The Impact of University Educational Managers Profiles on Educational Quality: Enneagram and Leadership Styles
Download PDF Article
Download Graphical Abstract
The Impact of University Educational Managers Profiles on Educational Quality: Enneagram and Leadership Styles
Abstract
This study examines the influence of university educational managers profiles on educational quality, using the Enneagram and leadership styles as analytical tools. The research aims to correlate leadership characteristics and managers profiles with institutional quality, focusing on the School of Medicine at the Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. A quantitative approach was employed, with structured surveys administered to three groups within the institution: students, professors, and administrative staff. The objective was to determine how these factors interact to impact academic performance and educational quality. Findings reveal a significant relationship between leadership characteristics and improvements in educational quality. Certain Enneagram types were associated with higher levels of educational quality and better academic outcomes, suggesting that personality traits play a key role in leadership effectiveness. The study concludes that understanding the Enneagram can facilitate the development of tailored leadership strategies to address specific institutional challenges. These findings offer valuable insights for university administrators, policymakers, and educators, providing actionable recommendations to enhance institutional quality, improve academic outcomes, and establish a framework for future research and practical applications in educational management.
Keywords
Educational quality, Leadership styles, Enneagram, Educational Managers Profiles
JEL Classification
I20, I21, I23
1. Introduction
The quality of higher education institutions plays a pivotal role in the socio-economic development of nations. In an increasingly globalised and competitive environment, educational institutions face the challenge of maintaining high standards of academic performance, student satisfaction, and institutional effectiveness. This study explores the influence of university educational managers profiles on educational quality, focusing on the Faculty of Medicine at the Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, México. Specifically, it analyses the relationship between managers leadership styles, their personality traits as defined by the Enneagram, and the resulting impact on institutional outcomes.
Understanding the impact of educational managers on institutional quality is essential for all stakeholders involved in the higher education system. University administrators and policymakers can use these insights to design leadership development programmes that enhance institutional performance. Faculty members and administrative staff, who work closely with these managers, benefit from leadership approaches that foster collaboration and efficiency. Additionally, students—the primary beneficiaries of the educational system—experience direct improvements in academic quality and institutional support when leadership is effectively aligned with institutional needs. By providing a research-based framework for leadership assessment, this study offers valuable implications for decision-making at both institutional and policy levels, contributing to the continuous improvement of higher education institutions.
Educational managers are key figures in shaping the organisational culture of institutions. Their leadership characteristics, decision-making processes, and personal attributes have a direct effect on the academic staff, students, and administrative personnel. The Enneagram, a personality classification system that identifies nine distinct types, offers a framework for understanding how managers internal motivations and behavioural patterns influence their approach to leadership (da Silva, 2021). In light of recent calls for more empirical evidence linking personality traits with measurable educational outcomes, this study addresses a clear gap in the literature: the limited integration of the Enneagram model in correlational studies on leadership and institutional quality. By identifying the Enneagram type of educational managers, this study seeks to correlate their leadership style with indicators of educational quality, including student performance and institutional efficiency (Linarez-Placencia, 2019).
The relationship between leadership and educational quality has been well documented in recent literature. Studies have shown that transformational leadership, in particular, fosters a collaborative and inclusive environment that encourages innovation and enhances educational outcomes (Mendoza, 2024). Transformational leaders are known for their ability to inspire and motivate their teams, promoting a sense of shared purpose and driving improvements in institutional performance. However, leadership effectiveness is not only determined by the style but also by the leader’s ability to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of higher education, particularly in regions such as Latin America, where institutional quality is often inconsistent (Sánchez, 2015).
In addition to leadership style, this study emphasises the role of personality in educational management. The Enneagram is a tool that has been increasingly utilised in organisational settings to map the personality traits of leaders, enabling a deeper understanding of their strengths and areas for growth. This research aims to bridge the gap between personality assessments and leadership strategies by examining how specific Enneagram types align with transformational, democratic, or autocratic leadership styles (Hormaza Muñoz et al., 2022). These insights will be particularly valuable for educational institutions seeking to enhance their leadership frameworks and improve their overall quality.
Therefore, this study intends to offer an innovative framework by combining the Enneagram with leadership theory to assess how university managers’ internal dynamics influence quality indicators. By doing so, it proposes a data-driven model to guide leadership development in higher education.
By examining the profiles of educational managers, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of how leadership styles and personality traits, as understood through the Enneagram, impact educational quality. The findings will offer actionable recommendations for higher education institutions to develop more effective management practices, fostering an environment of academic excellence and organisational growth. Addressing the topics of university educational managers profiles, leadership styles, the Enneagram, and educational quality and their relationship provides a comprehensive perspective on how these factors influence institutional performance. This offer university administrators, policymakers, and educators a deeper understanding of how leadership styles and personality traits impact institutional effectiveness. By identifying effective leadership profiles through the Enneagram, higher education institutions can implement targeted strategies to optimise academic management, enhance student outcomes, and strengthen organisational efficiency. This approach not only improves internal decision-making processes but also fosters a collaborative and adaptive educational environment, essential for maintaining high standards in an increasingly competitive academic landscape. Furthermore, these insights offer practical guidance for leadership development programmes, contributing to the long-term sustainability and growth of educational institutions.
2. Literature Review
The role of leadership in educational management has gained considerable attention in academic research due to its direct influence on educational quality and institutional outcomes. Several studies have highlighted the critical role that educational managers play in fostering a positive learning environment, improving student performance, and ensuring institutional efficiency. This section delves into the concepts of educational quality, leadership styles, and the Enneagram as a tool for understanding the personality traits of educational leaders, drawing on a wide range of academic literature.
2.1 Profile of Educational Managers
Educational management in higher education institutions (HEIs) aims to ensure organisational success through effectiveness, efficiency, quality, governance, and social responsibility. This managerial profile requires strategic and operational skills to manage both resources and interpersonal relationships within and outside the institution. Effectiveness refers to achieving objectives in teaching, research, and university extension, while efficiency involves the proper use of resources. Social responsibility seeks a lasting community impact through education and sustainable practices (Méndez-Quintero, 2012).
Management in HEIs faces challenges that demand autonomy and adaptability. Han (2024) emphasises the importance of institutions having decision-making autonomy to react to changes and adopt new technologies and educational methods. Koul (2021) highlights that leadership competency profiles must align with organisational goals and foster a culture of continuous improvement. Loumpourdi (2021) adds that HEIs must lead innovation, both technological and pedagogical, to create creative and critical thinking environments.
Chadwick (2023) argues that a harmonious work environment is essential for institutional performance, while Benavides (2022) describes managerial competencies as behaviours that improve the management of financial, technological, and human resources. Gómez-Rojas (2015) stresses the importance of interpersonal and communication skills for effective teamwork.
Developing competencies is essential to face changes in the educational environment, and Koul (2021) notes that these go beyond technical knowledge, incorporating the ability to mobilise personal resources. Calle (2019) classifies competencies into academic, administrative, communicative, and human-social areas, which facilitates their development for organisational success.
Méndez (2022) defines educational management as a scientific discipline and social praxis aimed at achieving organisational success through high-quality academic and research processes. Bustos and Lozano (2023) propose an emerging managerial model based on epistemological, axiological, strategic, and technological dimensions, allowing educational managers to optimise institutional actions. The profile of an educational manager combines technical, interpersonal, and strategic competencies to successfully lead institutions, ensuring educational quality and fostering a culture of continuous improvement (Koul, 2021; Calle, 2019).
The profile of educational managers in higher education institutions requires a combination of technical, interpersonal, and strategic competencies, enabling these leaders to effectively manage both internal and external resources and relationships. Managers must be capable of adapting to a dynamic educational environment, using their autonomy to implement technological and pedagogical innovations that drive institutional growth. Creating a harmonious work environment, supported by open communication and a culture of continuous improvement, is essential for organisational success. This comprehensive approach ensures that educational management not only focuses on operational efficiency but also on long-term social impact and sustainability, which are key to achieving the institution’s academic and social responsibility goals.
2.2 Leadership and Educational Leadership
Leadership, along with management, is a complex process that needs to be monitored and evaluated to ensure the fulfilment of established objectives. Lara and Hernandez-Ortega (2021) define management as a key factor for the development of individuals and, consequently, organisations. They argue that the participation of all educational actors is essential, and for this purpose, it is necessary to establish indicators that evaluate the institution in all its areas. This process involves consolidating a competency profile centred on leadership, integrating personal, professional, and occupational aspects.
Educational leadership is particularly relevant in organisational settings, where educational managers plan, direct, and control activities related to curricular design (Daniels, 2019). Additionally, Arvey (2006) emphasises that an educational leader should foster synergy among team members, enhancing individual efforts to maximise results. In this context, educational leadership is not just about decision-making but also about managing teaching and learning with effectiveness and efficiency, involving the entire educational community.
Some authors, such as Soto (2019), believe that the leadership of the educational manager should have a distributed, integrative, and motivating approach, fostering self-regulation and proactivity throughout the community. In a rapidly changing educational environment, teachers must also take on leadership roles to face new challenges. Velez (2019) highlights that the ability to observe and harness the diversity of the team is key to its success.
Moreover, Ruiz Corbella (2013) argues that educational leadership has the potential to be a solution to many of the problems faced by institutions, as it involves motivating and encouraging all members of the educational community to actively participate in the improvement process. This includes the educational manager’s ability to create a collaborative environment where each teacher assumes a leadership role, guided by a manager who coordinates efforts towards new educational scenarios. Ghorbani (2023) emphasises that teacher leadership should not only inspire and communicate but also transform individuals and groups. According to Senge, all teachers should be leaders in the classroom to improve both their own experiences and those of their students, contributing to higher-quality education. Educational leadership involves the effective management of human and material resources to achieve institutional goals.
The classification of leadership styles includes several proposals. Kurt Lewin distinguishes between authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership. Authoritarian leadership concentrates power and decision-making in the leader, while democratic leadership encourages the participation of all group members (Murillo, 2021; Pacheco, 2023). Likert classifies leadership styles into four systems: exploitative-authoritarian, benevolent-authoritarian, consultative, and participative, which helps leaders adapt their approach (Likert, 1967). Bass introduces the concepts of transformational leadership, which motivates and inspires followers and transactional leadership, based on the exchange of rewards (Bass, 1988). These styles influence organisational dynamics, group cohesion, and motivation in the educational community (Pérez-Ortega, 2017).
2.3 Quality in Education
Several authors have addressed key factors that influence educational quality, including workplace climate, teacher satisfaction, the integration of technology, and effective quality management. Their studies highlight the importance of a continuous improvement approach that encompasses leadership, strategic planning, and the use of quality indicators.
Workplace climate and teacher satisfaction are key factors directly influencing educational quality. A positive work environment leads to greater commitment and performance from educators, which positively impacts student learning (Zhao, 2024). The integration of new technologies in education also significantly improves educational quality by facilitating access to innovative resources and promoting more interactive and personalised teaching methods (Camisón, 2009).
Quality management (QM) in higher education is a continuous process aimed at improving standards and fulfilling institutional missions (González, 2018). This involves strategic planning, monitoring systems, and the cultural changes necessary for ongoing improvement (Camisón, 2009). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for flexibility and adaptability in QM, revealing challenges like digital divides and unequal learning opportunities (Stracke, 2022).
Effective QM requires the use of quality indicators and strategic planning to measure performance and guide decision-making. This includes evaluating not just standardised test results but also student and teacher satisfaction, curriculum relevance, and social impact (Priyambodo, 2021). Leadership plays a crucial role in promoting educational quality, as strong educational leadership is associated with better school performance and student outcomes (Li, 2022).
2.4 Enneagram
The Enneagram is a tool that identifies nine personality types, or enneatypes, used to understand patterns of behaviour, thought, and emotion that develop from childhood. According to Medina (2024), these types are not pure but a combination of several that arise depending on the situation. The Enneagram has its roots in ancient Sufi teachings and has been modernised by authors like Claudio Naranjo.
The nine enneatypes include the Reformer, who is moral, self-disciplined, and can be intolerant in unhealthy situations; the Helper, empathetic and compassionate, though sometimes manipulative; the Achiever, confident and a natural leader, but focused on success; the Individualist, introspective and creative, but prone to isolation; the Investigator, analytical and reserved, but can become distant; the Loyalist, trustworthy and committed, though emotionally ambivalent at times; the Enthusiast, outgoing and spontaneous, but sometimes superficial; the Challenger, assertive and authoritative, but potentially oppressive; and finally, the Peacemaker, calm and receptive, though prone to avoiding conflicts.
This tool has found applications in organisational and educational development, facilitating team management, conflict resolution, and personalised leadership. According to Brown (2023), the Enneagram is particularly useful in educational management, allowing for a better understanding of the personality profiles of teachers and students, which helps implement more effective leadership strategies. It also promotes self-awareness, which is key to improving communication and interpersonal relationships within institutions (Karaduman, 2024).
Neuroscience has supported its effectiveness in improving the work and educational environment, highlighting how it fosters teamwork and empathy (Plank, 2021). The Enneagram is a valuable tool that not only aids in personal and professional development but also optimises human resource management and enhances educational quality in institutions.
3. Methodology
Based on the gaps identified in the literature and the relevance of understanding the internal traits of educational leaders, this study aims to explore the connection between personality profiles, leadership styles, and institutional quality in a higher education context.
General Objective
To correlate the characteristics of leadership and the personality profile of educational managers with the quality indicators of the institution, using the Enneagram model as a framework for understanding personality.
Specific Objectives
To describe the predominant leadership style of the educational manager.
To identify the personality profile of the educational manager based on the Enneagram.
To analyse the relationship between the Enneagram-based personality profile and the manager’s leadership style.
To examine the correlation between leadership style and institutional quality indicators.
Research Questions
What is the predominant leadership style of educational managers?
What is the personality profile of educational managers according to the Enneagram model?
Is there a correlation between the personality profile (based on the Enneagram) and the leadership style of educational managers?
Is there a correlation between the leadership style of educational managers and the institutional quality parameters?
The methodology of this research followed a quantitative approach with a descriptive and correlational design, focused on studying the profile of the educational manager of the Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, in the city of Durango, Durango, Mexico for the year 2023 and its relationship with educational quality, using the Enneagram and leadership styles as analysis tools. The study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango (UJED), located in the city of Durango, Mexico. This institution was selected due to its organisational complexity, its long-standing trajectory in academic and healthcare training, and the diversity of its academic and administrative staff, which provided an ideal setting for observing leadership dynamics in a real-world higher education environment. The decision to focus on this setting also responds to a noted gap in the literature: the limited application of the Enneagram as a framework for leadership analysis in Latin American university contexts. Most existing studies have explored traditional leadership theories, but few have examined how personality typologies interact with educational quality indicators in public universities with social responsibility mandates. This study offers a novel contribution by applying a personality-based model (the Enneagram) to leadership assessment, generating results that not only benefit local institutional management but also serve as a valuable reference for other emerging academic systems, where leadership development is essential to improving higher education outcomes. This approach was selected for its objectivity and neutrality in data collection and analysis. The instrument used in this study was specifically designed by the authors and structured to comprehensively assess the variables under analysis. It consisted of a total of 127 items, organised into three distinct sections, each corresponding to one of the study’s central variables: the educational manager’s profile, their leadership style, and educational quality. The first section focused on evaluating the educational manager’s profile, including items related to training, competencies, and management practices. The second section explored the perceived leadership style, integrating items based on established leadership typologies. The third section measured aspects of educational quality, using indicators such as student satisfaction, institutional reputation, academic achievement, and innovation capacity.
This comprehensive instrument was applied via Google Forms to the three target groups (students, professors, and administrative staff). The internal consistency of the complete instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, resulting in a value of 0.98, which indicates excellent internal reliability across the full set of items. A numerical rating from 1 to 100 was assigned to each item to enable statistical analysis. A score of 1 indicates the absence or minimal presence of the characteristic evaluated in the question as perceived in the educational manager, while a score of 100 reflects the perception that the characteristic was fully present or clearly observed in the manager’s behaviour or performance. The study variables were divided into two types: the independent variable, which included the profile of educational managers, the Enneagram, and leadership styles; and the dependent variable, which was educational quality. Quality was evaluated through indicators such as student satisfaction, academic performance, and general perception of educational quality.
The study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad Juárez in the State of Durango in the city of Durango, Durango, Mexico. The sample size calculation was performed using stratified random sampling (SRS), ensuring that the sample adequately represented the different subpopulations of interest. Pre-validated structured surveys were employed, and the selection of study subjects ensured the representativeness of the results. The confidence level was set at 95%, with a margin of error of 5%, ensuring the reliability and validity of the obtained results.
The chosen research design is particularly relevant for university administrators, policymakers, and educators seeking data-driven insights to enhance institutional quality. By employing a quantitative approach with a descriptive and correlational design, this study provides empirical evidence on the impact of leadership styles and personality traits on educational quality. These findings can inform decision-making processes, guide leadership training programmes, and support policy development aimed at improving academic outcomes and institutional management. Additionally, the results offer valuable insights for faculty members and students, as understanding leadership dynamics contributes to fostering a more effective and collaborative educational environment. Data collection was carried out through the online application of the instrument via Google Forms, a platform that allowed broad accessibility and simultaneous participation from the three target groups: students, professors, and administrative staff. The link to the questionnaire was distributed using the investigator´s official communication channels. Prior to its distribution, participants were informed of the study’s objectives and assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The data collection process was conducted over a four-week period, ensuring adequate time for participation and follow-up reminders. The responses were automatically compiled in a protected database, which was then exported to Microsoft Excel and later processed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26) for data cleaning, coding, and analysis. For the analysis, descriptive statistics were first used to summarise the central tendencies and dispersion of each item. To examine differences between groups (students, professors, and administrative staff), inferential statistics were applied using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Student’s t-test for independent samples, depending on the number of groups compared. The assumption of normality was previously verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Additionally, the internal consistency of the instrument was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, while Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationships between variables, particularly between personality profiles, leadership characteristics, and educational quality indicators.
4. Results and Discussions
Within inferential statistics, a comparative analysis was conducted. For this purpose, the data obtained were subjected to a normality test, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The results showed that the population under analysis follows a parametric behaviour, which made it appropriate to use Student’s t-test for independent samples and ANOVA where necessary.
| Enneatypes attitudes | Students (n=139) | Professor (n=12) | Administrative staff (n=10) | P |
| Enthusiastic, optimistic, skilled, and impulsive | 71.51 ± 34.51 | 65.00 ± 19.30 | 77.00 ± 19.46 | 0.691* |
| Challenger, confident, determined, and dominant | 71.19 ± 34.04 | 61.33 ± 24.18 | 88.00 ± 12.29 | 0.157* |
| Achiever, adaptable, ambitious, image-conscious | 74.33 ± 33.06 | 58.83 ± 25.04 | 84.00 ± 11.65 | 0.157* |
| Peacemaker, receptive, reassuring, compliant. | 69.53 ± 34.74 | 55.00 ± 24.68 | 61.90 ± 16.07 | 0.296* |
| Individualist, intuitive, self-absorbed | 57.52 ± 36.54 | 61.67 ± 26.91 | 69.00 ± 15.23 | 0.577* |
| Investigator, perceptive, innovative, and objective | 72.15 ± 33.89 | 56.67 ± 21.88 | 68.00 ± 13.16 | 0.275* |
| Helper, humanitarian, generous, and possessive | 69.27 ± 33.81 | 55.42 ± 23.49 | 61.00 ± 15.23 | 0.292* |
| Loyal, charming, responsible, and defensive | 71.58 ± 34.01 | 67.50 ± 16.02 | 61.00 ± 15.23 | 0.572* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled | 73.27 ± 33.27 | 69.17 ± 12.40 | 65.90 ± 15.60 | 0.720* |
*ANOVA
Table 1. Comparative analysis of the attitudes exhibited by the leader according to each enneatype as perceived by the three groups
In this table, we can observe the comparison of the means of attitudes exhibited by the educational leader in the three groups studied: students, teachers, and administrative staff. An ANOVA test was applied, and we can see that there are no statistically significant differences in any of the nine attitudes corresponding to each of the enneatypes. This suggests that all three groups perceive the educational manager’s exhibition of various attitudes in a similar way.
| Characteristics of the educational manager | Students (n=139) | Professor (n=12) | Administrative staff (n=10) | P |
| Has professional training | 78.29 ± 31.38 | 65.42 ± 22.30 | 78.00 ± 9.18 | 0.363* |
| Has the ability to design strategies to improve educational quality | 66.29 ± 36.00 | 56.67 ± 21.88 | 67.80 ± 11.13 | 0.634* |
| Has the ability to plan strategies to improve educational quality | 67.59 ± 36.07 | 56.67 ± 21.03 | 66.00 ± 8.43 | 0.570* |
| Has the ability to analyse strategies to improve educational quality | 66.55 ± 36.12 | 58.33 ± 18.99 | 68.00 ± 11.35 | 0.715* |
| Has the ability to execute strategies to improve educational quality | 64.05 ± 37.43 | 65.83 ± 17.29 | 68.60 ± 10.83 | 0.917* |
| Has the ability to evaluate strategies to improve educational quality | 63.46 ± 37.04 | 64.17 ± 16.76 | 63.50 ± 19.15 | 0.998* |
| Has the ability to monitor improvements | 65.44 ± 35.87 | 59.17 ± 22.34 | 63.60 ± 19.31 | 0.826* |
| Ability to establish communication channels | 62.24 ± 37.95 | 57.50 ± 22.61 | 56.50 ± 20.55 | 0.822* |
| Believes in inclusive education | 65.81 ± 37.03 | 58.33 ± 19.92 | 57.90 ± 10.20 | 0.635* |
| Is inclusive | 64.00 ± 37.72 | 59.00 ± 25.10 | 61.00 ± 9.94 | 0.877* |
| Team work | 69.27 ± 34.49 | 63.33 ± 21.46 | 59.00 ± 12.86 | 0.552* |
| Encourages students good performance | 62.65 ±37.87 | 65.00 ± 19.30 | 63.00 ± 14.18 | 0.977* |
| Highlights students good performance | 61.69 ± 37.89 | 60.83 ± 21.93 | 62.00 ± 13.16 | 0.996* |
| Encourages the good performance of the faculty’s professors | 61.31 ± 36.81 | 59.17 ± 24.66 | 59.00 ± 15.23 | 0.963* |
| Highlights the good performance of the faculty’s professors | 62.42 ± 36.02 | 54.17 ± 28.43 | 57.00 ± 14.94 | 0.670* |
| Encourages the good performance of the administrative staff | 63.28 ± 35.86 | 40.83 ± 28.74 | 57.00 ± 14.94 | 0.093* |
| Generates participation | 61.81 ± 36.65 | 45.83 ± 23.14 | 55.00 ± 15.81 | 0.284* |
| Mediates in conflict situations | 61.61 ± 36.36 | 51.67 ± 19.92 | 56.00 ± 8.43 | 0.577* |
| Makes decisions | 67.47 ± 34.36 | 55.83 ± 20.20 | 59.00 ± 11.97 | 0.389* |
| Implements actions | 65.19 ± 35.39 | 50.00 ± 26.62 | 61.00 ± 14.49 | 0.323* |
| Verifies task completion by the staff | 64.17 ± 34.63 | 52.50 ± 23.78 | 59.00 ± 17.28 | 0.471* |
| Delegates responsibilities to their team | 69.72 ± 34.16 | 62.50 ± 21.79 | 68.00 ± 13.16 | 0.759* |
| Leads innovative strategies | 61.56 ± 36.89 | 61.67 ± 17.49 | 65.50 ± 13.42 | 0.942* |
| Implements innovative strategies | 61.04 ± 37.04 | 55.00 ± 16.78 | 67.00 ± 14.75 | 0.725* |
| University manager is proactive | 62.73 ± 36.44 | 42.92 ± 23.78 | 64.20 ± 8.14 | 0.163* |
| University manager is flexible | 58.69 ± 37.37 | 53.33 ± 21.46 | 60.50 ± 15.71 | 0.866* |
| University manager is committed | 65.17 ± 35.66 | 55.00 ± 26.79 | 62.50 ± 12.30 | 0.606* |
| University manager is organised | 66.40 ± 35.92 | 65.83 ± 21.93 | 63.00 ± 13.37 | 0.955* |
| University manager has management skills | 65.60 ± 35.58 | 57.50 ± 26.67 | 61.00 ± 12.86 | 0.689* |
| Is capable of leading strategic direction | 66.42 ± 35.22 | 53.75 ± 27.56 | 62.50 ± 8.58 | 0.446* |
| Is capable of establishing an institutional vision | 68.09 ± 34.11 | 57.50 ± 22.20 | 61.00 ± 7.37 | 0.469* |
| Is capable of maintaining a harmonious school climate | 67.09 ± 35.19 | 55.83 ± 25.39 | 63.00 ± 12.73 | 0.518* |
| Is capable of establishing productive relationships with their environment | 68.24 ± 34.01 | 63.33 ± 21.88 | 62.50 ± 9.78 | 0.776* |
| Has a strategic vision | 67.01 ± 35.05 | 70.83 ± 17.81 | 70.30 ± 11.96 | 0.895* |
| Knows academic processes | 66.14 ± 34.74 | 61.67 ± 25.16 | 64.10 ± 16.44 | 0.895* |
| Knows administrative processes | 67.28 ± 34.31 | 54.17 ± 25.03 | 61.10 ± 10.15 | 0.372* |
| Promotes institutional belonging | 66.97 ± 36.69 | 49.17 ± 23.14 | 63.50 ± 7.94 | 0.219* |
| Encourages educational evolution | 66.53 ± 36.09 | 51.67 ± 22.49 | 65.30 ± 7.94 | 0.337* |
| Manages the work productivity of their employees | 65.99 ± 34.12 | 60.00 ± 20.88 | 59.50 ± 13.00 | 0.707* |
| Manages the professional development of their employees | 67.37 ± 34.13 | 55.00 ± 19.77 | 61.00 ± 15.23 | 0.401* |
| Has environmental responsibility | 65.66 ± 35.54 | 46.67 ± 21.46 | 62.00 ± 13.98 | 0.560* |
| Fosters the linkage between the institution and society | 66.31 ± 34.02 | 47.50 ± 28.64 | 59.00 ± 11.97 | 0.117* |
| Designs internationalisation policies | 67.29 ± 33.18 | 51.67 ± 24.80 | 64.00 ± 14.29 | 0.124* |
| Promotes the use of new technologies | 65.18 ± 34.30 | 53.33 ± 19.69 | 62.00 ± 11.35 | 0.546* |
| Complements with the qualities of the members of their team | 64.29 ± 35.04 | 60.00 ± 12.79 | 64.00 ± 11.73 | 0.773* |
*ANOVA
Table 2. Comparative analysis of the characteristics of the educational manager’s profile according to the three groups: students, teachers, and administrative staff
We observe the various characteristics that make up the educational manager’s profile. The means of the three surveyed groups are compared, with no statistically significant differences observed. This indicates that all three groups perceive the characteristics of the evaluated educational manager’s profile in a similar way. The only variable where there is a tendency toward statistical significance regarding the characteristics of the educational manager’s profile was in “Encourages the good performance of the administrative staff,” where the teachers group rated that the leader exhibits this characteristic to a lesser extent compared to the perceptions of the other two groups.
| Leadership characteristics | Students (n=139) | Professor (n=12) | Administrative staff (n=10) | P |
| Bases their leadership on authoritarianism | 59.09 ± 35.72 | 60.83 ± 20.20 | 71.00 ± 11.00 | 0.562* |
| Bases their leadership on identification with the group and their expertise | 62.27 ± 34.55 | 53.53 ± 20.15 | 63.00 ± 10.59 | 0.659* |
| It is perceived that the future is uncertain, as only the leader decides and it is never clear what will happen next. | 49.27 ± 37.56 | 60.00 ± 22.96 | 67.50 ± 14.76 | 0.205* |
| The leader does not usually participate in immediate work unless they need to teach how to do something; instead, they mainly give orders and organise. | 50.12 ± 38.09 | 73.33 ± 16.69 | 72.50 ± 10.86 | 0.024* |
| The leader usually decides the tasks that each member will perform and the colleagues that each of them will have to collaborate with. | 60.41 ± 34.76 | 50.00 ± 29.23 | 60.50 ± 10.12 | 0.585* |
| The leader tends to be very personal, sometimes arbitrary in their praise and criticism of group members, and seeks to reinforce their authority. | 54.46 ± 36.43 | 66.67 ± 27.08 | 68.50 ± 11.55 | 0.267* |
| The educational manager stimulates discussion and decision-making within the group. | 64.95 ± 34.64 | 56.67 ± 20.59 | 55.50 ± 10.12 | 0.506* |
| It is perceived that there is a future perspective arising from the groups confrontation to make decisions; in other words, the leader, in case of doubt, tends to propose possible alternatives to help them gain clarity. | 65.50 ± 34.32 | 55.83 ± 21.08 | 66.50 ± 13.75 | 0.610* |
| The leader in the workplace acts as “a member of the group” The task of organisation takes them time and energy, and their difficulty in organising is evident. | 54.39 ± 37.80 | 64.17 ± 22.34 | 62.50 ± 15.85 | 0.549* |
| The leader allows members considerable freedom to choose the tasks they will undertake and the colleagues they will collaborate with. | 63.95 ± 33.69 | 52.50 ± 28.95 | 58.50 ± 10.01 | 0.461* |
| The leader is very objective when praising and recognising or criticising and reprimanding. | 64.86 ± 34.40 | 55.83 ± 23.53 | 50.50 ± 14.23 | 0.298* |
| The educational manager does not exercise any leadership. | 46.66 ± 38.44 | 55.83 ± 23.14 | 61.00 ± 9.94 | 0.370* |
| The educational manager grants total freedom for personal decision-making, intervening only in extreme cases. | 51.97 ± 36.65 | 57.50 ± 20.50 | 66.60 ± 13.82 | 0.402* |
| The leader “is available” and would provide information, materials, or their opinion “if necessary,” but does not intervene on their own initiative; in other words, the future is uncertain. | 56.10 ± 36.95 | 60.83 ± 22.34 | 55.50 ± 10.12 | 0.901* |
| The leader often adopts the behaviour of someone who works, acting like “one of the team.” | 56.53 ± 35.04 | 55.83 ± 21.08 | 61.50 ± 14.91 | 0.897* |
| The leader does not intervene by specifying each person’s tasks; they have a passive attitude of “let everyone manage on their own.” | 47.69 ± 37.58 | 55.83 ± 27.78 | 63.50 ± 15.28 | 0.332* |
| The leader spontaneously comments on the performance of group members, without trying to evaluate or regulate. | 54.96 ± 35.71 | 59.17 ± 26.44 | 60.50 ± 12.12 | 0.826* |
*ANOVA
Table 3. Comparative analysis of the leadership styles of the educational manager according to the three groups: students, teachers, and administrative staff
In the present table, we can observe a comparative analysis of the characteristics that describe each of the leadership styles across the three surveyed groups. It was found that there are characteristics that show statistically significant differences; this characteristic is: the leader does not usually participate in immediate work unless they need to teach how to do something; instead, they primarily give orders and organise. The group that perceives this characteristic to a lesser extent is the students’ group, whose mean deviates by more than twenty points from the means obtained by the other two groups (teachers and administrative staff).
| Quality items | Students (n=139) | Professor (n=12) | Administrative staff (n=10) | P |
| There is meaningful learning in the faculty. | 68.34 ± 32.46 | 74.17 ± 11.64 | 69.50 ± 8.96 | 0.816* |
| The relationships between the faculty and its context are harmonious. | 66.50 ± 32.75 | 68.33 ± 20.37 | 64.50 ± 10.69 | 0.960* |
| The faculty has gained a good reputation or prestige. | 64.70 ± 33.56 | 65.00 ± 21.95 | 65.50 ± 9.56 | 0.997* |
| There is concern about how the student is changing, demonstrating better and greater competencies. | 64.63 ± 33.42 | 63.33 ± 27.41 | 61.50 ± 8.83 | 0.951* |
| There is concern about the system of rules and operations that make up the educational process on the part of the faculty. | 68.55 ± 33.07 | 70.00 ± 22.15 | 66.50 ± 6.68 | 0.967* |
| There is concern about the satisfaction felt by stakeholders regarding the changes in the quality of the students. | 62.37 ± 35.18 | 66.67 ± 23.86 | 61.50 ± 10.01 | 0.908* |
| There is creativity in solving both large and small problems on the part of the faculty. | 60.76 ± 34.52 | 57.50 ± 28.00 | 62.50 ± 9.78 | 0.932* |
| There is the capacity for work and perseverance in facing the challenges of the context. | 65.42 ± 33.07 | 64.17 ± 23.91 | 63.00 ± 13.37 | 0.967* |
| The most disadvantaged have the same opportunities to develop their potential. | 61.04 ± 35.94 | 71.67 ± 19.92 | 69.00 ± 15.23 | 0.481* |
*ANOVA
Table 4. Comparative analysis of educational quality according to the three groups: students, teachers, and administrative staff
We can observe a comparative analysis of the variables related to educational quality, where it is noted that there are no statistically significant differences in perceptions among the three surveyed groups.
| Leadership characteristics | Women (n= 103) | Men (n=58) | P |
| Has the ability to plan strategies to improve educational quality. | 63.19 ± 36.23 | 72.86 ± 29.34 | 0.084* |
| Has the ability to analyse strategies to improve educational quality. | 62.24 ± 36.11 | 72.74 ± 29.29 | 0.061* |
| Has the ability to evaluate strategies to improve educational quality. | 59.86 ± 36.83 | 70.00 ± 30.64 | 0.077* |
| Highlights the good performance of the students. | 57.88 ± 36.52 | 68.33 ± 33.76 | 0.075* |
| Encourages the good performance of the faculty’s professors. | 56.36 ± 36.17 | 69.26 ± 31.42 | 0.024* |
| Leads innovative strategies. | 58.01 ± 36.40 | 68.57 ± 30.66 | 0.064* |
| University manager is committed. | 60.75 ± 34.79 | 70.45 ± 32.17 | 0.083* |
| Knows academic processes. | 61.36 ± 35.02 | 73.24 ± 28.35 | 0.027* |
| Knows administrative processes. | 62.07 ± 34.15 | 72.76 ± 29.37 | 0.047* |
| Motivates educational evolution. | 61.42 ± 34.64 | 72.33 ± 30.12 | 0.046* |
| Manages the work productivity of their employees. | 61.19 ± 33.92 | 72.14 ± 28.39 | 0.039* |
| Manages the professional development of their employees. | 62.51 ± 33.93 | 72.33 ± 29.40 | 0.067* |
| Has environmental responsibility. | 60.62 ± 35.30 | 71.78 ± 29.60 | 0.043* |
| Fosters the linkage between the institution and society. | 60.30 ± 34.12 | 71.66 ± 28.75 | 0.034* |
| Designs internationalisation policies. | 62.01 ± 33.12 | 72.02 ± 30.05 | 0.059* |
*Student’s t-test for independent samples
Table 5. Comparative analysis of the characteristics of the educational manager’s profile according to men and women
In this table, we observe a comparative analysis conducted with a student’s t-test for independent samples, this time performed on the population divided by sex, regardless of whether they were students, teachers, or administrative staff. It can be seen that there are statistically significant differences in several variables: The educational manager encourages the good performance of the faculty’s professors, which is perceived more frequently by the male respondents. Another variable is that the educational manager knows the academic processes, a characteristic perceived to a greater extent by the male population, similar to what was observed in the variable that pertains to knowing administrative processes. There are three other variables where notable statistical significance is also observed, in which the male population more frequently perceives the following profile characteristics: motivates educational evolution, manages the work productivity of their employees, and fosters the linkage between the institution and society. All the other variables that make up the educational manager’s profile tend to show statistical significance, while the others that were omitted from the table do not present any statistical significance.
| Correlation | P | |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and fear of lacking identity, of not being important (enneagram). | 0.331 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and desire to be happy (enneagram). | 0.695 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and imposing, strong, frank, resourceful, action-oriented, tenacious, robust, independent (enneagram). | 0.704 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and professional preparation (Profile of the educational manager). | 0.712 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and has the ability to implement strategies to improve educational quality (Profile of the educational manager). | 0.676 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and the leader does not usually participate in immediate work unless they need to teach how to do something; instead, they primarily give orders and organise (Leadership). | 0.359 | 0.000* |
| Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled (enneagram) and the leader tends to be very personal, sometimes arbitrary in their praise and criticism of the group members, and attempts to reinforce their authority (Leadership). | 0.439 | 0.000* |
| The leader tends to be very personal, sometimes arbitrary in their praise and criticism of the group members, and attempts to reinforce their authority (Leadership), while the relationships between the faculty and its context are harmonious (Quality item). | 0.564 | 0.000* |
*Pearson correlation
Table 6. Correlations between personality profile, leadership styles, and educational quality
The Pearson correlation test was conducted using various variables: Enneagram, characteristics of the educational manager’s profile, leadership styles, and quality items, to observe whether there was a correlation among them. The table includes the correlations that were statistically significant, with some showing a strong correlation, such as “Reformer, rational, principled, and self-controlled” (Enneagram) and “professional preparation” (Profile of the educational manager). However, some others, while statistically significant, have a low correlation, indicating that within that correlation, there is a high dispersion of the different perceptions.
For students, the leadership of the educational manager is perceived as a figure that proposes alternatives and helps clarify decisions in situations of doubt. This style aligns with transformational leadership, where the leader inspires and motivates their followers by promoting creativity and a future vision (Lituma, 2024). On the other hand, teachers and administrative staff perceive the leader as someone who organises and commands, which corresponds more to transactional leadership. This type of leadership can be effective in contexts that require clarity in roles and a solid organisational structure (Seeger, 2020), although it can limit autonomy and innovation (Hulpia, Devos, & Van Keer, 2010). The differentiation in the perception of the educational manager’s leadership style among different groups is consistent with situational leadership theory (Hersey, 2012).
The perception of students and teachers regarding the image of the university manager includes characteristics such as being imposing, strong, frank, resourceful, action-oriented, tenacious, robust, and independent. Meanwhile, administrative staff highlight characteristics such as being admirable, desirable, attractive, outstanding, balanced, and effective. All groups agree on the importance of the educational manager’s professional preparation.
The findings of this research are consistent with previous studies that found a positive correlation between the professional training of educational leaders and their effectiveness in management (Alayoubi, 2020).
Although authoritarian leadership often has negative effects, in certain contexts it may be necessary to maintain order and harmony (Chiang, 2021). Conversely, professional preparation is closely linked to a positive institutional reputation (Day, 2020).
5. Conclusions
This research analysed the leadership profile of educational managers and its relationship with institutional quality, highlighting the value of flexible and adaptive leadership in academic environments. The results showed a general coherence in leadership perception among students, teachers, and administrative staff, although each group emphasised different traits. Students valued participatory leadership and the capacity to foster discussion, while teachers and administrative staff viewed the manager more as a distant organisational figure, indicating a need for more direct interaction and collaboration.
The application of the Enneagram revealed contrasting perceptions: students identified the manager as a high achiever, teachers as a reformer, and administrative staff as a challenger. These findings support the relevance of situational leadership theory, suggesting that effective leadership may depend on aligning with the expectations of different institutional actors.
An emerging observation, not originally included in the study objectives, was the difference in leadership perception based on gender. This aspect opens a potential line of inquiry into how gender influences the expectations and evaluations of leadership in higher education.
Additionally, a significant correlation was found between the manager’s professional preparation and perceived institutional quality. This underscores the importance of strengthening educational leaders’ competencies, particularly in strategic vision and interpersonal relationships, to improve institutional performance.
Understanding leadership profiles through the Enneagram provides a useful framework for developing targeted strategies that enhance collaboration, decision-making, and educational outcomes. These findings can guide the design of leadership training programmes and contribute to more effective academic management practices.
While this study offers relevant insights, it was limited to a single institution, which may affect the generalisability of the results. Future research should broaden the sample to include institutions from different regions or countries. Moreover, incorporating other personality assessment models may enrich our understanding of leadership effectiveness, especially when considering gender-related perceptions and their implications for institutional development and policy.
About the Authors
Adriana Elizabeth Ricartti
Facultad de Medicina y Nutrición, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, México
adriana.e.ricartti.v@gmail.com
Erik Iván Hernández-Cosain
Facultad de Medicina y Nutrición, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, México
Marko Antonio González-Preza
Facultad de Medicina y Nutrición, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, México
Imelda Shahar Bujanda-Celis
Instituto de Investigación Científica, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, México
References
Alayoubi, M. M., Al Shobaki, M. J., & Abu-Naser, S. S. (2020). Strategic leadership practices and their relationship to improving the quality of educational service in Palestinian Universities. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM), 5(3), pp. 11-26.
Arvey, R., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy:genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 1–20.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.
Benavides, C., & Ruíz, A. (2022). El pensamiento crítico en el ámbito educativo: una revisión sistemática. Revista Innova Educación, 4(2), pp. 62-79. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2022.02.004.en.
Brown, S. (2023). Studying Communication Competence Level and the Enneagram Type. Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East, 5(1).
Bustos, D. A. S., & Lozano, H. L. B. (2023). Perfil del gerente educativo contemporáneo. Revista Honoris causa, 15(1), pp. 110-125.
Calle, V. (2024). Competencias del gerente educativo en instituciones educativas de Riohacha, Colombia. Telos: Revista De Estudios Interdisciplinarios En Ciencias Sociales, 21(3), pp. 564-590. https://doi.org/10.36390/telos213.05.
Camisón, C., Boronat-Navarro, M., Villar López, A., & Puig-Denia, A. (2009). Sistemas de gestión de la calidad y desempeño: importancia de las prácticas de gestión del conocimiento y de I+ D.
Chadwick, A., Lozano-Rodríguez, E., Palacios-Lleras, A., & Solana, J. (2023). Markets, Constitutions, and Inequality. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Chiang, J. T. J., Chen, X. P., Liu, H., Akutsu, S., & Wang, Z. (2021). We have emotions but can’t show them! Authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Human Relations, 74(7), pp. 1082-1111.
Corbella, M. R. (2014). Liderazgo y responsabilidad educativa: El necesario liderazgo de directores y profesores de la Educación. Revista Fuentes, (14), pp. 85-104.
da Silva Vaz, S. H., Vasconcelos, H. G., Prado, L. F. R., da Silva, G. T. G., Rezende, L. C., Guedes, G. F. R. B., & da Silveira, D. G. (2021). Eneagrama de personalidades no processo de gestão de pessoas. Brazilian Journal of Development, 7(1), pp. 1545-1565. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv7n1-106.
Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational research review, 27, pp. 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003.
Day, C., Sammons, P., & Gorgen, K. (2020). Successful School Leadership. Education development trust.
Ghorbani, A. (2023). A review of successful construction project managers’ competencies and leadership profile. Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 11(1), pp. 76-95.
Gómez-Rojas JP. (2015). Las competencias profesionales. Rev Mex Anest.;38(1), pp. 49-55.
González, R.. Rivera, S. (2018). Liderazgo educativo y su impacto en la calidad académica. Journal of Educational Leadership, 11(3), pp. 45-60. doi: 10.1027/JEL2018-113045.
Han, X., Xiao, S., Sheng, J., & Zhang, G. (2024). Enhancing efficiency and decision-making in higher education through intelligent commercial integration: Leveraging artificial intelligence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, pp. 1-37.
Hernández-Ortega, J., & Álvarez-Herrero, J. F. (2021). Gestión educativa del confinamiento por COVID-19: percepción del docente en España. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, (38), pp. 129-150. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.38.2021.29017.
Hersey, Blanchard, Johnson. (2012). Management of Organizational Behavior. In No Title (13th ed.). Pearson Benelux.
Hormaza Muñoz, Z., Intriago Plaza, J., Zambrano Montesdeoca, L., Palacios Paredes, E. (2022). Gerencia educativa en el contexto de educación superior: caso Ecuador. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 27(Especial 7), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.27.7.27.
Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), pp. 565-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.08.006.
Karaduman, P., Çetin, M. (2024). Teachers’ Enneagram Personality Types, Their Perceived Organizational Culture and Mediation Attitudes. Education Quarterly Reviews, 7(1).
Koul, R. B., Sheffield, R., McIlvenny, L., (2021). The Essential Twenty-First-Century Skill Set—Transversal Competencies. Teaching 21st Century Skills: Using STEM Makerspace, pp. 69-76.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4361-3_4.
Lara, C., Sánchez, B., & Fernández, F. (2024). Gestión Educativa y Liderazgo Escolar, factores de calidad en Educación. Revista Electrónica sobre Educación Media y Superior, 11(21).
Li, L., & Liu, Y. (2022). An integrated model of principal transformational leadership and teacher leadership that is related to teacher self-efficacy and student academic performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(4), pp. 661-678.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Linarez-Placencia, G., Espinoza-Castelo, L., Pimentel-Félix, A. (2019). Neurociencia y eneagrama: Reconfigurando los equipos de trabajo Neuroscience and enneagram: Reconfiguring work teams. Revista de Pedagogía, 3(8), pp. 6-16.
Lituma, M. E. Q., & Atiencie, G. Á. (2024). Estilos de liderazgo y mediación de la autoeficacia en la intención emprendedora social de jóvenes universitarios. Revista de ciencias sociales, 30(1), pp. 345-360.
Loumpourdi, M. (2021). A Critical Analysis of the European Reference Framework of Key Competences for Lifelong Learning: The Limitations of the Human Capital Theory. Scottish Educational Review, 53(1), pp. 83-104.
Medina Serrano, R. (2024). El Eneagrama y su Aplicación Práctica: Una Actualización de la Literatura a través de Entrevistas con Estudiantes Universitarios en Alemania. International Journal of Auditing and Teaching Practices, 2, pp. 25-43.
Méndez Quintero, E., (2012). Gerencia de las organizaciones educativas. Negotium, 8(23), pp. 202-226.
Mendoza, J. (2024). Liderazgo Directivo y Calidad Educativa. Revista Tecnológica-Educativa Docentes 2.0 (RTED), 17(1), pp. 320-329. https://doi.org/10.37843/rted.v17i1.480.
Murillo, J. (2021). Liderazgos escolares para la construcción de comunidades comprometidas con la justicia escolar. La educación en Red. Realidades diversas, horizontes comunes. XVII Congreso Nacional y IX Iberoamericano de Pedagogía.
Pacheco, J. J., Cruz, P. P., & Soto, M. A. (2023). Experiencias y valoración del profesorado respecto del liderazgo de docentes directivos. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7(4), pp. 3822-3848.
Pérez-Ortega, G., Jiménez-Valdés, G. L., & Romo-Morales, G. (2017). Caracterización del liderazgo transformacional de los directivos de instituciones de educación superior. Caso de estudio en una universidad del departamento de Antioquia (Colombia). Entramado, 13(1), pp. 48-61.
Plank, I. S., von Thienen, J. P. A., & Meinel, C. (2021). The neuroscience of empathy: research-overview and implications for human-centred design. Design Thinking Research: Translation, Prototyping, and Measurement, pp. 89-124.
Priyambodo, P., & Hasanah, E. (2021). Strategic planning in increasing quality of education. Nidhomul Haq: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, 6(1), pp. 109-126.
Sánchez, A. V. (2015). Importancia e impacto del liderazgo educativo. Padres y Maestros/Journal of Parents and Teachers, (361), 6-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.14422/pym.i361.y2015.001.
Seeger, D. W. (2020). Follower perception of leadership communication and leadership style significantly predicting follower job satisfaction among Ohio community college employees. Bowling Green State University.
Senge, P. (2007). La fuente de la quinta disciplina. Escuelas que aprenden. Sapiens, 8(2).
Soto, A. C., Torres, J. M. T., & Barboza, E. C. (2019). Liderazgo distribuido en los institutos de educación secundaria de Melilla, España. Revista de ciencias sociales, 25(3), pp. 42-58.
Stracke, C. M., Burgos, D., Santos-Hermosa, G., Bozkurt, A., Sharma, R. C., Swiatek Cassafieres, C., … & Truong, V. (2022). Responding to the initial challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of international responses and impact in school and higher education. Sustainability, 14(3), p. 1876.
Vélez Bernal, O., Beltrán Ríos, J., López Giraldo, J., Arias Vargas, F. (2019). Asociatividad empresarial y liderazgo ambidiestro como generadores de innovación. Revista de Ciencias sociales, 25(2), pp. 51-72.
Zhao, X., & Jeon, L. (2024). Examining the associations between teacher job satisfaction, workplace climate, and well-being resources within Head Start Programs. Early Education and Development, 35(5), pp. 933-949.
Gallery
