Emotionally Intelligent School Leadership as a Driver of Educator Well-Being: A Critical
Review and Application
Dr. Lynn Stock
School of Education, Liberty University
Abstract
This paper critiques Floman et al. (2024), a national U.S. study linking school leaders’ emotion
regulation and emotional support to educator well-being, and translates the article’s
implications into a supportive, cohesion-focused leadership practice centered on support and
cohesion. The review highlights the study’s methodological strengths, practical significance, and
limitations, then proposes concrete applications for K–12 leadership aimed at promoting
educator well-being and organizational stability, aligned with a counseling-informed leadership
stance
Critical Review
Floman et al. (2024) investigate whether educators’ perceptions of leaders’ emotion
regulation and emotional support predict well-being outcomes. The authors use a large,
national, nonprobability sample and model both cross-sectional and two-wave relations during
the COVID-19 pandemic. A notable strength is the clear construct separation between leaders’
emotion regulation and leaders’ emotional support, tested with confirmatory factor analysis
showing excellent fit and internal consistency. This distinction matters for practice because
sustaining a healthy climate requires both a leader’s composure under stress and consistent
interpersonal support for staff.
Methodologically, two issues warrant caution in interpretation. First, reliance on
educator perceptions introduces common-method variance because both predictors and
outcomes were self-reports collected in the same survey environment. Although the two-wave
design improves temporal ordering, it does not eliminate the possibility that unmeasured
affective states or climate cues shaped both perceived leadership and well-being. Second, the
sampling strategy— oversampling Black and Latinx educators to enhance representation—is a
strength for equity analysis, yet the absence of probability sampling and limited school-level
covariates constrain generalizability. Multilevel modeling included few cluster-level controls;
thus, observed leader effects may partly reflect contextual factors such as staffing levels, class
sizes, or local publichealth disruptions that covary with leadership perceptions.
Despite these limitations, the study’s strongest contribution is its practical clarity: both
perceived leader emotion regulation and emotional support predict lower emotional
exhaustion and turnover intentions and higher positive affect and job satisfaction across
analytic strategies.
The consistent pattern across outcomes, coupled with alignment to emotion contagion and
conservation-of-resources theories, supports a cautious but useful inference that emotionally
intelligent leadership is a plausible lever for protecting staff well-being in crisis conditions
(Floman et al., 2024). However, effect sizes should be interpreted as associations rather than
causal estimates. The high latent correlation between emotion regulation and emotional
support also suggests leaders may experience them as interwoven practices; attempts to
operationalize only one in isolation could dilute impact.
Several additional methodological choices merit scrutiny. While the authors validate
brief two-item scales for leader emotion regulation and emotional support, the parsimony that
enables nationwide administration constrains construct breadth; facets such as relational repair,
boundary setting, or conflict mediation remain undermeasured, potentially affecting observed
relationships. Although Study 2’s two-wave design strengthens causal inferences, the reliance
on perceptions invites common-method variance and rater bias. Finally, the crisis context—a
strength for external validity—also limits generalizability to calmer periods. Moderation findings
suggest leader emotional support becomes especially salient under strain, raising questions
about dosage, duration, and training fidelity that school systems must address to avoid
superficial implementation. Nevertheless, consistency across two national samples, combined
with theoretically coherent effects, offers convincing evidence that emotion-skillful leadership is
not merely collegiality but an organizational resource with measurable outcomes (Floman et al.,
2024).
Application to Leadership Practice
A counseling-informed, supportive leadership philosophy already emphasizes
psychological safety, empathy, and cohesive relationships. The article elevates these
commitments from values to actionable levers for organizational well-being. Three practice
domains emerge. First, leaders should embed emotion-skills training into professional learning
with explicit goals for emotion regulation under provocation, high-stakes family interactions,
and public conflict. This aligns with the study’s argument for systematic, evidence-based
emotion skills development for leaders (Floman et al., 2024).
Second, emotional support should be institutionalized as a system rather than treated as
a personality trait. Rotating relational check-ins, scheduled supervision that includes wellness
goals, and predictable follow-through on resource requests convert “support” into repeatable
processes. Because the study uses educator perceptions, reliability and consistency of support
are crucial to shift collective appraisals of leadership. A counseling background enables the use
of brief solution-focused techniques and trauma-informed listening to keep these interactions
efficient and protective of boundaries.
Third, staff well-being data should be integrated into school improvement cycles. Short
pulse surveys on workload stress, belonging, and psychological safety can be analyzed alongside
attendance, turnover intent, and disciplinary climate data to guide iterative adjustments. Where
results show pockets of strain, leaders can deploy targeted peer support or coverage schedules
and then re-measure, mirroring the study’s emphasis on tracking well-being as a primary
outcome.
Finally, equity must remain explicit. Emotional labor and risk are not distributed evenly
during crises. Applying a counseling lens, leaders should disaggregate well-being and climate
data by role, identity, and assignment to ensure supports are proportionate to need. The goal is
congruency: aligning stated values of care and fairness with daily micro-practices that staff can
reliably perceive, thereby strengthening cohesiveness.
Application to My Leadership Style and Practices
As a leader with a counseling and mental health background, the article’s implications
resonate deeply with my existing philosophy and professional skill set. My counseling training
equips me with active listening, empathy, and crisis intervention techniques that naturally align
with the emotion regulation and emotional support practices described by Floman et al. (2024).
In practice, I can integrate structured emotional check-ins during staff meetings, apply
solutionfocused counseling strategies when addressing staff concerns, and model calm,
regulated responses in high-stress situations.
Additionally, my mental health expertise allows me to interpret staff well-being data
through a trauma-informed lens, ensuring interventions address both surface-level stressors
and deeper systemic issues affecting staff morale and retention. I can implement well-being
“pulse surveys,” analyze patterns across teams, and provide targeted support where it is most
needed, much like the article suggests. Finally, by embedding wellness practices into
professional development and daily operations, I can ensure emotional intelligence becomes a
cultural expectation rather than an isolated initiative, creating a school climate where both staff
and students thrive.
References
Floman, J. L., Ponnock, A., Jain, J., & Brackett, M. A. (2024). Emotionally intelligent school
leadership predicts educator well-being before and during a crisis. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14, 1159382. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1159382
