THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE …

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

OF SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

A Dissertation

By

Stephanie R. Ashworth

BS, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

MS, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

In

Educational Leadership

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, Texas

May 2013



A Dissertation

By

Stephanie R. Ashworth

This dissertation meets the standards for scope and quality of Texas A&M University-Corpus

Christi and is hereby approved.

Kamiar Kouzekanani, Ph.D. Chair Bryant Griffith, Ph.D. Committee Member

Carmen Tejeda-Delgado, Ed.D. Committee Member Steven Seidel, Ph.D. Graduate Faculty Representative

JoAnn Canales, Ph.D. Interim Dean of Graduate Studies

May 2013

© Stephanie Rae Ashworth All Rights Reserved

May 2013

v

ABSTRACT



Stephanie R. Ashworth, Ed.D.

Dissertation Chair: Kamiar Kouzekanani, Ph.D.

The study examined the relationship between secondary public school principals’

emotional intelligence and school performance. The correlational study employed an

explanatory sequential mixed methods model. The non-probability sample consisted of 105

secondary public school principals in Texas. The emotional intelligence characteristics of the

principals were documented. Analysis of the quantitative data showed that the relationship

between principals’ emotional intelligence and school performance was not statistically

significant. Analysis of the qualitative data resulted in two themes, namely, 1) strong

interpersonal and intrapersonal skills and 2) positive leadership. The principals believed that

raising school performance happens over time and that key factors related to affecting school

performance include building relationships, motivation, inspiration, organizational skills,

emotions (knowing one’s own emotions and the emotions of others), and communication skills.

The results showed that a principal’s awareness of his/her emotions as well as other’s emotions

and how to deal with them are vital to relationship building and positive leadership. The

quantitative and qualitative results were synthesized and discussed.

The practical implications of the study are to develop, strengthen, and enhance a

principal’s emotional intelligence skills in order to become a more effective administrator. The

skills can begin to be taught and developed to aspiring principals enrolled in a Master’s degree

program. Emotional intelligence skills can also be developed, strengthened, and enhanced

vi

through professional development opportunities like continuing education classes, staff

development, and workshops.

vii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to God and my family. Without you all, my life would have

no meaning.

I might not know where life’s journey will take me, but with you, Lord, I can do all

things with your strength, wisdom and grace to guide me.

To my husband, Brian, and my children, Christopher, Kelsey and Amber, I give you my

deepest love and appreciation for the sacrifices you all made during this graduate program. You

all are the joys of my life. Thank you for putting up with me during with the years of study and

research.

To my wonderful grandmother, Janie Harper, without your unwavering confidence in me

and the many, many late nights of babysitting, I would not have been able to complete this

degree.

To my mom, Deborah. Thanks for making sure I saw education as a top priority.

To my dad, John, who according to him, I get all my brains. Thanks for believing in me

and for giving me my “smarts.”

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I cannot express enough the deepest gratitude and respect I have for my dissertation

chair, Dr. Kamiar Kouzekanani. Without his assistance and guidance, the completion of this

project may never have been realized. His abilities coupled with his intellect, drive, and

dedication enabled me to reach my goals. Dr. Kouzekanani, I will forever be indebted to you for

all that you have helped me to accomplish.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Michael Moody, for his unwavering

belief that my literature review was always moving in the right direction, even when I could not

see it. Thank you for your commitment in helping me become a better writer.

I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Drs. Carmen Tejeda-Delgado, Bryant

Griffith, and Steven Seidel for their time and efforts in helping me reach the final destination of

this journey. And a special thank you to Dr. Raul Prezas.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... ix

Background and Setting ......................................................................................... 1

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................. 4

Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 5

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 5

Operational Definitions ........................................................................................... 9

Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................... 9

Delimitations, Limitations and Assumptions ........................................................ 10

Significance of Study ............................................................................................ 10

Review of Literature ............................................................................................. 12

Overview of Intelligence....................................................................................... 12

The Construct of Emotional Intelligence .............................................................. 13

Four Competencies of Emotional Intelligence ..................................................... 16

Interpersonal Skills ............................................................................................... 16

Leadership Skills ................................................................................................... 17

Self Management Skills ........................................................................................ 19

Intrapersonal Skills ............................................................................................... 20

Overview of Leadership ........................................................................................ 21

x

CONTENTS PAGE

Leadership and School Performance .................................................................... 22

The Role of Emotional Intelligence on Leadership .............................................. 23

Summary ............................................................................................................... 25

Method .................................................................................................................. 27

Research Design.................................................................................................... 27

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 29

Subject Selection ................................................................................................... 31

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 32

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 33

Results ................................................................................................................... 36

Quantitative Results .............................................................................................. 36

Profile of Subjects ................................................................................................. 36

Emotional Intelligence Skills ................................................................................ 38

Qualitative Results ................................................................................................ 49

Summary of Results .............................................................................................. 53

Summary, Conclusions, and Discussion ............................................................... 54

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 54

Summary of Results .............................................................................................. 55

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 56

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 57

Implications........................................................................................................... 59

Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................... 61

xi

CONTENTS PAGE

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 63

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 72

Appendix A: ......................................................................................................... 73

Permission to use ESAP............................................................................ 74

Emotional Skills Questionnaire (ESQ) ..................................................... 75

Appendix B: ......................................................................................................... 80

IRB Approval ............................................................................................ 81

IRB Amendment Approval ....................................................................... 82

Permission to conduct Focus Group ......................................................... 84

Informed Consent Form to Participate in a Focus Group ......................... 85

Introductory Email to Participants ............................................................ 87

Follow-Up Email ...................................................................................... 88

Recruitment Email for Focus Group Participants ..................................... 89

Appendix C: ......................................................................................................... 90

Focus Group Transcript ............................................................................ 91

Open-Ended Response Transcript............................................................. 99

xii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Profile of Subjects: Categorical Variables ............................................................ 37

2 Profile of Subjects: Continuous Variables ............................................................ 38

3 Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Responses to Part I of the Emotional Skills

Questionnaire – Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) ........................... 38

4 Ranking of Emotional Skills ................................................................................. 44

5 Ranking of the 10 Emotional Intelligence Scales ................................................. 47

6 Ranking of the Four Emotional Intelligence Competencies ................................. 48

7 Repeated Measures ANOVA Results for EI Competencies ................................. 48

8 The Means and Standard Deviations of Emotional Intelligence Competencies by School

Performance Rating .............................................................................................. 49

9 Codes for Qualitative Data.................................................................................... 50

10 Theme 1: Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills....................................... 51

11 Theme 2: Positive Leadership ............................................................................... 52

12 Principals’ Responses for the Term Emotional Intelligence................................. 53

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES PAGE

1 Explanatory Sequential Model .............................................................................. 28

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background and Setting

One major area of public debate today is the topic of education. A Nation at Risk: The

Imperative for Educational Reform (NAR) report released in April 1983 significantly changed

the way the United States addressed public schools and educational reform (Moody, 2007).

Embedded in the educational reform agenda following the release of NAR was an examination

of school leadership. A number of authors examined school leadership and its role in both

failing and successful schools (Cheng, 1994; Lashway, 2001; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,

2005; & Méndez-Morse, 1992). Up until the NAR report, school leader’s roles focused

predominately on managerial tasks of running and maintaining a school. Among four key

components of the NAR, one called for increased administrative leadership (National

Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983). The NAR report along with the

resultant standards and accountability movement demanded a more complex view of leadership

that would encompass a multitude of skills needed to successfully operate a school.

Effective leadership has long been considered vital regarding the successful functioning

of schools (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Duke, 1982; McDill, Rigsby, & Meyers, 1969; U. S.

Congress, 1970). With the passage of Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2003), the United States entered into an education policy

environment that demanded performance accountability measures based upon high-stakes

assessments (Dorn, 2007; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield, 2005). As a result of the NCLB,

directives have been passed down through the hierarchy of the educational system affecting all

stakeholders involved. As an effect of the NAR and the NCLB, increased accountability

2

measures have become a focal point for educational reform not only at the national level, but

also at state and local levels. The demand for increased accountability has forced local school

districts to increase their efforts to meet the required measures created by the NAR and the

NCLB. Principals are held accountable by higher authorities for effective school performance.

The principal must be able to affect change in their organization to meet the demands of

accountability measures, or face consequences such as reassignment or termination if the school

continues to fall short of reaching accountability measures set forth in the NCLB.

Societal changes have transformed the school into a more dynamic and complex

institution than what was previously experienced (Crow, 2006). Given these increased changes

and complexities, “there is an increasing recognition of the importance of school leadership in

supporting change and providing for educational equality” (Pashiardis, 2011, p. 12). A study

conducted by Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom and Anderson (2010) found that the right kind of

school leadership raised achievement. The authors submitted that leadership is a close second to

teacher quality as having the most impact on student achievement. The results of an empirical

study conducted by Hallinger and Heck (1996), regarding the principal’s role in schools indicate

that principals employ a measurable, though indirect effect on student achievement. Other

research similarly points to school leadership as a key element in the effectiveness of schools,

climate, resources, relationships, and student performance (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009;

Cheng, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis et al., 2010;

Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Muijs, 2011; Nettles &

Herrington, 2007).

The principal’s role in leading a campus toward success has become more complex and

multifaceted. A principal must be able to cultivate and sustain learning in the face of complex

3

and rapid change (Fullan, 2001). Pashiardis (2011) proffered that it is important to readjust the

role of principal and to identify specific sets of leadership behaviors and practices that have a

positive influence regarding student performance. Marzano et al. (2005) identified 21 categories

of leadership behaviors that were statistically significant in relation to student achievement. The

categories are referred to as responsibilities of the school leader. These 21 responsibilities are: 1)

affirmation, 2) change agent, 3) contingent rewards, 4) communication, 5) culture, 6) discipline,

7) flexibility, 8) focus, 9) ideals and beliefs, 10) input, 11) intellectual stimulation, 12)

involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment, 13) knowledge of curriculum, instruction

and assessment, 14) monitoring and evaluating, 15) optimizer, 16) order, 17) outreach, 18)

relationships, 19) resources, 20) situational awareness, and 21) visibility. As a result of the

meta-analysis study, Marzano et al. (2005) indicated that effective leaders are aware of their

emotions, know their strengths and weaknesses, and have a strong sense of self-worth. They

further stated that effective leaders manage themselves with discipline, keeping a rein on

negative emotions, being flexible, and behaving with integrity. These 21 responsibilities of

effective leadership support the idea that effective principals must have a combination of general

intelligence with emotional intelligence. A principal must use both general intelligence and

emotional intelligence to exemplify these 21 responsibilities in order to successfully meet state

and federal mandates as well as successfully carry out the mission and vision of the campus and

school district. George (2000) also posited that emotional intelligence correlates with effective

leadership. She proffered that earlier leadership approaches described certain leadership skills

that may either be considered under or partially overlap with emotional intelligence. Additional

research studies have been conducted on a growing acceptance that emotional intelligence may

be a critical component of leadership (Fullan, 2001; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002;

4

Maulding, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Pashiardis, 2011) and that effective

leadership takes more than just cognitive intelligence, but requires developing emotional

intelligence (Greenockle, 2010; Nelson & Low, 2011).

Statement of Problem

Leadership and school performance have received significant attention in the literature

(Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009; Cheng, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kythreotis &

Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Nettles &

Herrington, 2007). Research studies in the area of emotional intelligence and leadership have

begun to be explored in depth in recent years (Anand & Udayasuriyan, 2010; Guillén & Florent-

Treacy, 2011; Hackett & Hortman, 2008; Rehman, 2011). According to Stephens and Hermond

(2009), “the idea of emotional intelligence has struck a particular chord with many leaders today

because it affirms what many have assumed for so long that general intelligence, as measured by

our IQ, is not the only critical factor in predicting the success of leaders in real everyday

organizations” (p. 1). Maulding (2002) stated that “the key to improving leadership lies in using

both aspects of the brain effectively (general intelligence and emotional intelligence) by learning

how to utilize our emotions effectively or, in other words, by developing our emotional

intelligence” (p. 235). Maulding further posited that a certain level of general intelligence would

secure the job, but emotional intelligence is crucial to becoming a successful leader.

A principal’s role in leading a campus toward success has become more complex and

multifaceted, and as a result, a principal must be able to cultivate and sustain learning in the face

of complex and rapid change (Fullan, 2001). Gragg (2008) posited that good leadership

demands good management, not only the day-to-day management skills, but also the art of

managing people. Nelson and Low (2011) called for an inclusion of emotional intelligence skills

5

to be delivered in preparing effective administrators. A review of the literature showed very few

research studies examining the relation between emotional intelligence of school principals and

school performance.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the emotional

intelligence of secondary public school principals and school performance in Texas. The study

was guided by the following research questions:

Quantitative Research Questions:

1. What are the emotional intelligence characteristics of secondary public school principals

in Texas?

2. What is the relationship between emotional intelligence of secondary public school

principals and school performance in Texas?

Qualitative Research Question:

3. What are the perspectives of school principals on the relationship between emotional

intelligence and school performance?

Theoretical Framework

The study’s theoretical framework was influenced by the early work of Salovey and

Mayer (1990) and Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) who proposed two emotional

intelligence models that have set the foundation for continued research in the area of emotional

intelligence. While these two theoretical frameworks emphasized business leadership, more

recently the construct of emotional intelligence in education, specifically the emotional

intelligence of students, teachers, and leaders, have become topics of research. Nelson and

6

Low’s (2011) theoretical framework of emotional intelligence emphasizes its importance in the

field of education.

The Mayer – Salovey model is a mental ability framework that focuses on emotions and

thought interaction (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Within this framework, emotional intelligence is

defined as the ability to monitor one’s own feelings as well as other people's feelings, to

discriminate among them, and to use this to guide thinking as well as actions. This model of

emotional intelligence encompasses several emotional skills or behaviors. These emotional

skills or behaviors are divided into four branches of emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2004).

The four branches include the following: 1) perception of emotions, 2) use of emotion to

facilitate thought, 3) understanding and analyzing of emotion, and 4) the management of

emotion. The branches build upon each other, starting with the perception of emotions

representing the most basic of emotional intelligence skills and progressing in complexity up to

the management of emotion representing the highest levels of emotional intelligence skills. The

first branch, the perception of emotions, involves the basic abilities to perceive and express

emotions in one’s personal state such as joy and sadness. It also involves identifying and

perceiving emotions behind facial expressions and body language (Mayer et al., 2004).

Emotional perception indicates having a self-awareness of emotions through which an individual

can identify emotions in faces, music and stories (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The second

branch, the use of emotion to facilitate thought, involves the use of emotion to guide thinking

which includes translating feelings and using emotions to make judgments (Mayer et al., 2004).

This emotional facilitation assimilates basic emotions by weighing them against one another and

other sensations. In this respect, emotions help prioritize thinking in useful ways and contribute

to judgments and memory (Mayer et al., 2000). The third branch, understanding emotions,

7

involves the capacity to analyze emotions (Mayer et al., 2004). This understanding of emotions

includes not only understanding and analyzing complex emotional blends, emotional transitions

and emotional perspectives, but also understanding relationships related to shifts of emotion

(Mayer et al., 2000). The fourth branch, the management of emotion, involves the capacity to

manage emotions through the context of the individual’s goals and experiences (Mayer et al.,

2004). In emotional management, the individual has the capacity to manage personal emotions

and the emotions of others. In managing emotions, one uses reflection to regulate emotions and

to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer et al., 2000).

The Goleman et al. (2002) model is similar to the emotional intelligence mental ability

model developed by Mayer and Salovey (1990) in that it utilizes the mental ability model, but

also assigns characteristics or traits into a compound conception, or mixed-model of emotional

intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000). Goleman (1998a) referred to emotional intelligence as “the

capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for

managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). The Goleman et al.

(2002) model has four domains: 1) self-awareness, 2) self-management, 3) social awareness, and

4) relationship management. The first domain, self-awareness, means having a deep

understanding of one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs and drives (Goleman, 1998b).

Self-awareness is the foundation that the remaining domains build on and without recognizing

one’s own emotions; one will not excel in the other domains. In the second domain, self-

management is described as the focused drive that all leaders need to achieve their goals.

According to Goleman (1998b), self-management includes a propensity for reflection and

thoughtfulness, comfort with ambiguity and change, and integrity – an ability to say no to

impulsive urges. The third domain, social awareness is defined as the ability to empathize with

8

others and situations. Social awareness is a necessary ingredient in leadership (Goleman et al.,

2002). Social awareness is being able to see subtleties in body language and hear emotional

messages behind people’s words. In the last domain, relationship management is described as

“friendliness with a purpose: moving people in the right direction” (Goleman et al., 2002, p.51).

Relationship management incorporates persuasion, conflict management, collaboration, and

handling other people’s emotions; it allows leaders to put their emotional intelligence to work

(Goleman et al., 2002). Goleman’s (1998b) analysis of emotional intelligence showed that it

plays an important role at the administrative levels of a company. The analysis demonstrated

that emotional intelligence not only distinguishes outstanding leaders but also linked it to strong

performance, specifically that when average performing and top performing leaders were

compared, nearly 90% of their differences were attributable to emotional intelligence factors

rather than cognitive abilities. Goleman’s (1998b) research asserted that emotional intelligence

is twice as important as general intelligence and technical skills in job performance.

Nelson and Low (2011) built upon the work of both Salovey and Mayer (1990) as well as

Goleman (1998a). Their model of emotional intelligence is an education and skill-based

approach to emotional intelligence. Their framework is based on the belief that emotionally

intelligent people have the ability to think constructively and behave wisely and thus can develop

these skills to enhance their personal, academic, and career excellence. Similar to the Mayer et

al. (2000) and Goleman (1998a) models, Nelson and Low (2011) identified four competency

areas of emotional intelligence in their model: 1) interpersonal, 2) leadership, 3) self-

management, and 4) intrapersonal. There are 10 specific emotional intelligence scales that

contribute to these four competencies. These include: 1) assertion, 2) social awareness and

comfort, 3) empathy, 4) decision making, 5) positive influence (leadership), 6) drive strength, 7)

9

time management, 8) commitment ethic, 9) self-esteem, and 10) stress management. Similar to

Goleman (1998b), Low and Nelson (2007) asserted that emotional intelligence skills are key

factors in personal success and career excellence and can be learned. For the purpose of the

study, Nelson and Low’s (2011) education and skills-based model of emotional intelligence was

used to measure the emotional intelligence of secondary public school principals.

Operational Definitions

For the purpose of the study, the following definitions were adopted:

Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage feelings so that they are expressed

appropriately and effectively, enabling people to work together smoothly toward common goals

(Goleman, 1998a). For the purpose of the study, emotional intelligence was measured by

respondents’ responses to the Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) Form A instrument.

School performance refers to the results of test scores on the statewide assessment Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. For the purpose of the study, it was measured

by the Texas Education Agency’s accountability ratings of exemplary, recognized, academically

acceptable, and academically unacceptable.

Secondary public school principals included any public school principal at middle and

high schools that served grades 6 to 12 in Texas.

Glossary of Terms

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) is the Texas method for reporting

extensive information on schools and districts including statewide test results and performance

indicators. The four AEIS performance ratings are exemplary, recognized, academically

acceptable, and academically unacceptable (Texas Education Agency, 2011).

10

Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) is an inventory developed by Low and

Nelson (2011) to measure emotional intelligence.

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (NAR) is a report released by

the National Commission on Excellence in Education that addressed public schools and

educational reform (Moody, 2007).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Act (ESEA) that enacted a number of measures to hold states and schools more

accountable for student achievement (NCLB, 2001).

Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions

The study was delimited to secondary public school principals of campuses that included

grades 6-12. Due to non-probability nature of sampling, external validity was limited to the

principals who voluntarily participated in the study. The study was delimited to the outcome

measure of school performance and predictor variables of emotional intelligence competencies.

Due to the non-experimental nature of the study, no causal inferences were drawn. It was

assumed, 1) the participants for the quantitative component of the study truthfully completed the

survey questionnaire; 2) the focus group participants were honest in their discussion of emotional

intelligence and its relation to school performance, and 3) the researcher remained academically

rigorous with objectivity and subjectivity in both the quantitative and qualitative components of

the study, respectively.

Significance of Study

Nelson and Low (2011) documented that emotional intelligence is an influencing variable

in career success and leadership. Other studies also support the argument that effective

leadership is aligned with school performance (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009; Cheng, 1994;

11

Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis et al., 2010; Leithwood et

al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Nettles & Herrington, 2007). This study was useful in

documenting and discussing such characteristics as emotional intelligence competencies and

skills that characterize effective leaders.

Results from the study may serve as justification and documentation for districts to use

when proposing professional development in emotional intelligence for administrators. The

identification of specific emotional intelligence skills may lead to a change in the way school

districts hire, train, and retain principal candidates and may also lead school districts to design

training programs that are effective in developing, strengthening, and enhancing the emotional

intelligence skills of administrators.

12

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Chapter 2 presents a systematic review of the literature related to the emotional

intelligence and school performance of secondary public school principals. The chapter is

divided into six sections: 1) overview of intelligence, 2) the construct of emotional intelligence,

3) an overview of leadership, 4) leadership and school performance, 5) the role of emotional

intelligence on leadership, and 6) summary. Resources for the study were obtained through the

Bell Library, Inter-Library Loan, ERIC and EBSCO databases, and by attending the 8th Annual

Institute for Emotional Intelligence presented by Drs. Nelson, Low, and Hammett of Texas

A&M Kingsville in 2010.

Overview of Intelligence

The concept of intelligence has been debated much throughout the 20th century. In the

early part of the 20th century, theorists including Spearman (1904) and Terman and Merrill

(1937) agreed that a person’s intelligence could be determined by a single factor. Spearman

(1904) proposed that general intelligence, or what is simply known as the “g” factor, is a

universal and measurable feature within humans in their ability to learn, reason, and solve

problems. Several intelligent quotient (IQ) tests (Binet, 1909; Wechsler, 1958) were developed

to measure the “g” factor and were adopted by organizations as a way of selecting or screening

out potential applicants for employment and promotion (Gottfredson, 2011).

During the same time, other theories of intelligence emerged which proposed that instead

of one general intelligence factor, there were multiple intelligence factors to be considered when

assessing a person’s intellect (Gardner, 1983; Jensen, 1969; Thorndike, 1921; Thurstone, 1938;

& Vernon, 1950). Thurstone (1938) was the first to suggest that the human intellect was far too

13

complex to be determined by one single factor. His theory suggested that multiple factors like

verbal ability, deductive reasoning, spatial ability, and perceptual speed are essential to a unified

theory of intelligence. Another well known approach to multiple intelligences is Gardner’s

(2006) theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner (2006) identified eight intelligences: 1) logical-

mathematical, 2) linguistic, 3) bodily-kinesthetic, 4) interpersonal, 5) intrapersonal, 6) musical,

7) spatial, and 8) naturalistic. He also considered two other potential intelligences, existential

and moral intelligence. He described humans as beings that possess a basic set of intelligences,

which when influenced by cultural and community values will excel at or show deficiencies in

certain intelligence categories. His identification of eight intelligences includes two personal

intelligences: interpersonal and intrapersonal. Gardner (2006) defined interpersonal intelligence

as the ability to recognize, appreciate, and contend with the feelings, beliefs, and intentions of

other people. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand oneself, including emotions,

desires, strengths, and vulnerabilities, and to use such information effectively in regulating one’s

own life. Goleman (1998a) credited Gardner’s (1983) model of multiple intelligence with

pointing out the distinction between intellectual and emotional abilities.

The Construct of Emotional Intelligence

The construct of emotional intelligence is significantly influenced by the early work of

Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002). The construct

encompasses several emotional skills which include understanding emotions and using emotions

to enhance reasoning. The Mayer – Salovey model is a mental ability framework that focuses on

emotions and thought interaction (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). They defined emotional intelligence

as the ability to monitor one’s own and other people's feelings, to discriminate among them, and

to use it to guide thinking and actions. This mental ability framework is divided into four

14

competency areas of emotional intelligence, namely, 1) perception of emotions, 2) use of

emotion, 3) analyzing emotion, and 4) managing emotion. Similar to the mental ability model of

Mayer et al. (2000), the Goleman et al. (2002) model is also divided into four competency areas:

1) self-awareness, 2) self-management, 3) social awareness, and 4) relationship management.

Goleman (1998a) referred to emotional intelligence as “the capacity for recognizing our own

feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in

ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). The Goleman et al. (2002) mixed model is distinct

from the Mayer et al. (2000) mental model in that it identified vital leadership skills associated

with the competency areas. The leadership skills include 1) emotional self-awareness, 2)

accurate self-assessment, 3) self-confidence, 4) self-control, 5) transparency, 6) adaptability, 7)

achievement, 8) initiative, 9) optimism, 10) empathy, 11) organizational awareness, 12) service,

13) inspiration, 14) influence, 15) developing others, 16) change catalyst, 17) conflict

management, and 18) teamwork and collaboration. Both Mayer et al. (2000) and Goleman

(1998a) models of emotional intelligence indicate that the four competency areas build upon

each other. The progression starts with the perception of emotions, which represents the most

basic of emotional intelligence skills, and progresses in complexity up to the management of

emotions which represents the highest levels of emotional intelligence skills (Mayer, Salovey, &

Caruso, 2000). Goleman et al. (2002) submitted that “these competencies are not innate talents,

but learned abilities, each of which has a unique contribution to making leaders more resonant,

and therefore more effective” (p. 8). These two emotional intelligence models have set the

foundation for continued research in the area of emotional intelligence. These theoretical

frameworks targeted business leadership, however, more recently the construct of emotional

intelligence in education, specifically the emotional intelligence of students, teachers, and

15

leaders, have become topics of research. One such theoretical framework for emotional

intelligence in education is offered by Nelson and Low (2011).

Nelson and Low’s (2011) model of emotional intelligence is an education and skill-based

approach to emotional intelligence. Their framework is based on the belief that emotionally

intelligent people have the ability to think constructively and behave wisely and thus can develop

these skills to enhance their personal, academic, and career excellence. Their framework builds

upon Seymour Epstein’s (1998) view of constructive thinking as the key to emotional

intelligence. Epstein’s (1998) constructive thinking theory is based on the assumption that

humans have two minds, an experiential mind and a rational mind. The experiential mind

operates preconsciously, learns from experience, and is associated with emotions. The rational

mind is conscious, deliberative, logical, and relatively emotion-free (Epstein, 1998). He stated

that

The intelligence of the rational mind is what IQ tests measure, and its essence is the

ability to solve abstract problems. The intelligence of the experiential mind includes

practical intelligence, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence. To say that each

mind has its own form of intelligence is simply to note that both are cognitive systems

(ways of knowing) and that both are used to solve problems. (p. 9)

Nelson and Low (2011) believed that by increasing one’s awareness of the preconscious

thoughts, one can learn to think more constructively and enhance specific emotional

competencies. They identified four competency areas of emotional intelligence: 1)

interpersonal, 2) leadership, 3) self-management, and 4) intrapersonal. Unlike the Goleman

(1998a) model that identified 18 leadership skills within the competency areas, Nelson and Low

identified 10 emotional intelligence scales that contribute to the four competency areas: 1)

16

assertion, 2) social awareness and comfort, 3) empathy, 4) decision making, 5) leadership, 6)

drive strength, 7) time management, 8) commitment ethic, 9) self-esteem, and 10) stress

management.

Four Competencies of Emotional Intelligence

Interpersonal Competency

The interpersonal competency is the ability to act wisely in human relationships (Nelson

& Low, 2011). The emotional intelligence scale identified in this competency is assertion; it

involves effective communication, emotional self-control, and understanding and appreciating

differences in others. According to Gragg (2008), having self-control reinforces the values that

are identified through a self awareness of emotions which include understanding and responding

to one’s own emotions. An important idea concerning self-control is that leaders cannot

effectively manage emotions in others without first handling their own emotions; therefore, they

themselves must stay calm and clear headed under stress or during crisis (Goleman et al., 2002).

Goleman et al., (2002) further stated that leaders who have self-control are better able to create

an environment of trust, comfort, and fairness. Assertive communication is “the ability to clearly

and honestly communicate your thoughts and feelings to others in a straightforward and direct

manner” (Nelson & Low, 2011, p. 42). Furthermore, Nelson and Low (2011) believed that being

assertive allows for one to effectively deal with strong emotions such as anger, fear, and sadness.

According to George (2000), “The accurate expression of emotion ensures that people are able to

effectively communicate with others in order to meet their needs and accomplish their goals or

objectives” (p. 1034). Furthermore, Nelson and Low (2011) argued that “assertive

communication skills are essential in relationships, especially ones that are important” (p. 46).

17

In essence, assertive communication allows for powerful, positive communication where feelings

are expressed constructively and respectfully.

Leadership Competency

The leadership competency is defined as knowing, understanding, and respecting the

needs, values, and goals of others, and being people centered. Nelson and Low (2011) stated that

“social awareness and empathy are interdependent and necessitate an assertive communication

style [and that] reasoning and emotions are interactive and both are essential for effective

decision making and people centered leadership” (p. 73-74). Nelson and Low (2011) identified

four emotional intelligence scales in this competency.

Social awareness is the ability to affect others positively and develop trust and rapport in

relationships. Specific behaviors associated with social awareness include feeling the emotional

needs of others, making others feel comfortable, showing understanding, and building positive

relationships. Social awareness is being able to notice subtleties in body language and hear

emotional messages beneath people’s words (Nelson & Low, 2011). Kunnanatt (2008) described

social awareness as a person’s ability to truly understand the emotional minds of others. In

addition to having a social awareness of others, there is also having a social awareness of the

organization as a whole. Organizational social awareness is the understanding of the structure of

social and political networks within the organization (Gragg, 2008) and the ability to detect

crucial networks and read key power relationships (Goleman et al., 2002). Additionally,

Marzano et al. (2005) described it as an “awareness of the details and the undercurrents

regarding the functioning of the school and the use of this information to address current and

potential problems” (p. 60).

18

Empathy is “the ability to accurately understand and constructively respond to the

expressed feelings, thoughts, and needs of others” (Nelson & Low, 2011, p. 80). Goleman et al.

(2002) described empathy as the fundamental competence of social awareness; and proffered that

social awareness is the ability to empathize with others and situations. Empathy makes leaders

more approachable and considerate, and allows them to recognize and meet the needs of others

(Goleman et al., 2002). Gragg (2008) stated that empathy involves active listening and

acknowledging divergent opinions that allows others to express themselves in their need to be

heard. Empathy is a way of putting one’s self in another person’s situation and viewing the issue

through the other person’s eyes. Empathy is a leadership skill that allows for positive leading

and working relationships because the leader accepts and understands the emotions and

motivation of others (Nelson & Low, 2011).

Decision-making is the ability to use problem solving and conflict resolution effectively

to resolve issues. George (2000) noted that a leader is able to use emotional input in decision

making and manage emotions that interfere with making effective decisions. Goleman (1995)

stated that the key to making wiser decisions depended on being in tune with one’s own

intuition. Goleman et al. (2002) further stated that intuition works best in decision-making when

it is used in conjunction to other kinds of data. A study conducted by Ginsberg (2008), found

that “leaders found some comfort in taking actions they intuitively felt were correct” (p. 296).

Through effective decision-making, a leader is able to plan, formulate, initiate, and implement

resolutions that will benefit individuals and the organization.

Leadership is the ability to positively affect, persuade, and influence others toward

making a positive difference. Goleman (1998a) proffered that people skilled at positive

influence are able to sense or anticipate reactions of others and can effectively influence or

19

persuade others toward the intended goal. The power that comes with influence and persuasion

should only be exhibited for the collective good of the organization and not be for selfish gain.

Positive influence is a reflection of a person who has a positive self-esteem, high moral values,

and self-confidence where manipulation and coercion is not present. The positive influence

creates a climate that leads others to achieve and leaves a feeling of satisfaction in those who

benefit from it. Positive influence is an essential emotional intelligence skill for establishing

vision and direction for others in ways that are valued and respected (Nelson & Low, 2011).

Self-Management Competency

Self-management competency is setting and meeting meaningful goals, managing time

and resources, and learning to be flexible when unexpected demands or changes arise (Nelson &

Low, 2011). Goleman et al. (2002) stated that an important idea with self-management is that

leaders cannot effectively manage emotions in others without first handling their own emotions.

Leaders who have mastered their own emotions are better able to cope with changes and help

organizations adjust. Nelson and Low (2011) identified three emotional intelligence scales

related to self-management

Drive strength is the ability to achieve meaningful goals that result in positive feelings. It

is the drive from within, an internal power, which encourages one to stick to the goal when

obstacles arise. Drive strength demands motivation and focused energy that enable a leader to

manage his/her self and achieve goals (Nelson & Low, 2011). Goleman (1998a) described

leaders with drive strength as having a high drive to meet objectives, willing to take calculated

risks, and finding ways to improve performance.

Commitment ethic is the ability to achieve tasks and responsibilities dependably and

successfully. Leaders with a high commitment ethic show inner-direction, self-motivation, and

20

persistence when achieving tasks, even when obstacles arise (Nelson & Low, 2011). Goleman et

al. (2002) posited that leaders who show strength in their commitment to achieve challenging

goals have high personal standards not only for themselves but also for the ones they lead. They

further stated that the more personal the commitment to goal attainment, the more likely one is to

achieve or complete the goal.

Time management is the ability to actively manage time instead of responding to the

demands of time. Time is a valuable resource to leaders and learning to use it effectively is an

essential self-management skill. Leaders must learn to deal with time restrictions. One way to

deal with these restrictions is to organize tasks into a productive time schedule and use time

effectively to complete the tasks. Nelson and Low (2011) further stated that effective time

management means increased self-management and self-direction. These self-managing and

self-directing behaviors allow for the accomplishment of goals efficiently and with minimum

stress.

Intrapersonal Competency

Nelson and Low (2011) defined intrapersonal competency as an awareness of the

perception, value, and betterment of one’s self as well as dealing with demands, stresses, and

pressures of life. Nelson and Low (2011) identified two emotional intelligence scales under this

competency.

Self-esteem is the ability to view one’s self as positive, competent, and successful. An

added component of self-esteem is having optimism – self confidence and positive self-worth

(Nelson & Low, 2011). Identifying and capitalizing on one’s strengths help promote a positive

self-esteem and increases a person’s optimism and self-worth. In a study by Blase and Kirby

(2000), optimism was identified as a critical component for effective leadership. They submitted

21

that the leader sets the emotional tone for good or worse within the organization. Furthermore,

Marzano et al. (2005) stated that a specific behavior of optimism is being able to send out a

positive attitude about the ability of others to accomplish things. According to Goleman et al.

(2002), a leader who shows optimism sees an opportunity rather than a threat or setback, and has

a positive outlook that changes made will be for the better.

Stress management is the ability to choose and exercise healthy self-control in response

to stressful events. Stress management requires regulation of emotional levels and use of coping

strategies when faced with stressful or difficult situations (Nelson & Low, 2011). Characteristics

of positive stress management include positive self-worth, competence, strong decision-making

skills, assertive communication, positive influence, and effective time management. According

to Nelson and Low (2011), career effectiveness improves when a person learns and practices

positive stress management.

Nelson and Low (2007) have spent decades researching emotional intelligence and have

posited that emotional intelligence skills are key factors in personal, academic, and career

excellence. Additionally, developing these competency areas and the emotional intelligence

scales within each competency are necessary in effective leadership. Goleman et al. (2002)

supported this idea and asserted that “great leadership works through the emotions” (p. 3) and

posited that emotional intelligence is a key component of effective leadership.

Overview of Leadership

Effective leadership is a critical element to the success of organizations (Collins,

2001) such as schools (Fullan, 2003). While the concept of leadership (Burns, 1978;

Cheng, 1994; Fiedler, 1967; Lashway, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005; & Méndez-Morse,

1992) and effective leadership in the public school system (Crow, 2006; Fullan, 2001;

22

Marzano et al., 2005; Muijs, 2011; Pashiardis, 2011) have been extensively researched, it

appears that for every researcher, there is a related definition. Marzano et al. (2005)

stated that James Burns is considered the founder of modern leadership theory and has a

“robust” definition for leadership; therefore, within this context, Burns (1978) defined

leadership as “Leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values

and the motivation – the wants and the needs, the aspirations and expectations – of both

leaders and followers. And the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders

see and act on their own and their followers’ values and motivations” (p. 19).

According to Méndez-Morse (1992), early research from the 1900s to the 1950s

attempted to differentiate leader and follower characteristics, but found no specific trait

that exemplified a leader. He reported “to understand what contributed to making leaders

effective, researchers used the contingency model in examining the connection between

personal traits, situational variables, and leader effectiveness” (p. 3). Researchers then

attempted to identify indicators or traits of what it took to be an effective leader. Sagnak

(2010) posited that research on leadership effectiveness is based on two basic concepts,

namely task orientation and relationship orientation (p. 1136). What researchers

discovered was that leadership is complex (Fullan, 2001).

Leadership and School Performance

For many years, much attention has been focused on effective leadership in the public

school system, and it has been studied from multiple angles including leadership styles, skills

and traits, and competencies (Crow, 2006; Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005; Mujis, 2011;

Pashiardis, 2011). Three major studies have been conducted specifically regarding leadership

and school performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Marzano et al.,

23

2005). In the first major study, Hallinger and Heck (1996) reviewed 40 studies that examined

leadership behavior with school performance as the dependent variable. They found that a

leader’s vision plays an important role in the organization’s success. A second important study

conducted by Leithwood and Riehl (2003) focused on a literature review of quantitative studies

involving leadership behaviors. They identified three major core leadership behaviors that

influenced school success: setting direction, developing people, and redesigning the

organization. A third major meta-analysis study conducted by Marzano et al. (2005) examined

the quantitative relationship between building principals and the academic achievement of

students. The central question guiding the meta-analysis was “how much of a school’s impact on

student achievement is due to the leadership displayed in that school?” (p. 4). The meta-analysis

identified 21 categories of leadership behaviors that were statistically significant in relation to

student achievement. The 21 categories of behaviors identified were: 1) affirmation, 2) change

agent, 3) contingent rewards, 4) communication, 5) culture, 6) discipline, 7) flexibility, 8) focus,

9) ideals and beliefs, 10) input, 11) intellectual stimulation, 12) involvement in curriculum,

instruction and assessment, 13) knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment, 14)

monitoring and evaluating, 15) optimizer, 16) order, 17) outreach, 18) relationships, 19)

resources, 20) situational awareness, and 21) visibility. The meta-analysis study indicated that a

highly effective principal can have a profound influence on the academic achievement of

students. All three studies found evidence that leadership has an influence on school

performance in some way.

The Role of Emotional Intelligence on Leadership

The construct of emotional intelligence has gained popularity as a prospective underlying

attribute of effective leadership (Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Furthermore, a growing body of

24

research on effective leadership points to the idea that it takes more than just cognitive

intelligence, but requires developing emotional intelligence (Greenockle, 2010). Fullan (2003)

observed that “effective leaders combine a strong sense of moral purpose, an understanding of

the dynamics of change, and great emotional intelligence as they build relationships” (p. 93). As

a result of their meta-analysis study, Marzano et al. (2005) indicated that effective leaders are

aware of their emotions, know their strengths and weaknesses, and have a strong sense of self-

worth. They further stated that effective leaders manage themselves with discipline, keeping a

rein on negative emotions, being flexible, and behaving with integrity.

Additional significant research studies have been conducted on a growing acceptance that

emotional intelligence may be a critical component of leadership (Fullan, 2001; Goleman et al.,

2002; Maulding, 2002; Mayer et al., 2004, Pashiardis, 2011). Notably, the work of Goleman et

al. (2002) linked emotional intelligence to effective leadership and indicated that emotional

intelligence is twice as important as general intelligence and technical skills in job performance.

Goleman (1998b) found that the most effective leaders had a high degree of emotional

intelligence. Moreover, his analysis of emotional intelligence showed that it plays an important

role at the administrative levels of a company, and he argued that emotional intelligence not only

distinguishes outstanding leaders but it can also be linked to strong performance. Additionally,

Goleman (1998b) indicated that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non (or essential

condition) of leadership. George (2000) posited that emotional intelligence correlates with

effective leadership. Furthermore, she proffered that earlier leadership approaches described

certain leadership skills that may either be subsumed under or partially overlap with emotional

intelligence. Ayiro (2009) also found that emotional intelligence was positively correlated to

effective leadership. His study examined the relationship between emotional intelligence of

25

school principals and their performance rating, and found that perceiving and using emotions had

the greatest overall impact on performance ratings. Maulding (2002) argued that a certain level

of cognitive intelligence or general intelligence would get one the job, but emotional intelligence

was crucial to becoming a successful leader. He posited that “the key to improving leadership

lies in using both aspects of the brain effectively (general intelligence and emotional

intelligence) by learning how to utilize our emotions effectively or, in other words, by

developing our emotional intelligence” (p. 235).

Summary

The role of principal has evolved over the years into a complex role. As a result of NAR

and NCLB, the directives for more accountability place principals in the spot light in regards

with school performance. An effective principal is no longer measured by how well s/he runs

the day-to-day routines of the school, but by how s/he manages people and affects positive

change and outcomes within the organization. Pashiardis (2011) posited that it is important to

readjust the role of principal in regards to student performance and to identify specific leadership

behaviors and practices that have a positive influence on it.

The literature review supports the idea that effective principals are critical to the success

of the school. The literature review also supports the idea that emotionally intelligent leaders are

more effective. Nelson and Low’s emotional intelligence framework (2011) supports the study

by offering that emotional intelligence is a key factor in the success of a building principal.

Chapter 2 presented an overview of the literature related to intelligence, emotional

intelligence, and leadership. Initially, the constructs of intelligence and emotional intelligence

were reviewed. A detailed review was conducted on Nelson and Low’s (2011) four emotional

intelligent competencies and the 10 emotional intelligence scales. An overview of leadership

26

was conducted and a review of three major studies on the relationship of leadership and school

performance was conducted. Finally, a review of literature and research discussed the role

emotional intelligence takes in effective leadership and how emotional intelligence may assist

principals in their pursuit of effectiveness and successful school performance.

27

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Leadership in public schools has become more complex over the years in an effort to

meet state and federal mandates. According to Stephens and Hermond (2009), the idea of

emotional intelligence has struck a chord with many leaders today because it acknowledges that

general intelligence, IQ, is not the only vital factor in predicting the success of leaders in

organizations. The focus of the study was to test the hypothesis that the emotional intelligence

of a school principal and school performance are correlated. The following research questions

guided the study:

3. What are the emotional intelligence characteristics of secondary public school principals

in Texas?





Research Design

The study was correlational in nature, employing mixed-methods research. The

researcher used the explanatory sequential design (ESD) to answer the research questions.

According to Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011), the ESD is implemented to collect and analyze

quantitative data, followed by collection and analysis of qualitative data, and is concluded by

synthesis of the results. Figure 1 depicts the design.

28

Figure 1

Explanatory Sequential Design

Quantitative

The quantitative component of the study employed a correlational design. Gall, Gall, and

Borg (2007) stated that correlational research designs are highly useful for studying problems in

education. The purpose of correlational research is to discover relationships between/among

variables through the use of correlational statistics (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). The research

design involves collecting data on two or more variables and computing a correlational

coefficient that allowed the researcher to analyze how the variables either singly or in

combination affect the outcome measure. An advantage of computing the correlational

coefficient is that it provides information concerning the degree of the relationship between the

variables being studied. The correlation coefficient expresses in mathematical terms the degree

and direction of the relationship between two or more variables. In the study, emotional

intelligence was the independent variable and school performance was the outcome measure.

Due to non-experimental nature of the study, no causal inferences were drawn.

Qualitative

The qualitative component of the study was conducted in two ways, 1) open-ended

questions posed to the survey participants, and 2) a focus group. Focus groups are advantageous

when the interaction among interviewees will likely yield the best information; when

interviewees are similar and cooperative with each other; when time to collect information is

limited; and when individuals interviewed one-on-one may be hesitant to provide information

29

(Krueger & Casey, 2009; Morgan, 1988; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Krueger and Casey

(2009) further stated that the focus group offers a more natural environment than that of an

interview with participants influencing and being influenced by others which promotes self-

disclosure among participants. The focus group was guided by the theory of interpretivism. The

interpretivist perspective holds that there are multiple truths. Interpretivism attempts to

understand social and human reality which varies from individual to individual. Creswell (2007)

defined interpretivism as a form of interpretive inquiry where the researchers make

interpretations of what they see, hear, and understand. The researcher used interpretivism to

understand and explain the principal’s perspectives of emotional intelligence and school

performance. The open-ended question responses and focus group transcripts were coded and

analyzed.

Instrumentation

Quantitative

A two-part Emotional Skills Questionnaire (ESQ) was developed by the researcher

(Appendix A). Part I consisted of the Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) inventory

(Low & Nelson, 2011) to measure emotional intelligence. Permission to use the ESAP was

obtained (Appendix A). Part II was designed to collect data on selected demographic

characteristics of the participants.

The ESAP Form A is a 63-item self-assessment instrument, which measures 10

emotional scales: 1) assertion (items 1-9), 2) social awareness and comfort (items 10-15), 3)

empathy (items 16-21), 4) decision making (items 22-27), 5) leadership/positive influence (items

28-33), 6) drive strength (items 34-39), 7) time management (items 40-45), 8) commitment ethic

(items 46-51), 9) self-esteem (items 52-57), and 10) stress management (items 58-63). The

30

ESAP Form A uses a 3-point Likert-type scaling: 1 = most like or descriptive of the respondent,

2 = sometimes like or descriptive of the respondent and sometimes not, and 3 = least like or

descriptive of the respondent.

The 10 scales are divided into four competencies. The interpersonal competency is

measured by assertion, ranging from 0 to 18. The leadership competency is measured by social

awareness and comfort, empathy, decision making, and leadership/positive influence scales,

which may range from 0 to 48. The self-management competency is measured by drive strength,

time management, and commitment ethic, ranging from 0 to 36. The intrapersonal competency is

measured by self-esteem and stress management, which may range from 0 to 24. In all, the

higher the score suggests the higher presence of the emotional competency.

The psychometric properties of the ESAP are published. The ESAP measures four

emotional intelligence competencies that are shown to be valid and reliable (Nelson & Low,

2006; Nelson, Jin & Wang, 2002; Cox & Nelson, 2008). The ESAP reliability coefficients, as

reported by Nelson, Low and Vela (2003), ranged from .60 to .82. The concurrent, predictive,

and construct validity of the ESAP are established (Nelson, Low & Ellis, 2007). The ESAP has

been found to have concurrent validity with the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI),

developed by Seymour Epstein. According to Nelson, Low, and Ellis (2007), the ESAP has been

used in more than 40 doctoral studies.

The demographic questionnaire was designed to collect data on the following

characteristics of the participants: age, gender, ethnicity, highest level of education, district

category (urban, suburban, rural), number of years in current position, number of years of

experience in administration, and school performance (unacceptable, acceptable, recognized, and

exemplary). The performance scale was developed by Texas Education Agency’s Division of

31

Performance Reporting in accordance with Texas Education Code 39, Public School

Accountability (TEA, 2011).

The utility of ESQ was examined. To do so, 18 local educators were invited to pilot-test

the instrument and reported having no difficulties in completing the instrument. No issues in

delivering the ESQ and receiving the data, electronically, were noted. The pilot-test took place

in June 2012.

Qualitative

The perspectives of secondary public school principals were documented through two

sources of qualitative data: 1) responses to two open-ended questions in the ESQ and 2) a focus

group. The ESQ questions, which also served as lead questions for the focus group, were:

• In your opinion, should there be a relationship between the emotional intelligence skills

of a principal and the performance of a campus? Why or why not?

• In your opinion, what is the most important factor that enables a principal to affect school

performance? Why?

The focus group participants were asked one additional question:

• What does the term emotional intelligence mean to you?

Subject Selection

The study participants were recruited from six Educational Service Centers in Texas,

namely, Region 1 – Edinburg, Region 2 – Corpus Christi, Region 3 – Victoria, Region 4 –

Houston, Region 5 – Beaumont, and Region 20 – San Antonio. The regions represented urban,

suburban, and rural school districts.

32

Quantitative

All principals in the secondary public schools in the abovementioned regions were

invited to participate in the study. Secondary public schools included any middle and high

school that served 6th through 12th graders. In July 2012, there were 251 public school districts

in the six selected regions with 1000 secondary public school principals. The contact

information was obtained from the AskTED Search by Region – Personnel search engine found

on the Texas Education Agency web site.

Qualitative

For the qualitative component of the study, a non-probability sample of the principals

was selected to participate in the focus group. For logistical reasons, the qualitative component

of the study was delimited to an urban school district in Region 2 so that participants were

selected within closer vicinity to lessen the travel time to attend the focus group session.

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at

Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi and the school district in which the focus group took

place. Consent to participate in the quantitative component of the study was obtained

electronically. Focus group participants were required to sign a consent form. Documents are in

Appendix B.

Data Collection

Quantitative

The 1000 secondary public school principals were invited to participate in the study. The

data collection proceeded as follows: first, an email was sent to each principal on August 3, 2012

(Appendix B). The email explained the purpose of the study, described how the subjects were

selected, and informed the principals that an email with the link to an online survey questionnaire

33

would be sent to them within the week. The link was emailed a few days later on August 6,

2012. A follow-up email (Appendix B) was sent to all potential participants 7-10 days later,

thanking those who had completed the questionnaire and encouraged others to kindly complete

the ESQ. There were 105 principals who took part in the quantitative component of the study by

completing the online survey questionnaire.

Qualitative

The qualitative component of the study employed two means of data collection:

responses to two open-ended questions in the ESQ and 2) a focus group. The responses to the

open-ended questions were obtained from the respondents of the online survey. The researcher

conducted the focus group on December 6, 2012. An email (Appendix B) was used to recruit the

participants. There were five principals who voluntarily attended the focus group. The session

was audio-taped and transcribed. The transcripts of the open-ended question responses and the

focus group are in Appendix C.

Data Analysis

Quantitative

The data were coded and entered into the computer. The Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilized to manipulate and analyze the data. Descriptive statistics

were used to summarize and organize the data. The ESAP Form A measured four competencies:

1) interpersonal, 2) leadership, 3) self-management, and 4) intrapersonal. The measure of the

constructs was continuous in nature. The outcome measure, school performance, was a

categorical variable with four levels (unacceptable, acceptable, recognized, and exemplary).

Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (Crocker & Algina, 1986) was used to estimate the internal

consistency/reliability of the 10 emotional intelligence scales and the four emotional intelligence

34

competencies. Specifically, α = [k/k-1][1-(Σσi2/σx

2)], where k is the number of items on the test,

σi2 is the variance of item i, and σx

2 is the total test variance (sum of the variances plus twice the

sum of the co-variances of all possible pairs of its components, that is, σx2 = Σσi

2 + 2Σσij) was

computed (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

A univariate repeated measures analysis of variance (Field, 2009) was performed to

examine the differences among the four emotional intelligence competencies. The following

linear model was tested: Xij = µ + αj + πi + εij ( Score = Grand Mean + Treatment Effect + Block

Effect + Error Effect). The Epsilon (ε) was used to test the sphericity assumption; if ε is .70 or

greater, the assumption is met (Stevens, 1999). Modified Tukey procedure, HSD = qα;k,(n-1)(k-1)

√MSRES/n, where (n-1)(k-1) is the error degrees of freedom and MSRES is the error term, was

used for the purpose of post hoc analysis (Stevens, 1999).

A Discriminant Analysis (DA) was used to predict school performance on the basis of the

four competencies (Stevens, 2009). There is a mathematical expression called a vector, which

represents each subject's score on more than one response variable. The mean of the vectors for

each group is called a centroid. The DA is used to differentiate among groups with respect to

their group centroids. Box’s M was used to test the homogeneity of covariance matrices

assumption. Wilks’ Lambda was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no relationship

between the four emotional intelligence competencies and school performance.

Qualitative

The transcripts of the qualitative data were content analyzed to derive themes that were

used to document the perspectives of the participants regarding the influence of emotional

intelligence on school performance. Specifically, inductive analysis was performed, which

involves building codes, categories, and patterns into a comprehensible set of themes (Creswell

35

2007). Coding refers to a word, short phrase, or an essence attribute taken from a portion of the

data (Saldana 2009). Categorizing is used to divide the coded material into groups that share the

same characteristics, which are then used to identify themes of what the data are suggesting at a

larger level (Saldana, 2009). The researcher coded the transcripts, looked for common

characteristics in the codes, and placed them into categories and themes using the research

question as a guide. In accordance with the ESD, quantitative and qualitative results were

synthesized to discuss the relationship between the emotional intelligence of a principal and

school performance.

36

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the emotional

intelligence of secondary public school principals and school performance in Texas. The study

employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods model (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The

study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the emotional intelligence characteristics of a non-probability sample of

secondary public school principals in Texas?

2. What is the relationship between emotional intelligence of a non-probability sample of

secondary public school principals and school performance in Texas?



Quantitative Results

Profile of Subjects

The non-probability sample consisted of 105 secondary public school principals from six

Education Service Centers in Texas. The respondents’ gender was equally distributed. The

majority of the respondents was White (76.20%) and held master’s degrees (78.10%). Rural

districts were represented the most (46.70%), followed by suburban (32.40%), and urban

(21.00%) districts. The school performance rating reported the most was recognized (45.70%),

followed by acceptable (40.00%), exemplary (6.70%), and unacceptable (6.70%); there was one

missing case (1.00%). Results are summarized in Table 1.

37

Table 1

Profile of Subjects, Categorical Variables, n=105 Variable f % Gender Male 52 49.50 Female 53 50.50 Ethnicity African American 5 4.80 White 80 76.20 Hispanic 19 18.10 Other 1 1.00 Education Master’s Degree 82 78.10 Doctoral Degree 23 21.90 Type of District Urban 22 21.00 Suburban 34 32.40 Rural 49 46.70 School Performance Exemplary 7 6.70 Rating Recognized 48 45.70 Acceptable 42 40.00 Unacceptable 7 6.70 Missing 1 1.00

The participants ranged in age from 29 to 70 (Mean = 47.82, SD = 7.88) years. The

distributions for the total years of experience in education and the total years in the current

position were positively skewed; thus, median was used as the most appropriate measure of

central tendency. A typical school principal had 10.00 years of experience in education and was

in the current position for 3.00 years. Results are summarized in Table 2.

38

Table 2

Profile of Subjects, Continuous Variables, n=105 Characteristic Mean Median Mode SD Skew Coef. Age

47.82

48.00

48.00

7.88

.05

Total years of experience in education

11.71

10.00

6.00

7.05

.87

Total years in current position

4.97

3.00

2.00

5.40

3.34

Emotional Intelligence Skills

The secondary public school principals were asked to complete Part I of the Emotional

Skills Questionnaire (ESQ), which consisted of the 63-item Emotional Skills Assessment Process

(ESAP) Form A, using a 3-point Likert-type scaling: 1 = most like or descriptive of you, 2 =

sometimes like or descriptive of you and sometimes not, 3 = least like or descriptive of you.

Results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Responses to Part I of the Emotional Skills Questionnaire - Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) Form A, n=105 Question Response F % When I am really angry at someone, I usually feel some tension, but comfortable in expressing exactly what is on my mind.

Most like you

38

36.20 Sometimes like you 52 49.50 Least like you 15 14.30 When I am really angry at someone, I usually think “Okay, I’m angry and need to deal with it constructively.”

Most like you

76

72.40 Sometimes like you 26 24.80 Least like you 3 2.90 When I am really angry at someone, I usually behave by expressing what is bothering me, and working to achieve a constructive resolution.

Most like you

57

54.30 Sometimes like you 43 41.00 Least like you 5 4.80

39

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % When someone is really angry at me, I usually feel tension and the right to understand the person’s anger by responding directly.

Most like you

33

31.40 Sometimes like you 60 57.10 Least like you 12 11.40 When someone is really angry at me, I usually think that I have the right and need to understand the person’s anger at me and to respond directly to resolve the conflict.

Most like you

45

42.90 Sometimes like you 53 50.50 Least like you 7 6.70 When someone is really angry at me, I usually behave by asking for a further explanation of the anger and dealing with the feelings in a straightforward manner.

Most like you

56

53.30 Sometimes like you 39 37.10 Least like you 10 9.50 When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually feel comfortable and straightforward in my approach to the person.

Most like you

69

65.70 Sometimes like you 33 31.40 Least like you 3 2.90 When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually think that my needs are legitimate, and okay to express in a straightforward manner.

Most like you

70

66.70 Sometimes like you 33 31.40 Least like you 2 1.90 When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually behave comfortably and at ease with the person.

Most like you

64

61.00 Sometimes like you 40 38.10 Least like you 1 1.00 I am confident in my ability to be comfortable and effective in communicating with other people.

Most like you

88

83.80

Sometimes like you 17 16.20 Least like you 0 0.00 I am comfortable with all kinds of people. Most like you 82 78.10 Sometimes like you 23 21.90 Least like you 0 0.00 My relationships with others are smooth and comfortable.

Most like you

78

74.30

Sometimes like you 27 25.70 Least like you 0 0.00

40

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % I can tell how friendly I can be with a stranger. Most like you 70 66.70 Sometimes like you 33 31.40 Least like you 2 1.90 My voice is variable and clear, and I am easily heard by others.

Most like you

83

79.00

Sometimes like you 22 21.00 Least like you 0 0.00 I know when it is okay for me to put my hand on another person’s shoulders.

Most like you

75

71.40

Sometimes like you 24 22.90 Least like you 6 5.70 I listen to and really understand another person’s feelings.

Most like you

71

67.60

Sometimes like you 34 32.40 Least like you 0 0.00 I am the kind of person that people are really able to talk to about personal problems.

Most like you

65

61.90

Sometimes like you 40 38.10 Least like you 0 0.00 My friends tell me that I am an understanding person.

Most like you

73

69.50

Sometimes like you 30 28.60 Least like you 2 1.90 I understand and am patient with someone who is experiencing a lot of emotions.

Most like you

64

61.00

Sometimes like you 36 34.30 Least like you 5 4.80 I am a caring person, and people seem to sense this in me.

Most like you

78

74.30

Sometimes like you 25 23.80 Least like you 2 1.90 I accurately feel what another person feels. Most like you 48 45.70 Sometimes like you 53 50.50 Least like you 4 3.80 I am a good decision maker. Most like you 83 79.00 Sometimes like you 22 21.00 Least like you 0 0.00 My decisions are usually accepted as “good” by the persons affected.

Most like you

87

82.90


41

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % When faced with an important decision, I am not overly anxious about making a wrong choice.

Most like you

61

58.10

Sometimes like you 35 33.30 Least like you 9 8.60 My friends and co-workers ask me for help in making important decisions.

Most like you

83

79.00

Sometimes like you 22 21.00 Least like you 0 0.00 I make a decision and act rather than worrying about the alternatives and becoming tense.

Most like you

41

39.00

Sometimes like you 46 43.80 Least like you 18 17.10 I follow an established process that guides me in making important decisions.

Most like you

55

52.40

Sometimes like you 49 46.70 Least like you 1 1.00 I have a good ability to help others solve problems. Most like you 82 78.10 Sometimes like you 23 21.90 Least like you 0 0.00 When a group that I am in needs a spokesperson, I am usually elected.

Most like you

62

59.00

Sometimes like you 37 35.20 Least like you 6 5.70 I am a good leader. Most like you 88 83.8 Sometimes like you 17 16.2 Least like you 0 0.00 I “take charge” of a situation when I need to. Most like you 98 93.30 Sometimes like you 7 6.70 Least like you 0 0.00 When I really feel strongly about something, I am influential in gaining agreement in a group.

Most like you

88

83.80

Sometimes like you 16 15.20 Least like you 1 1.00 I feel comfortable about approaching another person with the idea of selling him/her something.

Most like you

59

56.20

Sometimes like you 37 35.20 Least like you 9 8.60 I set priorities and meet objectives effectively. Most like you 83 79.00 Sometimes like you 22 21.00 Least like you 0 0.00

42

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % When I begin a difficult task, I am motivated more by the thought of success than by the thought of failure.

Most like you

79

75.20 Sometimes like you 26 24.80 Least like you 0 0.00 I feel that my present work is satisfying. Most like you 83 79.00 Sometimes like you 21 20.00 Least like you 1 1.00 I have more than enough energy to get me through the day.

Most like you

75

71.40

Sometimes like you 27 25.70 Least like you 3 2.90 I have a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do.

Most like you

102

97.10

Sometimes like you 3 2.90 Least like you 0 0.00 I set daily goals for myself. Most like you 62 59.00 Sometimes like you 36 34.30 Least like you 7 6.70 I am an efficient and well organized person. Most like you 56 53.30 Sometimes like you 48 45.70 Least like you 1 1.00 I plan and complete my work on schedule. Most like you 77 73.30 Sometimes like you 28 26.70 Least like you 0 0.00 I set objectives for myself and then successfully complete them within a specific time frame.

Most like you

71

67.60

Sometimes like you 31 29.50 Least like you 3 2.90 I control my responsibilities rather than being controlled by them.

Most like you

72

68.60

Sometimes like you 32 30.50 Least like you 1 1.00 I effectively work on several projects at the same time with good results.

Most like you

78

74.30

Sometimes like you 25 23.80 Least like you 2 1.90 I waste very little time. Most like you 51 48.60 Sometimes like you 53 50.50 Least like you 1 1.00 People admire my ability to accomplish what I set out to do.

Most like you

73

69.50


43

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % Even when I encounter personal difficulties, I complete assignments and obligations.

Most like you

98

93.30

Sometimes like you 7 6.70 Least like you 0 0.00 In almost any area that I go into, I really do well. Most like you 72 68.60 Sometimes like you 33 31.40 Least like you 0 0.00 I rarely fail at anything that I consider important. Most like you 79 75.20 Sometimes like you 26 24.80 Least like you 0 0.00 I have a solid feeling of confidence in my ability to create a good life for myself.

Most like you

87

82.9

Sometimes like you 18 17.1 Least like you 0 0.00 I am considered a dependable person. Most like you 101 96.20 Sometimes like you 3 2.90 Least like you 1 1.00 I trust my ability to size up a situation. Most like you 95 90.50 Sometimes like you 10 9.50 Least like you 0 0.00 I am excited about myself and the potential that I have to develop as a person.

Most like you

83

79.00

Sometimes like you 22 21.00 Least like you 0 0.00 I feel in control of my life. Most like you 72 68.60 Sometimes like you 32 30.50 Least like you 1 1.00 I am an open, honest, and spontaneous person. Most like you 75 71.40 Sometimes like you 29 27.60 Least like you 1 1.00 I like myself, and I feel very comfortable with the way I am as a person.

Most like you

86

81.90

Sometimes like you 19 18.10 Least like you 0 0.00 For me, anything is possible if I believe in myself. Most like you 86 81.90 Sometimes like you 19 18.10 Least like you 0 0.00 Even when I try to enjoy myself and relax, I feel a lot of pressure.

Most like you

28

26.70


44

Table 3 Continued Question Response F % My friends often say that I look worried, tense or uptight.

Most like you

11

10.50

Sometimes like you 49 46.70 Least like you 45 42.90 I have become extremely nervous and tense at times, and doctors have advised me to slow down and relax.

Most like you

8

7.60 Sometimes like you 25 23.80 Least like you 72 68.60 I am impatient with myself and others, and I am usually pushing to hurry things up.

Most like you

14

13.30

Sometimes like you 44 41.90 Least like you 47 44.80 I often feel that I have little control over what I think, feel and do.

Most like you

8

7.60

Sometimes like you 21 20.00 Least like you 76 72.40 I feel tense and pressured by the way I have to live. Most like you 10 9.50 Sometimes like you 24 22.90 Least like you 71 67.60

The mean of the respondents’ responses was used to rank the 63 emotional skills from the

most like to the least like. The scaling was: 1 = most like you, 2 = sometimes like you, 3 = least

like you. As can be seen in Table 4, the lowest mean reflected that the principals felt that it was

most like them to have a strong desire to be a success in the things they set out to do. The

highest mean showed that the principals felt that it was least like them to feel like they have little

control over what they thought or did.

Table 4

Ranking of Emotional Skills, n=105 Emotional Skills Questions Mean* I have a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do. 1.03 I am considered a dependable person. 1.05 Even when I encounter personal difficulties, I complete assignments and obligations.

1.07

I “take charge” of a situation when I need to. 1.07

45

Table 4 Continued Emotional Skills Questions Mean* I trust my ability to size up a situation. 1.10 I am a good leader. 1.16 I am confident in my ability to be comfortable and effective in communicating with other people.

1.16

When I really feel strongly about something, I am influential in gaining agreement in a group.

1.17

My decisions are usually accepted as “good” by the persons affected. 1.17 I have a solid feeling of confidence in my ability to create a good life for myself. 1.17 I like myself, and I feel very comfortable with the way I am as a person. 1.18 For me, anything is possible if I believe in myself. 1.18 My voice is variable and clear, and I am easily heard by others. 1.21 My friends and co-workers ask me for help in making important decisions. 1.21 I set priorities and meet objectives effectively. 1.21 I am excited about myself and the potential that I have to develop as a person. 1.21 I am a good decision maker. 1.21 I have a good ability to help others solve problems. 1.22 I feel that my present work is satisfying. 1.22 I am comfortable with all kinds of people. 1.22 When I begin a difficult task, I am motivated more by the thought of success than by the thought of failure.

1.25

I rarely fail at anything that I consider important. 1.25 My relationships with others are smooth and comfortable. 1.26 I plan and complete my work on schedule. 1.27 I effectively work on several projects at the same time with good results. 1.28 I am a caring person, and people seem to sense this in me. 1.28 When I am really angry at someone, I usually think “Okay, I’m angry and need to deal with it constructively.”

1.30

I am an open, honest, and spontaneous person. 1.30 People admire my ability to accomplish what I set out to do. 1.31 In almost any area that I go into, I really do well. 1.31 I have more than enough energy to get me through the day. 1.31 My friends tell me that I am an understanding person. 1.32 I listen to and really understand another person’s feelings. 1.32 I feel in control of my life. 1.32 I control my responsibilities rather than being controlled by them. 1.32 I know when it is okay for me to put my hand on another person’s shoulders. 1.34 I can tell how friendly I can be with a stranger. 1.35 I set objectives for myself and then successfully complete them within a specific time frame.

1.35

When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually think that my needs are legitimate, and okay to express in a straightforward manner.

1.35

When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually feel comfortable and straightforward in my approach to the person.

1.37

46

Table 4 Continued Emotional Skills Questions Mean* I am the kind of person that people are really able to talk to about personal problems.

1.38

When I communicate to an “Authority” person, I usually behave comfortably and at ease with the person.

1.40

I understand and am patient with someone who is experiencing a lot of emotions. 1.44 When a group that I am in needs a spokesperson, I am usually elected. 1.47 I set daily goals for myself. 1.48 I am an efficient and well organized person. 1.48 I follow an established process that guides me in making important decisions. 1.49 When I am really angry at someone, I usually behave by expressing what is bothering me, and working to achieve a constructive resolution.

1.50

When faced with an important decision, I am not overly anxious about making a wrong choice.

1.50

I feel comfortable about approaching another person with the idea of selling him/her something.

1.52

I waste very little time. 1.52 When someone is really angry at me, I usually behave by asking for a further explanation of the anger and dealing with the feelings in a straightforward manner.

1.56 I accurately feel what another person feels. 1.58 When someone is really angry at me, I usually think that I have the right and need to understand the person’s anger at me and to respond directly to resolve the conflict.

1.64 When I am really angry at someone, I usually feel some tension, but comfortable in expressing exactly what is on my mind.

1.78

I make a decision and act rather than worrying about the alternatives and becoming tense.

1.78

When someone is really angry at me, I usually feel tension and the right to understand the person’s anger by responding directly.

1.80

Even when I try to enjoy myself and relax, I feel a lot of pressure. 2.09 I am impatient with myself and others, and I am usually pushing to hurry things up.

2.31

My friends often say that I look worried, tense or uptight. 2.32 I feel tense and pressured by the way I have to live. 2.58 I have become extremely nervous and tense at times, and doctors have advised me to slow down and relax.

2.61

I often feel that I have little control over what I think, feel and do. 2.65 * 1 = most like you, 2 = sometimes like you, 3 = least like you

The 63-item ESAP Form A is designed to measure 10 emotional intelligence scales. The

reliability coefficients, as estimated by Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha, ranged from .49 to .77.

The mean of the respondents’ responses to items defining each scale was used to measure the

47

scales, which were ranked from the most like to the least like. As can be seen in Table 5,

commitment ethic was endorsed the most, followed by self-esteem, drive strength, social

awareness, leadership, time management, empathy, decision-making, assertion, and stress

management.

Table 5

Ranking of the 10 Emotional Intelligence Scales, n=105 Emotional Intelligence Skill

# of items

Reliability Coefficient

M*

SD

Commitment Ethic 6 .66 1.19 .24 Self-Esteem 6 .72 1.21 .27 Drive Strength 6 .53 1.25 .25 Social Awareness and Comfort 6 .49 1.26 .24 Leadership/ Positive Influence 6 .50 1.27 .25 Time Management 6 .65 1.37 .30 Empathy 6 .76 1.39 .35 Decision Making 6 .62 1.39 .31 Assertion 9 .70 1.52 .32 Stress Management 6 .77 2.43 .46 * 1 = most like you, 2 = sometimes like you, 3 = least like you

The 63-item ESAP Form A is also designed to measure four emotional intelligence

competencies, which constituted the study’s independent variables. The interpersonal

competency includes nine items which measure the emotional intelligence scale of assertion.

The leadership competency is defined by the 24 emotional intelligence skills which measure the

emotional intelligence scales of social awareness and comfort, empathy, decision-making, and

leadership. The self-management competency includes the 18 skills which define the scales of

drive strength, time management, and commitment ethic. The intrapersonal competency

contains the 12 individual skills which measure self-esteem and stress management. The mean

of the respondents’ responses to the individual skills in each of the competencies was used to

measure the competency. The reliability coefficients, as estimated by Cronbach’s Coefficient

48

Alpha, ranged from .53 to .82. The self-management competency was endorsed the most,

followed by leadership, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6

Ranking of the Four Emotional Intelligence Competencies Competency

# of items

Reliability Coefficient

M*

SD

Self-Management 18 .82 1.27 .22 Leadership 24 .76 1.33 .20 Interpersonal 9 .70 1.52 .32 Intrapersonal 12 .53 1.82 .23 * 1 = most like you, 2 = sometimes like you, 3 = least like you

A univariate repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to examine the

differences among the four emotional intelligence competencies. The sphericity assumption was

met as both the Greenhouse-Geisser (.84) and Huynh-Feldt (.86) Epsilon values were greater

than .70 (Stevens, 1999). The mean differences were statistically significant, F(3,312) = 142.07,

p < .01. Results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7

Repeated Measures ANOVA Results for Emotional Intelligence Competencies Source SS df MS F EI Competencies 19.43 3 6.48 142.07* Block 10.78 104 0.10 Residual 14.23 312 0.05 *p < .01

Since the sphericity assumption was met, modified Tukey procedure was utilized for the

purpose of post hoc analysis. Results showed that all pairwise comparisons were statistically

significant, with the exception of the leadership vs. self-management competencies.

49

There were 48 (45.70%) recognized, 42 (40.00%) acceptable, 7 (6.70%) exemplary, and

7 (6.70%) unacceptable schools. There was 1 (1.00%) missing case. Descriptive statistics are

reported in Table 8.

Table 8

The Means and Standard Deviations of Emotional Intelligence Competencies by School Performance Rating Interpersonal Leadership Self-Management Intrapersonal Rating n M SD M SD M SD M SD Exemplary 7 1.62 .25 1.36 .24 1.40 .23 1.98 .13 Recognized 48 1.50 .34 1.31 .17 1.25 .19 1.78 .21 Acceptable 42 1.51 .28 1.32 .22 1.28 .27 1.83 .24 Unacceptable 7 1.63 .47 1.45 .18 1.29 .16 1.88 .31

A Discriminant Analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that the emotional

intelligence competencies, namely, interpersonal, intrapersonal, leadership, and self-

management predict school performance ratings of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and

unacceptable. The assumption of population covariance matrices was met, Box’s M = 41.02, F

(30, 1258.781) = 1.10, p = .33. The relationship was not statistically significant, Wilks’ Lambda

= .89, χ2(12, N = 104) = 11.867, p = .46. Therefore, the hypothesis was not tenable.

Qualitative Results

The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods model. There were two

sources of qualitative data: 1) responses to two open-ended questions in the ESQ and 2) a focus

group. There were five secondary school principals who agreed to participate in the focus group.

All were female; one white and four Hispanic. The ESQ questions, which also served as lead

questions for the focus group, were:

• In your opinion, should there be a relationship between the emotional intelligence skills

of a principal and the performance of a campus? Why or why not?

50

• In your opinion, what is the most important factor that enables a principal to affect school

performance? Why?

The focus group participants were asked one additional question:

• What does the term emotional intelligence mean to you?

The responses to ESQ questions and the transcript of the focus group are in Appendix C.

Inductive analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Table 9 shows the codes

which were developed to summarize the qualitative data and formulate themes.

Table 9

Codes for Qualitative Data Code 1 Building Relationships Code 2 Strong Communication Code 3 Organizational Skills Code 4 Motivation and Inspiration Code 5 Emotions

The overwhelming majority of the principals (87.62%) who had completed the ESQ

reported that a relationship between emotional intelligence of the principal and school

performance existed. Three (60.00%) of the focus group participants also reported the presence

of the relationship.

Two themes emerged from analyzing the qualitative data codes: Strong Interpersonal

and Intrapersonal Skills and Positive Leadership.

The first theme, Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills, emerged as the principals

discussed their own experience of being principal of a campus and working toward increasing

school performance. The theme developed through the discussion as the principals spoke of

having emotional awareness of one’s own emotions and confidence (intrapersonal) as well as

recognizing emotions of others, empathy, strong communication skills, and relationship skills

(interpersonal). They stated that building relationships was the most important factor in having a

51

successful campus, but that it would take time and trust to develop these relationships. They also

stated that a principal had to be aware of one’s own emotions and be able to control those

emotions. “So, you just have to stop and make sure that you’re taking the time to listen, to build

that relationship and continue to build that relationship. And too, it’s about putting yourself out

there, but also knowing how much of yourself to put out there.” The need for communicating

the mission of the campus to staff and parents was perceived as great. The principals’ responses

on Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10

Theme 1: Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills Building Relationships

• “building relationships take time and trust” • “focus on relationships” • “build the relationship” • “work respectfully with others” • “being able to relate to others” • “build capacity and trusting relationships” • “rapport with staff, students, and community members”

Strong Communication • “great communication skills” • “willingness to listen to the needs of others” • “clear and effective communication of the vision and goals for the campus” • “communication and trust are critical to success” • “communicating a vision of high expectations”

Emotions • “remaining calm and having good interpersonal skills” • “the principal needs to be centered” • “those who are in touch with their reality and how emotions affect all that we do are

better leaders” • “personal skills in dealing with staff, parents and students” • “the confidence of a leader affects her/his whole team” • “perception of emotional factors greatly influence the performance of staff” • “having coping skills” • “the ability to control their emotions and get things done”

52

As principals shared their perspectives of what makes a campus successful, the second

theme, Positive Leadership, emerged. The principals noted that through leadership, building

trusting relationships through positive interactions with staff, students, and community is

attainable. “Some (staff) need more warm fuzzies, some may not and they are good to go with

just an ‘ok, got the direction’ and they are off. I think it’s learning the needs of your staff.” A

factor in Positive Leadership is the ability to have positive influence on staff in an attempt to

inspire and motivate them to work toward the success of the campus. The principals also

discussed the importance of having organizational skills and the ability to complete tasks.

Responses on the Positive Leadership theme are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11

Theme 2: Positive Leadership Motivation and Inspiration

• “be a strong person that can be positive in front of staff” • “building teacher confidence and willingness to change” • “being positive” • “a principal must be a positive influence on the students” • “the ability to motivate teachers to work hard and students to want to succeed” • “recognizing positive contributions by all stakeholders” • “ability to inspire others” • “empowering staff members”

Organizational Skills • “how to make those changes and to actively put them in place and for them to work” • “balancing act” • “good at balancing a number of things” • “the ability to implement programs” • “effective problem-solver and planner” • “have to juggle to keep moving forward” • “if you don’t have organizational skills or weren’t finishers, the campus never moved

forward”

The focus group participants were asked to give their perspective as to what they thought

emotional intelligence meant. The principals noted that emotional intelligence meant

53

recognizing emotions in oneself and others, having empathy, knowing how to respond to

situations appropriately, and knowing how to control emotions. “It is being able to know your

own emotions and being able to control them in very chaotic circumstances when you are being

bombarded by all sorts of things. But at the same time, knowing the emotions of the people

you’re working for and with so that you can adjust your emotions to them.” The principals’

responses for the term emotional intelligence are summarized in Table 12.

Table 12

Principals’ responses for the term Emotional Intelligence Emotional Intelligence

• “being aware of my feelings” • “being able to respond appropriately” • “learning how to hide emotion” • “being aware of the relationships you’ve formed” • “have sensitivity to know what is best” • “reading the situations well” • “being able to control emotions” • “adjusting your own emotions” • “being empathetic” • “recognizing the emotions of others” • “having the understanding of like she said how to react”

Summary of Results

The quantitative data showed that there was not a statistically significant correlation

between principals’ emotional intelligence and campus performance ratings. Analysis of

qualitative data 1) suggested that such a relationship existed and 2) resulted in two themes,

namely, Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills and Positive Leadership.

54

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

With the passage of Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (No

Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2003), the demand for increased accountability has forced local

school districts to increase their efforts to meet the required measures created by Nation At Risk

and NCLB. A study conducted by Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom and Anderson (2010) found

that the right kind of school leadership raised achievement. Similarly, the results of numerous

research studies suggest that school leadership and high emotional intelligence are instrumental

in raising student performance (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009; Cheng, 1994; Fullan, 2001;

Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kythreotis & Pashiardis, 2006; Kythreotis et al., 2010; Leithwood,

Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Nettles & Herrington, 2007). The

purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the emotional intelligence of

secondary public school principals and school performance in Texas. The research questions

that guided the study were:

1. What are the emotional intelligence characteristics of a non-probability sample of

secondary public school principals in Texas?





55

Summary of Results

The quantitative results showed that the relationship between principals’ emotional

intelligence and school performance was not statistically significant. However, the examination

of emotional intelligence competencies and skills was useful in documenting and discussing such

characteristics.

The ESAP Form A measured 63 emotional intelligence skills, which were categorized

into 10 scales and four competencies. Out of the four emotional intelligence competencies, the

self-management was endorsed the most, followed by leadership, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal. Within the Self-management competency, the emotional intelligence scales of

commitment ethic was endorsed the most, followed by drive strength (ranked 3rd), and time

management (ranked 6th). Within these three scales, 18 of the 63 emotional intelligence skills

were measured. Four of the 18 ranked high among the 63 emotional intelligence skills: 1) I have

a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do was ranked the highest followed by; 2)

I am considered a dependable person (2nd); 3) even when I encounter personal difficulties, I

complete assignments and obligations (3rd); and 4) I have a solid feeling of confidence in my

ability to create a good life for myself (10th).

The second most endorsed competency was leadership and included the emotional

intelligence scales of social awareness and comfort (ranked 4th), empathy (ranked 7th), decision-

making (ranked 8th), and leadership (ranked 5th). Within these four scales, 24 emotional

intelligence skills were measured. Five of the 24 emotional skills ranked high among the 63

skills as well: 1) I “take charge” of a situation when I need to (4th); 2) I am a good leader (6th);

3) I am confident in my ability to be comfortable and effective in communicating with other

people (7th); 4) when I really feel strongly about something, I am influential in gaining

56

agreement in a group (8th); and 5) my decisions are usually accepted as “good” by the persons

affected (9th).

Analysis of qualitative data suggested that a relationship between a principal’s emotional

intelligence and school performance existed and resulted in two themes, namely, Strong

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills and Positive Leadership. Participants in both the online

open-ended survey questions and the principal focus group felt that a principal should have a

high emotional intelligence and that having a high performing campus takes time and should

focus on building relationships and positive leadership. The overwhelming majority of the

principals (87.62%), who completed the ESQ, reported that a relationship between emotional

intelligence of the principal and school performance existed. Three (60.00%) of the focus group

participants also reported the presence of the relationship. Principals spoke of having an

emotional awareness of one’s own emotions and confidence (intrapersonal) as well as

recognizing emotions of others, empathy, strong communication skills, and relationship skills

(interpersonal). They also stated that a principal had to not only be aware of his/her own

emotions, but must be able to control those emotions. The principals noted that building trusting

relationships through positive interactions with staff, students, and community is a key factor.

Having the ability to positively influence staff to inspire and motivate them to work toward the

success of the campus was found to be another vital factor.

Conclusions

While quantitative results showed no relationship, analysis of qualitative data suggested a

relationship between principals’ emotional intelligence and school performance. Principals

believed that raising school performance happens over time and that key factors related to

affecting school performance include building relationships, motivation, inspiration,

57

organizational skills, emotions (knowing one’s own emotions and the emotions of others), and

communication skills. The qualitative results showed that a principal’s awareness of his/her

emotions as well as other’s emotions and how to deal with them are vital to relationship building

and positive leadership. The top 10 ranked emotional skills from the survey support the

qualitative data, namely 1) I have a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do; 2) I

am considered a dependable person; 3) even when I encounter difficulties, I complete

assignments and obligations; 4) I “take charge” of a situations when I need to; 5) I trust my

ability to size up a situation; 6) I am a good leader; 7) I am confident in my ability to be

comfortable and effective in communicating with other people; 8) when I really feel strongly

about something, I am influential in gaining agreement in a group; 9) my decisions are usually

accepted as “good” by the persons affected; and 10) I have a solid feeling of confidence in my

ability to create a good life for myself.

Discussion

Quantitative and qualitative results were synthesized to discuss the study’s findings,

suggest theoretical and practical implications, and recommend future studies. To continue to

meet the demand for improved school performance, principals must develop and strengthen

certain skills to help guide a campus to successfully meet accountability requirements of state

and federal government. According to Goleman (1998a), emotional intelligence is the ability to

manage feelings so that they are expressed appropriately and effectively, enabling people to

work together smoothly toward common goals and that it not only distinguishes outstanding

leaders, but can also be linked to strong performance. Nelson and Low (2011) posited that

emotional intelligence is the most important influencing variable in career success and

leadership. Their theoretical framework is based on the belief that emotionally intelligent people

58

have the ability to think constructively and behave wisely and thus can develop these skills to

enhance their career excellence. The qualitative results in this study demonstrated that principals

felt that over time, a principal with a high emotional intelligence must have a positive correlation

with school performance. Principals shared that better leaders “are in touch with their reality and

how emotions affect all that we do.” Goleman et al. (2002) supported this idea by positing that

leaders who have mastered their own emotions are better able to cope with changes and help

organizations move toward success.

The important aspects of the Strong Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Skills theme were 1)

building trusting relationships, 2) the communication of the vision and goals by the principal,

and 3) emotions. Principals noted that “building relationships take time and trust,” and that they

must have “the ability to control their emotions and get things done,” have a “willingness to

listen to the needs of others,” and “remain calm and having good interpersonal skills.” The

important aspects of the Positive Leadership theme were 1) motivation and inspiration and 2)

organizational skills. Principals noted that it is important to “motivate teachers to work hard and

students to succeed,” “build teacher confidence and willingness to change,” “be a strong person

that can be positive in front of staff,” and “be good at balancing a number of things.” The

synthesis of the qualitative results demonstrated that better leaders 1) recognize emotions in

oneself and others, 2) know how to control and deal with emotions, 3) lead with positive

leadership, 4) have strong communication skills, and 5) build trusting relationships. These

results are supported by a number of other studies. Ayiro (2009) reported that understanding and

using emotions had the greatest impact on performance ratings. Hallinger and Heck (1996)

reviewed 40 studies that examined leadership behavior with school performance and found that a

leader’s vision plays an important role in the organization’s success. Another important study

59

conducted by Leithwood and Riehl (2003) identified the leadership behavior of developing

people as having influenced school success.

Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative results demonstrated that the two themes bear a

resemblance in nature to the top ten endorsed emotional intelligence skills of the study, namely,

1) I have a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do; 2) I am considered a

dependable person; 3) even when I encounter personal difficulties, I complete assignments and

obligations; 4) I “take charge” of a situations when I need to; 5) I trust my ability to size up a

situation; 6) I am a good leader; 7) I am confident in my ability to be comfortable and effective

in communicating with other people; 8) when I really feel strongly about something, I am

influential in gaining agreement in a group; 9) my decisions are usually accepted as “good” by

the persons affected; and 10) I have a solid feeling of confidence in my ability to create a good

life for myself.

The lack of statistical significance of the quantitative results could have been due to a

number of factors: 1) out of 1000 principals, only a small percentage (10%) participated, which

could have resulted in a homogeneous sample; 2) the principals could have given socially

desirable answers in completing the survey questionnaire; 3) the measures of emotional

intelligence (interpersonal, leadership, stress management, and intrapersonal) might have been

the measures that are not related to school performance; and 4) the ordinal outcome measure was

largely distributed within two of the four categories.

Implications

The study was conducted because a review of literature showed very few research studies

examining the role of emotional intelligence of a principal in relation to school performance.

Nelson and Low (2011) called for an inclusion of emotional intelligence skills to be delivered in

60

preparing effective administrators. The practical implications of the study are to develop,

strengthen, and enhance a principal’s emotional intelligence skills in order to become a more

effective administrator. The skills can begin to be taught and developed to aspiring principals

enrolled in a Master’s degree program. Emotional intelligence skills can also be developed,

strengthened, and enhanced through professional development opportunities like continuing

education classes, staff development, and workshops.

The following is a suggestion on implementation of a professional development on

emotional intelligence. A district can implement a program that requires first time and new-to-

district administrators to participate in a mentoring program during their first year as an

administrator. The program would begin with all the participating administrators completing an

emotional intelligence assessment. The results of the assessment may guide the development of

the content of the program so that it specifically targets key areas of growth for the

administrators. During the year, the facilitator of the program would plan workshops designed to

enhance and strength the new administrator’s emotional intelligence and meet regularly as a

group. Administrators would learn specific skills during the meetings and be given specific tasks

to fulfill on campus between workshops. The facilitator would work one on one with

administrators as they complete their tasks. At the end of the year, all participants would take

the emotional intelligence assessment again. The goal of the program would be to develop,

enhance, and strengthen an administrator’s emotional intelligence to enable him/her in becoming

a better and more effective leader.

For example, for the participants of the current study, the professional development on

emotional intelligence may focus on the lowest two competencies, interpersonal and

intrapersonal. The three emotional intelligence scales within these two competencies are

61

assertion, self-esteem, and stress management. Assertion and stress management also ranked the

lowest of the 10 emotional intelligence scales.

One goal of the program would be to help principals identify life stressors and develop

and implement coping strategies. A workshop for stress management may begin with the

participants identifying the most stressful life events during the past three months. The group

would discuss coping strategies on dealing with the stressors. For example, they focus on the

most stressful life event and write down the coping strategies used to combat it. At the next

meeting, principals will share progress on how they are managing the stressors.

Another goal of the program would be to enhance the principal’s assertive

communication. The development of assertive communication would be addressed through a

workshop focused on positive communication skills. The group would participate in a book

study using, Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life One Conversation at

a Time, by Susan Scott. After reading and discussing the book, a follow-up workshop for

assertion may include role-playing scenarios that will give the principals an opportunity to

practice using their assertive communication skills in some difficult situations.

Recommendations for Further Research

The study’s delimitations, limitations, and assumptions offer opportunities for further

research: 1) due to non-probability nature of sampling, external validity was limited to the

principals who voluntarily participated in the study; 2) the study was delimited to secondary

public school principals of campuses that included grades 6-12; 3) the focus group consisted of a

non-probability sample of secondary school principals in an urban school district in Texas; 4) the

study was delimited to the outcome measure of school performance and predictor variables of

emotional intelligence competencies. To enhance the generalizeability of the results, the

62

researcher recommends: 1) the replication of the study with a more heterogeneous sample; 2) the

replication of the study using different measures for emotional intelligence and school

performance; and 3) conducting both quantitative and qualitative studies from the perspectives of

teachers in regards to a principal’s emotional intelligence in relation to school performance.

Conducting the study from the perspectives of teachers may offer a different look at a principal’s

emotional intelligence rather than the self-reported questionnaire which was utilized in the study.

Using a measure that is self reported, principals could have given socially acceptable answers or

might have had an elevated view of self while completing the questionnaire.

63

References

Anand R., & Udayasuriyan G. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with

leadership practices. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(2), 65-76.

Ayiro, L. (2009). An analysis of emotional intelligence and the performance of principals

in selected schools in Kenya. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(6), 719-746.

Binet, A. (1909). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion.

Blase, J. & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective

principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Brauckmann, S. & Pashiardis, P. (2009). “From PISA to LISA: New educational

governance and school leadership: Exploring the foundations of a new relationship in an

international context.” paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with

changes in student achievement: Schools can make a difference. East Lansing: Institute

for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Burns, G. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance:

Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 5(3), 299-317.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others

don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Cox, J. & Nelson, D. (2008). Quantifying emotional intelligence: The relationship of

64

thinking patterns and emotional skills. Journal of Humanistic Education, Counseling,

and Development, 47(1), 9-25.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Crow, G. M. (2006). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States:

Perspectives on socialization. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 338-356.

Dorn, S. (2007). Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and taming the monster.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Duke, D. (1982). Leadership functions and instructional effectiveness. NASSP Bulletin,

66, 5-9.

Epstein, S. (1998). Constructive thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Rutledge, 93.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational Research. Boston, MA:

Pearson.

65

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons (2nd ed.). New York: Basic

Books.

George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence.

Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

Ginsberg, R. (2008). Being boss is hard: The emotional side of being in charge. Phi Delta

Kappan, 90(4), 292-297.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam

Dell.

Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from

http://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader/ar/1

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead

with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gottfredson, L. (2011). Intelligence: What is it? New Scientist, 211(2819) ii-iii.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(11)61531-5.

Gragg, P. (2008). From theory to practice: Operation emotional intelligence. Legal

Reference Services Quarterly, 27(2-3), 241-253.

Greenockle, K. (2010). The new face in leadership: Emotional intelligence. Quest, 62,

260-267.

Guillén L., & Florent-Treacy E. (2011). Emotional intelligence and leadership

effectiveness: The mediating influence of collaborative behaviors. INSEAD Working

Papers Collection, (23), 1-28.

66

Hackett P., & Hortman J. (2008). The relationship of emotional competencies to

transformational leadership: Using a corporate model to assess the dispositions of

educational leaders. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8(1), 92-111.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school

effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard

Educational Review, 39, 1-123.

Krueger, R., & Casey M. A. (2009). Focus groups (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Kunnanatt, J. (2008). Emotional intelligence: Theory and description. Career

Development International, 13(7), 614-629.

Kythreotis, A. & Pashiardis, P. (2006). Exploring leadership role in school

effectiveness and the validation of models of principals’ effects on students’ achievement.

Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and

Management Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Kythreotis, A., Pashiaridis, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school

leadership styles and school culture on students’ achievement in Cyprus primary schools.

Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 218-240.

Lashway, L. (2001). Leadership for accountability. Research Roundup, 17(3), 1-14.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership

influences student learning. Minneapolis: Center for Applied Research and

Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, and Ontario Institute for

67

Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school

leadership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Walhstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from

leadership: investigating the links to improved student learning. Minneapolis: Center for

Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, and Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Low, G., & Nelson, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: The role of transformative

learning in academic excellence. Texas Study of Secondary Education, 14(2). The Texas

Association of Secondary School Principals.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Maulding, W. (2002). Emotional intelligence and successful leadership. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration,

Kansas City, KS, 4-6 October. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470793).

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a Measure of Emotional

Intelligence. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional

intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in

the workplace (320-342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Models of emotional intelligence. In R.

J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

68

McDill, E., Rigsby, L., & Meyers, E. (1969). Educational climates of high schools: Their

effects and sources. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 567-586.

Méndez-Morse, S. (1992). Leadership characteristics that facilitate school change.

Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/change/leadership/welcome.html.

Moody, M. (2007). Superintendent-Board Relations: Competencies for Success. (Doctoral

dissertation) University of South Dakota, Print.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Muijs, D. (2011). Leadership and organizational performance: From research to

prescription? International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 45-60.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform (Report No. 065-000-00177-2) Washington, DC:

Government Printing. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

Nelson, D., Jin, Y., & Wang, X. H. (2002). Reliability and validity parameters for the Chinese

version of the emotional skills assessment process. Unpublished raw data, East China

Normal University, Shanghai, China.

Nelson, D. & Low, G. (2007). Emotional intelligence and college success: A research-based

assessment and intervention model. In J. Cassidy, A.Martinez, & C. Swift (Eds.),

Supporting Student Success (4, pp. 237–247). Corpus Christi, TX: Texas A&M

University-Corpus Christi.

Nelson, D. & Low, G. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Achieving academic and career

excellence (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Nelson, D. & Low, G. & Ellis, R. (Winter 2007). Emotional intelligence: A

69

transformative theory and applied model of positive personal change. Annals of the

American Psychotherapy Association, 10(4), 30–35.

Nelson, D., Low, G., & Vela, R. (2003). ESAP: Emotional skills assessment process:

Interpretation and intervention guide. Kingsville, TX: Texas A&M University –

Kingsville.

Nettles, S. M. & Herrington, C. (2007). Revising the importance of the direct effects

of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school

improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).

Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership

theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 11-32.

Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated

approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Publishers.

Rehman, R. (2011). The role of emotional intelligence on the relationship among

leadership styles, decision making styles, and organizational performance: A review.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(1), 409-416.

Sagnak, M. (Spring 2010). The relationship between transformational school leadership

and ethical climate. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10(2), 1135-1152.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Amityville, NY: Baywood

Publishing Co., Inc.

Sosik, J., & Megerian, J. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

70

performance. Group and Organization Management, 24, 367-391.

Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured.

American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Stephens, T., & Hermond, D. (2009). The level of emotional intelligence in principals of

recognized and acceptable schools. Academic Leadership, 7(3). Retrieved from

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/The_Level_of_Emotional_Intellig

ence_in_Principals_of_Recognized_and_Acceptable_Schools.shtml

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (5th ed.). New

York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Stevens, J. (1999). Intermediate statistics: a modern approach. (2nd ed.). New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Publishers.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons

from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Terman, L. M. & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence. Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin.

Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2011). Accountability manual: The 2011 accountability

rating system for Texas Public schools and school districts. Austin, TX: Texas Education

Agency.

Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of

Educational Psychology. 12(3), 124-127. doi:10.1037/h0064596.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

71

Press.

U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity. (1970). Toward

equal educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing House.

Vernon, P. (1950). The structure of human abilities. New York, NY: Methuen.

Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. (4th ed.).

Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co., doi:10.1037/h0064596.

72

APPENDICES

73

APPENDIX A

Permission to use ESAP

Emotional Skills Questionnaire (ESQ)

74

January 10, 2011 Ms. Stephanie Ashworth Educational Leadership Doctoral Program Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, Texas Dear Ms. Stephanie Ashworth, Dr. Darwin Nelson and I are always interested in supporting quality research on topics of emotional intelligence and personal skills so vital to personal, academic, and career performance. We are pleased to grant you permission to use our EI-centric models and positive assessment instrument, the Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP), for your doctoral dissertation at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. You may include a copy of the ESAP as an appendix if you decide to do so. Copyrights of all ESAP assessments are retained by Darwin Nelson and Gary Low. We are pleased to support your important research for the Doctorate in Educational Leadership. Your dissertation study of EI skills, characteristics, school performance, and perspectives of secondary school principals will be an interesting and relevant addition to the literature and add to the growing research base of emotional intelligence in education. Understanding more about the positive contributions of the emotional mind and emotional intelligence may hold an important key to education reform, school leadership, and educational accountability. When your study is completed, we would like a bound copy of your dissertation and one copy of all papers, reports, and articles that make use of the ESAP. We try to keep up with all doctoral studies and papers which use our positive and research derived assessments. Dr. Nelson and I wish you the best as you add to the professional literature and increase the heuristic value of our education and transformative assessment and learning models of emotional intelligence. If you need additional professional literature references or technical assistance regarding the ESAP assessment, please let us know. Take care and warmest personal regards. Gary R. Low, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Education Texas A&M University-Kingsville

75

EMOTIONAL SKILLS QUESTIONNAIRE (ESQ)

Online Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in an online survey. Please read the following. If there are any questions, you may contact the principal investigator: Stephanie Ashworth Cell phone: 361-236-6677 E-mail: [email protected] Description: I understand that the purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence of secondary school principals and school performance in Texas. School performance is measured on a 4-point ordinal scale, namely, unacceptable, acceptable, recognized, and exemplary. Confidentiality : I understand that the identity of the respondents and individual responses will remain confidential. If the results are published or presented at a scientific meeting, the identity of the participants will not be disclosed. Compensation: I understand that participation in the study will not cost me anything and that I will not receive any money for my participation. Risks and Benefits: I understand that there is minimal risk to participate in the study and that the benefit to me individually will be access only to my own survey results which will allow me to see which emotional intelligence skills I can develop, strengthen and enhance. Another benefit of my participation is knowing that I have contributed to research in the fields of education and educational administration/leadership. Right to Withdraw : I understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and stop participating in the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits for which I may be entitled. Voluntary Consent: I certify that I have been informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, possible risks and benefits. Additionally, I know that if I have any questions about my rights as a research participant, I can contact Erin Sherman, Compliance Officer, at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, at (361) 825-2497 or [email protected].

By checking this box, I voluntarily agree to participate in the study and am authorizing the use of my responses for research purposes. Checking the box serves as an electronic signature.

PART ONE: EMOTIONAL SKILLS ASSESSMENT PROCESS (ESAP) 2011, Darwin B. Nelson and Gary R. Low, all rights reserved

You will be completing an honest assessment of current emotional abilities and skills in 4 separate and related sections. Helpful hints: Your first response is your best response. Let your

76

feelings decide the best response for you. Think of each statement as it relates to you in the setting you feel needs most improvement, for example, your job, family, relationships, etc. Be totally honest. Respond to each statement and mark your response. 2 = most like or descriptive of you 1 = sometimes like or descriptive of you and sometimes not 0 = least like or descriptive of you SECTION I: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION UNDER STRES S Situation: When I am really angry at someone…

1. I usually feel some tension, but comfortable in expressing exactly what is on my mind. 2. I usually think “Okay, I’m angry and need to deal with it constructively.” 3. I usually behave by expressing what is bothering me, and working to achieve a

constructive resolution. Situation: When someone is really angry at me…

4. I usually feel tension and the right to understand the person’s anger by responding directly.

5. I usually think that I have the right and need to understand the person’s anger at me and to respond directly to resolve the conflict.

6. I usually behave by asking for a further explanation of the anger and dealing with the feelings in a straightforward manner.

Situation: When I communicate to an “Authority” person…

7. I usually feel comfortable and straightforward in my approach to the person. 8. I usually think that my needs are legitimate, and okay to express in a straightforward

manner. 9. I usually behave comfortably and at ease with the person.

SECTION II: PERSONAL LEADERSHIP

10. I am confident in my ability to be comfortable and effective in communicating with other people.

11. I am comfortable with all kinds of people. 12. My relationships with others are smooth and comfortable. 13. I can tell how friendly I can be with a stranger. 14. My voice is variable and clear, and I am easily heard by others. 15. I know when it is okay for me to put my hand on another person’s shoulders. 16. I listen to and really understand another person’s feelings. 17. I am the kind of person that people are really able to talk to about personal problems. 18. My friends tell me that I am an understanding person. 19. I understand and am patient with someone who is experiencing a lot of emotions. 20. I am a caring person, and people seem to sense this in me. 21. I accurately feel what another person feels. 22. I am a good decision maker.

77

23. My decisions are usually accepted as “good” by the persons affected. 24. When faced with an important decision, I am not overly anxious about making a wrong

choice. 25. My friends and co-workers ask me for help in making important decisions. 26. I make a decision and act rather than worrying about the alternatives and becoming tense. 27. I follow an established process that guides me in making important decisions. 28. I have a good ability to help others solve problems. 29. When a group that I am in needs a spokesperson, I am usually elected. 30. I am a good leader. 31. I “take charge” of a situation when I need to. 32. When I really feel strongly about something, I am influential in gaining agreement in a

group. 33. I feel comfortable about approaching another person with the idea of selling him/her

something. SECTION III: SELF MANAGEMENT IN LIFE AND CAREER

34. I set priorities and meet objectives effectively. 35. When I begin a difficult task, I am motivated more by the thought of success than by the

thought of failure. 36. I feel that my present work is satisfying. 37. I have more than enough energy to get me through the day. 38. I have a strong desire to be a success in the things I set out to do. 39. I set daily goals for myself. 40. I am an efficient and well organized person. 41. I plan and complete my work on schedule. 42. I set objectives for myself and then successfully complete them within a specific time

frame. 43. I control my responsibilities rather than being controlled by them. 44. I effectively work on several projects at the same time with good results. 45. I waste very little time. 46. People admire my ability to accomplish what I set out to do. 47. Even when I encounter personal difficulties, I complete assignments and obligations. 48. In almost any area that I go into, I really do well. 49. I rarely fail at anything that I consider important. 50. I have a solid feeling of confidence in my ability to create a good life for myself. 51. I am considered a dependable person.

SECTION IV: INTRAPERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

52. I trust my ability to size up a situation. 53. I am excited about myself and the potential that I have to develop as a person. 54. I feel in control of my life. 55. I am an open, honest, and spontaneous person. 56. I like myself, and I feel very comfortable with the way I am as a person. 57. For me, anything is possible if I believe in myself.

78

58. Even when I try to enjoy myself and relax, I feel a lot of pressure. 59. My friends often say that I look worried, tense or uptight. 60. I have become extremely nervous and tense at times, and doctors have advised me to

slow down and relax. 61. I am impatient with myself and others, and I am usually pushing to hurry things up. 62. I often feel that I have little control over what I think, feel and do. 63. I feel tense and pressured by the way I have to live.

PART TWO: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. What is your age? ____

2. What is your gender?

___ Male ___ Female

3. What is your ethnicity?

___ Asian ___ African American ___ White, Non-Hispanic or Latino ___ Hispanic or Latino ___ Other

4. What is your highest level education level completed?

___ Bachelor’s Degree ___ Master’s Degree ___ Doctoral Degree

5. What category would you choose to best describe the district you work in?

___ Urban ___ Suburban ___ Rural

6. What is the school performance rating of your campus?

___ exemplary ___ recognized ___ academically acceptable ___ academically unacceptable

79

7. How many total years have you worked in your current administrative position? _____ years

8. How many total years of experience do you have as an administrator? _____ years

9. Based on your opinion, should there be a relationship between the emotional intelligence

skills of a principal and the performance of a campus?

10. In your opinion, what is the most important factor that enables a principal to affect school performance?

80

APPENDIX B

IRB Approval

IRB Amendment Approval

Permission to Conduct Focus Group

Informed Consent Form to Participate in a Focus Group

Introductory Email to Participants

Follow-Up Email to Participants

Recruitment Email for Focus Group Participants

85

Informed Consent Form to Participate in a Focus Group

CONSENT FORM

Title of Study

The relationship between the emotional intelligence of secondary public school principals

and school performance in Texas

Introduction

The purpose of this form is to provide you information that may affect your decision as to

whether or not to participate in this research study. If you decide to participate in this

study, this form will also be used to record your consent.

You have been asked to participate in a research project studying the relationship between

the emotional intelligence of secondary school principals and school performance. The

purpose of this study is to learn the perspectives of secondary school principals regarding

the influence their emotional intelligence plays on school performance. You were selected

to be a possible participant because the researcher chose to recruit participants only from

Corpus Christi ISD for purposes of saving the participant time and travel expenses.

What will I be asked to do?

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to be part of a focus group.

During the focus group, you will be asked to provide answers to the researcher’s questions.

This focus group will take no longer than an hour of your time.

Your participation will be audio/video recorded.

What are the risks involved in this study?

The risks associated in this study are minimal, and are not greater than risks ordinarily

encountered in daily life.

What are the possible benefits of this study?

You will receive no direct benefit from participating in this study; however, by

participating in the study, you will be contributing to the research of a principal’s EI and

school performance.

Do I have to participate?

No. Your participation is voluntary. You may decide not to participate or to withdraw at

any time without your current or future relations with Texas A&M University-Corpus

Christi being affected.

Who will know about my participation in this research study?

This study is confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. No identifiers

linking you to this study will be included in any sort of report that might be published.

86

Research records will be stored securely and only the principal investigator, Stephanie

Ashworth, will have access to the records.

If you choose to participate in this study, you will be audio/video recorded. Any

audio/video recordings will be stored securely and only the principal investigator,

Stephanie Ashworth, will have access to the recordings. Any recordings will be kept for

three years and then erased.

Whom do I contact with questions about the research?

If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact Stephanie Ashworth, principal

investigator, at (361) 236-6677 or [email protected].

Whom do I contact about my rights as a research participant?

This research study has been reviewed by the Research Compliance Office and/or the

Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. For research-related

problems or questions regarding your rights as a research participant, you can contact Erin

Sherman, Research Compliance Officer, at (361) 825-2497 or [email protected]

Signature

Please be sure you have read the above information, asked questions and received answers

to your satisfaction. You will be given a copy of the consent form for your records. By

signing this document, you consent to participate in this study. You also certify that you

are 18 years of age or older by signing this form.

I agree to be audio [/video] recorded.

Signature of Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: __________

Printed Name: ___________________________________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: ________________________________ Date: _______

Printed Name: _______________________________________________________

87

Introductory email to participants Dear Colleague: I, Stephanie Ashworth, am currently a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Educational Administration and Research at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. I am conducting a research study as part of the requirements of my degree in Educational Leadership, and would like to invite you to participate. For my dissertation research, I am investigating the relationship between the emotional intelligence of secondary school principals and school performance. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete two online surveys. One survey will be for demographic purposes. The other survey is the Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP). It will take you approximately 30 to 45 minutes to complete. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about the study. You may contact me at 361-236-6677 or via email at [email protected]. Additionally, if you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you can contact Erin Sherman, Compliance Officer, at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi at (361) 825-2497 or [email protected]. Thank you for your consideration. I will send out another email with the links to the surveys within the week. If you would like to participate, you will be asked to electronically give consent and then you can click on the link and begin completing the survey. When you are done, it is submitted electronically. With kind regards, Stephanie Ashworth 361-236-6677 [email protected]

88

Follow-Up email with links Dear Colleague: I, Stephanie Ashworth, am currently a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Educational Administration and Research at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. I am conducting a research study as part of the requirements of my degree in Educational Leadership. You should have received an email approximately a week ago inviting you to participate in the study. As stated in the previous email, I have provided the links to the surveys to be completed as part of your participation in the study. Please read the attachment of Informed Consent. Then, please click on the links below to complete the surveys. Your participation is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact me at 361-236-6677 or via email at [email protected]. Additionally, if you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you can contact Erin Sherman, Compliance Officer, at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, at (361) 825-2497 or [email protected]. Thank you for your participation in this study.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Ashworth

89

Recruitment email for focus group participants Dear Colleague, I, Stephanie Ashworth, am currently a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Educational Administration and Research at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. I am conducting a research study as part of the requirements of my degree in Educational Leadership, and would like to invite you to participate. For my dissertation research, I am investigating the relationship between the emotional intelligence of secondary school principals and school performance. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to participate in a focus group. During the focus group, you will be asked to

share your perspectives regarding the use of your emotional intelligence and its influence

on school performance. This focus group will take no longer than an hour of your time.

Your participation will be audio/video recorded.

The location for the focus group will be held at Coles High School on December 6, 2012.

If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact Stephanie Ashworth, principal

investigator, at (361) 236-6677 or [email protected]. Additionally, if you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you can contact Erin Sherman, Compliance Officer, at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi at (361) 825-2497 or [email protected].

If you agree to take part in this focus group, please reply to my email and I will add your

name to the list of participants.

With kindest regards, Stephanie Ashworth 361-236-6677 [email protected]

90

APPENDIX C

Focus Group Transcript

Open-Ended Response Transcript

91

Focus Group Transcript

Researcher Respondent PI Thank you all for participating in my focus group. I appreciate it. Do you have any questions before we begin? Ok, I’m going to start with, I’m going to ask three questions and get your response on the questions, then we will be finished. What does the term “emotional intelligence” mean to you?

Principal 1 To me emotional, when I think emotional intelligence, I think of myself being aware of my feelings in different sort of situations at the campus and being aware of those feelings in being able to respond appropriately to the different situations that I find, so being aware of it and being able to respond appropriately.

Principal 5 I think it’s having empathy too, and it mentioned it in this information, but it truly is having the understanding of like she said how to react cause I mean we deal with things nonstop, but I think its a lot of as a principal show that emotion sometimes, its learning how to hide that emotion and just deal with it internally versus letting others see what you might be thinking or feeling. So that to me is part of it.

Principal 4 For me, I think another part of that is keeping your personal beliefs, thoughts, values, what have you, out of whatever the situation at hand is that you’re dealing with, whether you know be with students, staff, parents, and just making sure that your emotions in a situation don’t come across as offensive to whatever the situation is especially if it’s something that is very personal, which everything is personal when it deals with issues, campus issues and individuals.

Principal 3 With emotional intelligence, I also think, as a leader, it fluctuates depending of the situation and what’s going on and what leadership skills you use at different times even with the same situation with different, maybe different teachers, or different types of parents, or students, I think it’s being aware of the

92

relationships you’ve formed and being keen on reading the situations well and really acting appropriately and have that sensitivity to know what’s best for that situation so you can figure um out a way to lead such a diverse group um and so many stakeholders and ever-changing dynamic situation just to be able to kind of filter through and put on that face and make sure you’re always headed forward. Trying to go the same direction.

Principal 5 We’re talking too about, I’m thinking in line of what emotional intelligence as far as me and how I deal with it, but it’s also recognizing the emotions of others. And I think that is an important piece too is you have to, somebody mentioned the relationships, and knowing those relationships, you start to learn what does that person need from you. Some may need more of the warm fuzzies, some may need, some may not and they’re good to go with just ok got the direction and they’re off. But I think its learning the needs of your staff as well as yours.

Principal 2 I guess it’s everything what Linda was saying. A lot of it is being able to know your own emotions and being able to control them in very chaotic circumstances when you are being bombarded by all sorts of things. But at the same time, knowing the emotions of the people you’re working for and with so that you can adjust your emotions to them and have that empathy and be empathetic because I think a lot of times as administrators, I know I’m just sometimes you get so focused on a task and a teacher comes in and wants to talk and you know and you’re like yeah, yeah, yeah, ok good whatever, yeah hug, hug, you know have a good day, go, go. And you don’t really listen because you get so focused. So you just have to stop and make sure that your taking the time to listen, to build that relationship and continue to build that relationship and too its about putting yourself out there but also knowing how much of yourself to put out there and vice versa.

PI Thank you. In your opinion, should

93

there be a relationship between the emotional intelligence skills of a principal and the performance of their campus? Meaning - should a principal with higher emotional intelligence have a higher performing campus? It’s a yes/no question and then if you’ll elaborate as to why you think that way. Principal 3 I think initially for a new

principal coming in, no. I think that over time you build those relationships with those teachers, lets just start with teachers, with those teachers who you build those relationships, they feel comfortable with you, you exchange information and you give them the things they need and they grow and bounce ideas off of you and they grow as a teacher, but I think it takes time to really build those relationships, I think its not an instant for a teacher, I mean a leader coming in to see that instant change. I think building relationships takes time and trust and they’ve got to believe in you and know you believe in them and that’s not overnight. So I don’t think initially but I think over time you would be able to see a difference on a campus with a leader with high emotional intelligence.

Principal 5 and to extend that, it’s got to extend down to the kids. If you really want to see the difference as far as the performance, and the achievement and how the principal is doing per se, then we lead and we guide our staff but that’s got to trickle down to kids. And hopefully our modeling and what we’re doing, the teachers are hopefully learning from that and learning how to build those relationships with the students so that they build those assets like we talk about to eventually trickle down to hitting the achievement piece.

Principal 1 I agree, I think it is something that is cultivated over time. And as you begin to build relationships with your staff, your students, parents, and with your community, I think you’ll get a really good, you’ll be knowledgeable about where your school is or you’ll have a good pulse on your school and you’ll be able to make the right decisions for your campus and I think that like Kelly said

94

takes time. As a new principal, that’s something that I work on is building those relationships.

PI Ok, last question. In your opinion, what is the most important factor that enables a principal to positively affect school performance? And then why or why not?

Principal 4 Knowledge. Having ongoing, up-to-date knowledge of everything from curriculum, instruction strategies to personnel, um about them, parents, about them about the community, about the family, about the students as individuals. Knowledge I think. I think its all about the knowledge.

Principal 2 You know what I hear from my teachers and this is my fourth year at this my campus and I came into a difficult situation because the principal that had been there, had been there 11 years. So there had been some really deep rooted, you know, relationships that had been established between the principal and the teachers and the way in which the you know district makes changes and assignments all the time and it was kind of very tumultuous time and it wasn’t an easy smooth transition for the campus. It was very difficult. As I’ve been there, you know one of the things that I hear from them a lot is that just if they’re going to work and do and be involved, or get you to be on the band wagon with the initiative or whatever, its about do you have that relationship with the you know does that principal have that relationship with the staff. You know if your so if you, I guess , you know its about do you have relationship, yeah you have to have a lot of knowledge, um and you have to have a lot of, but if they don’t believe in you and you don’t’ believe in them, I think sometimes that can be a disadvantage um although you’re never going to make all of them happy, you’re not going to have 100% you know of support, its impossible because you can’t make them all happy, but I think if you’re going to affect change and get them on board and try to move forward as far as the campus is concerned you’ve really have had to

95

built and worked on those relationships and you know and otherwise its not going to be there.

Principal 5 My thought is that I don’t know if there is any one thing like the question stated is there one thing, I don’t know that there is one thing, I think we have to be good at balancing a number of things in order to have a successful campus, you know. It’s comprised of relationships, knowledge and high expectations and you know the consistency and, and, and. There are so many things we are constantly trying to juggle all the time but which one is THE one, its hard to say. That may change depending on circumstances, community, staff, any you know, your priorities may shuffle a little bit and that why I say it’s hard to really say what’s the one key factor. I think the key is having the savvyness like I think we do in this, you know being in this position, I mean the capacity to know when to shuffle them. That’s kind of my thought. I don’t know if that makes any sense.

Principal 3 I was thinking relationships but also resources. We have to have those relationships, and I guess we have to know our self to know we can’t do it all. If we think we can know everything or do everything, I mean we’re absolutely sunk. So it almost more important to have those relationships and good resources so you know the people around you that you work with and you surround yourself with people who have different strengths to help you keep everything in the air so try not to

Principal 5 You’re trying your best. Principal 3 Yeah, just juggling, and its so

important to have those relationships so you have those resources at your hand to do those things that we do not have time to do to do it well. Curriculum and instruction, even staffing and relationships with our teachers, and professional development and community outreach, building relationships within the community, relationships with our parents, to know our kids, know what’s going on with them, there’s just, being in touch with what’s

96

going on with TEA and all the changes that are coming. I just think is just having those relationships to really be strategic with your resources to help you keep the campus moving because you cannot do it yourself.

Principal 1 You can’t do it all yourself. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I had a friend of mine that I visited over thanksgiving break and she was asking me how’s it going, how’s it going over there. I said it’s going good and she told me one thing, she said “just remember,” she said, “you can’t do it all by yourself.” And so that’s where the team effort comes in and where you’re really building those relationships with people and being a little transparent and letting know where you’re coming from, and your vision for the school. And in time having everyone come to a common understanding or a common agreement on what it is that we are working for here. What are we about at this school? What are we working toward at this school? And having the team to help you accomplish those things. So it’s really important to remember that it’s you can’t do it all on your own.

PI Any other thoughts or comments? Principal 2 You’re second question,

because you didn’t get a lot of, did you get a whole lot of responses from all of us on your second question?

PI For the relationship between emotional intelligence and the performance, or should there be a relationship, yes or no, I got three responses. So, do you think there should be on or that the higher intelligence the higher the performance? We had talked about it being over time and develop relationships.

Principal 2 you know, I don’t know because there is so much,

Principal 4 I don’t think so. Principal 2 you know its like Linda was

saying, there’s not one thing, I think the research says that it does, I just got through reading this book, I’m in the process of reading this book, I think it, he wrote two: Data Driven Instruction and Leadership by Design or

97

something or Leverage Leadership or something like that. And he, his contention is it’s not about having relationships or that touchy feeling kind of. It’s about putting systems in place that are good you know good systems that good instructional strategies and good like data driven instruction and those kinds of things and that you that, when they look at the results between the principals that are the touchy feely and the ones that weren’t, if you did these strategies, they were, you were going to get the same results. But I mean it’s somebody else’s research, somebody else’s work that I’m discussing. So, you know, I don’t know, it just, I don’t know.

Principal 4 I don’t think so. Personally, it’s like you see teachers that come out of the classroom or out of the school and they are book smart and they made As in all their classes and everything, but they can’t take what they learned and apply it. When I was talking about the last question, it’s just being knowledgeable, but being knowledgeable in a way that you also have the knowledge and the ability to, you know, see what it is you are doing or not doing or how people are responding, how to make those changes and to actively put those things in place and for them to work. But I don’t think that it always is or think there’s a correlation. Someone I think I believe can be, have emotional intelligence but not be able to carry through what needs to be done with.

Principal 5 Because if you’re not organized, I mean if you don’t have organizational skills, it doesn’t matter what kind of emotional intelligence you have. If you’re not organized, you’re not going to be able to complete some of the tasks that you need to have completed as a principal. Or if you’re not a finisher. I know a lot of principals that have great emotional intelligence but weren’t finishers and so the campus never moved forward. You know because they don’t finish, they don’t follow through with whatever they’re doing. Yes, so I mean, I don’t know.

98

Principal 2 It’s finding that balance. Because it’s not comprised of any one thing, you know, it’s finding that balance. You can have all the knowledge in the world, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be a good leader. Because I haven’t built those relationships which is part of the emotions. So I would say there’s so many factors that we have to juggle to try to keep moving forward with everybody with us.

Principal 5 It’s tough. PI Alright, well, I thank you all very much for helping me out, I truly do.

99

Open-Ended Response Transcript

Based on your opinion, should there be a relationship between the emotional intelligence skills of a principal and the performance of a campus?

Yes. yes No Yes Only as one of several factors affecting school

climate-contingent on the principal's leadership style. If the principal is a collaborative leader, then yes. If the principal is directive, then the answer tends toward 'no'.

Yes Absolutely yes Absolutely! I would think so Yes. Your leadership style and the type of teachers

you have had a lot to do with the success of the campus.

no Yes Absolutely. Yes. Yes To be an effective leader you have to have the

emotional skills. I do think we over think some of those things. There are times when the job needs to get done regardless of feelings.

Yes, I believe a principal needs to be centered in order to successfully lead others.

I feel the principal has to be a strong person that can be positive in front of the staff at all times. If the principal is down then most of the staff will also be down.

It depends on the person & situation. I am a person who focuses on relationships, & that system works for me.

There is a strong correlation. Yes it directly affects the climate of the campus. Every leadership style has its advantages. If a

principal is working closely with the teachers they can

100

build the relationships it takes to foster an atmosphere of improvement

yes No Not really yes Absolutely, if the principal does not have a strong

emotional intelligence it can affect the effectiveness of the staff and lead to health concerns for the administrator.

Yes. A principal or administrator has to have great communication skills to be able to reach people and students of all ethnic groups and academic and behavioral levels. It increases your ability to run a successful campus.

yes Yes Sure - for success... yes yes yes as it depends on the campus that a principal serves Yes, if for no other reason than for maturity in the

position and profession. yes Yes Yes Absolutely There is probably a definite correlation between the

two. Yes Yes. yes I believe those who are in touch with their reality and

how emotions affect all that we do are better leaders but very difficult to measure.

Yes. The ability of a leader to endure the challenges of everyday issues is important to the overall campus performance.

Yes Yes Yes, since personal skills in dealing with staff, parents,

and students. yes yes I would venture to say, the emotionally inept will be

101

professionally inept in a school leadership position. Yes There may be a moderate correlation, but I wouldn't

say that the correlation is a strong one between the two factors.

Yes. Yes yes Absolutely. The confidence of a leader affects her/his

whole team. Yes. There could be a correlation between the emotional

intelligence of a principal and the performance of a campus. However I believe that you have to factor out variables dealing with socio-economic factors. Principals who are leading low-income, diverse schools vs. those that lead schools in affluent communities have different experiences and different stresses that could cause them to respond differently to these questions.

Absolutely yes Yes I believe so. Perception of emotional factors greatly

influence the performance of staff members. yes Absolutely Yes No The performance of the campus will depend highly on

the data evaluation that the principal and staff make. The data will lead the campus to the areas that need to be addressed and corrected. At the same time it gives you the areas or personnel that need to have staff development or areas in general that need to be addressed.

Yes, especially with the balancing act administrators must do on a daily basis with the unplanned events.

Yes, there should be a relationship between emotional intelligence skill of a principal and the performance of a campus.

no Yes, a principal that is willing to listen to the needs of

others is vital part of the performance of the campus. Yes yes

102

Yes To a certain degree, the emotional intelligence of the

staff also plays a factor. yes Yes. Yes yes, principals that have the coping skills will be more

successful to the level of stress involved Yes, because the way a principal carries

himself/herself daily will transpire to the staff. Yes Yes. Absolutely. One cannot lead efficiently and with

vision unless one possesses a strong connection, understanding, and reliance in interpersonal, intrapersonal, and social skills and abilities.

Yes to some degree. You have to have an emotional desire to succeed.

Yes, I believe the two are almost inseparable. Yes Yes Yes Yes, absolutely! Yes, leadership is based on perceptions of our

surroundings and personal interactions with those surrounding. Perceptions are based primarily on the principles that form our mental framework.

Yes Yes, it is a stressful job with numerous

responsibilities. Many decisions need to be made during the school day and the principal interacts with many different people all day long.

A campus principal sets the emotional and academic tone of school environment, so I would argue that they are correlated.

No Yes, because of dealing with people. There has to be more support to a person who starts

the job. There are many decisions done and there needs to be more communication with other principals to help each situation. Every situation is different.

No. Yes Unsure how to answer this question, as I feel you grow

emotionally with time as an administrator especially as

103

you go through difficult situations. The ability of a leader to control their emotions and

get things done in the face of adversity will lead to accomplishments on the campus.

I do not understand this question. Yes Yes. In your opinion, what is the most important factor that enables a principal to affect school performance? To be a cheerleader, advisor, and solid decision maker,

but be willing to let nothing effect student achievement.

being decisive The ability to implement programs that will benefit

my school and students. Influence Clearly communicating school goals based on data-

then aligning all the school processes to achieve these goals.

Building relationships knowledge needed for budget, school law, etc.--a must

BUT must also have people skills effective leadership Relationship building! You have to build relationships

with staff, parents and students. Rapport with staff, students and community members To lead the staff through a change process. The staff

has to buy into it or it is not going to happen. Resources - the right personnel in the right positions The ability to build relationships with faculty and

community and the ability to inspire those around them.

Being able to work respectfully with others toward a targeted goal.

Delegating and following up. You cannot do it alone. Value your teachers - they are doing the hardest work.

Setting high expectations and working collaboratively with the faculty and staff

The ability to connect with the people on campus and have them believe in what the vision for the school is and help them attain the vision.

High expectations with good relationships/trust The principal needs to stay positive at all times in

front of the staff.

104

By avoiding school performance ratings as the most important goal & focusing on relationships, I believe you actually help your school accountability ratings.

The ability of the leader to inspire and motivate staff. Being positive and having a clear goal. Building teacher confidence and willingness to change decision making and influence voice expectations from the beginning principal must be a positive influence on the students building capacity Organizational skills and confidence. A principal's curriculum and Instruction and data

analysis knowledge base. The communication of vision Projecting a vision and creating a culture of success. Instructional knowledge and visibility! relationships directing that things get done recognizing positive contributions by all stakeholders The ability to motivate the teachers to work hard and

the students to want to succeed. trust Ability to motivate others in a variety of ways. Feel that they are all equally important Integrity Consistent in everything you do with high

expectations and hyper-monitor. Ability to provide an environment for faculty to

work/learn as cohesive group. Clear and effective communication of the vision and

goals for the campus followed by support at all levels in order to accomplish the goals.

Effective communication that motivates administrators, teachers, and students to perform at their full potential

Ability to communicate and carry out effective goals There are two important factors for a principal.

Communication and vision are two important components of leadership for a successful principal.

Empowering staff members The ability to effectively impact student achievement Communication and having a vision and plan. Knowledge of curriculum and interpersonal skills. Common sense, time management, and soft skills Reflection

105

Without reflection, a school leader cannot review the past to inform the present.

Building trust with staff A principal who is a strong instructional leader (2nd:

develops a collaborative culture; 3rd: develops strong systems)

Clear Vision/High Energy/People Oriented Relationships with stakeholders undecided Communication and trust--relationships with her/his

staff, parents and students are critical to success. Ability to lead others through positive channels. The ability to motivate others in a compelling way

with data as well as the ability to lead teachers in curriculum.

Remaining calm and having good interpersonal skills. student relationships Empathy Communication Passion for success and putting kids first. Instructional leadership Support and willingness of teachers to try new things. Ability to inspire people One of the most important factors is to truly

understand where your campus is. Data analysis will give you the map that you have to follow. It gives you the areas in need and the personnel you have to work with.

Calm but consistent leadership. Communicating a vision of high expectations communication The principal has to be able to multi-task. Listen to the

needs of many, determine solutions and find time to complete all tasks.

Resilience engagement in curriculum leadership An administrator must have strong leadership skills

based upon the principles of integrity, compassion, and dedication.

Building a campus culture of high expectations and effort for students, parents, and staff.

building culture Being able to relate to others. Ability to lead

106

Belief in his or her vision and climate for the school Speaking the language of the goals set and the vision.

Everyone on the campus should be able to convey to others the vision of the school without hesitation. It breathes in the atmosphere daily.

Instructional focus and leadership. The ability and desire to work with staff. Decisions

shouldn't always be top down. Trust and teamwork Relationships with students, staff, and parents Autonomy. Ability to develop teachers' instructional delivery and

relationships with students. The ability to hire and retain quality teachers-

supporting them so they will work hard. Be able to effectively influence teachers and students The ability to inspire and motivate people and a

genuine desire and love for impacting students' lives in a positive way. When teachers, students, and parents see that you genuinely love what you do, it motivates everyone to work hard and do their best.

a moral compass and well defined belief system Influence The ability to set and communicate clear goals and

provide the support and resources necessary to accomplish those goals.

In my opinion, the most important factor in affecting school performance is the Principal's ability to successfully maintain a positive and student centered work climate that celebrates individual success. This approach will help build capacity and trusting relationships.

expectations must be communicated Communication Collaboration between all campuses. The systemic

approach. Ability to lead and handle multiple tasks. The ability to build relationships. Planning, effective training where you are expected to

use what is taught and freedom to allow the principal to be able to lead especially as we transition through the new testing requirements- as an example.

The ability to lead and to support his/her staff in a constructive, supporting manner.

The ability to get the teachers to work toward a common goal.

107

listen, plan and involve the staff Strong communicator, effective problem-solver,

planner, physically active, adequate time to do the job, committed and passionate

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE …

Documents

Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE …