{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04290007253635453, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03271044178094021, 'mean_word_length': 5.475508834712592, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Leadership intelligence: Unlocking the potential for school leadership effectiveness

Top performing companies have long used intelligence tests in their selection procedures to predict who the best leaders are. However, no longer are the brightest favoured, or guaranteed success. A post-modern world demands a fresh outlook on leadership. How can school leaders judge their effectiveness? How can school leaders lead intelligently? This article explores a theoretical approach to effective school leadership in an emerging context, which embraces a holistic understanding of intelligence. While individual rational (IQ), emotional (EQ) and spiritual (SQ) intelligences are necessary for a leader, their true power lies in maintaining a balance among all three. This is known as leadership intelligence (LQ).


Introduction
"Intelligence has to do with being able to see the world from a number of perspectives" (Ronthy, 2014:10).
For much of the twentieth century, companies have used intelligence tests in their selection procedures to predict who the best leaders are. The potential for intelligence to positively predict a leader's effectiveness has been attributed to research in cognitive, emotional and social intelligences. However, the role of an effective, intelligent leader has changed, as increasing demands are being placed on organisations, managers and employees alike. In the South African (SA) educational context, the tendency to promote expert teachers to leadership roles has been the preferred approach (Ngcobo, 2012:423). However, no longer are the brightest favoured or guaranteed success. Current leadership demands a fresh outlook to meet the demands of a new world. How can school leaders judge their effectiveness in this ever-changing world? How can school leaders lead intelligently? In order to explore these questions, we draw on leadership intelligence (LQ) theory and propose that a holistic understanding of intelligence, known as leadership intelligence (LQ), can be a useful theoretical approach to effective school leadership in an emerging context (Dåderman, Ronthy, Ekegren & Mårdberg, 2013:63). We begin by introducing the two central concepts of 'leadership' and 'intelligence'. This is followed by a discussion of cognitive, emotional and spiritual intelligences, that include a reference to SA school leadership practice. Next, we introduce Ronthy's LQ. Finally, we suggest that LQ provides an approach to unlock the potential for effective leadership in SA schools.

Leadership and Intelligence
Leadership as a concept is both complex and contested. Fundamentally, definitions of leadership recognise two synergistic players, viz. a group of followers and a leader that co-exist through a mutualistic, cooperative and symbiotic relationship (Rutkauskas & Stasytyte, 2013:53). The fact that a leader is someone who "makes things better" (Summerfield, 2014:252), reminds one of the old adage that leadership is not just about titles, position or flow charts. Leadership is the position held by a leader, the capacity to lead, and the act of leading. However, these descriptions limit an understanding of leadership to the mechanics of leadership or observable behaviour (Buell, 2012:19). The evolution of leadership practice has led to the definition of leadership itself as evolving, moving from traditional approaches to alternatives such as servant leadership, distributive leadership and transformational leadership (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006:6). Recent education discourse draws a conceptual distinction between leadership and management (Bush, 2007:391). The distinction involves the degree to which one is accountable to an organisation, team or group. Thus, management can be understood as caretaking, while leadership is custodial in nature. In a quest for a definition of leadership, Grunes (2011:11) highlights the potential of a leader to influence others, a situation or task. This definition is in alignment with a custodial responsibility. Mazdai and Mohammadi (2012:83) are cognisant of the fact that leadership is a process, ongoing, dynamic and interactive. One commonality that these varied definitions offer is that a leader can only exist in relation to others. As a result, there is a clear link to Ronthy's LQ theory that posits that leadership is a process, driven by a leader, who has the potential to influence a team through the vehicle of LQ.
In the same way that leadership is not an easy concept to distill, so too, to describe intelligence is no easy task. This is especially evident in a survey that focused on collating definitions of intelligence (Legg & Hutter, 2007:2). Legg and Hutter (2007:5) define intelligence as "an agent's ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments". This receives ballast from Ronthy (2014:10), when she observes that "intelligence has to do with being able to see the world from a number of perspectives". The view that intelligence contributes to leadership effectiveness highlights the mutualistic relationship between intelligence and leadership (Judge, Colbert & Ilies, 2004:1). Academically, intelligent leaders have long been admired. Modern trends in defining intelligence are revisiting the word's Latinate etymology, which establishes the word as synonymous with discernment and comprehension. The emergent observation of other intelligences, such as emotional, social and spiritual intelligences, are evidence of this. Furthermore, traits like discernment and comprehension have relevance for leadership. It is leaders who must make decisions based on their experience, knowledge or information, in the belief that a positive outcome based on their choice might occur.
While early theorists take into account the cognitive component of intelligence, in the 1920s Thorndike identified three non-cognitive aspects of intelligence, namely the social; mechanical; and abstract (Labby, Lunenburg, & Slate, 2012:2). Often credited with the coinage, Thorndike states that 'social intelligence' is the ability to understand and manage people (Riggio, 2010:2). In the 1940s, Wechsler proposed a view of intelligence that includes both intellectual and non-intellectual elements, but it is only in the 1980s, with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, that a more holistic view of intelligence emerged (Gardner, 1983, cited in Labby et al., 2012King, Mara & DeCicco, 2012:12). Gardner's theory prioritises interpersonal and intrapersonal forms of intelligence, alongside traditional cognitive intelligence or IQ, thereby encouraging new ways of thinking about intelligence. Sternberg (1985, cited in Riggio, 2010:2) offered his triarchic theory of leader intelligence, that categorises analytical, creative and practical intelligences, which align best with leadership understood as a predictor of future success (Labby et al., 2012:3;Riggio, 2010:2). While the discussion of 'leadership' and 'intelligence' has been brief, it provides a useful foundation to explore leadership intelligence.
What follows is a discussion of the three intelligences of the LQ model, namely: rational; emotional; and spiritual intelligence. Other intelligences like practical; cultural; and social intelligences also exist, but for the purpose of the LQ model, only rational, emotional and spiritual intelligence will be described.

Types of intelligence Rational intelligence (IQ)
The study of human intelligence has long been contentious (King et al., 2012:11;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:315). From as early as the 1900s, when Binet and Simon developed an intelligence test, psychologists have been trying to quantify intelligence. With the popularising of intelligence tests, the use of the acronym IQ (Intelligence Quotient) became synonymous with intelligence during the twentieth century (Labby et al., 2012:2;Zohar & Marshall, 2004:94). This promoted the belief that a high IQ automatically equates to high intelligence (Zohar & Marshall, 2000:3). Ronthy (2014:52) argues that the personality tests of the 1960s were not 'fit for purpose', since they were primarily intended to diagnose psychological disorders, and were not intended to be a predictor of intelligence. IQ quantifies rational intelligence, as one's "ability to think critically and to be able to analyse a situation or solve a concrete problem" (Ronthy, 2014:79). As rational intelligence, IQ is prioritised as the intelligence we learn through our schooling in our development to adulthood, and follows on from our primitive or physical intelligence, that is, the intelligence we are born with (Wigglesworth, 2012:44).
The leadership-rational intelligence relationship is a well-researched topic, as society has valued intelligence as a pre-requisite for leadership (Judge et al., 2004:542;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:317). For instance, Lord, Foti and De Vader (1984:352) found that of 59 characteristics, rational intelligence was the archetypal characteristic of a leader. Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2013:26) acknowledge that leaders need enough intellect to carry out their responsibilities and to deal with challenges. Gifted leaders are those who possess outstanding analytical and conceptual thinking skills and are therefore of great value to organisations. Furthermore, for a leader to encourage IQ skills of problem solving, innovation and creativity, they need to model these cognitive skills themselves (Hoffman & Frost, 2006:38). Common sense dictates that rational intelligence can predict suitability for a leadership role, and influence leader selection and ultimately leadership effectiveness. Nevertheless, no examination, qualification or formal training can adequately prepare one for the role of leader (Goleman et al., 2013:27;Riggio, 2010:1;Ronthy, 2014:7). In some cases, rational intelligence may actually inhibit leadership effectiveness, as highlighted in Fiedler's (2002:100) cognitive resources theory, where leaders are less likely to perform in a time of crisis, due to their focus on problem solving, rather than the task at hand. For this reason, researchers make the distinction between 'leadership' and 'management'.
A manager utilises rational intelligence by being task-focused, while leaders prioritise other intelligences (Ronthy, 2014:78). Leadership is characterised by one's spirit and includes one's personality and vision, while management is characterised by one's mind and includes accurate calculation and routines, while the notion that "managers manage change, leaders manage growth", further demonstrates the different intelligences at work in the two roles (Adair, 2006, cited in Msila, 2008. Also, research shows that traditional intelligence does not always contribute positively towards leadership (Riggio, 2010:1;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:318).
School contexts in SA are generally hierarchical, bureaucratic environments, where school leaders focus on managerial responsibilities, while leadership practices that involve distribution of responsibilities, a shared vision, and participatory decision-making, are not consistently exercised (Naidoo, Muthukrishna & Hobden, 2012:4906). South African school leadership teams lead predominantly with their rational intelligence (IQ) at the expense of the other intelligences (Bush, 2007:402). This means that schools are disadvantaged. Goleman (1996:28) advocates a synergetic approach to the leadership-intelligence relationship, observing that: "how we do in life is determined by bothit is not just IQ, but emotional intelligence that matters". Goleman's view has potential implications for SA school leadership, that we will return to later.

Emotional intelligence (EQ)
Emotional intelligence (EQ) has its origins in Thorndike's social intelligence theory, and Gardner's personal intelligence theory, although it was Bar-On (2006:4), who coined the term 'emotional quotient' (EQ), and Salovey and Mayer (1990:189) who coined the term 'emotional intelligence'. Up until the mid-1990s, EQ was a minor area of research that few knew much about. However, EQ has generated a good deal of debate since the popularising of Daniel Goleman's bestselling publication Emotional Intelligence in 1995 (Brinia, Zimianiti & Panagiotopoulos, 2014:28;Riggio, 2010:2).
Definitions for EQ vary, prioritising different elements or aspects (Cai, 2011:153). In 1990, Salovey and Mayer's (p. 189) early definition of EQ recognised the importance of using information from one's own and other's emotions to inform one's actions and thoughts. Likewise, in the 1990s, Covey (1990, cited in Labby et al., 2012 explored the relationship between human performance and EQ. He highlights selfawareness, a key feature of EQ, in his work. Bar-On (1997, cited in Labby et al., 2012, and Salovey andMayer (1990, cited in Labby et al., 2012:3), regard EQ as the ability to manage one's own emotions and manage relationships with others successfully. This description highlights two key elements of EQ, namely self-management and relationship management. Zohar and Marshall (2000:49-50) state that if IQ is our serial thinkingaccurate, precise and reliable; then EQ is our associative thinkingthe kind of thinking that forms links between emotions, bodily feelings and the environment. Although these definitions vary, none is more inclusive than that of Goleman. His approach, that includes the four aspects of selfawareness, self-regulation, self-motivation and empathy, has been widely accepted by researchers (Javadi, Mehrabi, Jankhaneh & Samangooei, 2012:379). His work not only popularised research on EQ but, due to the practical application of the theory to daily life, also demonstrated how EQ could be learnt and acquired as a skill. This distinguishes EQ from IQ, which is largely predetermined (Zohar & Marshall, 2004:96). Zohar and Marshall (2000:56) echo the sentiment of Goleman (1996:28; see also Goleman et al., 2013:4) that the two intelligences, IQ and EQ, are symbiotic.
The relationship between leaders and their teams is an emotional one (Hoffman & Frost, 2006:39). Goleman et al. (2013:1) have argued that "great leadership works through the emotions". In addition, Goleman claims that EQ is a better indicator of success than IQ (Brinia et al., 2014:29). According to Bipath (2008:60), EQ is an essential skill for leadership effectiveness, and a predictor of superior performance. Research indicates that EQ is critical to both personal and organisation success (Batool, 2013:88;Labby et al., 2012:4). Effective leaders not only have the technical skills to perform their roles, but, more importantly, demonstrate emotional intelligence (Batool, 2013:88). Furthermore, Goleman, Boyatzis andMcKee (2002, cited in Riggio, 2010:3) argue that EQ is an essential skill for effective leadership, and that it gains in prominence the more senior the leadership role in the organisation. Riggio (2010:3) states that the potential a leader has to influence the emotional climate in an organisation should not be underestimated. South African school leaders could benefit from the practice of EQ because they are under pressure to deal with a myriad of issues simultaneously, which include under-qualified and poorly trained teachers, low staff morale, absenteeism, violence, crime and poorly resourced schools. Mafora (2013:693) states that South African township schools fail because they are hindered by superficially democratic environments, resistance to change, hierarchical power structures, and a lack of accountability. There would seem to be value in SA school principals developing their EQ skills to deal with these complex issues. However, there is another component to effective leadership, namely, a spiritual component.

Spiritual intelligence (SQ)
Besides the concepts IQ and EQ, emerging research highlights the importance of a third intelligencespiritual intelligence (SQ) (Covey, 2005:53;Dåderman et al., 2013:64;Zohar & Marshall, 2000:3, 2004. SQ is considered by those who write about it to be the ultimate intelligence and the foundation of both IQ and EQ. It is that form of intelligence demonstrated by visionary leaders like Churchill, Ghandi and Mandela (Zohar, 2005:46;Zohar & Marshall, 2000:4). Ronthy (2014:15) states that in a world characterised by change, leaders need to find an inner security, and the secret to this leadership lies in a leader's SQ.
Recent research brings to the fore spirituality and SQ in the work place (Klenke, 2003:56). For instance, Wigglesworth (2013:447) defines SQ in terms of a set of 21 skills that can be learned. Her definition includes wisdom and compassion, which resonate with Zohar and Marshall's description of SQ (2004:96). Emmons (2000:9) defines SQ as the ability to use spiritual information to solve everyday problems. Zohar and Marshall (2004:98) describe SQ as the soul's intelligence that integrates our lives, giving us insight into our world, including organisations. A transformative definition of SQ (Tan, Chin, Seyal, Yeow & Tan, 2013:4) states that it allows us to dream, visualise and connect to a meaningful purpose in life (Dåderman et al., 2013:64). It is this transforming element that has the potential to develop leaders and those around them (Hyson, 2013:110). Astin (2004:4) highlights the importance of SQ in the transformation of an organisation.
Covey ( , cited in Hyson, 2013:110) recognised SQ as a key component of leadership, contributing to the spiritual intelligence-leadership relationship. Wigglesworth (2013:445) believes that SQ is the intelligence that will differentiate leaders and predict leadership effectiveness. Adair (2006( , cited in Msila, 2008:70) describes leadership as being spirit-led. Such leadership includes personality, vision and a shared purpose. Leaders are increasingly prioritising SQ and integrating spirituality into their work (Fry & Wigglesworth, 2013:3).
When it comes to SQ and SA school leadership, the principles of ubuntu can be associated with SQ. Ncube (2010:78) mentions that ubuntu leadership is that embodied in the two African statesmen, Nelson Mandela of SA, and Sir Seretse Khama, of Botswana. Ubuntu is Africancentred leadership, embodying the values and morals of traditional communities, but with an emphasis on transforming authoritarian systems (Letseka, 2014, cited in Msila, 2014:1109. Ubun-tu leadership, like servant leadership, initiates change through people, meeting their needs to build a collective community through a shared vision (Maringe, Masinire & Nkambule, 2015:368;Ncube, 2010:79). Ubuntu values creative cooperation, empathetic communication, and team work, which could have a positive impact on dysfunctional schools that are prevalent in emerging contexts, but ubuntu leadership is not without its challenges (Msila, 2008:71;Msila, 2014Msila, :1106. Firstly, ubuntu requires that leaders prepare their teams to be change agents, and secondly, since some team members value their autonomy, they could consider ubuntu leadership to be intrusive (Msila, 2008:77). However, the application of IQ has the potential to overcome obstacles such as these.
Leaders who adopt ubuntu leadership principles develop the capacity of an organisation, while developing individuals, so that the whole organisation benefits. They are innovators who empower and nurture (Ncube, 2010:81). Recent research has explored the SQ of school leadership in SA private schools (Dreyer & Hermans, 2014).
The assumption that private and religious schools in SA are good, if not outstanding, is a common belief among many citizens. Dreyer and Hermans (2014:7) found that principals of private schools in SA are predominantly transformational in their leadership style, and display spiritual characteristics, thus implying that these principals' SQ is a contributing factor to their success. However, while SQ is important for leaders, emerging research recognises all three intelligences -IQ, EQ and SQ -as being essential for effective leadership (Dåderman et al., 2013:64;Neal, 2013:12;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:325;Wigglesworth, 2006:18). Collectively, these three intelligences are known as leadership intelligence (LQ) (Dåderman et al., 2013:64;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:316).

Leadership intelligence (LQ)
With the ongoing influence of globalisation and digitisation in the world today, ever-increasing demands are being placed on organisations (Chin, Anantharaman & Tong, 2011:1;Joseph & Lakshmi, 2011:2;Ronthy, 2014:23). Mazdai and Mohammadi (2012:83) mention that organisation leaders are often disproportionally matched to what is required of them, and are no longer fit for purpose. For instance, leaders are increasingly required to manage change and to lead creatively (Botha, 2012:40;Mazdai & Mohammadi, 2012 :83-84). Ronthy (2014:15) suggests that leaders need to demonstrate rational, emotional and spiritual intelligences, or their LQ. Her LQ theory encompasses IQ, EQ and SQ, offering a holistic model for effective leadership (Dåderman et al., 2013:64). We first discuss two antecedents of LQ before we discuss LQ in more detail.
Due to innovative leadership models being characterised mostly by constructivist and critical paradigms competing with behaviourist paradigms, and having a strong Anglo-American cultural bias, researchers have begun to look elsewhere, such as at ancient indigenous cultures, for innovative approaches to leadership (Mazdai & Mohammadi, 2012:84). Multiple intelligence is not a new concept, but can be found to have its origin in ancient cultures (Mazdai & Mohammadi, 2012:84;Sidle, 2007:19). Two multiple intelligence models that inform LQ are the five intelligences and the hierarchy of human intelligences models.

Five intelligences model
The five intelligences of leadership, a term coined by Sidle (2007:19), describe the five archetypical intelligences that have their origin in indigenous cultures: action, intellect, emotion, spirit and intuition. An initial glance at these intelligences reveals their similarities to current thinking regarding leadership and intelligence (Sidle, 2007 :20). According to Sidle (2007:24), the five intelligences model provides a useful framework for understanding leadership. Personal and leadership effectiveness hinges on balancing each intelligence. Neal (2013:12) identifies four types of energy that one brings to the work place, energies that Wigglesworth (2012:44) refers to as intelligences. Physical intelligence (PQ) is a new dimension of intelligence that Neal introduces. New too in Neal's (2013:12) view of leadership intelligence is her hierarchical view of the four intelligences. In her model, intelligences are represented in a hierarchical manner, where PQ, at the base of her pyramid, is the foundation for all other intelligences (Wigglesworth, 2012:59).

Hierarchy of human intelligences model
In Neal's pyramid, PQ is followed sequentially by IQ, EQ and SQ. According to Shabnam and Tung (2013:325), a leader requires different levels of intelligence for different tasks. When tasks are at a high level, one employs intelligences further up the pyramid. The second, IQ, level in the pyramid is where the leader is a manager, focusing on the 'doing' (Ronthy, 2014:78). IQ is a reasonably stable intelligence, and does not require much interaction with others, such as team members. As leaders engage in more cross-functional tasks in an organisation, they require EQ to get the support and cooperation of others. Finally, at the apex of the pyramid, leaders need SQ to be creative, develop a vision and address ethical, environmental and economic concerns (Shabnam & Tung, 2013:325). At the apex of the pyramid, SQ is characterised by wisdom and peace in the face of chaos (Wigglesworth, 2013:441). Neal's hierarchy does not provide for the synthesis and integration of the intelligences. Maintaining a balance among the intelligences is a distinguishing feature of Ronthy's LQ model.
Ronthy's LQ model is divided into two spheres, according to which leaders operate in two paradigms, i.e. as manager and as leader. When one acts as a manager, IQ intelligence is employed, and the focus is on doing (Ronthy, 2014:78). A manager is task orientated and, with practise, skills like planning and calculating, as well as routine activities, can be sped up until they become habitual. Thus, when operating in this sphere, a manager focuses on routines and structures. These require very little interaction with others in an organisation, or with the other intelligences. Little attention is paid to relationships with co-workers, or dealing with their relationship with themselves, including their reflection on personal and organisational values and ethics (Dåderman et al., 2013:66).
The concept of a comfort border is a key element in understanding Ronthy's LQ model. It arose out of her experience in Sweden of training managers to conduct performance appraisals, and from employee dissatisfaction with the way these appraisals were managed (Ronthy, 2014:85). She researched this problem with some 4,000 managers over six years. Her findings revealed that employees were dissatisfied with appraisals that focused on facts, and which were task orientated. However, employees found appraisals meaningful when they revolved around relationships. Appraisals that caused dissatisfaction lacked personal feedback, and issues such as values, vision and cooperation were not addressed at all. Most managers remained in what Ronthy (2014:86) referred to as their 'comfort zone'.
The comfort boundary is a line between what is comfortable and what is uncomfortable to talk about, between performance and relationships, and between what we do and how we feel. Ronthy (2014:87) suggests that managers who are task orientated find their comfort border challenged when they have to deal with relationships and values, that is, when they are required to function as leaders rather than as managers. Ronthy (2014:87) found that managers develop LQ through 'dialogue'. For example, when managers reflect on feedback from their team, it develops their EQ. Their SQ is developed when they train themselves to provide meaning in the workplace for their employees. Dialogue is not merely a conversation, but involves true listening and reflecting based on a Socratic method, and is underpinned by the aim of achieving shared meaning within the group. Prior to a dialogue event, a topic or problem is presented, and solutions sought through questioning, reflection and exploration.

Conclusion
Models of leadership introduce mechanisms with which to understand and interpret events and behaviour in schools. Despite this, and regardless of the model employed, it can be argued that education remains in a crisis (Bush, 2007:394). Modern leadership development continues to prepare and recruit leaders to work in schools that are hierarchical in nature. This is a real concern, as it curbs the leaders' ability to transform school environments and forces them to be managers, rather than leaders (Morrison, 2013:413). Hallinger (2003:346) states that to study school leadership without reference to a school context is futile. Research supports the notion that school leaders need to utilise different leadership styles, incorporating various models of leadership, and that an integrated approach to leadership, which is holistic, dynamic and multidirectional, would serve dysfunctional schools, so prevalent in emerging contexts, best (Hallinger, 2003:343;Morrison, 2013:413;Msila, 2014Msila, :1113. It is interesting to note that, globally, literature points towards an alternative leadership model that utilises the three different intelligences mentioned earlier, namely rational intelligence (IQ), emotional intelligence (EQ), and spiritual intelligence (SQ), and that these are necessary to activate a pensive, reflective leader (Dåderman et al., 2013:64). Principals and their teams are expected to be leaders and to lead intelligently. Leading intelligently is more than just scoring 'above average' on an intelligence test. It is about leading with the brain, heart and soul. To be an effective school leader, leaders need to make logical decisions (IQ), manage their own emotions as well as that of their team (EQ), and express their desires and passions (SQ) (Dåderman et al., 2013:64;Shabnam & Tung, 2013:326). While these intelligences on their own are useful, the school leader, who is able to integrate them and maintain a balance between them, has a greater chance of success (Dåderman et al., 2013:64). To date, research in the field of LQ is limited, particularly with regards to school leadership. Ronthy's LQ model introduces an integrated, holistic approach to school leadership that deserves further investigation. The sum of these three intelligences and their successful integration in SA school leaders may enable them to optimise their potential and their organisations to flourish (Wigglesworth, 2013:442).
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence.