Middle Leadership and Social Emotional Intelligence: A Scoping Review and Empirical Exploration

Abstract

Middle leaders are acknowledged as important leaders within schools to support and improve teaching and learning. While middle leaders’ (MLs) knowledge and skills are foundational for contributing to school improvement, social emotional intelligence (SEI) has been identified as a crucial capability for developing and maintaining trusting relationships and collaborative teams, both of which are essential for leading school improvement, a central focus of ML work. To understand the empirical evidence base on MLs and SEI, a scoping literature review was conducted. Although empirical research was limited, SEI consistently emerged as a critical factor influencing a range of middle leadership (ML) outcomes. To extend the review findings, a problem-centered interview approach was undertaken with five MLs. The interviews sought to identify the SEI competencies perceived as supportive of ML practices and positive outcomes for both MLs and colleagues. Insights from the literature review and interviews converged to highlight empathy and emotional self-management as foundational SEI competencies. Both competencies were found to underpin several key leadership outcomes, including the regulation of emotions, both personal and interpersonal, for the development of collegial relationships, and the enhancement of ML wellbeing. Considering these findings, professional learning (PL) to foster ML SEI competencies is presented.

1. Introduction

1.1. Middle Leadership

School systems across the world are expecting their schools to demonstrate continual improvement in student learning outcomes. Fundamental to achieving this goal is improving classroom teaching and learning (Park et al., 2013). While principals have been shown to have an indirect influence on improving classroom practices (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006), middle leaders (MLs) are argued to have possibly the greatest potential for improving classroom teaching and learning (Grootenboer, 2018). School middle leaders (MLs) work closely with and between teacher colleagues and school leadership; their role and responsibilities are often focused on leading teaching and learning (Lipscombe et al., 2021), and their work is identified as important to improving schools, teachers, and student outcomes (Daniëls et al., 2019; Grootenboer, 2018; Tang et al., 2022). The question of who qualifies as middle leaders in schools is a contested construct, shaped by contextual factors and varying theoretical frameworks (Lipscombe et al., 2021). However, there is a consensus that MLs are “sandwiched between” the teacher colleagues they lead and their school executive (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2018), hold a formal school leadership position such as department head or subject leader (Grootenboer, 2018), are usually experienced classroom teachers who may or may not still have a classroom teaching position (Lipscombe et al., 2021), and due to positionality and their role and responsibilities, their work is intensely relational (De Nobile, 2019; Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021).

Studies in school middle leadership (ML) have investigated the roles and responsibilities of MLs (Gurr, 2019), how they influence (Lipscombe et al., 2020b) and facilitate teachers and teacher learning (Lipscombe et al., 2023), lead teams (Tang et al., 2022) and school improvement (Grootenboer et al., 2023; Highfield & Rubie-Davies, 2022; Meyer et al., 2024). The research has drawn attention to the relational and emotional nature of MLs’ work as they work with, for, and between teacher colleagues and senior leaders. Due to the “relational intensity” and “challenging and complex space” of middle leading (Ainsworth et al., 2022), specific personal attributes, such as empathy, confidence, and collegiality, have been identified as important for MLs in building relational trust with colleagues (Bryant & Rao, 2019; Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2024), influencing and building team culture (Lipscombe et al., 2020b), and as foundational for middle leader wellbeing (Yu & Chen, 2023).

The relational and emotional dimensions of middle leadership are gaining recognition in educational research, policy, and professional learning (PL). Recent studies (e.g., Edwards-Groves et al., 2023; Lipscombe et al., 2023) have begun to highlight these aspects, while professional frameworks, such as the Australian Professional Standards for Middle Leaders (AITSL, 2024), explicitly acknowledge the importance of enabling dispositions like empathy and courage, and ML PL programs are raising awareness of the importance of SEI for effective leading (NSWDoE, 2024). Despite the growing recognition of the importance of SEI in supporting ML practices, there remains a limited understanding of the specific personal competencies that underpin ML practices and relational effectiveness, particularly those captured within the framework of SEI (Ainsworth et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2010). Professional learning that supports the development of these SEI competencies is emerging but still under-explored (Fernandes et al., 2023). What is understood is that middle leadership PL is not one-size-fits-all (AITSL, 2024); rather, PL needs to be responsive to the complex demands of ML roles and responsibilities, which often represent a teacher’s first formal leadership experience. As noted, ML roles carry significant emotional, relational (Edwards-Groves et al., 2023), and well-being burdens (Yu & Chen, 2023), and therefore nuanced PL that aligns with MLs’ unique experiential profiles is important. This study contributes to this body of knowledge by identifying SEI competencies critical for ML effectiveness and identifies career-stage-appropriate PL to support their development.

1.2. School Leadership and Social Emotional Intelligence

The acknowledgement of the relational nature of school leadership and how positive, professional relationships between school leaders and colleagues can positively impact schools (Schutz & Zembylas, 2009) has resulted in an increased focus on how SEI influences educational leaders’ behaviors and practices and the impact on those they lead (Berkovich & Eyal, 2015). Emotional intelligence (EI) may be defined as the extent to which a person can cognitively manage their emotions; that is, a school leader’s ability to understand their own emotions and the emotions of the people they lead and to regulate their emotions to motivate and influence others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Social intelligence (SI) captures the social competencies and skills within emotional intelligence; in essence, it is the ability to get along with others and understand their moods and personalities while navigating the norms and expectations within groups and society (Petrides et al., 2007). Informed by SEI research, Goleman et al. (2002) developed a model highlighting the specific SEI components and competencies required for effective leadership. The model included four SEI components (self and social awareness and self and relationship management) and eighteen competencies; the competencies being leadership capabilities that encompass different behaviors within each component (Goleman et al., 2002). This SEI leadership model (see

Table 1. SEI Leadership Model (Goleman et al., 2002).

Self-Awareness Emotional Self-awareness Self Confidence Accurate Self-Assessment	Social Awareness Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation
Self-Management Self-Control Initiative Transparency Adaptability Achievement Drive	Relationship Management Developing Others Influence Inspirational Leadership Teamwork and Collaboration Change Catalyst Conflict Management Building Bonds

) was based on the understanding that proficiency in the self-awareness component influences capacity in social awareness and self-management, which culminates in proficiency in relationship management.

Allen (2011), utilizing Goleman’s SEI model, showed that a school leader’s self-awareness and management of emotions were perceived as foundational for a head teacher’s (school principal’s) success. Similarly, Blaik Hourani et al. (2021) interviewed school leaders in Abu Dhabi and found that self-awareness, specifically a school leader’s ability to manage self and their emotional responses, and the ability to reflect on and develop self, were perceived as critical SEI competencies for school leadership effectiveness. The significance of a school leader’s self-awareness, particularly accurate self-assessment of their capabilities, was found by Bower et al. (2018) when interviewing twelve lead teachers in the United States of America on the SEI components they perceived as foundational to their work. The research cited draws attention to the importance of school leaders to develop and enact self-awareness and self-management when leading. Cliffe’s (2011) study of seven female English secondary school leaders supported the above findings but also found that a leader’s ability to understand the emotions of others and motivate others (social awareness) was essential to the leader’s effectiveness.

The above findings were supported by Gómez-Leal et al. (2021), this systematic literature review found that emotional intelligence was essential for effective school leadership, with the SEI components of self-awareness, self-management, and social awareness, specifically the competency of empathy, as essential to building trusting relationships. In the study of Greek school principals’ SEI, Brinia et al. (2014) showed when there was an absence of a leader’s awareness of their emotions (self-awareness) and the emotions of others (social awareness), the result was a breakdown of relationships with colleagues and limited development of teams, resulting in a negative effect on school culture. It is evident that school leaders with high levels of SEI not only foster positive school culture and support the practices and enhance the wellbeing of colleagues, but research suggests there are personal benefits for school leaders with high SEI, including resilience to stress, and overall wellbeing (Berkovich & Eyal, 2020; Kutsyuruba et al., 2024). Fernandes et al. (2023), during COVID-19 showed that early-career principals enacted four emotionally intelligent leadership approaches dependent on the level of the crisis and the leaders’ agility and adaptability. The researchers found that emotionally intelligent leadership approaches are adaptable according to the situation, and at times, multiple approaches were enacted together. Importantly, a greater understanding and PL of early career leaders in specific SEI components and competencies was a recommendation from this study.

2. Research

2.1. Current Study

As outlined above, there is an emerging evidence base that highlights the SEI competencies employed by school leaders, particularly principals. However, the SEI required for effective principalship may not be directly transferable to middle leadership, given the distinct leadership experiences and practices associated with each role (Grootenboer, 2018). Principals typically lead from a position of formal authority, with clearly defined responsibilities and a strategic focus that often places them at a distance both geographically and relationally from classroom practice. In contrast, middle leaders operate in a more ambiguous space, leading “between” senior leadership and teacher colleagues, often without the same clarity of role or institutional power (Grootenboer, 2018; Lipscombe et al., 2021). Middle leaders also balance teaching and leadership responsibilities, enacting change while working closely with peers (Lipscombe et al., 2020b). The close working relationship with classroom teachers, their positionality, and the duality of their role intensifies the relational demands of middle leadership (Edwards-Groves et al., 2023), suggesting that the SEI competencies required for ML success may differ from those of principals. For example, the emotional complexity of leading peers, often for the first time, can challenge ML’s confidence, a key component of self-awareness. These contextual factors highlight the need to understand school leadership effectiveness and SEI through a ML lens.

Research has shown that ML effectiveness is strongly linked to the ML’s capacity to cultivate trust and lead collaborative teams through professional relationships (Grootenboer et al., 2020; Lipscombe et al., 2023). Within Goleman’s SEI framework, competencies such as teamwork and collaboration are nested within relationship management and supported by self-awareness, social awareness, and self-management. The four social emotional components and specific SEI competencies may be critical for navigating the interpersonal complexities of ML and for creating environments that facilitate improvement in teaching and learning, the central focus of ML’s work (Grootenboer, 2018). Additionally, as with school leaders, specific SEI competencies may also contribute to middle leader well-being (Yu & Chen, 2023). School leaders with high SEI report lower stress levels, greater job satisfaction, and stronger interpersonal relationships (Brackett et al., 2011). Given the dual responsibilities of teaching and leading and the emotional complexity of the ML role, MLs are particularly susceptible to emotional fatigue and role strain. The ability to manage emotions, build supportive relationships, and maintain a sense of purpose through SEI not only can enhance ML effectiveness but also may serve as a protective factor for ML well-being.

This study applies Goleman’s SEI model by aligning its competencies with the relational and emotional demands of ML. The aim is to extend the limited understanding of the specific SEI competencies that support positive ML practices and outcomes and how ML SEI competencies may be further developed. Firstly, a scoping literature review was undertaken to understand the accumulated knowledge in the field; this was followed by interviews with five Australian MLs to understand individual knowledge and lived experiences in consideration of the scoping review findings. This research offers new insights into the SEI competencies foundational to ML effectiveness. It also hinvestigates the influence of age, experience, and professional role on the development of SEI in MLs, factors that may inform professional learning (PL) designed to support and enhance SEI competencies. Furthermore, the findings can guide schools and education systems in designing targeted PL that foster specific SEI competencies. Importantly, this study lays the groundwork for future research in the underexplored area of MLs’ SEI and the role of PL in cultivating these essential competencies.

2.2. Method

This study employed a mixed-methods approach following Flick’s (2018) framework, wherein the scoping review (Phase 1) provided an empirical foundation for informing interview questions (Phase 2), with ML interviews facilitating a deeper contextual understanding of the SEI perceived as foundational in supporting ML practices and positive outcomes and PL that may further develop ML SEI competencies. To answer the research questions, both methods were integrated to identify key themes and divergences. The overarching research questions that guided Phases 1 and 2 were:

• RQ1: What SEI-specific components and competencies are important to middle leadership practices for positive outcomes?
• RQ2: What is the impact, if any, of leadership role, experience, or age on a middle leader’s social emotional intelligence?
• RQ3: How can social and emotional intelligence be developed to support the well-being of middle leaders and strengthen their leadership practices?

2.3. Phase 1: Scoping Review of Literature

A scoping review was deemed appropriate for the following reasons: firstly, this is an emerging research area with limited empirical evidence (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018); secondly, the scoping review aimed to understand the empirical evidence on the specific SEI components and competencies MLs require to be effective, to inform the questions for Phase 2, ML interviews.

The scoping review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009). Three databases were used to search and locate sources: ERIC Education, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were selected as they best capture peer-reviewed education literature. The search terms were informed by an initial scan of research in the areas of middle leadership and SEI to ascertain common terminology.

Table 2. Systematic Reviews Search Terms and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.

Search Terms “Emotional intelligence” OR “Social intelligence “OR “Self-awareness” OR “Social awareness” OR “Self-management” or “Self-regulation” OR “Relationship management” OR “Empathy” Or “Emotion*”
AND “Teacher leader*” OR “Head teacher*” OR “Middle leader*” OR “Head of department*” OR “Subject leader*” OR “Team leader*” OR “Co-ordinator*”
AND “School*”
Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Empirical journal articles written in English. January 2000–2025 Educational Research Research explicit to ML SEI and/or findings explicit to school middle leadership	Unpublished research Editorials Theses or dissertations Non-English publications Not an explicit focus on school middle leaders or teacher leaders’ social emotional intelligence

provides the keywords that appeared in the title, abstract, or keywords and consequently informed the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the systematic review of literature. To understand the empirical base on school middle leadership and social emotional intelligence, it was critical that the papers focused specifically on MLs, not schoolteachers, general school leadership, or school principals. In the review “teacher leader”, a key term often used interchangeably in ML research (Lipscombe et al., 2023; Wenner & Campbell, 2017), especially in the United States of America, was included. The inclusion of “teacher leader” was due to the limited literature on SEI and ML, and the argument that teacher leadership SEI research may provide some insights to inform the ML interviews that followed. As school ML research is a relatively new area of research, the literature review spanned from January 2000 to January 2025.

The scoping review utilized a research methodology informed by Jesson et al. (2011) to maintain transparency and rigor, encompassing a six-step process. Commencing with formulating research questions; then selecting relevant keywords and databases, performing an extensive literature search, setting inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluating the sources for academic rigor, and integrating study findings. Figure 1 captures the search process through the databases based on Table 2 inclusion/exclusion criteria. After secondary screening, 11 articles were included, 9 focused on the construct of ML, and two focused on teacher leadership. The selected papers are highlighted in the reference list with an asterisk.

The researchers reviewed the 11 papers and recorded the author, title, country, methodology, and focus of the research (see Appendix A). Next, a narrative synthesis was conducted where keywords and text that captured each paper’s research findings that pertained to MLs’ SEI components and competencies were recorded on an Excel spreadsheet (Popay et al., 2006). To complete the narrative synthesis, the researchers independently reviewed the 11 papers, added further relevant data, and then coded and grouped the findings according to the research questions. From the “finding groups”, a thematic analysis (Thomas & Harden, 2008) was completed inductively across the studies, where the findings were firstly coded, and descriptive themes were developed independently by the researchers. Next, the researchers together identified the commonalities and differences across the codes and themes, returning to the data to confirm or make modifications to inform categories and subcategories. Following this process, selective coding was utilized, an iterative process requiring the two researchers to return to the 11 papers, the Excel spreadsheet, the categories, and sub-categories to ensure saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

2.4. Phase 2: Middle Leader Interviews

Following the scoping review, one researcher conducted interviews with five MLs to explore their perceptions and to test the applicability of the phase one scoping review findings. Middle leaders across Australia were recruited via social media advertising through the platforms X and LinkedIn. In the social media advertisement, Head of Departments, Directors of Teaching and Learning, Assistant Principals, Stage Co-ordinator, school leadership roles recognized in Australian schools and school systems as distinct ML positions (Lipscombe et al., 2020a; De Nobile, 2019) were invited to engage in a 45-min online interview to discuss SEI within their ML. Five MLs responded, and all met the stated ML role description. The 5 MLs were emailed a summary of SEI components and competencies (see Appendix B) and asked to reflect on the information in relation to their middle-leading experiences and practices prior to the interview. The demographic data of each participant is outlined in

Table 3. Participant Demographic Information.

Participant Name (Pseudonym)	Middle Leadership Position	School Sector	School Type	Years of Experience
				Teaching	Middle Leadership
Adam	Assistant Principal Curriculum and Instruction (APC&I)	Public	Primary	16	10
Brad	Head of Year 9 Pastoral Care	Independent	Secondary	14	4
Craig	Assistant Principal Stage 1	Public	Primary	13	5
Diane	Assistant Principal Curriculum and Instruction (APC&I)	Public	Primary	19	5
Eva	Assistant Principal	Public	Primary	14	5

.

To interview the five middle leaders, a problem-centered interview (PCI) approach was utilized (Döringe, 2020). PCI is a deliberate discursive process to give equal right to previously accumulated knowledge and to the individual knowledge and experiences of the respondent (Döringe, 2020). In this study, PCI provided a framework to support interviewees to tell their “story” of SEI within their ML but also guided the researcher in discussing the empirical knowledge derived from the scoping literature review in relation to the MLs implicit knowledge and experiences. The purpose of the interviews was not to generate theory, but rather to explore the reality of MLs’ SEI in relation to the empirical evidence currently available. The interviews were conducted via video-conferencing software (Zoom 6.0), were audio-recorded, and then were transcribed by the researchers.

Analysis of interviews was informed by the Miles and Huberman (1984) framework: data reduction, data display, conclusion drawing, and verification. The data reduction saw the two researchers conduct an inductive thematic analysis of the data, which was initially completed independently by the two researchers, with the research questions guiding initial coding. The researchers coded, then reviewed and organized the data into meaningful categories aligned with each research question. At the data display stage, the researchers discussed the similarities and differences of the codes and categories, returning to interview transcripts for refinement and clarity of categories. Next, the researchers collaborated to ascertain any patterns or relationships between categories to arrive at overarching themes, specifically the different SEI components and competencies middle leaders identified as foundational to their work, the reasons why they were important, how they may be developed, and the impact of age, role, and experience on MLs’ SEI. See Appendix C for research questions, scoping review themes, a sample of interview questions informed by scoping review findings, additional themes from ML interview analysis, and quotes to represent key themes.

3. Results and Discussion

The discussion that follows presents each research question, firstly answered by the scoping literature review findings (Phase 1), followed by MLs’ responses to the interview questions (Phase 2). After the presentation of Phase 1 and 2 results, a discussion follows synthesizing the principal themes and points of divergences identified from both phases of the study in reference to research literature.

3.1. What SEI Specific Components and Competencies Are Important to Middle Leadership Practices for Positive Outcomes?

3.1.1. Scoping Review Findings

Analysis of the scoping literature review identified an acknowledgement that SEI components are important for specific ML relational practices and outcomes. Loughland and Ryan (2022) and Wong et al. (2010) noted SEI was important for the specific ML practices of building collegiality with, and motivating teacher colleagues, developing collective team efficacy, building and maintaining positive relationships, and enhancing teacher colleagues’ job satisfaction, however, the studies did not identify specific SEI components or competencies for the different practices. Five papers in the literature review provided an understanding of specific SEI components or competencies middle leaders draw upon when leading. Ghamrawi (2010) investigated how subject MLs can nourish teacher leadership in their department teams, she argued that all four SEI components were foundational for subject leaders to develop a flexible leadership approach to facilitate teacher leadership. The study found that ML self- and social awareness were needed to set the emotional tone for the teams they led and to negate negative emotions, and self- and relationship management were central for leading change and implementing new strategies.

Empathy, a competency within social awareness, was emphasized in four studies as important for ML practices to successfully lead teams (Tang et al., 2022; Highfield & Rubie-Davies, 2022; Meyer et al., 2024). Lipscombe et al. (2023) investigated the micro-processes MLs enact when facilitating teacher teams; the study highlighted empathy as essential for MLs, where empathy as a practice saw MLs understand colleagues’ challenges, show interest in their experiences, and be open to diverse perspectives. Similarly, Shaked (2024), investigating instructional leadership, found empathy to be crucial for MLs to establish and maintain productive relationships. A study investigating newly appointed MLs (Ghamrawi et al., 2023) found that empathetic understanding of colleagues’ feelings and emotions was essential for newly appointed MLs to effectively connect with colleagues. While empathy was not explicitly stated in Lai and Huang’s (2022) exploration of an ML’s negative emotions, social awareness was noted as critical for collaborating with colleagues by “observing and nurturing positive emotions among colleagues” (p. 125). The scoping review draws attention to empathy as an essential (SEI) competency required for MLs to successfully connect, collaborate, and maintain productive relationships with colleagues.

The scoping literature review highlighted a second SEI for ML practices and positive outcomes, self-management, specifically the competency of emotional self-management. Lai and Huang’s (2022) and Ghamrawi et al. (2023) found emotional self-management was important for MLs to reduce negative emotions and burnout and support rationality when under stress. Shaked (2024) and Ghamrawi (2010) provided evidence that emotional self-management was an underlying SEI competency required when MLs negotiate and resolve conflicts. While empathy and emotional self-management were spotlighted as the two ML SEI competencies central for middle leadership practices and for positive outcomes for themselves and colleagues, not all scoping review studies explicitly called out specific SEI components or competencies within the reporting of results. To advance the findings from the scoping review, Phase 2 involved elicitation of MLs’ perceptions of the different SEI components and competencies they draw upon in the leadership to positively impact. Particular attention was given to how empathy and emotional self-management shape their practices and the perceived outcomes when they are enacted or absent.

3.1.2. Middle Leader Interview Findings

Interview data established that all five MLs perceived SEI as significant to their middle leadership. The MLs spoke about working between senior leadership and colleague teachers they worked closely with, and the difficulty of maintaining emotional boundaries and the negotiation needed when working from the “middle”, Brad shared:

“I think that within the middle leadership role the pressure is on, … because you’re that middle, you know, between the teachers who you work with daily and the senior leadership, so yes high emotional intelligence, being aware of what you are doing, saying to set a positive tone with all of them, it’s what builds relationships and creates the team culture that’s needed to do the work and it’s what breaks a relationship when you don’t use it”.

As the scoping review emphasized the importance of ML empathy and emotional self-management, MLs were asked how these competencies shaped their practices and possible outcomes. The five MLs discussed that managing one’s emotions was critical to ensure relationships were not damaged due to lack of emotional regulation. Craig noted, “when you’re not prepared for that tough conversation, if you lose your cool, it’s a loss not only with that teacher but it affects the team… it’s hard to come back from that”. Eva’s observation of a fellow ML she worked with informed her of the importance of emotional management, “I can see that the series of events that has led to a very big mistake is actually literally just being because of the way they (ML) reacted in the first place”. Eva spoke about how this helped her be more cognizant of managing her emotions when she became a ML.

Aligned with scoping literature review results, self-management was discussed in reference to managing stress and ML wellbeing. The MLs discussed the impact of their work, the difficulty of teaching and leading, high workload, and the subsequent negative impact on their emotions. Eve noted that the relational, emotional work and high workload required had left her “emotionally spent”. ML self-care was highlighted by Brad, Craig, Diane and Eve, they argued self-care was an outcome of ML understanding and managing their emotions. Brad reflected on himself, the work of middle leaders, their workload and self-care:

“For me it’s sort of drawing on the self-management side of things. We (middle leaders) see ourselves as role models to our students, and also other staff members and need to manage ourselves despite the workload… and to deal with the unknown of the day which can be emotional, … at the end of the day, being aware of how we feel, the emotional impact of the work and what we do is the means of helping us cope better which can help everyone”.

The five MLs discussed how their role meant they often had to lead and manage change, which could result in colleagues having emotional responses and/or conflicting opinions to the change, which the ML needed to manage. Without the positive management of their own, and colleagues’ emotions, the MLs noted that their ability to influence and collaborate was diminished. For this reason, the MLs argued that effectively managing one’s emotions in response to colleagues’ negative emotions, while simultaneously trying to elevate colleagues’ emotions and manage their expectations, required a high degree of emotional self-management. Emotional self-management, maintaining a positive disposition and demonstrating social awareness, and having empathy to accurately perceive and interpret colleagues’ emotions were illustrated in Eva’s account:

“Most of my day-to-day problems with my team aren’t content, curriculum or pedagogy, they are literally understanding and helping people cope with these things, the decisions and the changes, … I must really balance that and find ways to help them with managing the work but also their feelings and mine”.

The competency of empathy was discussed by the five MLs as essential for understanding a teacher colleague’s emotional state and responding accordingly, as highlighted by Eva’s quote above. The interviews provided an insight into the empathic process. MLs firstly gauged the emotional temperament of everyone within their team, then tailored an empathic approach that targeted, firstly, genuinely understanding and acknowledging a colleague’s challenge and emotions, then providing practical support to help the colleague, with the aim to reduce their anxiety and manage emotional responses. The MLs discussed “practical” empathy, where not only authentic words of acknowledgement and understanding are expressed, but palpable supportive actions, as Diane discussed:

“I’m just very cognizant of how everyone’s feeling … reading the room and reading people’s body language and picking up those queues. Knowing when teachers are feeling overwhelmed and when to hold back things, providing that support they need … it’s not only the talking, but the doing stuff, it’s this that brings the team closer together, more open and collaborative”.

When discussing empathy, Brad highlighted that empathy was not only for his colleagues but also for himself; he perceived this was needed to survive in the role as an ML and to model for colleagues a realistic approach in managing his workload, his health, and compassion fatigue to ensure a “healthy” team.

“I consciously made the choice to give time to my colleagues, my peers but also to myself… I practice a little self-care routine. I definitely noticed over time I became more resilient”.

This form of self-empathy was discussed with MLs identifying a range of self-care strategies, including journaling, daily time in nature, exercising, positive self-talk, mindful breathing, meditation, and deliberately stopping and not thinking about work. They also discussed the importance of modeling and explicitly talking about these strategies with other middle leaders and teachers to create a culture of care, “an understanding that leadership comes from self” Brad.

Self-awareness, informed by Goleman et al. (2002) is the SEI model’s foundational to all other SEI components and competencies. While not specifically highlighted in the empirical results, the 5 MLs emphasized self-awareness of one’s emotions as a precursor to managing one’s emotions for self-care as discussed above and self-awareness facilitating openness, authenticity, reflective practices, and growth, as captured by Diane,

“I think self-awareness is really important, if you really know yourself, you’re open to reflecting on what’s happening the good and the bad … and as a ML you need to be authentic and there’s always need for growth”.

The MLs spoke about self-awareness as the foundational ingredient for being authentic, seen as important for building and maintaining positive relationships with colleagues, Craig stated:

“Really, it’s about being real, consistent, approachable and knowing you don’t have all the answers, so it’s being self-aware, really its essential to keeping relationships and people’s trust”.

3.1.3. Synthesis of Phase 1 and 2 Results

Drawing on findings from the systematic review and ML interviews, this study offers a nuanced understanding of the specific SEI components and competencies essential for ML practices for positive outcomes for themselves and the teams they lead. The SEI competency of empathy was found to be crucial, possibly due to the high relational nature of the role (Edwards-Groves et al., 2023). Phase 1 and 2 results showed that ML empathy was more than about expressing words of concern; it was about practical supportive actions that addressed colleagues’ needs with the goal to reduce colleagues’ negative emotional responses. Data from both phases highlighted that empathy was important to successfully lead teams, specifically in reference to forging connections with colleagues and maintaining positive collegial relationships (Shaked, 2024; Ghamrawi et al., 2023; Lai & Huang, 2022). The five MLs spoke about the need for empathy toward oneself to support their own wellbeing as well as their colleagues’. Kutsyuruba et al. (2024) found that empathy in the form of self-compassion can be a protective factor against burnout, a finding that aligns with ML’s interview and Brad’s quote above.

From the Phase 1 scoping review, emotional self-management emerged as a critical SEI competency for ML practices (Shaked, 2024; Lai & Huang, 2022; Ghamrawi et al., 2023). The studies drew attention to emotional self-management for negotiating with colleagues, deescalating potential conflict, and managing the relational demands of ML. Phase 2, ML interviews, supported these findings, highlighting the importance of emotional self-management, which was needed to ensure relationships with colleagues were not damaged, with high emotional self-management needed to respond positively and to manage teacher colleagues’ negative emotions and for modelling behavioral expectations. From both empirical data and interviews, there was an evident relationship between emotional self-awareness and management and ML wellbeing. In interviews, MLs discussed the importance of managing their emotions to reduce their own negative emotions, and for maintaining rationality under stress, particularly in relation to the complexity of ML work and workload. In research (Yu & Chen, 2023) and interviews, emotional self-management was found to be important for reducing burnout and supporting personal wellbeing.

Developing an awareness of personal emotions and those of others, actively managing one’s own emotional responses as well as those of colleagues, and practicing empathy, both toward others and oneself, were critical competencies found in empirical and interview data. An important finding from the Phase 2 interviews, not found in the empirical findings, was the importance ML placed on self-awareness for openness, reflection, personal development, and their wellbeing, qualities aligned with Authentic Leadership noted as positively impacting school personnel and culture (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

3.2. RQ2: What Is the Impact, If Any, of Leadership Role, Experience or Age on a Middle Leader’s Social Emotional Intelligence?

3.2.1. Scoping Review Findings

Three articles, Benson et al. (2014), Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2019), and Lambert (2020), explored SEI differences within school leadership. Benson et al. (2014) investigated emotional intelligence among middle and senior leaders in two English schools. Using the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides, 2009), a self-reporting test that provides an understanding of four facets of EI—well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability—the study found that EI was higher for senior school leaders than MLs, with senior school leaders significantly higher in the three EI competencies of self-control, emotionality, and sociability. Data showed the greatest EI differences between seniors and MLs were in the self-control sub-competencies of emotional regulation, impulsiveness, and stress management. As senior school leaders may have more experience and consequently may be older than middle leaders, the study investigated if age was a factor in higher EI. While there was no difference in EI between older and younger leaders, there was some statistical support for age supporting emotionality, including the sub-competencies of perception and expression of emotions, empathy, and relationships. In contrast, Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2019) investigated the EI of head teachers (principals), MLs, tutors, and classroom teachers using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT, Mayer et al., 2002). The MSCEIT test evaluates an individual’s ability to perceive, facilitate, understand, and manage emotions. Results indicated that participants, irrespective of position, showed competent EI scores, with head teachers (principals) having significantly higher overall EI than classroom teachers. There was no difference in overall EI between head teachers (principals) and MLs and no differences in overall EI or any sub-competencies between MLs and teachers. There was, however, a significant difference between head teachers (principals) and MLs in the SEI competency of understanding emotions, a finding aligned to Benson et al. (2014). Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2019) found higher EI, specifically, understanding of emotions may be due to leadership roles rather than age, a contrasting result to Benson et al. (2014).

Lambert (2020) applied the Geneva Emotional Recognition Test (GERT) to investigate the emotional recognition capabilities of teachers, MLs, senior leaders, and principals. The argument presented was that the accurate understanding and expressing of emotions is a foundational competence for emotional intelligence and an essential capability for the relationship-centric nature of schools, and particularly the work of MLs. Interestingly, the study found MLs were significantly less able to recognize complex emotions compared to other school leaders or teachers, with the author arguing emotional recognition capabilities may be impacted by the nature of their leadership role, as suggested by Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2019). Lambert (2020) posited MLs’ work can be very task-oriented, which may diminish their emotional recognition capabilities. Overall, the common finding across the scoping review results was that MLs demonstrated lower SEI than senior school leaders in the competencies of emotional perception, expression, regulation, and stress management.

3.2.2. Middle Leader Interview Findings

During the middle leader interviews, participants were asked to reflect on their experiences as a middle leader and comment on the possible impact of leadership position, experience, and age on MLs’ SEI. The five middle leaders considered experience rather than age or a leadership role as the deciding factor of higher levels of SEI. Diane, Craig, and Eva identified deliberate reflection by MLs on their experiences as a critical factor in fostering social-emotional growth, which in turn enhanced their capacity to positively influence others. Craig noted:

“It’s a deliberate act, I think. What’s more important than the age, or position is the investment for any school leader, it is intentional professional development and intentional professional growth plans with a social and emotional focus that leads to positive leadership outcomes”

The importance of reflection to develop SEI was highlighted by Diane:

“Self-awareness is probably the key thing because I know people that have experience but aren’t necessarily self-reflective… what is important we don’t know it all, … one of the barriers is not actually realizing the level of social, emotional intelligence that is needed within middle leadership”

The five MLs did not report perceiving differences in SEI between principals and middle leaders. However, they noted that middle leadership is often the first formal leadership role undertaken by teachers and given its complexity and highly relational nature (noted above in Diane’s quote), there are implications for MLs’ SEI. Eva and Diane reflected that, upon assuming their roles as MLs, they experienced a lack of confidence, which adversely affected their middle leadership practices, Eva stated,

“Coming into it (middle leadership) when I was young was tough, I felt so under pressure, not confident … it really impacted how I felt, how I led, I was reactionary when dealing with so many different colleagues”

3.2.3. Synthesis of Phase 1 and 2 Results

This research question aimed to examine whether differences in SEI exist based on age and experience, to inform the PL needs of MLs. Although the existing evidence base is limited and inconclusive, evident in the limited scope of three relevant studies, qualitative data gathered through ML interviews provided some understanding of the contradictory empirical findings and provided insights into targeted ML PL to support SEI development. What was evident from the systematic review is that MLs may be challenged in the awareness, understanding, expression, and regulation of emotion, that is, the SEI components of self-awareness, and self-management (Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2019; Lambert, 2020). These SEI challenges may have implications for ML relationships, how they manage their stress, and its impact on their wellbeing, noted in the findings of Benson et al. (2014) and the phase 2 interviews. The MLs revealed several potential explanations for the challenges they may inherently encounter in the awareness and management of their emotions. Firstly, middle leadership is often the first formal leadership role for teachers, which has implications on ML confidence a competency within self-awareness, secondly, the ML role is inherently complex, demanding, and highly relational, all have implications for ML workload and stress. While the literature offers mixed findings on the influence of leadership role, experience, or age on MLs’ SEI, interview data suggest that it is not merely experience, but critical reflection on that experience, that most significantly cultivates ML SEI. This finding highlights the importance of targeted professional learning focused on developing middle leaders’ reflective practice to support the development of self and importantly for managing ML stress and supporting wellbeing, both highlighted as a challenge for MLs from interviews and empirical research.

3.3. RQ3: How Can Social Emotional Intelligence Be Developed to Support the Wellbeing of Middle Leaders and Strengthen Their Leadership Practices?

3.3.1. Scoping Review Findings

This scoping review highlights the importance of ML SEI, particularly empathy and emotional regulation, as foundational to ML relational leadership practices and potentially vital to their overall wellbeing. Given that ML often marks a teacher’s initial entry into formal leadership roles, existing empirical evidence suggests that MLs may encounter difficulties in perceiving, understanding, and managing their own emotions as well as those of their colleagues (Lambert, 2020). Additionally, the ability to manage stress emerges as a challenge for MLs, with implications for MLs’ professional and personal wellbeing (Benson et al., 2014; Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2019). These findings highlight the need for understanding what may constitute targeted ML professional learning to develop specific SEI competencies. Six studies in the review highlighted the importance of enhancing MLs’ SEI, of the six studies, two studies advocated for greater evidence-informed SEI PL (Lai & Huang, 2022; Loughland & Ryan, 2022), three studies presented practical strategies to develop ML SEI (Benson et al., 2014; Lambert, 2020, 2022), and three studies highlighted specific ML SEI components or competencies that require targeted PL for improving ML outcomes (Benson et al., 2014; Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2019; Lai & Huang, 2022).

In reference to practical strategies to support MLs’ SEI development and outcomes, Benson et al. (2014) argued self-assessment of social emotional capabilities using reflective tools (e.g., Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire TEIQue, Petrides, 2009) may support ML SEI development. Reflective tools may provide the opportunity for MLs to firstly reflect on perceived SEI strengths and areas of development, then post the SEI self-assessment, discuss the results with a mentor/coach to plan practical interventions for further SEI development. Benson et al. (2014) also advocated for MLs to have opportunities to discuss areas of their work that have high emotionality with other MLs, to facilitate MLs’ understandings of the emotional complexities of their work, and to support the development of practical strategies to enact in situations that are emotionally challenging.

Research by Lambert (2020) showed that teachers and principals may have higher levels of emotional recognition than MLs. It was argued that ML work can become highly task-orientated, resulting in the task positive network of the brain (TPN) to “dominate” over the default mode network (DMN), the part of the brain responsible for the cognitive representation of emotion and emotional self-regulation. The researcher proposed two practical approaches to support ML emotional recognition and regulation, firstly, PL that supports MLs to have a greater awareness of the differences between the task and relationship orientation of their work, and its impact on their brain. As MLs’ work becomes highly task-focused, the “emotional” part of their brain can become less “active” leading to a reduction in emotionality. Secondly, Lambert (2022) showed when MLs coached their teacher colleagues, their ability to perceive emotion improved. The research provided evidence for schools and school systems to, where possible, provide a balance of task and relationship work within ML responsibilities and to proactively provide MLs with experiences that support personal interactions to keep “active” the emotional parts of their brain. It was argued that PL can support MLs to develop higher levels of competency in enacting both the task and relationship leadership roles and the ability to switch between each.

Specific ML SEI components and competencies for PL were discussed in three papers. Benson et al.’s (2014) study highlighted MLs’ emotionality and awareness of their and others’ emotions as an important SEI PL focus. This was echoed by Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2019), who argued that as school leadership is becoming increasingly more complex, with higher emotional demands, there is a greater need for all school leaders to have targeted PL on emotional self-awareness and regulation. Lai and Huang (2022) explored the emotions of a Chinese English middle leader and highlighted the need for ML PL to support the management of negative emotions (emotional self-awareness and management) by developing MLs’ capacities in reframing complex, challenging situations to reduce stress and support wellbeing.

3.3.2. Middle Leader Interview Findings

The MLs in this study were invited to share their understandings of how ML SEI could be developed, and their experiences of relevant PL to further develop MLs’ SEI. The five middle leaders expressed that SEI could be developed and emphasized the need for targeted ML development in this area. As Adam noted,

“It’s like a muscle, you know, you can work towards it, build it … it’s now more talked about, but it is providing opportunities for, leaders including middle leaders to understand and develop these really important capacities”.

MLs were asked about effective SEI ML PL. Two MLs noted that middle leadership was often the first formal school leadership role a teacher undertakes, so understanding SEI, its positive and negative impacts on how one leads were perceived as important. Craig stated,

“How you empathize, react and interact is the core of what we do (middle leaders) so without understanding and enacting it (SEI) from the start, when you come into the job, you can end up damaging your relationships”

Four MLs supported the scoping review findings that understanding and developing the management of one’s emotions (self-awareness and management of emotions) and that of others (social awareness and relationship management) are foundational for MLs, particularly when leading school change and managing colleagues’ resistance and emotional reactions to change The MLs emphasized the importance of cultivating confidence, a competency of self-awareness and enhancing their ability to manage themselves, regulate emotions, and adapt to changing circumstances, competencies of self-management as crucial skills to support their wellbeing, acknowledging that maintaining wellbeing can be challenging for middle leaders.

Asked how MLs could specifically develop these specific SEI competencies to support positive outcomes for colleagues and themselves, all five middle leaders discussed how team mentoring and/or a mentor was possibly the most helpful, Adam stated,

“My experience in having meaningful self-reflection to develop my self-awareness of how I am leading and why I am leading this way and what is the impact… understanding my colleagues’ reactions, for me is having middle leader or executive level team mentorship, coupled with an individual school exec or principal mentor. Any one-off PL can be good but removed from your context”.

The MLs discussed how they individually perused PL, two had completed a Master of Educational Leadership and all had attended short courses or workshops that focused on leadership “soft skills”. Four MLs described implementing practical strategies to manage the emotional demands of their roles. These strategies included engaging with a critical friend, maintaining a daily journal, practicing meditation, and engaging with leadership literature and podcasts on SEI leadership practices. From interviews, these approaches led to a deeper understanding of their emotional responses and the underlying causes, as well as improved self-management strategies with positive outcomes for the teachers they lead and ML wellbeing.

3.3.3. Synthesis of Phase 1 and 2 Results

The literature identified key SEI competencies, particularly emotional awareness of self and others, the regulation of emotions, and the ability to manage stress, as essential for productive ML relationships (Benson et al., 2014; Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2019) and possibly the long-term viability of being a ML (Lai & Huang, 2022). Empirical and interview data reinforce the importance of targeted, context-specific PL that builds SEI competencies to manage the challenges of middle leading. Professional learning strategies include reflective self-assessment tools (e.g., Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire) to identify strengths and growth areas (Benson et al., 2014), coaching to improve emotional perception (Lambert, 2022), and combining reflection with mentoring and peer discussions to increase awareness of the relational and emotional nature of ML work. The results from Phases 1 and 2 indicate that helping MLs manage stress and strengthen relationships may require a multifaceted approach. This includes providing opportunities for real-time reflection and feedback, mentoring, and targeted PL focused on perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions. Additionally, encouraging MLs to engage in self-directed practices such as journaling, meditation, and having a critical friend appears to be an important component for ML SEI development. As noted, the interviews revealed this is particularly important given middle leadership is usually a teacher’s first formal leadership role and that SEI PL may not only enhance ML practices but may also build ML confidence and safeguard ML well-being under intensifying emotional and relational demands.

4. Conclusions

This study employed a novel methodological approach by integrating a scoping review with interviews to examine the emotional and relational demands placed on MLs, and to explore the implications of these demands for ML SEI development and ML PL. This dual strategy gave equal weight to existing literature and the lived experiences of MLs, providing both theoretical and practical insights. Findings highlight specific ML SEI competencies, particularly emotional self-awareness and self-management, empathy in practice, and the ability to manage colleagues’ emotions, as foundational for fostering collegial relationships, building effective teams, reducing teacher and ML stress, and supporting middle leader wellbeing. The SEI competencies identified as critical for middle leaders (MLs) in this study closely align with those considered foundational to the effectiveness of senior school leaders, self-awareness, self-management, and empathy for relational leadership Gómez-Leal et al. (2021), and awareness and management of emotions for mitigating stress and supporting well-being (Berkovich & Eyal, 2020). However, evidence from this study and prior research suggests that MLs may be subject to even greater relational and emotional pressures than their senior school leaders, which may be attributed to several interrelated factors. First, the ML role frequently represents a teacher’s initial formal step into leadership, a transition that may challenge their self-confidence. Second, MLs must navigate the dual responsibilities of teaching and leadership, leading to a high and complex workload. This combination is further compounded by the emotional and interpersonal challenges inherent in leading “from the middle”, a position that requires balancing directives from senior school leadership with the needs and expectations of colleagues (Grootenboer, 2018). Together, these dynamics can contribute to intensified emotions experienced by MLs. These factors collectively underscore the imperative for school systems to provide tailored support and targeted PL to facilitate MLs in understanding and managing emotions of self and others through developing the SEI competencies identified in this study.

An interesting finding from the scoping review was that MLs often experience challenges with fundamental SEI competencies, including emotional awareness, understanding, expression, and regulation (Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2019; Lambert, 2020). These challenges highlight the need for PL strategies that specifically target SEI competencies within ML development. Although the existing literature offers a limited and inconclusive empirical basis for understanding how factors like age, experience, and leadership role affect middle leaders’ SEI and thus their PL requirements, qualitative interview data provided some insights. Interviewees emphasized that neither age nor experience alone reliably predicts high SEI; instead, the interviewees noted that reflective engagement with one’s professional experiences may be the critical determinant of SEI growth. The data suggests that PL initiatives deliberately structured around reflective practice, particularly when integrated with mentoring support, may enhance MLs’ capacity for self-awareness, emotional regulation, and empathy. Interview participants indicated that self-directed practice, such as journaling, meditation, regular physical activity, and collaboration with a “critical friend”, enhanced their interpersonal and intrapersonal effectiveness. These approaches also supported stress management and personal wellbeing, both of which are crucial for sustaining MLs’ capacity in their roles and highlighted in both interview and research as challenging for MLs. Additionally, empirical evidence suggests that ML assuming a coaching role, the use of reflective tools, and opportunities to debrief with other MLs on the emotional complexities of their work may also be supportive of SEI development.

This study is subject to several limitations, including the small number of participants interviewed, the considerable variation in the leadership contexts of the five middle leaders (MLs), and the limited number of studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review; it is acknowledged that all limit the generalizability of the findings from the study. Nonetheless, the study’s methodological approach draws attention to the specific SEI competencies and associated targeted PL that can support positive outcomes for middle leaders (MLs) and their colleagues and the importance of targeted SEI PL for both aspiring and current MLs, while also illuminating the distinct challenges MLs encounter within their roles and in developing their SEI. The study, we hope, lays the groundwork for future research in this important area of developing school middle leaders’ SEI, with subsequent investigations involving larger and more contextually aligned middle leaders (MLs) potentially yielding findings of greater practical relevance and transferability.