Representations of University Staff About Leadership Qualities and Professional Success of Managers

  • Nurjagan Kazieva
  • Zoya Khanova
  • Olga Kayasheva
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


In the research, particularities of ideas of the higher educational institution employees about leadership skills and professional successfulness of their managers (chairpersons, deans, and deputy deans) were found out. Among the key leadership skills of the managers of higher educational institutions, the following were noted: resistance to stress, an ability to manipulate others, sociability, an ability to communicate, responsibility, fairness, a positive attitude toward others, friendliness, confidence, and consistency. The following qualities were named as ones which the higher educational institution managers lack: honesty, relevant self-rating, decency, consistency, an ability to resolve conflict situations, and belief in one’s collective. According to the survey, 35% of all managers are professionally successful while others are not – due to their professional incompetence, inability to build efficient communication, communicative incompetence, lack of personal growth and self-development, and new research in science and practice. The methodologists of higher educational institutions chose communicative and professional incompetence as the main criteria for the professional unsuccessfulness, while for teachers of higher educational institutions, they were the professional incompetence and lack of new research in science and practice. The data obtained imply further studies of the problem outlined and working out of recommendations for the development of leadership skills in managers of the sphere of education.


  1. Ames DR, Kammrath LK (2004) Mind-reading and metacognition: narcissism, not actual competence, predicts self-estimated ability. J Nonverbal Behav 28(3):187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle (2003) Ancient Greek philosophy: from Plato to Aristotle. AST, Moscow, Folio, KharkovGoogle Scholar
  3. Asmus VF (2005) Ancient philosophy. Higher school, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacon F, Campanella T, Thomas M (2017) Utopia. City of the Sun. New Atlantis. Azbuka-Klassika, St PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodrov VA (2006) Psychology of professional activity: theoretical and applied problems. Institute of psychology RAS, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  6. Brushlinskiy AV (1991) The problem of subject in psychological science. Psychol J 6:6–10Google Scholar
  7. Collins MD, Chris JJ (2015) A process model of self-regulation and leadership: how attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership. Leadersh Q 26(3):386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Combe IA, Carrington DJ (2015) Leaders’ sensemaking under crises: emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams. Leadersh Q 26(3):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dotsenko EL (2000) The Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. CheRo, Urait, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunning D, Johnson K, Ehrlinger J, Kruger J (2003) Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12(3):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiedler FE (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegel GWF (2005) Lectures on the philosophy of history. Science, St PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  13. Kayasheva OI, Khanova ZG (2015) The problem of professional success in the subjective approach. Global Science and Innovation: materials of the VI International office Accent Graphics communications. Chicago, pp 267–269Google Scholar
  14. Kayasheva OI, Khanova ZG (2016) View of professional success of the teachers of higher educational institutions with different levels of Machiavellianism. Kazan Pedagog J 6:160–164Google Scholar
  15. Kiseleva LE (2011) Development of leadership qualities of heads of police departments in the process of professional psychological training. MoscowGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Locke J (1988) Two treatises about board. Thought 3:137–405Google Scholar
  18. Machiavelli N (2017) Sire. Ripol-Klassik, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  19. Mumford MD, Steele L, McIntosh T, Mulhearn T (2015) Forecasting and leader performance: objective cognition in a socio-organizational context. Leadersh Q 26(3):359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nemerowicz G, Rose E (1997) Education for leadership and social responsibility. LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodionova EA (2013) Subjective approach to determination of professional success. Socio-economic and psychological problems of management. Collection of scientific articles on materials I (IV) International scientific-practical conference held in the Moscow city psychological-pedagogical University. Part 1. Moscow, MGPPU, April 2013, pp 295–308Google Scholar
  22. Santos JP, Caetano A, Tavares SM (2015) Is training leaders in functional leadership a useful tool for improving the performance of leadership functions and team. Leadersh Q 26(3):470–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith GH (2014) Herbert Spencer’s sociology of the state. Accessed 10 Aug 2017
  24. Tannenbaum R (1961) Leadership and organization. A Behavioral Science Approach, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Theory of leadership. Social psychology (2017) Accessed 26 Sept 2017
  26. Tolochek VA (2010) Professional success: the concept of “ability” and “resurrect” in the explanation of the phenomenon. Man Soc Gov 11:20–38Google Scholar
  27. Tskhay KO, Zhu R, Rule NO (2017) Perceptions of charisma from thin slices of behavior predict leadership prototypicality judgments. Leadersh Q 28(4):555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yaverbaum E, Sherman E (2008) The everything leadership book. Adams Media Corporation, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Yeow J, Martin R (2013) The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: a longitudinal field experiment. Leadersh Q 24(5):625–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nurjagan Kazieva
    • 1
  • Zoya Khanova
    • 2
  • Olga Kayasheva
    • 3
  1. 1.Dagestan State UniversityMakhachkalaRussian Federation
  2. 2.Moscow University for Industry and Finance “Synergy”MoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Federal State Institution of Higher Education “Russian University of Transport” (MIIT)MoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations