EDUD 733: Week 6

Leadership in Action: Lessons from Qualitative Research

This week’s deep dive into qualitative journals on leadership has been fascinating. What struck me most is the range of methods and insights qualitative research offers, especially when exploring how leadership shows up in real-world situations. From trauma rooms to classrooms, and even boardrooms influenced by darker personality traits, each study gave me something to reflect on, both personally and professionally.

Trauma, Teamwork, and Leadership-as-Practice

The first study that really resonated with me was An Ethnographic Study on Leadership-as-Practice in Trauma Simulation Training by Vuojärvi and Korva (2020). This one hit close to home. Nearly 24 years ago, I was in a severe car accident that required two emergency helicopter rides; one about 90 miles to the nearest trauma center, and another 120 miles beyond that. So, reading a study centered on trauma teams in hospitals helped me appreciate how vital teamwork and leadership are in those high-stakes moments.

Vuojärvi and Korva (2020) explored leadership through the lens of trauma simulations in a Finnish hospital, using an ethnographic, non-participant observation approach over 13 months. Their focus wasn’t on a single leader barking orders. Instead, they highlighted a Leadership-as-Practice model—leadership as a dynamic process that emerges through communication, collaboration, and real-time adaptation within a team. This perspective challenges the old-school heroic leadership models and instead paints leadership as something shared, responsive, and deeply embedded in the team’s culture.

The trauma teams consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, radiologists, nurses, and even a porter—all coming together briefly for 15–20 minute simulations in real trauma rooms. The research revealed three core patterns in how leadership emerged during these simulations:

1. Fluent cooperation guided by protocol

2. Breaches in protocol and how they were addressed

3. Adaptive changes to the protocol itself

Although the study wasn’t generalizable due to its ethnographic nature and unique hospital setting, it offered powerful insights. It reminded me that leadership is often most effective when it's fluid, responsive, and collective, not rigid or top-down.

AI and the Evolution of Teacher Leadership

The second study that drew me in was one that intersects with something I’m increasingly passionate about: artificial intelligence. Titled Exploring the Impact of AI on Teacher Leadership: Regressing or Expanding?, this article by Ghamrawi, Shal, and Ghamrawi (2024) investigates how AI is reshaping the educational landscape.

As someone who teaches life skills and coping strategies in my role as a Licensed Practitioner of the Healing Arts (LPHA), I deeply respect educators and the leadership they provide in shaping lives. This study used a phenomenological approach—seeking to understand teachers' lived experiences with AI—through semi-structured interviews with 13 participants from five Arab states.

Here’s the tension: AI has the potential to both empower and undermine teacher leadership. On one hand, it can streamline tasks and free up time for creativity and engagement. On the other, it can reduce autonomy and decision-making authority if algorithms start dictating too much.

A key takeaway from this research is the importance of technological literacy. Teachers who lacked training or experience with AI tended to perceive it as a threat. But when schools provided professional development and support, those same tools became assets rather than liabilities. The authors emphasize the need for long-term research to better understand how AI is reshaping teacher roles over time.

The sample size was small, and there’s a risk of bias in how the data was interpreted, but the insights are clear: AI doesn’t have to diminish leadership—it can expand it, if implemented thoughtfully.

Leadership’s Dark Side: Recognizing the DSPS Traits

The final study I reviewed was both eye-opening and unsettling: Scoundrels: Navigating the Dark Sextad Plus Schema (DSPS) in Leadership and Executive Coaching Engagements by Kilburg (2023). This article dives into six shadowy traits that can show up in leadership: narcissism, power motivation, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadomasochism, and charisma/charm.

Using qualitative interviews and case studies, Kilburg highlights how these traits—collectively called the Dark Sextad Plus Schema can quietly shape toxic leadership environments. What struck me most was how often these individuals don’t appear threatening at first. In fact, they’re usually quite charming and even inspiring; at least at the surface level.

Kilburg (2020) warns us to be cautious around leaders who:

• See others only as tools to serve their own purposes

• Relentlessly compete and often get rewarded for doing so

• Are capable of extreme loyalty, but only in ways that serve their vision

• Use their charisma to manipulate or dominate, often drawing people in before they realize what's happening

This article closes with coaching recommendations, urging leaders and consultants to proactively raise ethical questions and develop a strong moral compass when navigating high-stakes leadership dynamics. The case study of “Mary and James” provided a compelling, real-life example of how these toxic traits can derail teams—and how awareness is the first step toward managing them.

Final Thoughts

These three studies couldn’t be more different—hospital trauma teams, teacher leadership in the age of AI, and psychological shadows in executive coaching. Yet, a single theme ties them together: Leadership is fluid, relational, and deeply human.

Whether we’re working under pressure in a trauma wing, adapting to rapid technological change, or navigating difficult personalities in the workplace, leadership is less about titles and more about how we show up for others. These qualitative studies gave me a fuller picture of what that looks like—and reminded me that leadership is as much about awareness as it is about action.

References

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 77–86.

Gaba, D. M. (2010). Crisis management and teamwork training in anesthesia. British Journal of Anesthesia, 36(1), 3–6.

Ghamrawi, N., Shal, T., & Ghamrawi, N. A. R. (2024). Exploring the impact of AI on teacher leadership: Regressing or expanding? Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8415–8433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12174-w

Kilburg, R. R. (2023). Scoundrels: Navigating the Dark Sextad Plus Schema (DSPS) in leadership and executive coaching engagements. Psychology of Leaders and Leadership, 26(3-4), 218–240.

Kilburg, R. R. (2020). Gender power and the psychodynamics of envy in leadership. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 23(3-4), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000139

Vuojärvi, H., & Korva, S. (2020). An ethnographic study on leadership-as-practice in trauma simulation training. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 33(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-06-2019-0031