of relational trust. A similar contribution to view of relationships by Louis and
Murphy (2019) emphasizes the importance of leaders displaying transparency,
trustworthiness, and fairness in their interactions while also highlighting traits such as
agreeableness and extraversion.
Perhaps it is because of differing and fragmented understandings of how to build, and what
constitutes effective relationships, that it seems there is not compelling evidence to warrant
inclusion as a foundational leadership resource. Louis and Murphy (2019) corroborate this
assertion by noting that few studies examine the specifics of behaviour or affect associated with
positive relationships and school principals. However, synthesis of the aforementioned skills
provide a clearer picture of the aspects of relationship building. Considering that one of the
most powerful influences that school leaders have is on school conditions (Leithwood et al.,
2019), it can be concluded that a school leader builds relationships with staff and community
through an environment characterized by competence demonstrated through integrity, and
transparency while managing emotions appropriately and displaying interpersonal respect.
The concept of ‘survivorship bias’ should also be taken in consideration as it pertains to the
importance of relationships, leadership, and the surrounding research. Generally speaking,
most, if not all educators would tout the importance and impact of relationships, but in day-to- day practice underestimate how much relationships are utilized. For instance, a recent study
using self-report surveys of practicing principals examined use of PLRs during the COVID-19
pandemic, and found that relationship management and social awareness were mobilized less
than most other resources including proactivity and resilience (Ramos-Pla et al., 2021).
Conversely, several other publications related to leading during the pandemic cited
relationship building with the entire school community as being a characteristic of schools
which were able to adapt to the demands placed upon them by COVID-19 (Hauseman et al.,
2021; Grice, 2022; O’Connell & Clarke, 2021; Schechter et al. 2022; Gonzales et al., 2022). While
compelling evidence may not exist which would justify the inclusion of relationship building as
a foundational resource, it may be due to a lack of understanding of how relationships are built
and/or it is taken for granted just how much the skill is deployed. A view at the larger picture
of the extant research allows for a greater insight into the importance of relationships and
Page 4 of 9
222
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 1, January-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
supports the notion that relationship building is not simply practice but an, and possibly, the
essential social resource for school leaders.
Not only is relationship building an essential social resource, it is also essential to mobilizing
other PLRs. In fact, several resources are rendered ineffective without strong relationships.
Consider an example from Evers and Lakomski (2022) that illustrates a strained
principal/teacher relationship. In this example there is an established relationship between a
teacher and principal, and the former believes the principal is never happy with their work.
The authors claim that this pattern will shape any new encounter on both sides of the
relationship. If it was a case where support or coaching was required for instructional or
classroom environment improvement, the school leader would be unable to adequately execute
their domain-specific knowledge and/or problem-solving expertise.
Figure 1. Revision of the list of Personal Leadership Resources (Leithwood, 2017).
Relationships as the cornerstone for applying personal leadership resources to leadership
practice not only pertain to cognitive resources, but also to psychological resources, specifically
resilience. Leithwood (2017) defines resilience as the ability to recover from, “bounce back”,
or adjust easily to misfortune or change. Defining resilience in this way places a premium on
the “rugged” individual. However, Ungar (2018) challenges this notion and argues that
resilience is largely dependent upon our social ecologies and how well others provide us with
what we need to survive and thrive. For school leaders, this implies that the quality of
relationships built with school staff, senior leaders and staff at the district office, other school
leaders within the district, students’ families, and the community determine how well they will
respond and “bounce back '' from challenges and adverse events. Research on principals and
resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic supports this suggestion (Stomski et al., 2022;
Arastaman & Cetinkaya, 2022).
• Integrity
• Transparency
• Interpersonal
Respect
• Emotion
Management
Cognitive Resources
• Problem- Solving
• Domain- Specific
Expertise
Psychological Resources
• Resilience
• Optimism
• Self-efficacy
• Proactivity
Social Resources
(Relationship Building)
Page 5 of 9
223
Hoogsteen, T. J. (2023). Bringing Relationships out of the Shadows: Relationship Building as a Foundational Social Resource and Mediator of Context.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(1). 219-227.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.101.13806
The impact relationship-building has on enacting cognitive and psychological resources
demonstrates importance as a social resource and the ideas presented above should provide
reason to elevate building relationships to the foundation of all other leadership resources.
Figure 1 provides a suggested revision to the list of personal leadership resources from
Leithwood (2017)
RELATIONSHIPS AS MEDIATOR OF CONTEXT
It should be stated, that denoting leadership as successful or not, and particular leadership
resources as effective is an individualistic view of the school organization. An alternative view
considers schools and outcomes on a macro, structural level. Structures and context are
powerful, and as Evers and Lakomski (2022) state, we need to provide reasons as to whether
an individual can be reasonably said to be responsible for the actions and ideas that ensue from
ways in which they are embedded in their context (p. 49). Stemming from this is the belief that
patterns emerge in response to the ever-changing dynamics of the external system and
everyone can be a leader or “any old bird will do” (Evers & Lakomski, 2022).
However, as long as the school principal is accepted as being in a position of ‘leadership’, there
will be some agency in how the role is enacted. English (2008) echoes this sentiment,
remarking that as long leaders are entrusted to make decisions and in turn bear the burdens
and responsibilities for those decisions, the potential to release agency is always present. Thus,
the argument presented here is that it is the ability to build, maintain, and mobilize
relationships which allows leaders to exercise agency and influence over their context.
Particular aspects of how leaders build effective relationships still needs further exploration,
but as Louis and Murphy (2019) note, relationships matter and school leaders have a significant
impact on how relationships develop within a school. Moolenar and Sleegers (2014) produces
further insights as they note that principals occupy positions within different networks which
allow them to act as conduits for the flow of knowledge, resources, and work-related
information. This web of relationships may offer opportunities, or constraints, for the extent
to which leaders can exert control over their environment.
To illustrate the latter point, and provide the most important supportive evidence of the
argument that relationships mediate context, Grant (2013) cites a study on the performance of
surgeons that worked in multiple hospitals. In some cases, the surgeons’ performance
decreased or improved depending on the hospital where they performed the surgery. They
were performing the same surgery and had all the same tools, the major difference was in the
relationships with the others in the room while the surgery was being performed. Grant (2013)
contributes a second example, this time a study of security analysts. In this study, analysts that
were highly-rated and then changed companies saw their performance drop, and their
performance remained lower for the next five years. That is, unless, when they moved
companies, they moved with their teams. In which case there was no noticeable difference in
their job performance.
Implications from these studies are applicable to the education sector. Returning to the
example of Evers and Lakomski (2022) which illustrates a tense principal/teacher relationship.
Consequently, a strained relationship such as the aforementioned limits the school leader’s
ability to enact essential domains and practices of leadership. Within the school, ineffective