Effective vs. Ineffective Leadership: A Student's Reflection
This reflection paper examines effective and ineffective academic leadership through the lens of course concepts such as servant leadership, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence. Drawing on personal experiences as an international student, the author contrasts two professors who excelled at building genuine rapport and fostering open dialogue with a third professor whose disengaged, script-bound approach stifled learning. By connecting specific classroom incidents to leadership theory — including destructive leadership and the outdated "Great Leader" model — the paper identifies what made these leaders succeed or fail. The author concludes with personal leadership lessons centered on humility, genuine connection, and the commitment to serve others' growth.
- Introduction: Overview of good and bad academic leadership experiences
- The Two Effective Professors: Servant leadership and genuine rapport in two professors
- The Ineffective Professor: Disengaged, script-bound professor and destructive leadership
- Lessons Learned: Personal commitment to servant leadership and humility
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The author grounds abstract leadership concepts — servant leadership, emotional intelligence, destructive leadership — in vivid, concrete classroom moments, making theory immediately relatable and credible.
- The compare-and-contrast structure is clean and purposeful: the two effective professors are handled together to highlight their shared philosophy, which then sharpens the contrast with the ineffective professor.
- The first-person voice is consistently reflective rather than merely anecdotal; the author moves from describing events to analyzing why they mattered, demonstrating genuine critical thinking.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied theory integration: each personal observation is explicitly linked to a named concept or citation (e.g., Schyns & Schilling, 2013 on destructive leadership; Anand, Ashforth & Joshi, 2005 on organizational corruption). This technique transforms a personal narrative into an academic argument by showing that lived experience is legible through theoretical frameworks.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a compare-and-contrast structure in four sections. The introduction frames the central claim and introduces the key concepts. Two middle sections examine the effective and ineffective professors in detail, with specific incidents supporting each evaluation. A concluding section synthesizes the lessons into actionable leadership commitments, completing the movement from observation to insight to application.
Introduction
In school I have had both good and bad experiences dealing with leaders. Two good experiences I had with professors at my university were in classes where the professors acknowledged that I was an international student. I appreciated their recognition because, while it is something that is often obvious, it is not always acknowledged. One bad experience involved a professor who did not care to get to know her students and seemed to be there simply because it was a job, not because she loved doing it. My favorite teachers have been those who show a genuine interest in their students. To me, they possess leadership qualities like emotional intelligence and social intelligence. They also demonstrate servant leadership skills, which I appreciate because it makes me feel that they truly care about helping me achieve my goals. When teachers act as though they are superior and all-knowing — implying that students are unintelligent simply because they lack degrees — I feel the teacher is compensating for some inner absence rather than practicing good leadership. Bad leaders bring negative energy to an environment and pull down morale (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), and that is exactly what happened when I was in a classroom with a teacher who showed no care for her students.
The Two Effective Professors
The two good professors who stand out in my experience at the university appealed to me because, from the very first day of class, they showed interest in getting to know their students. I am also interested in getting to know my professors, so I appreciated that we did not simply dive into the course material while ignoring the fact that we were all strangers. We would be investing time together, so why not take a moment to learn a little about one another? I used to be shy and embarrassed about sharing information about myself because I did not know what I wanted to do with my future — but that was some time ago. I have since made up my mind about who I want to be, and I am more confident now. Sometimes a student in class is like the old me: uncomfortable talking. What I liked about these two professors was that they never tried to embarrass such a student or make them feel strange. Instead, they showed sensitivity and expressed genuine interest in whatever little the student had to say. One of the professors would ask thoughtful questions or use light humor to help the student open up. The student would laugh and feel more at ease. On another occasion, when a student did not laugh, the teacher recognized that humor was not the right approach and instead responded seriously, showing the student that his ideas were respected. This worked — the student sat up and began to engage. I admired this kind of situational awareness in the professor. Both professors shared this ability to be effective, adaptive communicators.
When it came to me, they noticed that I was an international student and took an interest in where I am from, asking thoughtful questions. What I also appreciated was that they did not show any greater interest in one student than in another. It could not be said that this teacher preferred one type of student over another — not at all. The professors were genuine and kind to everyone as they got to know us, and I did not feel out of place. Instead, I felt connected. I believe everyone left that first class feeling at ease and comfortable. We realized that we were all there together to accomplish the same goal. We all wanted good grades and success, and after that first day — in both of these classes — we understood that we could help each other, speak freely, ask questions, and offer solutions.
I later learned that these two professors are friends, which helped me understand why they had such similar styles. They seemed to share a commitment to servant leadership and to expressing that philosophy in their own lives. I appreciated this more than anything else and wished all my teachers genuinely embraced it — not merely performed it. Sometimes a teacher can go through the motions without really believing in or caring about the approach. This is a problem because it makes me feel as though I am simply being used as part of a formula the teacher feels obligated to follow. I do not like feeling that our contact and communication are purely mechanical. I want to believe there is genuine interest and regard when I am speaking with someone.
References
Anand, V., Ashforth, B., & Joshi, M. (2005). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 9–23.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.