ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR, AND OPENNESS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University

By

Thomas G. Reed, B.S., M.S.

****
The Ohio State University
2005

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Professor Wayne K. Hoy

Professor Anita Woolfolk Hoy _________________________

Professor Scott Sweetland Advisor

Professor Nancy Nestor-Baker College of Education

 ABSTRACT

Contemporary studies in business management purport significant relationships

among emotional intelligence, leadership style, and organizational climate and how each

contribute to the overall performance of organizational outcomes. Likewise, education

research has established significant relationships between specific leadership behaviors

and openness of education organizations and the effects of both on student achievement.

This exploratory study considers distinctions between two competing emotional

intelligence constructs, attempts to refine and extend a more focused leadership model,

and probes theoretical, empirical, and structural relationships among teachers’

perceptions of principal emotional intelligence, principal leadership behavior, and

principal openness in elementary schools throughout Ohio. Further, this work offers

tentative findings that suggest self and social awareness of principals as well as

principals’ competencies in managing self and others are critical to the development of

enabling structure and open interpersonal processes in schools and reveals important

questions that guide more extensive research related to principal emotional intelligence,

leadership style, openness, and other variables presumed related, either directly or

indirectly, to student achievement.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge those contributors most invested in this study and offer

my deepest appreciation for the ways in which each uniquely inspired my work:

Dr. Franklin B. Walter, former Superintendent of Public Instruction in Ohio, whose

long and distinguished career in educational leadership raised the bar for researchers and

practitioners alike; Diane Baugher, whose infinite patience and expert counsel

personalized and humanized The Ohio State University; Eileen McMahon, fellow

Fawcett Scholar and dlúthchara, for setting the standard for analytical rigor, critical

reflection, and intellectual expectation; Dr. Wayne Hoy, faculty advisor and mentor, and

Dr. Anita Hoy, distinguished researcher and author, whose collective guidance, wisdom,

and expansive bodies of research permeate this and all subsequent work; Virginia

Thompson and Paul Reed, my parents, who instilled in me a respect for knowledge, a

need for understanding, and an appreciation for new ideas; and Debbie, my most-trusted

colleague, companion, partner and peer, for challenging me as no others can challenge

me and daring me in ways I do not dare myself.

iii
 VITA

December 27, 1962 ......................................Born – Columbus, Ohio

1985.............................................................B.S., Elementary Education

The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio

1994.............................................................M.S, Education Administration

University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio

1985-1995....................................................Jr. High Teacher,

Jackson Center High School,
Jackson Center, Ohio

1995-2000....................................................Director of Curriculum and Instruction,

Shelby County Educational Service Center,
Sidney, Ohio

2000-2003....................................................Superintendent,
Jackson Center Local School District
Jackson Center, Ohio

2003-2005....................................................Graduate Research Assistant,

The Ohio State University

2003-2005....................................................Novice G. Fawcett Graduate Scholar,

The Ohio State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: College of Education

Educational Policy and Leadership
Educational Administration

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract....................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments...................................................................................iii
Vita ......................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .........................................................................................vii

List of Figures.......................................................................................viii
Chapter 1 - Introduction ........................................................................... 1
Problem Statement........................................................................ 5
Terms and Definitions .................................................................. 9
Limitations ................................................................................. 11
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ................................................................ 13
Emotional Intelligence................................................................ 13
Leadership .................................................................................. 38
Organizational Climate ............................................................... 59
Hypotheses ................................................................................. 78
Structural Equation Model .......................................................... 81
Chapter 3 - Methodology........................................................................ 84
Sample ....................................................................................... 84
Data Collection........................................................................... 85
Variables .................................................................................... 86
Measuring Emotional Intelligence .............................................. 87
Measuring Organizational Climate.............................................. 89

v
 Measuring Principal Leadership Behavior................................... 91

Chapter 4 - Results ............................................................................... 100

Sample of Elementary Schools ................................................. 100

Emotional Intelligence.............................................................. 104

Principal Leadership ................................................................. 112

Principal Openness ................................................................... 115
Hypothesis Testing ................................................................... 118
Structural Equation Model Testing ........................................... 122
Conclusions .............................................................................. 131
Chapter 5 - Discussion ......................................................................... 134
Summary of Findings ............................................................... 134
Discussion of Findings.............................................................. 138
Theoretical Significance ........................................................... 148
Practical Significance ............................................................... 154
Future Research........................................................................ 157
Conclusion ............................................................................... 162
Bibliography ........................................................................................ 165

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 3 - Methodology
3.1 ECI-2 Cronbach’s Alphas for Mean Item Scores .................. 89
Chapter 4 - Results
4.1 Regional Distribution of Sample Schools by Area Code...... 101
4.2 Distribution of Sample Schools by Enrollment.................... 102
4.3 Demographics of Sample Schools ....................................... 103
4.4 Descriptive Statistics of EI Competencies ........................... 108
4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Intelligence Domains.... 109
4.6 ECI v. 2.0 Cronbach’s Alphas for Individual Cases............. 110
4.7 Factor Analysis of EI Competencies ................................... 111
4.8 Bivariate Correlations of EI Competencies.......................... 112
4.9 Descriptive Statistics for School-level Principal Leadership 113
4.10 PLI Cronbach’s Alphas of Individual Cases ...................... 113
4.11 Factor Analysis of Principal Leadership Inventory ............ 115

4.12 Comparative OCDQ-RE Alpha Coefficients ..................... 116

4.13 Factor Analysis of OCDQ-RE........................................... 117
4.14 Descriptive Statistics of Principal Openness...................... 118
4.15 Simple Bivariate Correlations ........................................... 121
4.16 Partial Correlations Controlling for Low Student SES....... 122
4.17 Means and Standard Deviations for LISREL..................... 124
4.18 Correlation Matrix for LISREL ......................................... 124

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 Emotional Intelligence Typology .......................................... 25
2.2 Primal Leadership Styles....................................................... 44
2.3 Winslow’s Organizational Climate Model............................. 63
2.4 Typology of School Climate ................................................. 71
2.5 Principal Leadership Structural Equation Model ................... 83
Chapter 4 - Results
4.1 Hypothesized Structural Equation Model ............................ 125
4.2 Baseline Structural Equation Model .................................... 126
4.3 Revised Structural Equation Model..................................... 128
4.4 Final Structural Equation Model ......................................... 130
Chapter 5 - Discussion
5.1 Student Achievement Structural Equation Model ................ 153

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The concept of leadership has captivated observers and recorders of both oral and

written histories. Cultures around the world recount legendary individuals who were

bold, courageous, cunning, and heroic – energetic and charismatic leaders commanding

great armies, empires, civilizations, and societies. Our history is a tapestry of individual

actions and ambitions that set courses for nations and forge the fate of people. Social

scientists have examined these and other leaders for the past century in an effort to

identify traits, abilities, and behaviors specific to strong leaders as well as chronicle

situational and social factors that influence leadership decisions and directives.

Leadership has been conceptualized from managerial to militant, parliamentary to

political, formal to informal, yet the discussion always centers on the question of

effectiveness: What makes a person an effective or ineffective leader? Yukl (2002)

asserts leadership effectiveness is most conveniently quantified by organizational

outcomes and results. A casual scan of Western culture certainly lends general support

to Yukl’s position. In American business and manufacturing, Chief Executive Officers

are measured largely by profit margins and market share. Local, state, and federal public

administrators are measured largely by favorable or unfavorable shifts in demographics

and social indicators such as crime, unemployment and economic growth. In high profile

professional and collegiate athletics such as football, basketball, and baseball, coaching
1
effectiveness is simply a ratio of wins to losses. And in public elementary, middle, and

high schools, a growing legislative emphasis on academic achievement and standardized

assessment is moving the measure of principal effectiveness toward conveniently

quantifiable test scores, attendance and graduation rates. As Daniel Goleman (2000)

proposes, “A leader’s singular job is to get results.”

However, effective leadership can be depicted by more than organizational outcomes.

For example, leadership can be examined in the context of power, authority, and politics

and in light of the following questions:

• How do effective leaders derive power? Is power derived most effectively

through reward, punishment, and coercion, or is power most effectively

derived legitimately, expertly, or referentially?

• How do effective leaders exercise authority? Do leaders most effectively

exercise legal, traditional, charismatic, or simply functional authority?

• How do leaders employ political tactics such as ingratiating, networking,

coalition building, and scapegoating to gain political advantages?

At its core, the essence of power, authority and politics in leadership is a matter of

influencing, i.e. motivating, members of the organization to achieve the goals of the

organization and get desired results.

Leadership can also be described in terms of decision-making. Herbert Simon (1957)

asserts that decision-making “pervades” leadership and that a “general theory of

administration must include principles…that will insure correct decision-making, just as

it must include principles that will insure effective action.” Extending that notion, the

overarching decision-making question that frames the discussion of leadership is: Are
2
decision-making processes rational or natural, inclusive or autonomous, emotional or

intellectual, and to what degree? In practice, leadership is a series of decisions (i.e.

actions and inactions) ranging from the very small and seemingly insignificant to the very

large and obviously ominous. What leaders decide and how they decide it are important

determinants of leadership effectiveness.

An emerging body of research examining emotional intelligence in leadership may

serve as the common thread that binds together discrete leadership themes such as

organizational outcomes, power and politics, and decision-making processes (see Mayer

& Salovey, 1997; Goleman, 1997, Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Emotional intelligence refers

to an individual’s ability to perceive, understand, and regulate emotions (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997). As theorized, a dynamic combination of emotional intelligence

competencies informs cognition and guides leadership behavior. More specifically,

emotionally informed cognition drives decision-making processes and regulates a

leader’s deployment of power and authority. The resulting leadership behavior, guided

largely by an individual’s emotional intelligence capacity, can have either a positive or

negative effect on organizational climate (Goleman, 1997). A healthy and open

organizational climate generates high levels of commitment to the mission of the

organization as well as high levels of trust and collegiality (Hoy & Tarter, 1997;

Goddard, Smith, & Hoy, 2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Leaders approach

their charge mindfully, identifying mistakes early and avoiding crises, resisting

temptations to oversimplify, and exhibiting resiliency in the face of challenges (Langer,

1989; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001; Hoy, 2003).

3
 Effective leadership enables. Enabling leadership asserts the key to leadership

effectiveness is one’s ability to match the appropriate leadership style to the situation

thereby enabling individuals and groups to be effective (Hoy, 2004).

Recalling the allusions to leaders described in the opening paragraph, the common

characteristic that bonds those who most influenced our histories, our societies, our

cultural traditions and civilizations is emotion. Throughout history and in cultures around

the world, the leader is the one to whom others look for assurance and clarity when

threatened with uncertainty or harm (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). These

leaders influence, inspire, initiate, communicate, create, adapt, achieve, empathize,

support, and serve. They are highly self-confident and optimistic individuals, who

possess acute organizational awareness and political adeptness. All of these are

emotional intelligence competencies that guide leadership behavior, and all can be

developed over time through accurate self-assessment, reflection, and experience

(Goleman, 1998).

That is not to suggest, however, than individuals who can develop and possess high

levels of all of the fore-mention competencies will be great leaders. Rather, two

emotional intelligence competencies prove most influential in distinguishing great leaders

from notorious ones, effective from ineffective: emotional self-awareness and emotional

self-control (Haygroup, 2004). That is to say, effective leaders not only possess high

levels of EI competencies, they understand what emotions are stoked by which stimuli,

understand the implications of their emotional reactions to those stimuli, and demonstrate

the ability to manage disruptive emotions and keep impulses in check. By doing so,

leaders more effectively regulate their power and authority, apply efficient decision-
4
making processes, assume appropriate orientations to organizational tasks and individual

needs, and increase their likelihood to positively affect the climate and outcomes of the

organization.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Specific to schools, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) characterize effective

leadership as “balanced.” More specifically, these researchers describe balanced

leadership as a matter of knowing when, how and why to do what needs to be done.

However, the balanced leadership theory fails to raise one very important question: What

informs “balanced” leadership so that principals know when, how, and why to act? This

study will attempt to not only account for the when, how, and why of balanced

leadership, but also strive to explain the what. An enabling leadership model, as

introduced in this work, examines the effects of emotional intelligence on leadership

behavior. The aim of enabling leadership is to match appropriate leadership styles to

specific situations to enable productive outcomes. The research underlying the enabling

leadership model is guided by three fundamental questions:

1. To what extent is emotional intelligence related to principal leadership

behaviors?

2. To what extent are principal leadership behaviors related to the climate of

school?

3. To what extent is emotional intelligence of the principal related to school

climate?

Emotional intelligence is defined as one’s ability to perceive emotions, to access

and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional

5
knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so to promote emotional and intellectual

growth. (Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P.,1997). As proposed by Goleman (2000), emotional

intelligence is comprised of 18 dynamic competencies that individuals can learn, develop,

and regulate as necessary. Recent research suggests that the presence or absence of

emotional intelligence competencies and the ability to manage them is what distinguishes

effective leaders from ineffective ones based on their extensive research on and

consulting with upper and middle managers in business and industry (Goleman, Boyatzis,

& McKee, 2002). But do the same emotional intelligence competencies offer the same

marks of distinction for school principals? Are some competencies more important to

effective leadership in schools than others? Is one competency more critical than the

others? Can an emotional intelligence competency inventory predict principal leadership

style and behavior? A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence research led the Haygroup

(2004) to conceptualized the 18 competencies in a typology of four domains: Self-

awareness, self-management, social-awareness, and relationship management. One

dimension distinguishes competencies as either awareness or management behaviors,

while the second dimension separates competencies related to self from those that are

social. For example, emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-

confidence appear in the “self-awareness” domain. The “self-management” domain

includes emotional self-control, transparency, adaptability, achievement orientation,

initiative, and optimism. On the opposite half of the framework, empathy, organizational

awareness, and service orientation are grouped under the “social awareness” domain,

while the “relationship management” domain includes such competencies as developing

others, inspirational leadership, influence, change catalyst, conflict management, and

6
teamwork and collaboration. What is the extent of the relationship between the way

these emotional intelligence competencies are grouped in the four domains and the way

leadership behaviors are most typically categorized? How are specific competencies

related to specific principal behavior? Does one domain serve as an entry point for

principals to develop their emotional intelligence?

Much like the Haygroup’s (2004) “Competency Framework”, researchers have

proposed leadership models as taxonomies, arranging discrete leadership styles across

multiple dimensions (see Blake & Mouton, 1982; Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl, 1999).

Using the 18 emotional intelligence competencies and four domains, Goleman, et al,

(2002) conceived six distinct leadership styles for business leaders based on two

dimensions – high to low task or goal orientation and high to low relation or needs

orientation. Two of the styles, authoritarian and pacesetting leadership, are described as

high in task but low in relation. Two others, affiliative and democratic leadership, are

high in relation but low in task. The final two, visionary and coaching leadership,

integrate varying levels of both task and relation. Are principal leadership behaviors

aligned in the same six styles? Are principal leadership styles related?

The final component of this study will examine the relationship between emotional

intelligence climate as well as leadership and school climate. Organizational research is

replete with studies citing the importance of climate and culture on overall effectiveness

(Halpin & Croft, 1962, 1963; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Hoy & Tarter, 1997,

Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002, Haygroup, 2004). In fact,

this study not only acknowledges a significant positive correlation between climate and

outcomes, but also assumes openness of climate and organizational outcomes are
7
significantly and positively related. Climate studies in schools have shown lower

incidents of student alienation in schools with open climate than schools with closed

climates (Hartley & Hoy, 1972). Other school climate research suggests openness is

significantly related to higher levels of faculty loyalty and trust (Tarter & Hoy, 1988;

Reiss, 1994; Reiss & Hoy, 1998) as well as student achievement in mathematics, reading,

and writing (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). School climate studies specifically related to leadership

have shown that schools with open climates often have principals who are confident, self-

secure, and resourceful (Anderson, 1964) and often demonstrate higher levels of teacher

participation in decision-making (Barnes, 1994), a critical leadership function. Overall,

the openness of a school’s climate reflects the emotional tone of the school in predictable

ways (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). Yet many questions about the relationships between

emotional intelligence and climate as well as climate and leadership remain and may be

framed by the following research questions: Does a school’s climate reflect the emotional

intelligence of the principal? How do the gaps between self-perceived leadership

behavior and faculty perceptions of principal leadership behavior impact school climate?

Do some leadership styles have a more significant effect on school climate than other

leadership styles?

To summarize, business research has established significant relationships between a

leader’s emotional intelligence and leadership behavior as well as subordinate

perceptions of a leader’s emotional intelligence competencies and organizational climate

(Goleman, et al, 2002; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Likewise, organizational research has

established significant relationships between specific leadership behaviors and the

openness of organizational climates (Halpin & Croft, 1962, 1963; Hoy, Tarter, &
8
Kottkamp, 1991; Hoy & Tarter, 1997, Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, Boyatzis, and

McKee, 2002, Haygroup, 2004). As a result, important questions come to light regarding

relationships among these variables in schools. How are teachers’ perceptions of

principal emotional intelligence related to school climate? How do emotional

intelligence competencies inform principal leadership behavior? How do faculty

perceptions of principal behavior affect school climate?

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

This study of the inter-correlation among emotional intelligence, leadership, and

climate draws on the specific meanings of the following concepts:

1.0 Emotional Intelligence – One’s ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate

emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional

knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so to promote emotional and

intellectual growth. (Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P.,1997).

2.0 Leadership – A social process combined of both rational and emotional elements in

which a member or members of a group or organization influence the

interpretation of internal and external events, the choice of goals or desired

outcomes, organization of work activities, individual motivation and abilities,

power relations, and shared orientations (Hoy & Miskel, 2005).

2.1 Commanding leadership - A direct, task-oriented leadership style sometimes

described as coercive, decisive, and resolute. Commanding leadership is

characterized by self-confidence and formal authority and power to force

compliance and achieve results.

9
2.2 Coaching leadership – A relation-oriented leadership style that focuses on the goals

and needs of individuals and improvement over time.

2.3 Distributive leadership – A leadership style that demonstrates trust and empowers

faculty. Distributive leaders urge self-regulation and recognize when to yield

authority to teachers and entrust them to take initiative and make decisions.

2.4 Enabling Leadership – A contingency leadership model that attempts to define the

different styles of leadership and match them to situations to enable a productive

outcome. It posited the key to leadership effectiveness is one’s ability to match

the appropriate leadership style to the situation thereby enabling individuals and

groups to be effective (Hoy, 2004).

2.5 Visionary leadership – A leadership style that integrates task and relation

orientations and communicates a clear vision for the organization. Visionary

leaders encourage innovation, value creativity, and are perceived as authentic,

energetic and inspiring.

3.0 Organizational climate - A set of internal characteristics that distinguish

organizations from each other and influence the behavior of organizational

members (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000).

3.1 Closed climate – Climate of an organization characterized by impersonal,

disingenuous, and inconsiderate principal behavior that produces teacher

frustration and apathy (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000).

3.2 Open climate – Climate of an organization characterized by high authenticity and

the proper blend of structure and direction, support and consideration, dependent

on the situation (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000).

10
4.1 Endogenous variable – Also dependent variables, their variations may be explained

(directly or indirectly) by other variables. (Byrne, 1998)

4.2 Exogenous variable – Also independent variables that explain the

variations/fluctuations among the other variables in the model. (Byrne, 1998)

4.3 Latent Variable - Unobserved or unmeasured variables, underlying construct,

hypothetical constructs or factors. (Byrne, 1998)

4.4 Observed Variable - Manifest variables or measured variables that are the indicators

of the underlying constructs. (Byrne, 1998)

LIMITATIONS

The focus of this study is limited to the emotional intelligence of principals,

perceived principal leadership behaviors, and school climate. The unit of analyses is

elementary principals and public elementary schools in central Ohio chosen as a sample

of rural, suburban, and urban schools with enrollment categories of less than 200

students, 201 to 499 students, or 500 or more students.

Participants are limited to full-time elementary teachers randomly selected in order

to obtain a representative perception of principal emotional intelligence competencies,

principal leadership behavior and openness of school climate. The generalizability of the

results of the study will be limited because the research sample will be drawn from a

single state. Also, since participation in the study is contingent upon administrative

approval, principals agreeing to participate may actually self-select for the study based on

openness criteria.

While this study proposes a structural equation model from emotional intelligence

11
to openness based on sound theory and a reliable set of data, the model cannot account

for all possible latent and observed variables that influence statistically significant

relationships. Further, though the structural equation model in this study presumes

causation from emotional intelligence to principal leadership behavior to school climate,

reciprocal causality or inverse causal relationships may exist.

12
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter focuses on the three concepts at the core of this study: leadership,

emotional intelligence, and organizational climate. Each topic will be examined in terms

of its theories and concepts as well as supporting empirical evidence in research.

Emotional Intelligence, as the overarching topic of this research study, is reviewed first.

Next, the history of leadership literature, proposed leadership models, and the

relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence, is presented followed by a

review of organizational climate, climate measures, dimensions and correlations to

emotional intelligence and leadership. The chapter concludes with theoretically

supported rationale for three hypotheses expressing positive relationships between

emotional intelligence and enabling leadership, emotional intelligence and school

climate, and enabling leadership and school climate.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Introduction

Salovey and Mayer (1990) first introduced emotional intelligence in published,

scholarly work, conceptualizing it as “a form of social intelligence that involves the

ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among

them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action.”
13
 The term “emotional intelligence” (EI) focuses one’s attention on the underlying

emotional elements of human potential and performance. In the late 1930’s and 40’s,

Thorndike and Wechsler explored the concept of “social intelligence,” but Gardner

(1983) popularized the construct with his studies in “multiple intelligences.” More

recently, other psychologists have further articulated the complexity of intra- and inter-

personal intelligences (Bar-On, 1992, 1997; Goleman, 1998; Saarni, 1988). Other

theorists have used labels such as “practical intelligence” and “successful intelligence”

which integrate interpersonal competencies with cognitive abilities, anchoring the

concepts around outcomes such as success or effectiveness (Sternberg, 1996).

Goleman (1995) expanded Salovey and Mayer’s work to consider how emotional

intelligence differed from cognitive intelligence, or I.Q., which has been shown to be a

weak predictor of job performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Sternberg, 1995). As

evidenced by the Cambridge-Sommerville Youth Study, a longitudinal study of 450 boys

growing up in Sommerville, Massachusetts, I.Q. had little relation to how well the boys

eventually performed at work or in other areas of their lives. Instead, what seemed to be

the most significant predictors of performance and success were more affective abilities

such as emotional control and the ability to get along with others (Kimmel, 1988).

Further studies in IQ and performance suggest that emotional intelligence actually

helps improve cognitive functioning. As evidenced by Professor Walter Mischel’s

"marshmallow studies" at Stanford University in the 1960’s, four year olds were asked to

stay in a room alone with a marshmallow and wait for a researcher to return. They were

told that if they could wait until the researcher came back before eating the marshmallow,

14
they could have two. Researchers followed the participants of the study and found ten

years later that the children who were able to delay gratification in the marshmallow task

scored 210 points higher on the SAT than those who were unable to wait.

Goleman (1995) offered a definition of 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.” In light of the findings

cited above, Goleman (1995) posited human competencies like self-awareness, self-

discipline, persistence and empathy are of greater consequence than IQ in predicting

performance.  In other words, emotional intelligence is being smart about one’s self and

about other people. It includes both understanding people and doing something with that

understanding (Haygroup, 2004).

Emotion as an Intelligence

The growing popularity of Gardner’s (1983) “Multiple Intelligences” as well as

Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) emotional intelligence prodded scholarly debate centered on

the question, “What is an ‘intelligence’?” In 1922, University of Pennsylvania Professor

Lightner Whitmer simply defined intelligence as “the ability to solve a new problem.” In

light of a fairly contemporary body of research regarding theories of intelligence, Schank

and Birnbaum (1994) proposed a more contemporary definition: Intelligence is “a

learnable set of competencies.”

15
 Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) asserted that a psychological construct is

considered a specific kind of intelligence if the construct sufficiently meets the following

three standards:

1. The construct should reflect a “mental performance rather than preferred ways of

behaving”;

2. Statistical measures should show positive correlation with other forms of

intelligence;

3. Measures should increase with experience and age (p. 269-270).

To demonstrate that emotional intelligence sufficiently satisfied these three criteria,

the MSCEIT (Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) was developed.

MSCEIT is an ability-based scale that measures how well people perform tasks and solve

emotional problems, as opposed to a scale that relies on an individual's subjective

assessment of their perceived emotional skills. Responses to MSCEIT represent actual

abilities at solving emotional problems, the first criterion the researchers established.

Consequently, scores are relatively unaffected by self-concept, response set, emotional

state, and other measurement error common to self- or third-party perception inventories

(Caruso, 2003).

Boyatzis and Sala (2005) refined the Mayer, et al. (1999) standards, positing that to

be classified as a specific intelligence, a concept should be:

1. Related to neural-endocrine functioning;

2. Differentiated as to the type of neural circuitry and endocrine system involved;

3. Related to life and job outcomes;

16
 4. Sufficiently different from other personality constructs that the concept adds value

to understanding the human personality and behavior.

Further, the measures of a psychological construct should satisfy Campbell and Fiske’s

(1968) basic criteria for a sound measure, convergent and discriminant validity.

The first and second standards proposed in the Boyatzis and Sala (2005)

definition of intelligence were more specific than the Mayer, et al. (1999). The Boyatzis

and Sala (2005) model posited observed changes in “intelligence” should predict neural

and endocrine changes within the individual. After all, if a theory of emotional

intelligence claims multiple components of the construct, then different components

should be evidenced by distinct neural pathways.

Goleman’s (1995) theory of emotional intelligence posited that four domains derive

from distinct neurological mechanisms that distinguish each domain from the others as

well as from purely cognitive domains of ability. This distinction between emotional

intelligence and IQ can be drawn more clearly than before owing to recent findings in

neuroscience. Research in the emerging field of neuroscience reveals the bridge between

brain function and the behaviors described in emotional intelligence theory (Davidson,

Jackson, & Kalin, 2000). Emotional intelligence encompasses the limbic pathways that

link the amygdala to areas in the prefrontal cortex, the brain's executive center (Goleman,

1995; Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000). Lesions in these areas produce deficits in the

hallmark abilities of emotional intelligence including self-awareness, self-management,

motivation, empathy, and relationship management (Damasio, 1994, 1999).

17
 Emotional Intelligence and other Psychological Constructs

The measures of emotional intelligent competencies have been shown to relate to

other selected personality measures. Emotional intelligence has shown associations with

Type B personality (McRae, 2000; Diamantopoulou, 2001), Myers Briggs measures of

Intuiting and Feeling (Chreniss & Goleman, 2001; Burckle, 2000) and the NEO-PR

measures of extroversion (Murensky, 2000; Byrne, 2004).

Diamantopoulou (2001) examined a sample of bank employees in Greece to

determine whether a relationship exists between personality (Types A and B) and

emotional intelligence and found that people with a mixture of both Type A and B were

higher in emotional intelligence. Furthermore, it was found that Type B was positively

correlated with social skills competencies.

To examine construct validity of the ECI to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI), Burckle (2000b) conducted an analysis of 18 paramedics from an organization

that provides medical care and transportation to the greater Denver/Boulder area. He

found significant correlations between fifteen of the EI competencies and the Intuiting

and Feeling dimensions of the MBTI.

Murensky (2000) sampled 90 executives from the 100 highest leadership positions

in an international oil corporation and found significant correlations between the NEO

Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking

Appraisal (WGCTA – Form S) as a measure of cognitive ability, and the ECI.

Schulte’s (2003) study of emotional intelligence examined the construct’s

correlation to Bass and Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (1995) for

18
Transformational Leadership style and McRae & Costa's Neo-FFI (1991) for the five

domains of personality. Results showed that emotional intelligence was well predicted by

general cognitive ability and personality.

Emotional Intelligence and Individual Leader Performance

Salovey, Hsee, & Mayer (1993) initiated the development of valid measures of

emotional intelligence to explore its significance on human performance. For example,

one early study established a significant correlation between “emotional clarity,” the

ability to identify and name a mood being felt, and the speed from which individuals

recover from viewing [elicit is a verb – you need an adjective here – evocative?] a movie

that elicits strong emotions (Salovey, et al. 1993). Another study found that one’s ability

to perceive, understand, and appraise others’ emotions accurately served as a significant

predictor of flexibility in responding to changes in social environments and adeptness at

building supportive social networks (Salovey, Mayer, et al, 1995).

The American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Intelligence (APA

Public Affairs Office, 1997) recommended that real life outcomes are an important part

of the standard against which intelligence should be judged and therefore provide the

impetus for ongoing research linking emotional intelligence and real life outcomes. While

Mayer, et al. (1999) seem to discard patterns of behavior as irrelevant to their concept of

emotional intelligence, Boyatzis and Sala (2005) contend that emotional intelligence

should predict behavioral patterns in life and work, as well as the consequences of these

19
patterns in the form of life and work outcomes, a more relevant test of the concept than

showing a correlation to experience and age.

Leadership literature is replete with studies that focus on individual performance,

i.e. effectiveness and success, in various occupations (McClelland et. al., 1958;

McClelland, 1973; Bray, Campbell, and Grant, 1974; Boyatzis, 1982; Luthans et al.,

1988; Kotter, 1982; Thornton & Byham, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). Historically,

a trait approach to explaining behavior would identify and validate specific capabilities

against effectiveness measures. An integrated concept of emotional intelligence offers a

theoretical structure for leadership style and linking it to leadership behavior and job

performance.

Recent literature on emotional intelligence promotes guarded optimism for the

predictive value of emotional intelligence on leadership performance. Transformational

leadership style has been shown to relate to the emotional intelligence in general and

positively correlated with specific, resonant managerial styles, and negatively correlated

to specific dissonant leadership styles (Burbach, 2004). Transformational leader behavior

was also found to significantly correlate with emotional intelligence to a greater degree

than transactional leader behavior (Leban, 2004). However, a separate study showed that

identifying emotional intelligence competencies in individuals did not necessarily aid in

the prediction of Transformational Leadership (Schulte, 2003).

Drawing on theories of leadership, emotional intelligence, and social psychology,

Byron (2003) examined how a manager’s ability to accurately decode emotions from

nonverbal behavior affected subordinate and supervisor perceptions of managerial job

20
performance. The study revealed that nonverbal emotional decoding skills are positively

correlated with supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a range of female

managerial and non-managerial employees. Secondly, Byron (2003) found that managers

who are better nonverbal emotional decoders receive higher ratings from their

subordinates and have higher employee retention rates.

In a study of the characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals,

Williams (2004) examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and problem-

solving competencies, emotional intelligence and role perception, and emotional

intelligence and environmental adaptation and found significant differences in all three

areas of inquiry. Outstanding principals demonstrate a broad and deep repertoire of

competencies related to emotional intelligence and problem solving.

However, a study by Weinberger (2003) showed less conclusive results in

establishing the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership style, and

perceived leadership effectiveness. Through the testing of 24 research hypotheses, this

study found no significant relationships between the perceptions of a leader’s leadership

style and that leader’s emotional intelligence. Nor did the study reveal any significant

relationship between a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and emotional

intelligence, contrary to what has been suggested by many advocates of emotional

intelligence.

Although much more research must be conducted to more fully understand the

relationships between emotional intelligence and individual performance, early studies

suggest a significant relationship likely exists. How these concepts relate to other

constructs continues to be an important research question so to avoid multi-colinearity of

21
measures and to ensure that this construct is assessing something distinct from other

measures of personality, behavior, and emotional intelligence (Boyatzis & Sala, 2005).

Emotional Intelligence and Group Performance

Factors influencing organizational performance are both complex and numerous.

However new organizational performance theory research suggests collective emotional

intelligence may predict relationships between emotionally intelligent leadership,

organizational climate, and organizational performance. Hay/McBer (2000) data indicate

not only that EI-based leadership may be the most important driver of climate, but that

climate may account for as much as 20 to 30 percent of organizational performance . If

these data are replicated over time, the implications are greatly supportive of employing

emotional intelligence measures in human resource functions such as selection,

promotion, and development of employees (Caruso, 2003).

The impact of emotional intelligence on organizations may be reflected in the

teacher-student relationship as well. Lees and Barnard (1999) studied the climates of

individual classrooms, concluding that teachers who are more aware of how students feel

in the classroom are better able to design a learning environment that suits students and

better able to guide them toward success. A similar effect of emotional intelligence on

climate and performance was demonstrated in a study of outstanding leaders in health

care (Catholic Health Association, 1994). The study revealed that effective leaders in the

health care industry were adept at integrating key emotional intelligence competencies.

A study by Leban (2003) examined the relationship between behavior and

emotional intelligence of the project manager and the success of twenty-four projects in
22
six organizations. Results of the study show that the leadership style used by a project

manager informed by emotional intelligence increases the probability of successfully

completing complex projects. Gantt and Agazarian (2004) studied systems-centered

emotional intelligence and found significant evidence to support the reliable

measurement of collective emotional intelligence.

The Domains of Emotional Intelligence

The ability-based model of emotional intelligence as formulated by Mayer and

Salovey (1999) proposes that emotion and cognition work together in adaptive ways in

four related emotional abilities:

• Perceiving Emotions: The ability to perceive emotions in oneself and others as

well as in objects, art, stories, music, and other stimuli.

• Facilitating Thought: The ability to generate, use, and feel emotion as necessary to

communicate feelings or employ them in other cognitive processes.

• Understanding Emotions: The ability to understand emotional information, to

understand how emotions combine and progress through relationship transitions,

and to appreciate such emotional meanings.

• Managing Emotions: The ability to be open to feelings, and to modulate them in

oneself and others so as to promote personal understanding and growth.

Goleman (1998) conceptualized emotional intelligence theory in terms of emotional

competencies, later defined by McBer/Hay (1999) as a “learned capability based on

emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work.” In other words,

an emotional intelligence competency is an ability to recognize, understand, and use

23
emotional information about oneself or others that leads to or causes effective or superior

performance.

Goleman’s (1998) first model of emotional intelligence identified five domains, or

dimensions, of emotional intelligence encompassing twenty-five competencies.

Three dimensions, self-awareness, self-regulation, and motivation, described personal

competencies related to knowing and managing emotions in one’s self. The remaining

two dimensions, empathy and social skills, described social competencies related to

knowing and managing emotions in others. As Goleman refined his model, the self vs.

others distinction would remain an important dimension of his emotional intelligence

typology.

A statistical analysis by Richard Boyatzis (2000) supported collapsing the twenty-

five competencies into twenty, and the five domains into the four: Self-Awareness, Self-

Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management (Boyatzis, Goleman, &

Rhee, 2000). While the analysis verified that the competencies nest within each El

domain, it also suggests that the distinction between the social awareness cluster and the

relationship management cluster may be more theoretical than empirical.

In contrast, the model of emotional intelligence offered through the MSCEIT (Mayer

et. al., 2003) has a total score of a person’s emotional intelligence, two area scores of

Experiential and Strategic, and branches within each area of: (a) Perceiving (with sub-

tests of Faces and Pictures) and Facilitating (with sub-tests of Facilitation and

Sensations); and (b) Understanding (with subtests of Changes and Blends) and Managing

(with subtests of Emotional Management and Emotional relationships).

24
 Awareness

Self-Awareness Social Awareness

- Emotional self-awareness - Empathy

- Accurate self-assessment - Service orientation
- Self-confidence - Organizational
awareness

Personal Social
Self-Management Relationship
Competence Management Competence
· Self-control · Developing others
· Trustworthiness · Influence
· Conscientiousness · Communication
· Adaptability · Conflict management
· Achievement drive · Leadership
· Initiative · Change catalyst
· Building bonds
· Teamwork & collaboration

Management

Figure 2.1 Emotional Intelligence Typology (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002)

The Self-Awareness Domain

Goleman (1998) argues self-awareness is critical to understanding others and

exhibiting empathy. The competencies in the self-awareness domain enable individuals to

be cognizant of their own feelings and thoughts, as well as personal strengths and

weaknesses. In fact, a study by Burckle and Boyatzis (1999) showed that individuals

with high levels of self-awareness exhibited high levels of self-management, the second

domain, nearly 50 percent of the time. However, individuals with low self-awareness

exhibited high levels of self-management only four percent of the time. These

researchers found similar results when examining self-awareness as a predictor of social

awareness, the third domain.

25
Emotional Self-Awareness

The first component of emotional intelligence is emotional self-awareness,

knowing what one feels and why. Mayer & Stevens (1994) use the term meta-mood for

key aspects of emotional self-awareness. The neural substrates of emotional self-

awareness have yet to be determined with precision; however, Damasio (1994), on the

basis of neuropsychological studies of patients with brain lesions, proposes that the

ability to sense, articulate, and reflect on one's emotional states hinges on the neural

circuits that run between the prefrontal and verbal cortex, the amygdala, and the viscera.

According to Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002), emotional self-awareness is

the ability to recognize one’s emotions and their effects on self and others. It is the ability

to effectively read how one reacts to cues in the environment and be aware of how one’s

emotions affect performance. Patients with lesions that disconnect the amygdala from the

prefrontal cortex suffer from alexithymia, the state of being at a loss to give words to

feelings. In some ways, alexithymia may represent the polar opposite of emotional self-

awareness, one reflecting a deficiency, the other efficiency in the workings of these

neural substrates (Taylor, Parker, & Bagby, 1999).

Accurate Self-Assessment

At another level, self-awareness is key to realizing one's own strengths and

weaknesses. Among several hundred managers from twelve different organizations,

accurate self-assessment was the hallmark of superior performance (Boyatzis, 1982).

Individuals who score high in accurate self-assessment are aware of their abilities and

limitations, seek out feedback and learn from their mistakes, and know where they need
26
to improve and when to work with others who have complementary strengths. Accurate

self-assessment was the competence found in virtually every exemplary performer in a

study of several hundred computer scientists and auditors (Kelley, 1998). On 360-degree

competence assessments, average performers typically overestimate their strengths,

whereas exemplars tended to underestimate their abilities (Goleman, 1998).

Burckle (2000) hypothesized that those who were rated low by others on accurate

self-assessment would show less self-awareness on other competencies. With a sample of

427 individuals from a variety of organizations, this study concluded that those who

scored low in accurate self-assessment showed a significantly larger mean gap between

self and others’ scores on each competency as compared to those who were high in this

competency. Also, those who were low in accurate self-assessment rated themselves

higher on every competency than others rated them. Conversely, those who were high in

accurate self-assessment underrated themselves.

Self-Confidence

Self-Confidence is a belief in one’s own capability to accomplish a task and select

an effective approach to a task or problem (Goleman, 1998). This definition includes

confidence in one’s ability as expressed in increasingly challenging circumstances and

confidence in one’s decisions or opinions. The positive impact of self-confidence on

performance has been shown in a variety of studies. Among supervisors, managers, and

executives, a high degree of self-confidence distinguishes exemplary from average

performers (Boyatzis, 1982). In a study of 112 entry-level accountants, those with the

highest sense of self-efficacy, a form of self-confidence, were rated as having superior

job performance by their supervisors. The level of self-confidence was in fact a stronger
27
predictor of performance than the level of skill or previous training (Saks, 1995). In a

sixty-year study of more than one thousand high-IQ men and women tracked from early

childhood to retirement, those who possessed self-confidence during their early years

were most successful in their careers (Holahan & Sears, 1995).

The Self-Management Domain

The second domain of emotional intelligence, Emotional Self-Management, refers

to the ability to regulate distressing affects like anxiety and anger and to inhibit emotional

impulsivity (Goleman, et al, 2002). Self-management encompasses the emotional

intelligence competencies of motivation, optimism, and emotional control.

Emotional Self-Control

Goleman (1998) identified emotional self-control as the “ability to keep one’s

impulsive feelings and emotions under control and restrain negative actions when

provoked, when faced with opposition or hostility from others, or when working under

pressure.” It also includes the ability to maintain stamina under continuing stress. Among

small business owners and employees, those with a stronger sense of control over not

only themselves but the events in their lives are less likely to become angry or depressed

when faced with job stress or to quit (Rahim & Psenicka, 1996). Among counselors and

psychotherapists, exemplary performers tended to respond calmly to angry attacks by a

patient, as do outstanding flight attendants dealing with disgruntled passengers (Boyatzis

& Burrus, 1995; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Among managers and executives, top

performers are able to balance drive and ambition with emotional self-control,
28
suppressing personal needs in the service of the organization's goals (Boyatzis, 1982).

Transparency

Transparency, also referred to as integrity, is having one’s actions consistent with

what one says. It includes communicating intentions, ideas, and feelings openly and

directly, and welcoming openness and honesty, even in difficult situations with multiple

parties involved. Transparency represents congruence between what one is thinking and

feeling and what one is saying and doing. People who exhibit this competency maintain

integrity and take responsibility for personal performance. They act ethically and are

above reproach, building trust through their reliability and authenticity. They admit their

own mistakes and confront unethical actions in others. In a difficult situation, they take

tough, principled stands even if they are unpopular (Goleman, 1998).

Adaptability

Adaptability is the ability to be flexible and work effectively within a variety of

changing situations, and with various individuals or groups. Adaptability entails

understanding and appreciating different and opposing perspectives on an issue, adapting

one’s approach as the requirements of a situation change, and changing or easily

accepting changes in one’s own organization or job requirements (Goleman, 1998).

Superior managers have been shown to exhibit this competence (Spencer & Spencer,

1993). Further, businesses with less formal and more ambiguous, autonomous, and

flexible roles for employees experience greater innovation (Amabile, 1988).

Achievement Orientation

McClelland's “The Achieving Society” (1961) established achievement orientation

as the competence that drives the success of entrepreneurs. In its most general sense, this
29
competence refers to a striving to continually improve performance. Studies that compare

high performers in executive ranks to average ones find the distinguishing characteristics

are achievement-oriented behaviors. High performing executives tend to take more

calculated risks, support enterprising innovations and set challenging goals for

employees. Spencer and Spencer (1993) found that the need to achieve is the competence

that most strongly sets apart superior and average executives. Achievement is not just

accomplishing things. Rather, it is accomplishing things through one’s own efforts,

against a clear, challenging standard of excellence. This competency is most effectively

engaged in situations that provide immediate, concrete feedback from a credible source

(Goleman, 1998).

Initiative

Initiative is the ability to identify a problem, obstacle, or opportunity and take

action in light of that to address current or future problems or opportunities. Initiative

should be seen in the context of proactively doing things. Those with the Initiative

competence act before being forced to do so by external events. Initiative has been

identified as key to outstanding performance in industries that rely on sales, such as real

estate, and to the development of personal relationships with clients, as is critical in such

businesses as financial services or consulting (Crant, 1995; Rosier, 1996).

Optimism

Goleman (1998) defined optimism as the persistence to pursue goals despite

obstacles and setbacks. Optimism is a key ingredient of achievement because it can

determine one's reaction to unfavorable events or circumstances; those with high

achievement are proactive and persistent, have an optimistic attitude toward setbacks, and
30
operate from hope of success. Studies have shown that optimism can contribute

significantly to sales gains, among other accomplishments (Schulman, 1995).

The Social-Awareness Domain

The Social Awareness domain includes three competencies: empathy,

organizational awareness, and service orientation. Social Awareness competencies

determine how we handle relationships. As an example, when Damasio (1994)

administered an emotional intelligence measure to a patient with damage in the pre-

frontal amygdala, the area of the brain critical to emotional intelligence, he found that

though the patient had an IQ of 140, he showed marked deficits in self-awareness and

empathy. Primate studies find parallel effects. Monkeys in the wild who had prefrontal-

amygdala lesions were able to perform food gathering and similar tasks to maintain

themselves but lacked all sense of how to respond to other monkeys in the band, even

running away from those who made friendly gestures (Brothers, 1989).

Empathy

Empathy gives people an astute awareness of others' emotions, concerns, and needs.

The empathic individual can read emotional currents, picking up on nonverbal cues such

as tone of voice or facial expression (Goleman, 1998). This sensitivity to others is critical

for superior job performance whenever the focus is on interactions with people. For

instance, physicians who are better at recognizing emotions in patients are more

successful than their less sensitive colleagues at treating them (Friedman & DiMatteo,

1982). The ability to read others' needs well comes naturally to the best managers of
31
product development teams (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Empathy also correlates with

effective sales, as was found in a study among large and small retailers (Pilling & Eroglu,

1994). In an increasingly diverse workforce, empathy enables individuals to read people

accurately and avoid resorting to the stereotyping that can lead to performance deficits by

creating anxiety in the stereotyped individuals (Steele, 1997).

Organizational Awareness

Organizational Awareness refers to one’s ability to understand and learn the

internal and external power relationships in an organization. Sometimes called political

savvy, the organizational awareness competency includes one’s ability to identify real

decision-makers and individuals with influence (Goleman, 1998).

Organizational awareness is a competence vital to the behind-the-scenes

networking and coalition building that allows individuals to wield influence, no matter

what their professional role. Insight into group social hierarchies requires social

awareness on an organizational level, not just an interpersonal one. Ability to read

situations objectively, without the distorting lens of their own biases and assumptions,

allows individuals to respond effectively (Boyatzis, 1982).

Service Orientation

Service Orientation is a desire to help or serve others, in order to meet their needs.

It means focusing one’s efforts on discovering and meeting the customer’s or client’s

needs and distinguishes star sales performers from average ones (Spencer & Spencer,

1993). It also reflects a long-term perspective, sometimes trading off immediate gains in

order to preserve customer relationships. A study of an office supply and equipment

vendor indicated that the most successful members of the sales team were able to
32
combine taking the customer's viewpoint and showing appropriate assertiveness in order

to steer the customer toward a choice that satisfied both the customer's and the vendor's

needs (McBane, 1995).

The Relationship Management Domain

The Relationship Management domain contains competencies that have the most

direct effect on interactions with other people. In a fundamental sense, the effectiveness

of one’s relationship skills hinges on one’s ability to attune to or influence the emotions

of another person. That ability, in turn, builds on other domains of EI, particularly Self-

Management and Social Awareness. Without the ability to control emotional outbursts or

impulses and without empathy, less chance exists to engage effectively in relationships

(Goleman, 1998).

Developing Others

Developing Others involves sensing people's developmental needs and building

their abilities. Competence in developing others, especially among sales managers, for

example, typifies those at the top of their field (Spencer and Spencer, 1993). Although

this ability is crucial for those managing front-line work, it has also emerged as a vital

skill for effective leadership at high levels (Goleman, 2000).

Inspirational Leadership

Inspirational Leadership implies a desire to lead others. Inspirational Leadership is

generally, but certainly not always, shown from a position of formal authority. Those

adept at inspirational leadership draw on a range of personal skills to inspire others to

33
work together toward common goals. Inspirational leaders are able to articulate and

arouse enthusiasm for a shared vision and mission, to step forward as needed, to guide

the performance of others while holding them accountable, and to lead by example.

Emotions are contagious, particularly when exhibited by those at the top, and extremely

successful leaders display a high level of positive energy that spreads throughout the

organization (Goleman, 2000). Leadership studies have shown the more positive the style

of a leader, the more positive, helpful, and cooperative are those in the group (George &

Bettenhausen, 1990; Bachman, 1988).

Influence

Influence is the ability to persuade, convince, or impact others in order to get them

to support a specific agenda or course of action. This emotional competence emerges

over and over again as a hallmark of high performance, particularly among supervisors,

managers, and executives (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Star performers with this

competence draw on a wider range of persuasion strategies than others do, including

impression management, dramatic arguments or actions, and appeals to reason. At the

same time, the influence competence requires authenticity and the ability to put collective

goals before self-interests to keep effective persuasion from becoming manipulation.

Conflict Management

Conflict Management is the ability to handle difficult individuals, groups of people,

or tense situations with diplomacy and tact. This competency entails finding the best

solution to a given problem or disagreement. A talent of those skilled in the Conflict

Management competence is spotting trouble as it is brewing and taking steps to calm

those involved. Here the arts of listening and empathizing are crucial to the skills of
34
handling difficult people and situations with diplomacy, encouraging debate and open

discussion, and orchestrating win-win situations (Goleman, 1998). Effective Conflict

Management and negotiation are important to long-term, symbiotic business

relationships, such as those between manufacturers and retailers. In a survey of retail

buyers in department store chains, effectiveness at win-win negotiating was an accurate

barometer of the health of the manufacturer-retailer relationship (Ganesan, 1993).

Teamwork and Collaboration

Teamwork and Collaboration represents the ability to work cooperatively with

others, to be part of a team, to work together as opposed to working separately or

competitively. It means working with others toward shared goals, and creating group

synergy in pursuing collective goals. For this competency to be effective, the intention

should be genuine. Teamwork and Collaboration may be considered whenever the subject

is a member of a group of people functioning as a team.

Teamwork and collaboration has taken on increased importance in the last decade

with the trend toward team-based work in many organizations (Goleman, 1998).

Teamwork itself depends on the collective emotional intelligence of its members. The

most productive teams may be those that exhibit emotional intelligence competencies at

the team level (Druskat & Wolff, 1999). A deficit in the ability to work cooperatively

with peers was, in one survey, the most common reason managers were fired (Sweeney,

1999). Team members tend to share moods, both good and bad, with better moods

improving performance (Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998). The positive

mood of a team leader at work promotes worker effectiveness and promotes retention

(George & Bettenhausen, 1990). Finally, positive emotions and harmony on a top-
35
management team predict its effectiveness (Barsade & Gibson, 1998).

Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Style, and Climate

The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies in a leader and the

organization's climate is important for emotional intelligence theory. A Hay/McBer

(1999) analysis of data on 3,781 executives correlated with climate surveys filled out by

those who worked for them, suggested that 50 to 70 percent of employees' perception of

working climate is linked to the emotional intelligence characteristics of the leader.

Research drawing on that same database sheds light on the role of emotional intelligence

competencies in leadership effectiveness, identifying how six distinct styles of EI-based

leadership affect climate. Visionary, affiliative, democratic, and coaching leadership

styles generally drive climate in a positive direction. Coercive and pacesetting leadership

tend to drive climate downward, particularly when leaders overuse them, although each

of these two can have positive impact if applied in appropriate situations.

Maximum development in all competencies is not necessary, but the ability to draw

on one or more competencies from each of the four domains is. It is the interplay of

competencies from these four clusters that distinguishes exemplary leaders from average

ones (Goleman, et al., 2002).

Summary

Although theoretical significance exists showing that individual competencies may

impact individual performance, demonstrating such relationships may prove to be an

artificial exercise. In a more practical application of emotional intelligence theory, people

often exhibit these competencies in clusters that allow competencies to support one
36
another. Emotional competencies seem to operate most powerfully in synergistic

groupings, with the evidence suggesting that mastery of a "critical mass" of competencies

is necessary for superior performance (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).

To illustrate this notion of “clustering” a study of school principals revealed

thirteen competencies that significantly differentiate outstanding and typical

administrators. Some of these included self-confidence, self-control, achievement

orientation, initiative, organizational awareness, developing others, leadership, influence,

conflict management, and teamwork/collaboration (Williams, 2004). Other researchers,

too, have reported that competencies operate together in an integrated fashion, forming a

meaningful pattern of abilities that facilitates successful performance in a given role or

job (Nygren & Ukeritis, 1993). Spencer and Spencer (1993) have identified distinctive

groupings of competencies that tend to typify high-performing individuals in specific

fields, including health care and social services, technical and engineering, sales, client

management, and leadership at the executive level.

In addition to competency clustering, degree or strength in a competence also

seems to have an impact on performance. Each competence can be viewed along a

continuum of mastery, at a certain point along each continuum there is a major leap in

performance impact. In McClelland's analysis (1998) of the competencies that distinguish

star performers from average ones, he found a “tipping point” effect when people

exhibited excellence in six or more competencies. McClelland (1998) argues that a

critical mass of competencies above the tipping point distinguishes exemplary from

average performers. The typical pattern shows that the highest performers are above the

“tipping point” on at least six EI competencies and demonstrate strengths in at least one
37
competency from each of the four clusters. The tipping point effect has been replicated in

Boyatzis's research (1999), which demonstrated that meeting or surpassing the tipping

point in at least three of the four EI clusters was necessary for success among high-level

leaders in a large financial services organization. Boyatzis found that both a high degree

of proficiency in several aptitudes in the same cluster and a spread of strengths across

clusters are found among those who exhibit superior organizational performance.

LEADERSHIP

Introduction

James MacGregor Burns (1978) suggested that leadership is the one of the most

often observed and least understood phenomenon on earth. Conceptualized from

managerial to militant, parliamentary to political, formal to informal, transactional to

transformational, the formal study of leadership continues to attract the attention of

researchers. A review of leadership literature reveals an array of definitions concerning

its nature and application. According to Bass (1985), leadership has been widely studied,

and often defined, by scholars in at least 7,500 studies.

Hemphill and Coons (1957, p. 7) saw leadership as “the behavior of an

individual…directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal.” Burns (1978, p. 18)

asserted, “Leadership is exercised when persons…mobilize…institutional, political,

psychological and other resources to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of

followers.” More contemporary definitions of leadership propose one’s ability to

“influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success

38
of the organization…” (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson, &

Associates, 1999, p. 184). Regardless of the era, shared elements of most leadership

definitions are that leadership refers to “a social influence process in which one

individual exerts intentional influence over others to structure activities and relationships

in a group or organization.” (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 375).

Beyond defining leadership, studies consistently center on the question: What

makes a leader effective or ineffective? Yukl (2002) asserted leadership effectiveness is

most conveniently quantified by organizational outcomes and results. But what is it

about a leader that moves an organization toward its goals? Are leaders born naturally, or

can leadership skills be developed? Must effective leaders possess a specific set of traits

and attributes, or is leadership more about style and behavior? Is effective leadership

framed by one’s responses to specific situations and contingencies, or is leadership

defined by one’s vision of a larger context? A review of more than five decades of

leadership literature offers insight to these questions.

Trait Theory

Modern social science studies of leadership began in the 1940’s and 50’s by

focusing on the qualities or traits of effective leaders. This theory, also known as the

“Great Man” theory of leadership, emphasized that certain people are born with a set of

key characteristics such as personality, values, motives, and skills, which yield “natural”

leaders (Yukl, 2002). Surveys of early trait research by Stodgill (1948) and Mann (1959)

revealed that many studies identified personality traits that appear to differentiate leaders

from followers. Bass (1985) identified over 300 separate studies seeking to identify the
39
unique qualities of effective leaders.  Many of these studies, like Bird's 1940 study

finding of 79 distinct characteristics, delineated extensive catalogues of the desirable

leadership traits.

The search for correlations between leadership attributes and effectiveness

continues to be a contemporary organizational research topic. A meta-analysis by Barrick

and Mount (1991) revealed five attributes: conscientiousness, extroversion, openness,

agreeableness, and emotional stability. Lord, DeVader and Alliger (1986) listed

masculinity and dominance as important traits of effective leaders. Kets de Fries’ (1997)

studies of senior managers and chief executives emphasized agreeableness while Jaques

(1989) found that cognitive ability predicts differences in leadership ability. Other

researchers have contributed to the extensive list of traits, but intelligence, self-

confidence, sociability, determination, and integrity emerge as those most commonly

identified.

Though the trait perspective dominated leadership literature of the ancient western

world through the early twentieth century, flaws in the “Great Man” theory were

nonetheless apparent.  As Metcalfe (1998) noted, the earliest trait theories tended to

reflect the society which commissioned the studies, white male culture of the United

States largely insensitive to gender and ethnicity-based differences in leadership and

management. Daw (1996) observed that Machiavelli owes much of his vilification to his

observation that leadership is a relationship between leader and follower and not just a

trait.  Discussing the range of relationships possible, including the coercive and

manipulative, Machiavelli was among the first to “commit to writing the observation that

leadership is morally neutral, a tool that can be used for good or ill” (Daw, 1996, p. 37).  
40
 Trait theory is criticized for empirical inadequacy in providing a full explanation of

why some people are more successful as leaders. Published studies of leadership traits

share little consistency between the lists of desirable traits. Further, traits considered

essential to leadership generally lack conceptual consensus (Stodgill, 1974), and early

researchers tended to minimize the impact of the relationship between leader attributes

within the context of a specific situation (Sadler, 1997).

Behavior and Leadership Style

Leadership behavior or style theory maintains that successful leadership is not

dependent on the possession of a single universal pattern of inborn traits and abilities, but

application of those traits in behavioral patterns or preferred styles. An early and often

cited study of leadership was conducted at The Ohio State University in the 1950’s that

found moderate results around two primary characteristics of leadership. The first

characteristic was conceptualized as consideration, or the degree to which a leader acts

friendly and supportive manner towards his or her subordinates. The second trait was

“initiating structure” or the degree to which a leader defines and structures his or her role

and the roles of the subordinates towards achieving the goals of the group (Fleishman,

1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957).

Similar studies at the University of Michigan found three critical characteristics of

effective leaders: task-oriented behavior, relation-oriented behavior, and participative

leadership. Effective task-oriented managers did not do the same kind of work as their

subordinates. The studies showed that the effective task-oriented managers spent time

planning and scheduling work, coordinating activities, and providing necessary resources.
41
These managers also spent time guiding subordinates in setting task goals that were both

challenging and achievable. Effective relationship-orientated managers showed high

levels of consideration, helping subordinates with career and personal problems, and

preferring a hands-off form of supervision rather than close control. Effective

relationship-oriented managers set goals and provided guidelines, but then empowered

subordinates to determine how the goals would be achieved. The third characteristic,

participative leadership, reflected the manager’s role as a facilitator of teamwork and

collaboration (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950; Katz & Kahn, 1952; Likert, 1961, 1967).

Building on these early studies, Blake and Mouton (1964, 1978) proposed a

“Managerial Grid” of leadership behavior arrayed along two dimensions: concern for

results and concern for people. Observed behaviors revealed that leaders tend to vary in

task and relation-orientation, but the most effective managers had high concern for both

people and production. This finding gave rise to the “high-high” theory of leadership,

similarly replicated in a study of performance and maintenance-oriented behavior by

Misumi and Peterson (1985).

McGregor (1960) believed that leadership styles derived not from concern for

people and results but from the psychological assumptions managers made about

subordinates. McGregor theorized that Theory X managers believe people have an

inherent aversion to work and assume subordinates want direction, require coercion to

meet goals, and prefer to avoid responsibility. The result is an autocratic style of

leadership. Theory Y managers, on the other hand, believe people seek responsibility,

derive satisfaction from work and will dedicate themselves to organizational goals if they

understand them and are rewarded for their efforts. The leadership style that results is a
42
participative and collaborative style of democratic leadership that encourages self-

managed teams and delegation.

Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002) proposed six distinct leadership styles in

relation to emotional intelligence (EI) competencies. Figure 2.3 identifies the leadership

style, the style’s general impact on organizational climate, the objective or purpose of

employing the style, and an example of when it is appropriate to do so.

Goleman, et al. (2002) identifies leadership style as either resonant or dissonant.

Resonant styles include visionary, affiliative, democratic, and coaching styles, have

shown to positively impact on organizational climate. Visionary leaders are described as

empathic, self-confident, and often act as agents of change. Affiliative leaders, too,

exhibit empathy while demonstrating strengths in building relationships and managing

conflict. The democratic leader encourages collaboration and teamwork and

communicates effectively. The coaching leader tends to be emotionally self-aware,

empathic, and skilled at identifying and building on the potential of others.

On the other hand, dissonant leadership styles, including coercive and pacesetting

leaders, tend to degrade organizational climate over time. The coercive leader relies on

the formal positional power to execute performance goals. Typically the coercive leader

exhibits a lack of empathy. The pacesetting leader, by contrast, sets high standards and

exemplifies them, exhibiting initiative and a very high drive to achieve. However, the

pacesetting leader often micromanages or criticizes individuals who fail to meet

established standards rather than helping them to improve (Goleman, et al., 2002).

43
Leadership EI Competencies Impact On Objective When
Style Climate Appropriate
Coercive Drive to achieve, Strongly Immediate In a crisis, to
initiative, negative compliance kick-start a
emotional self- turnaround, or
control with problem
employees
Visionary Self-confidence; Most strongly Mobilize When change
(Authoritative) empathy; change positive others to requires a new
catalyst follow a vision vision, or when
a clear
direction is
needed
Affiliative Empathy, building Highly Create To heal rifts in
bonds, conflict positive harmony a team or to
management motivate
during stressful
times
Democratic Collaboration; Highly Build To build buy-
team leadership; positive commitment in or
communication through consensus, or
participation to get valuable
input from
employees
Pacesetting Conscientiousness; Highly Perform tasks To get quick
drive to achieve; negative to a high results from a
initiative standard highly
motivated and
competent
team
Coaching Developing others; Highly Build strengths To help an
empathy; positive for the future employee
emotional self- improve
awareness performance or
develop long-
term strengths

Figure 2.2 Primal Leadership Styles (Goleman, et al., 2002)

Studies of leaders in schools revealed the most effective principals integrated four

or more of the six styles regularly, switching to the one most appropriate in a given

44
leadership situation. For instance, the study of school leaders found that in those schools

where the heads displayed four or more leadership styles, students had superior academic

performance relative to students in comparison schools. In schools where the heads

displayed just one or two styles, academic performance was poorest. Often the styles here

were the pacesetting or coercive ones, which tend to undermine teacher morale and

enthusiasm (Hay/McBer, 2000).

In a study of life insurance company executives, the most successful in terms of

corporate growth and profit were those who drew upon a wide range of leadership styles.

High performing executives were adept at all four of the styles that have a positive

impact on climate-visionary, democratic, affiliative, and coaching, matching them with

the appropriate circumstances. However, the same executives rarely exhibited the

coercive or pacesetting styles (Williams, 1994).

Contingency/Situation Theories

Many researchers have investigated the hypothesis that variations in leader

effectiveness are predicted by individual differences in either traits or behavioral style.

Fiedler (1964, 1967) offers an alternative to trait and behavioral style theories of

leadership. His findings suggest that key features of a situation interact with the leader’s

style to determine the level of effectiveness. Contingent theory posited that a leader’s

style is relatively static, reflecting established motivational and temperamental factors,

but that some styles are more effective in some situations than others. Fiedler (1978)

distinguished the following sorts of variations which determine how “favorable” a

situation is, and which might account for different levels of leadership effectiveness:

45
 A. Task Structure – the complexity of the job in terms of goal clarity, the degree to

which correct solutions are obvious and the number of possible routes / solutions

B. Position Power – the extent to which the organization legitimizes the leader’s

authority and confers formal / informal power

C. Leader-Member Relations – the extent to which the leader has the acceptance,

confidence, support and loyalty of subordinates

Path-Goal theory (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) proposes that leaders

must establish goals and rewards for subordinates and must also help foster the skills,

abilities, and opportunities for subordinates to achieve them. Applying the Path-Goal

model, a leader enables achievement of subordinates by articulating a clear path to a

specified goal contingent upon the circumstances and characteristics of the organization

or individual.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) combined “forces” in the manager, subordinates

and situation to form a “leadership continuum” of decision-making, an important function

of leadership, appropriate to specific situations. This continuum ranges from “boss-

centered leadership” at one end “subordinate-centered” at the other end, and as the use of

formal manager authority decreases, the area of freedom for subordinates increases,

creating opportunities for group decision-making fostered by a democratic leadership

style. The researchers propose that deciding how to lead is contingent upon three distinct

“forces”:

1. Forces of the manager – Personal value systems, confidence in subordinates,

personal leadership inclinations, tolerance for ambiguity

2. Forces of the subordinates – Needs for independence, readiness, high tolerance for
46
 ambiguity, level of interest in the problem, understanding of the goals of the

organization, level of expertise to deal with the problem.

3. Forces of the situation – Type of organization, group effectiveness, nature of

problem, time pressure.

Another situational leadership theory often cited in leadership literature is Hersey

and Blanchard’s (1993) “Tri-Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness Model.” This

framework considers the correlation between relationship-oriented behavior, task-

oriented behavior, and the readiness or “maturity” of the group. The authors suggest,

“situational leadership is based on an interplay among the 1) amount of guidance and

direction a leader gives, 2) the amount of socioeconomic support a leader provides, and

3) the readiness level that followers exhibit in performing a specific task, function or

objective” (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 170).

The Tri-Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness Model represents various stages of

readiness, or maturity, of the followers. For example, at the lowest level of readiness,

followers are unable and unwilling or unmotivated to perform. As a result, the leader

must take a highly directive, “telling” role, using legitimate power to make the person do

the job with little regard for relationship-orientation. At other times followers are unable

to adequately perform a task yet are motivated and willing to try. In this situation, the

leader adopts a “selling” strategy characterized by high task, high relation-orientation in

an effort to coach followers toward the task goal. Yet a third example posits subordinates

are able to satisfactorily perform a task but exhibit an unwillingness to try. This situation

requires the leader to attend to relation-oriented behaviors in a “participating” manner,

47
offering support to the follower to achieve the task. In a fourth example, subordinates are

both willing and able, exhibiting the highest levels of maturity. In this case, leaders need

to deploy “delegating” strategies, empowering subordinates to complete the task and

trusting them to do so in a manner aligned with the goals of the organization.

A primary limitation of contingency/situational approach to leadership is that these

theories are often complex and difficult to test empirically. However, each theory seems

to provide some insight to leadership effectiveness in spite of methodological weaknesses

and conceptual complexities that may limit utility (Yukl, 2002).

Transformational Leadership

The discussion of Hersey and Blanchard’s “maturity” of followers provides a

bridge into the theory of transformational leadership in which Burns (1978), Bass (1985),

as well as Kouzes and Posner (1987) provide the key texts.

The term “transformational leadership” is derived from work done by Burns (1978).

Building on humanistic psychological theories, Burns suggested that leadership was

actually a relationship between leader and follower.  Burns articulated two broad kinds of

such leadership, transactional and transformational.  In a transactional relationship the

leader promotes a simple exchange of a reward given for a specific performance.  The

leader meets, and perhaps exceeds, the material needs of the followers in return for their

performance. By contrast, Burns conceptualized a second leader-follower relationship

built on the mutual elevation of the leader and the followers' needs up the scale of

Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs.  Both the leader and follower are “transformed” by

the experience. Review of transformational leadership literature suggests that, though

48
transactional leadership can be effective in times of stability, transformational leadership

is considerably more effective, especially in circumstances where change or disruption is

occurring (Bass, 1985).

Bass (1985) and Kouzes and Posner (1987) undertook large-scale empirical studies

of managers in the 1980’s, and produced broadly comparable results, lending some

validity to their findings. These studies led to slightly different conceptualizations of the

term “transformational leadership” than Burns’. Rather than transforming followers,

Bass (1985) refers to a new empowering and enabling approach to leadership, which

recognizes that influencing followers is crucial to organizational performance. Bass’s

model of transformational leadership was based on the following elements:

A. Charismatic leadership - The leader is highly esteemed by followers.

B. Inspirational leadership – The leader provides optimism about the achievement of

the mission.

C. Intellectually stimulating - Leaders invite followers to look at problems

differently and encourage innovation.

D. Individually considerate - Leaders work with individual followers to understand

their needs and help them to identify personally rewarding goals.

Bass’s model asserts that the test of an effective leader lies in the followers’

perceptions of the leader. It is crucial therefore for leaders not only to understand

themselves, but also to have an understanding of how they are perceived by others,

particularly subordinates, whose views they may not previously have heard. In measuring

transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio (1994) found that women score

49
significantly higher than men.

Similarly Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) identified the following 4 core components

of transformational leadership:

1. Charismatic communication style – The leader engenders trust and respect,

motivates, intellectually stimulates.

2. Communicating a vision – The leader sets challenging goals and causes followers

to question traditional approaches, values and beliefs.

3. Implementing a vision – The leader energizes followers and focuses efforts on

achieving goals.

4. Individualized consideration – The Leader gives followers the feeling they are

treated as unique individuals.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) found that staff’s professional

orientation, ability and experience and the cohesiveness of the work group were

contextual variables that moderated a leader’s effectiveness.

Full-Range Leadership

More recently Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed a Full Range Leadership model

based on transformational leadership concepts. One end of the model represents laissez-

faire, non-transactional leadership behavior where individuals infrequently engage in

transactions, and may appear lax about adhering to standards and structure. This type of

leadership may be observed among an empowered workforce or, conversely, where

workers show little concern or regard for consequences. In the center of the model, a

more transactional form of leadership is represented, articulating standards, expectations,

50
goals and, in many cases, the rewards an individual receives for achieving goals. At the

other end of the full range leadership model, behavior includes establishing one's beliefs

and values and being consistent with them, determining a course for change in the future

and articulating it as a vision, stimulating coworkers and oneself to challenge traditional

ways of thinking, and developing oneself and others to the highest levels of potential.

Each of these descriptors represents what many authors have referred to as

transformational leadership. The Full Range Leadership Model consists of five

transformational, three transactional, and one non-transactional leadership factors.

Action / Functional Theory

John Adair (1993) introduced the notion of leadership as a set of functions that a

person fulfills for followers. This theory analyzed leadership from the perspective of the

needs of followers rather than from the perspective of the way the leader behaved. This

action-centered leadership theory is a process of meeting three inter-related needs:

1. Task – The needs relating to achieving the goal

2. Individual – The needs of each follower

3. Team – The needs relating to building and maintaining the group

According to Adair, in order for a leader to meet all three of these needs the following

range of functions must be fulfilled: defining task, planning, briefing, controlling,

evaluating, motivating, organizing, and setting an example.

51
 Human Relations Theorists

Human relations theory redefined leadership effectiveness in interpersonal terms

rather than as a formulaic role with functions or procedures. Proponents emphasize the

importance of awareness of self and of group dynamics in effective leaders, stating that

the relationship-oriented behaviors are more important and effective than task-oriented

behaviors (Sharrock, 1995).

Hooper and Potter (1997), like Goleman, saw leadership as an emotional rather

than intellectual process, positing what the success of organizations is correlated to how

people feel about their work. Brown (1996) also talks about the task of leaders fostering

the intrinsic rewards to be derived from personal development and personal recognition

in the pursuit of team objectives.

West (1999) suggested that leadership also includes encouraging reflexivity, or the

ability of members of the organization to stand back and critically examine themselves,

their processes and their performance; to communicate about these issues; and to make

appropriate changes. West also found spontaneity and task competence were deemed

important by followers.

Price and Garland (1981) manipulated how the competence of leaders was

perceived and found that subjects became less willing to comply with leaders perceived

as relatively incompetent and rated them as less effective. The researchers explained this

by saying that displaying competence on group tasks / norms “earns” the leader “credits”

which allow the leader to initiate activity that deviates from group norms. The

perception-centered leadership model has given rise to psychometric tests which record

perceptions of the qualities of the leader by subordinates, peers and superiors, often
52
referred to as “360-degree” feedback (see for example, Boyatzis,1991; Spencer &

Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1994; Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995; Boyatzis, Stubbs, &

Taylor, 2002).

Distributed leadership

Distributed leadership is a form of collective leadership in which members of the

organization develop expertise by working collaboratively. Accordingly, the central tenet

of formal leaders is to create a common culture of expectations around the use of

individual skills and abilities. In short, distributed leadership is maximizing the human

capacity within the organization (Harris, 2002).

Research by Gray (2000) showed that low achieving disadvantaged schools report

more authoritarian forms of leadership. However, in disadvantaged schools where

students seemed to achieve, distributed leadership was among a range of leadership styles

demonstrated. A recent school study by Harris & Chapman (2002) found that the

principal distributed leadership by working with and through teams, encouraging all

members of the educational community to accept responsibility for the school’s

development. Franey (2002) asserted distributed leadership provides a more democratic

leadership focus for schools, which in turn develops schools as learning organizations.

The Impact of Leadership in Schools

The research on the impact of leadership on effective schools is mixed, and the

significance of the correlation is largely determined by how success and effectiveness are

measured. Little empirical evidence exists to support bold assertions that principal

53
leadership significantly and systematically influences student achievement. Student

achievement has been shown to be largely a function of instructional quality (Sanders &

Horn, 1998) and socio-economic status (Coleman, 1966).

However, when school success is measured by non-student achievement measures

such as evidence of change, program implementation, and school climate, the role of the

principal gathers increased importance. Effective schools research conducted primarily

in low socioeconomic settings cite strong administrative leadership as one of five or six

factors positively influencing schools (Edmonds,1979; Venezky & Winfield, 1979;

Lezotte & Bancroft,1985; Fullan, 1985; Rutherford, 1985; Duttweiler & Hord, 1987).

Other researchers have reported the importance of school leadership in bringing about

change and improvement (Coleman & LaRocque, 1990; Hill, Wise, & Shapiro, 1989;

Jacobson, 1986; Muller, 1989; Murphy, Hallinger, & Peterson, 1985; Paulu, 1988). Many

studies assert that the principal is a central element in improving instructional programs

within the school (Fullan, 1991; Hansen & Smith, 1989), echoing the work of Lieberman

and Miller (1981) who noted that the principal is critical in making changes happen in

schools.

Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) found that effective principals are typically

proactive and take steps to secure support for change initiatives on behalf of students and

staff. Stallings and Mohlman (1981) indicate that principals deemed effective in program

implementation extend themselves to be helpful to teachers, offer constructive criticism,

and explain reasons for suggesting behavior changes. Effective principals share ideas, set

good examples, are well prepared, and care for the personal welfare of their teachers

(Rutherford, Hord, Huling, & Hall, 1983).

54
 Communicating the purpose of the school and its vision for improvement, and

demonstrating visible commitment to the vision have also been cited as critical leadership

functions in school improvement (Goodlad, 1975; Cohen, 1987;; Fullan, 1991; Hall &

Hord, 1987; Schlechty, 1988; Sergiovanni, 1990). Effective leaders articulate their vision

and goals for their schools (Manasse, 1982; MacPhail-Wilson & Guth, 1983; Rutherford,

1985) and demonstrate enthusiasm, reflecting a personal belief in and active support for

their goals (Manasse, 1984).

Fullan (1991) and Huberman and Miles (1984) maintained that leaders at all levels

must provide “specific implementation pressure and support” (Fullan, 1991, p. 198). One

strategy leaders use to maintain pressure is by continually asking probing questions, yet

providing teachers with personal support. Effective implementation requires a strategic

balance of pressure and support (McLaughlin, 1987). Huberman and Miles (1986)

suggest administrative decisiveness bordering on coercion, but intelligently and

supportively exercised, may be the surest path to significant school improvement.

 Ongoing Debates on Leadership

Drucker (1954, p. 158) once asserted that “leadership cannot be created or

promoted. It cannot be taught or learned.”  As unsubstantiated as that statement may have

seemed at the time, recent evidence has emerged that supports Drucker’s notion that

leadership is an innate capacity. University of Minnesota studies of identical twins raised

apart have shown positive correlations to “heritabilities” of specific leadership traits (see

Arvey, Rotundo, McGue, and Johnson, 2003; Jan, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; Lohelin,

1992). Gibbons (1987), who was looking specifically at transformational leaders, draws

55
a similar conclusion. In fact, the Minnesota studies cited above suggest as much as 60

percent of leadership ability is genetically inherited.

However, as Daw (1996) suggested, even after conceding that some individuals

may be better equipped genetically to lead, one may assert that trained leaders will have a

better chance of succeeding than untrained ones. Assuming that the University of

Minnesota findings are valid, 40 percent of leader ability remains subject to influences of

training and professional development. Bass (1990) offers that research shows leaders at

all levels can be trained to be charismatic in both verbal and non-verbal performance,

including critical evaluation, visioning, communication, impression management and

empowering skills. Conger (1998) also maintain that charismatic leadership qualities can

be taught. Goleman, et al. (2002) believe leadership behavior is influenced by emotional

intelligence competencies such as self-awareness, emotional self-control, optimism and

empathy that they assert can be developed.

Another debate in leadership theory has focused on the distinction between

“management” and “leadership.” Gardner (1990) suggests that leadership is "the process

of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to

pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers” (p.

1). Further, he reserves the term "managers" for individuals who “hold a directive post in

an organization presiding over the resources by which the organization functions,

allocating resources prudently, and making the best possible use of people” (Gardner,

1990, p. 3). In agreement, Tosi (1982) suggests that “leading is an influence process;

managing may be seen as the act of making choices about the form and structure of those

factors that fall within the boundaries of managerial discretion” (p. 233). Perhaps the
56
distinction between what can be learned and what is innate parallels the distinctions

drawn between leadership and management.

Summary

Many significant voices in the western history have written at length on leadership. 

Similarly, works in the eastern tradition begin at even earlier dates and continue well into

early modern times.  Yet, this ancient and continuing fascination with the subject of

leadership has failed to produce any centrally recognized leadership theory (Burns,

1978).

Stogdill’s (1974) survey of four decades of research failed to find any consensus as

to a general theory of leadership, examining theories and definitions arising from such

sources as psychoanalysis, behaviorism, humanism, and perception theory. One possible

reason for this lack of a single central theory is the vast array of definitions of leadership. 

Bass (1985) alludes to 130 different definitions of leadership, the earliest of which tended

to conceptualize leadership as an innate personal quality or collection of specific traits.

Associated with this is the long tradition of biographical leadership study often referred

to as the “Great Man” theory. 

Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid led to considerations of leadership

styles in the context of situation rather than the acquisition or existence of specific traits.

The work was carried forward by Fiedler (1967) and Hersey and Blanchard (1993) who

believed that leaders could access a repertoire of styles specific to a given situation.

Like trait theory, situational leadership theory falls short as a sufficient leadership

framework because it lacks clearly articulated methodologies or replicable strategies. 

57
Instead, situational leadership training encourages leaders to watch for patterns

conditions and apply solutions and behaviors that were successful previously. 

Both the trait and the situational theorists thought of leadership as a single set of

forces acting in a single direction.  Rival scholarly inquiries into leadership examined

power relationships, social interactions, persuasion techniques, and initiation of structure,

but they too failed to gain a significant foothold in leadership theory (Bass, 1985).

As early as 1978, Burns distinguished between the role of manager, who negotiates

with employees to obtain balanced transactions of rewards for employee efforts, and the

role of leader, who targets efforts to change, improve, and transform the organization.

Transformational leadership focused on change, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The

leader changes and transforms the organization according to a vision of a preferred status.

Leaders, then, are change makers and transformers, guiding the organization to a new and

more compelling vision, a demanding role expectation (Bass and Avolio, 1994).

Transactional and transformational leadership are often viewed as complementary with

transactional practices needed to get day-to-day routines carried out (Leithwood, 1992).

Decisive, commanding, and authoritarian leadership, once considered hallmarks of

effective leadership in early twentieth century research (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973),

appear under-represented in contemporary leadership literature. Bass and Avolio (1994)

dismiss authoritarian or autocratic leadership from their widely popular “full range

leadership” model. Goleman, et al. (2002) sternly caution that coercive and pacesetting

leadership styles degrade organizational climate and employee performance. By contrast,

human relation leadership theories largely value attention to relationships, collaboration,

and team-oriented strategies for accomplishing organizational goals (Sharrock, 1995).

58
 A multitude of theories attempt to identify what makes an effective leader, each of

which have their proponents and critics. There is a lack of empirical evidence that

answers this question adequately. Debates continue as well over how much of leadership

capacity is innate and how much can be learned. However, as Yukl (1994) notes, the

presence of certain traits, including cognitive ability, organizational and administrative

ability, communication skills, persuasiveness and prudent judgment all elevate the

leader’s potential for success. Further, any comprehensive theory of leadership must

integrate individual personality with attitudes and perceptions of followers, group

dynamics and processes, all in the context of situation (Gibb, 1952).

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

Introduction

Organizational climate, like leadership, continues to be an elusive but important

variable in the study of effective schools (Edmonds, 1978; Fyans, 1989; Kasten, 1979;

Kelly, 1980; Parades, 1991), significantly influencing attitudes, behavior and sense of

well being of individuals within an organization (Moos, 1974).

Social scientists pioneered research in organizational climate in the 1950’s,

examining variations in work environments. Solomon (1998) posited organizational

climate theory had its nexus in field theory proposed by Kurt Lewin (1951) . Lewin’s

field theory separated organizations into three distinct units of analysis, the person, the

environment and behavior, and proposed that organizational behavior was a function of

the interaction between the environment and individuals in the organization. March and

Simon (1958) emphasized the relationship between the environment of an organization

59
and other institutional factors such as employee morale, productivity, and retention. At

the same time, Pace and Stern (1958) developed the “College Characteristic Index,” an

instrument that attempted to measure individual needs and characteristics of college

environments.

Another early study of organizational climate examined the organization in terms of

three interrelated systems of variables: (a) formal organizational variables such as

policies and practices; (b) the personality variables such as needs, values and self-

concept; and (c) and informal variables that develop from members’ attempts to adapt to

the formal organization (Argyris 1958). For Argyris (1958), climate was the

organizational behavior formed from the interactions of the three systems, yet exhibiting

different properties from those systems it involved.

Forehand and Gilmer (1964) specified organizational climate as characteristics

that distinguish the organization from other organizations and that influence the behavior

of people in the organization, crediting Gellerman (1960) for introducing the notion of

“psychological climates” in industrial psychology literature. Other researchers (Halpin &

Croft, 1963; Tagiuri, 1968) also note that conceptualizations of organizational climate

are similar to descriptors of personality types. Tagiuri (1968) proposes organizational

climate consists of four components: ecology (the physical and material aspects), milieu

(the social dimension in the organization), social system (the organizational and

administrative structure of the organization) and culture (the values, belief systems,

norms and ways of thinking). In one study on effective schools, climate was described

simply as a safe and orderly environment (Edmonds, 1982). More recently, Hoy, Tarter,

and Kottkamp (2000) offered the analogy that climate is to organization as personality is
60
to individual. Sweetland & Hoy (2000) proposed organizational climate as a set of

internal characteristics that distinguish organizations from each other and influence the

behavior of organizational members.

Another critical finding that emerged from the early organizational studies is the

influence of perception of climate. Halpin and Croft (1963) maintained that how a leader

genuinely behaves is less important than how followers perceive it. Litwin and Stringer

(1968, p. 1) suggested that perception is a critical ingredient of climate and defined it as,

“a set of measurable properties of the work environment, based on the collective

perceptions of the people who live and work in the environment and demonstrated to

influence their behavior.” An analysis of parent, teacher, and student perceptions of their

schools’ climate was conducted biannually in the United States from 1979 to 1982 and

discovered that the climate of the school was a function of several school-related factors

including leadership qualities of principals, teacher-colleague relations, parent-teacher

relations, student-teacher interpersonal relations, student-teacher instruction-related

interaction, school buildings and facilities, and student-peer relations (Freiberg, 1983).

At the individual level, climate is a cognitive interpretation of an organizational

situation (James, James, & Ashe, 1990). Individuals in the psychological climate respond

primarily to cognitive representations, i.e. perceptions, of the environment rather than to

the environment specifically (James & Sells, 1981). Therefore, climate represents signals

that these individuals receive concerning organizational expectations of behavior and

potential outcomes of behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Schneider and Reichers (1983) introduced the importance of context into the

analysis of organizational climate. Ashforth (1985) added that climate is a joint property
61
of both the organization and the individual; it is both a macro and micro construct. As

such, climate is a “system variable” (Field & Abelson, 1982), serving to integrate the

individual, the group, and the organization (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Winslow

(1986) referred to climate as the emotional atmosphere that surrounds and envelops the

interpersonal relations among and between people in the organization. Deal and Peterson

(1993) noted, “the concept of culture (climate) is meant to describe the character of a

school as it reflects deep patterns of values, beliefs, and traditions that have been formed

over the course of its history” (p.7).

Poole (1985, cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 185) summarized the basic

properties of organizational climate in this way:

Organizational climate…

1. characterizes properties of an entire organization or major sub-unit

2. describes a unit of organization rather than evaluating it

3. arises from routine organizational practices that are important to the

organization and its members

4. influences members’ behaviors and attitudes

Winslow (1986) distinguished climate characteristics as either defensive or

supportive. Defensive climate indicators lead to organizational behaviors that are closed,

reactive, risk averse, hostile and are characterized by malicious obedience, immature

reactions. Defensive climates have the ability to preserve position power, achieve

immediate short run results, and develop obedience to direct commands. The values and

need satisfaction developed under these conditions lead to rigid, fixated responses that

62
limit skill utilization and may destroy competency while highlighting manipulative skills

and political behavior.

On the other hand, supportive climate indicators lead to organizational behaviors

that are open, trusting, risk taking, responsibility seeking, pro-active, mature and growth

seeking. Efficient and effective communication is essential to fostering supportive

climates. Decision-making processes may appear disorganized, tedious and, at times,

unwieldy. However, growth is reflected in individual confidence, competence and skill.

Change occurs more rapidly and is implemented more effectively. The values and need

satisfaction developed under a supportive climate will reflect a valuing of competence

and growth and a concern for colleagues at both the capability and the emotional level

(Winslow, 1986).

Defensive Climate Supportive Climate

Evaluative Descriptive

Problem-centered Solution-centered

Procedure-oriented Vision-oriented

Neutrality Empathy

Individuality Collegiality

Certainty Entrepreneurial

Figure 2.3 Winslow’s Organizational Climate Model (1986)

Measuring Organizational Climate

A concern for researchers in trying to study the effects of climate on organizational

outcomes was determining whether climate was best measured by objective measures or
63
perceptual measures (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Kasten, 1979). Although most

researchers utilized perceptual measures when they studied the human component of

organizations, there were problems with these perceptual measures (Anderson, 1982;

Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Kasten, 1979). Perception depended, somewhat, on previous

experiences, needs and values. Consequently, the accuracy and reliability of perceptions

were questioned (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Anderson, 1982).

Nonetheless, perceptual measures continued to occupy a significant position of

utility in climate research not only in the United States (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991;

Smith, 2000) but also in Nigeria (Idiris & Fraser, 1994), the Philippines (John & Taylor,

2004), Hong Kong (Wong & Ng, 2003) and Australia (Young, 1998). Like Halpin and

Croft (1962), Anderson (1982) reported “in most climate research the actual behavior

was less important than perceived behavior because perception is what controls one’s

responses” (p. 387).

Much of the early research on school climate was collected using the

Organizational Climate Descriptive Questionnaire (OCDQ) developed by Halpin and

Croft (1962, 1963). In developing the OCDQ, Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963) identified

critical aspects of teacher-teacher and teacher-principal interactions in schools.

Influenced by Milton Rokeach's (1960) analysis of personality types, the researchers

constructed a questionnaire that construed school climate as organizational personality,

conceptualizing the construct along a continuum from open to closed.

Subsequently, the OCDQ has yielded an abundance of empirical research from

hundreds of studies examining school climate (Smith, 2000). Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp

(1991), and Hoy and Tarter (1997a, 1997b) have since refined the OCDQ to more
64
accurately measure climate characteristics specific to elementary, middle, and high

schools. Other instruments have been developed as well to measure classroom

environments including the Learning Environment Inventory (Walberg, 1969) and the

Classroom Environment Scale (Trickett & Moos, 1973, 1987; Moos, 1987).

An Overview of the OCDQ

Development of the Organizational Climate Descriptor Questionnaire (OCDQ) was

prompted by four factors:

(1) schools exhibit dramatically different “feels” from one to the other

(2) morale does not adequately capture the difference in feel among schools

(3) talented principals are often immobilized by noncompliant faculty in schools

where improvement is necessary

(4) the notion of the personality of a school is intriguing

The general approach used to conceptualize and measure the organizational climate

of schools was empirical and statistical. A guiding assumption of the research was that a

desirable organizational climate is one in which leadership behaviors emerge easily, from

whatever source. If an organization is to accomplish its tasks, leadership is essential, but

formal or informal leaders such as coworkers, peers, or associates can initiate leadership.

Thus, Halpin and Croft (1962) developed an extensive set of descriptive items to identify

important aspects of teacher and administrative behavior, describing behavior of the

teachers interacting with each other as well as teacher-principal interactions.

65
 The Dimensions of the OCDQ

Using a series of empirical, conceptual, and statistical tests, one thousand descriptive

statements in the original item bank were systematically reduced to 64. Factor analysis

revealed that these 64 items collapsed into eight factors or dimensions. Four of the

dimensions referred to the characteristics of the faculty group, and four described aspects

of the principal-teacher interactions. These eight critical dimensions of organizational

climate are used to map the climate profile of a given school. The dimensions,

characteristics of faculty behavior, and sample items from the questionnaire include:

1. Disengagement – the teachers” tendency to not be “with it,” that is, “to go

through the motions” without commitment to the task at hand.

a. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings.

b. Teachers talk about leaving the school system.

2. Hindrance – the teachers’ feelings that the principal burdens them with routine

duties, committee work, and other unnecessary busy work.

a. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching.

b. Teachers have too many committee requirements.

3. Esprit – morale growing out of a sense of both task accomplishment and the

satisfaction of social needs.

a. The morale of teachers is high.

b. Teachers in this school show much school spirit.

4. Intimacy – the teachers’ enjoyment of warm and friendly social relations with

each other.

a. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home.

66
 b. Teachers’ closest friends are other faculty members at this school.

5. Aloofness – formal and impersonal principal behavior; the principal goes by the

“book” and maintains social distance from subordinates.

a. The rules set by the principal are never questioned.

b. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings.

6. Production Emphasis – close supervision. The principal is highly directive and

not sensitive to faculty feedback.

a. The principal checks the subject-matter ability of teachers.

b. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes.

7. Thrust – dynamic behavior in which the principal attempts to “move the

organization” through the example the principal personally sets for teachers.

a. The principal sets an example by working hard himself.

b. The principal uses constructive criticism.

8. Consideration – warm, friendly behavior by the principal. The principal tries to

be helpful and do a little something extra for the faculty.

a. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems.

b. The principal does personal favors for teachers.

The OCDQ attempted to map and measure the domain of the climates of

elementary schools along a continuum from open to closed. The open climate was

portrayed as low on aloofness, production emphasis, disengagement, and hindrance,

average on intimacy, and high on esprit, thrust, and consideration. By contrast, a closed

climate is characterized by high disengagement, hindrance, aloofness, production

emphasis, and thrust of the principal, along with low esprit and average intimacy of
67
teachers. Intermediary climates such as autonomous, controlled, familiar, and paternal

were also identified and described in terms of the eight dimensions and the relative

degree of openness in the interaction patterns. In essence, the degree of openness of a

school climate is the result of the quality of human interactions in the school.

Criticisms of the OCDQ

Since its development, the OCDQ has been the subject of several studies questioning

the usefulness of Halpin and Croft’s (1963) six discrete climates: open, closed,

autonomous, controlled, familiar, and paternal. Brown's (1964) attempt to replicate the

OCDQ findings in a sample of Minnesota elementary schools produced eight climate

types rather than six. He argued that although the climate continuum from open to closed

might be useful, it was not advisable to place schools into discrete climates. A number of

other researchers (Andrews, 1965; Silver, 1983; Watkins, 1968) have also questioned the

utility of the discrete climate types. Indeed, Halpin and Croft themselves were wary

about these “middle climates” and described them instead as crude rankings.

Hoy & Miskel (1987) proposed replacing discrete climate categories with an

index of openness by adding the esprit and thrust scores for each school and then

subtracting from that sum the disengagement score. In effect, the higher the score, the

more open the climate of the school (Hoy & Miskel, 1987). Appleberry and Hoy (1969)

demonstrated the validity of the method, and others have used the method to examine the

relationship between openness and other variables (Hoy, 1972; Mullins, 1976; Schwandt,

1978).

68
 The OCDQ has also been criticized for not being well suited for the study of

urban schools or secondary schools (Carver & Sergiovanni, 1969; Halpin, 1967; Miskel

& Ogawa, 1988). In addition to the ambiguity of the middle climate categories, the

OCDQ was designed to measure the climate of elementary schools, not secondary ones.

Secondary schools differ from elementary schools in size, specialization, and culture.

Not surprisingly, urban schools and secondary schools invariably reveal closed climates

when the OCDQ is used.

Revising the OCDQ

Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (2000), and Hoy and Tarter (1997a, 1997b) refined the

OCDQ to more accurately measure climate characteristics specific to elementary, middle,

and high schools in instruments referred to as the OCDQ-RE, OCDQ-RM, and OCDQ-

RS, where “R” stands for Rutgers, the university where the revisions were developed, and

“E,” “M,” and “S,” represent elementary, middle, and secondary school measures

respectively.

Dimensions included in the original OCDQ such as “consideration” and “trust”

were combined to make “supportive principal behavior.” The dimension termed

“production emphasis” has been conceptualized as “directive leader behavior.” Finally,

the last dimension of leader behavior, “hindrance,” has been renamed “restrictive leader

behavior.” Changes in the teacher dimensions from the original OCDQ found the esprit

dimension replaced by “collegial teacher behavior” while intimate and disengaged

teacher behavior were maintained as OCDQ-R dimensions (Hoy, et al., 2000).

The three subtests of the OCDQ-RE that define principal openness are supportive,
69
directive, and restrictive leadership behavior. Supportive principal behavior reflects a

basic component of distributive leadership. Communication between the principal and

faculty flows two ways. The principal respects the competence and expertise of the

faculty and exhibits trust in teachers to make decisions in the best interest of students and

aligned with the goals of the school. Directive principal behavior reflects rigid, close

supervision. The principal maintains constant monitoring and control over all teacher and

school activities, down to the smallest detail. Restrictive principal behavior is that which

hinders rather than facilitates teacher work. The principal burdens teachers with paper

work, committee requirements, routine duties, and other demands that interfere with

teaching responsibilities (Hoy, et al., 2000).

Likewise, the collegial, intimate, and disengaged subtests define the degree of

openness in teacher behavior. Collegial teacher behavior supports open and professional

interactions among teachers. Teachers are proud of their school, enjoy working with their

colleagues, and are enthusiastic, accepting, and mutually respectful of their colleagues.

Intimate teacher behavior reflects strong cohesive social relations among teachers.

Teachers know each other well, are close personal friends, socialize together regularly,

and provide strong social support for each other. Disengaged teacher behavior signifies a

lack of meaning and focus to professional activities. Teachers are simply putting in time

in non-productive group efforts without common goals. Behavior is often negative and

critical of their colleagues and the school (Hoy, et al., 2000).

The OCDQ-RE is a reliable and valid measure of two general factors, the openness

of teacher interactions with each other and the openness of principal leadership behavior.

These two factors are relatively independent suggesting it is plausible to have a school
70
with open teacher interactions but closed principal behavior, or closed teacher

interactions and open principal behavior. The result is a typology of school climate

measured by open to closed principal behavior on one dimension and open to closed

teacher behavior on the other.

Principal Behavior

Open Closed

Open Open Climate Engaged Climate

Teacher Behavior

Closed Disengaged Climate Closed Climate

Figure 2.4 Typology of School Climate (Hoy, et al., 1991)

The distinctive characteristics of the open climate are perceptions of cooperation,

respect, and openness within the faculty and between the faculty and principal. The

principal is receptive to teacher ideas, offers genuine and frequent praise, and respects the

competence of faculty, measured as “high supportiveness.” Principals also give their

teachers freedom to perform without close supervision, measured as “low directiveness”

and provide facilitating leadership absent bureaucratic constraints, measured as “low

restrictiveness.” Likewise, teachers support open and professional behavior among

teachers, measured as “high collegial relations.” Teachers know each other well,

measured as “high intimacy” and are committed to the task of teaching, measured as “low
71
disengagement.”

The engaged climate as shown in the top right quadrant of the typology above is

marked by closed behaviors of the principal to lead but open behaviors of the teachers.

This results when the principal exhibits high directiveness and respects neither the

professional expertise nor personal needs of the faculty, measured as low supportiveness.

Further, the principal is perceived as burdening faculty with unnecessary tasks that

interfere with instruction, i.e. high restrictiveness. Interestingly, however, teachers may

effectively withstand the principal’s attempts to control and conduct themselves as

productive professionals, drawing on high collegiality and high intimacy to come

together as a unified faculty engaged and committed to the teaching-learning task, i.e.

high engagement.

The disengaged climate, on the other hand, sharply contrasts the engaged climate.

The principal exhibits high supportiveness, low directiveness, and low restrictiveness.

Yet, teachers are unwilling, or unable, to embrace the elements of an open climate,

perhaps ignoring or even sabotaging initiatives of the principal. In this type of climate,

the faculty is divisive, intolerant, and uncommitted, demonstrating disregard for each

other, i.e. low intimacy, a lack of respect for each other as colleagues, i.e. low

collegiality, and clear disengagement from their work.

Closed climate reflects a school where the principal and teachers simply go

through the motions, with the principal stressing performance of routine tasks, i.e. high

restrictiveness, and teachers exhibiting little commitment to their teaching, i.e. high

disengagement. The principal is perceived as highly directive as well as unsympathetic

72
and unresponsive, i.e. low supportiveness. Teacher behavior is suspicious, intolerant,

disingenuous and non-collegiality (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 2000).

Healthy Organizational Climate

Rather than examining climates in terms of openness, Miles (1969) offered the

perspective of organizational health. A healthy organization, according to Miles, is one

that not only survives in its environment but grows and prospers over the long term as

indicated by ten critical properties. The first three properties are termed goal focus,

communication adequacy, and optimal power equalization and reflect the task needs of

an organization. The second set of properties describe its maintenance needs and relates

to the internal state of the organization, specifically resource utilization, cohesiveness,

and morale. The final characteristics are identified as innovativeness, autonomy,

adaptation, and problem solving and point to the organization's need for growth and

change (Miles, 1969). Howard, Howell, and Brainard (1987) identified other indicators of

a healthy school climate including the degree of respect, trust, opportunity for input,

cohesiveness, caring, high morale, and school renewal.

One of the earliest published attempts to measure school health using Miles'

conceptual framework was performed by Kimpston and Sonnabend (1975). Using the

ten critical dimensions of organizational health, they developed an Organizational Health

Description Questionnaire (OHDQ). Likert items were written to measure each of the

dimensions of health--five items for each dimension. A factor analysis of the instrument,

however, identified only five interpretable factors, and, only Miles' dimensions of

autonomy and innovativeness were found in pure form. Consequently, the ten
73
characteristics proposed by Miles may be highly inter-correlated. Fairman and his

colleagues (Childers & Fairman, 1985; Clark & Fairman, 1983) at the University of

Arkansas also developed an organizational health measure, but the instrument exhibited

psychometric problems as well.

Organizational Health Inventory for Elementary Schools (OHI-E)

A healthy school is one in which the institutional, administrative, and teacher levels

are in harmony; and the school meets functional needs as it successfully copes with

disruptive external forces and directs its energies toward its mission (Hoy, Tarter, &

Kottkamp, 1991, 2000).

Dimensions (Subtests of the OHI-E)

Institutional Integrity describes a school that has integrity in its educational

program. The school is not vulnerable to narrow, vested interests of community groups;

indeed, teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental demands. The

school is able to cope successfully with destructive outside forces.

Collegial Leadership refers to behavior by the principal that is friendly, supportive,

open, and guided by norms of equality. At the same time, however, the principal sets the

tone for high performance by letting people know what is expected of them.

Resource Influence describes the principal's ability to affect the action of superiors

to the benefit of teachers. Teachers are given adequate classroom supplies, and extra

instructional materials and supplies are easily obtained.

Teacher Affiliation refers to a sense of friendliness and strong affiliation with the

school. Teachers feel good about each other and, at the same time, have a sense of
74
accomplishment from their jobs. They are committed to both their students and their

colleagues. They find ways to accommodate to the routine, accomplishing their jobs with

enthusiasm.

Academic Emphasis refers to the school's press for achievement. The expectation of

high achievement is met by students who work hard, are cooperative, seek extra work,

and respect other students who get good grades.

Leadership Style and Climate

Leadership, particularly that of the principal, appears to be an essential component

in determining school climate (Brookover, et al., 1978; Fox, 1973; Kelley, 1980; Triosi,

1982; Krug, 1992; Paredes, 1991).) Fox (1973) asserted, further, that school climate was

the “shadow” of its principal. Principals create and refine the symbols and symbolic

activity of the organization that shape the climate (Deal & Peterson, 1993; Kouzes &

Posner, 1989), such as establishing high expectations for both staff and students

(Edmonds, 1978; Kelley, 1980; Leithwood, 1994; Lezotte, 1986) and creating a vision

for the school and enlisting others to share this vision (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1990; Kouzes

& Posner, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 2000).

Holley (1995) concluded from a study of high school administrators and staff

members of an urban school district that the leadership style of the administrators can

create a climate that is conducive and supportive of the instructional emphases in the

school. Withrow (1993), in his study of 801 secondary school teachers in Halifax, found

a significant correlation between the scores on the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire and the scores on the School Climate Survey. Likewise, Higgins (1993)

75
found that participative leadership style was perceived by his sample of 120 teachers of

Catholic secondary schools in Texas as promoting a positive school climate. Bailey

(1988) found that high school teachers in West Virginia perceived a positive relationship

between their principals' leadership styles and the school climate.

Summary

Social scientists have examined leadership for the past century in an effort to identify

traits, abilities, and behaviors specific to strong leaders as well as chronicle situational

and social factors that influence leadership behavior. An emerging body of research

suggests emotional intelligence may serve as the common thread that binds together

discrete leadership themes such as organizational outcomes, power and politics, and

decision-making processes (see Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Goleman, 1997, Cooper &

Sawaf, 1997). As theorized, a dynamic combination of emotional intelligence

competencies informs cognition and guides leadership behavior. More specifically,

emotionally informed cognition drives decision-making processes and regulates a

leader’s deployment of power and authority. The resulting leadership behavior, guided

largely by an individual’s emotional intelligence capacity, can have either a positive or

negative effect on organizational climate (Goleman, 1997). A healthy and open

organizational climate generates high levels of commitment to the mission of the

organization as well as high levels of trust and collegiality (Hoy & Tarter, 1997;

Goddard, Smith, & Hoy, 2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).

Effective leaders influence, inspire, initiate, communicate, create, adapt, achieve,

empathize, support, and serve. They are highly self-confident and optimistic individuals,

76
who possess acute organizational awareness and political adeptness. All of these are

emotional intelligence competencies that guide leadership behavior, and all can be

developed over time through accurate self-assessment, reflection, and experience

(Goleman, 1997).

As proposed by Goleman, et al. (2002), effective leaders possess high levels of

emotional intelligence, and they understand what emotions are stoked by which stimuli,

understand the implications of their emotional reactions to those stimuli, and demonstrate

the ability to manage disruptive emotions and keep impulses in check. By doing so,

leaders more effectively regulate their power and authority, apply efficient decision-

making processes, assume appropriate orientations to organizational tasks and individual

needs, and increase their likelihood to positively affect the climate and outcomes of the

organization.

Business research has begun to establish significant relationships between a leader’s

emotional intelligence and leadership behavior as well as subordinate perceptions of a

leader’s emotional intelligence competencies and organizational climate (Goleman, et al,

2002; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Likewise, organizational research has established

significant relationships between specific leadership behaviors and the openness of

organizational climates (Halpin & Croft, 1962, 1963; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991;

Hoy & Tarter, 1997, Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002,

Haygroup, 2004).

Clearly, as this volume of research continues to emerge asserting more than

spurious or accidental relationships between emotional intelligence and leadership style,

and emotional intelligence and organizational climate, intellectual imperatives demand

77
that these studies be examined more closely and, where possible, replicated in order to

support advancing these emotional intelligence theories and their implications for

organizational properties such as leadership and climate with substantial empirical

evidence.

HYPOTHESES

The review of the literature on emotional intelligence, leadership, and organizational

climate illustrates a number of direct relationships among these variables. Consequently,

drawing primarily on Goleman’s (1995, 1998, 2000, 2002) extensive body of work in

emotional intelligence, Hoy, et al.’s (1991, 1997, 2000) studies of school climate, and a

model of enabling leadership inspired by Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) “Leadership

Continuum,” Blake and McCanse’s (1991) “Managerial Grid,” Hersey and Blanchard’s

(1993) “Tri-Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness Model,” Bass and Avolio’s (1994)

model of “Full Range Leadership,” and Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee’s (2002) “Primal

Leadership” work, I propose the following hypotheses for this study:

H1 The greater the emotional intelligence of a principal, the more enabling the

principal's leadership style.

Rationale for H1

According to Goleman, et al’s (2002) leadership style framework, different

emotional intelligence competency clusters relate to different leadership styles.  For

example, visionary leadership is indicative of high levels of self-confidence, optimism,

inspirational leadership, and change catalyst.  Commanding leadership is marked by high

levels of initiative and achievement. Coaching leadership is evidenced by the

competencies of developing others, empathy, and emotional self-awareness, while

78
distributive leadership consists of high levels of organizational awareness, conflict

management, and teamwork and collaboration.  Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) “Tri-

Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness Model” considers the correlation between

relationship-oriented behavior, task-oriented behavior, and the readiness or “maturity” of

the group. Like Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) “Leadership Continuum” specific

situations require different leadership behavior. Therefore, the more EI competencies a

principal has developed, the more leadership styles that principal may use to enable

successful outcomes determined by specific situations.

H2 The greater the emotional intelligence of the principal, the greater the openness

of the principal.

Rationale for H2

Principal openness as described by Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991, 2000)

consists of subsets, or dimensions, conceptualized as supportive, directive, and restrictive

principal behavior. Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee’s (1999) emotional intelligence

competencies cluster in a similar manner.  The social awareness cluster of EI

competencies relate closely to supportive principal behavior dimension of the OCDQ-RE

including empathy, organizational awareness, and service orientation.  High measures of

these competencies should predict highly supportive principal behavior.  The relationship

management emotional intelligence cluster, i.e. developing others, inspirational

leadership, change catalyst, conflict management, teamwork & collaboration, are

behaviors opposite of the restrictive dimension of the OCDQ-RE.  High measures of

relationship management competencies in the principal should predict low principal

79
restrictiveness, thus increasing openness. A principal who exhibits high levels of

competence in the self awareness and self-management clusters, emotional self-

awareness, emotional self-control, self-confidence, and accurate self-assessment may find

it less important to exert formal authority and direct, or coerce, subordinates.  As a result,

the two “self” clusters of emotional intelligence should negatively correlate to the OCDQ

dimension of principal directiveness.

H3. The greater the enabling principal leadership style, the greater the openness of

the principal.

Rationale for H3  

Enabling principal leadership behaviors are those that rely on high levels of trust

and expertise of faculty and empower teachers to make important decisions for the

school.  Similar to the principals of Bass and Avolio’s (1994) “Full Range Leadership”

model characterized by laissez-faire, non-transactional leadership at one end and

transformational leadership, behavior that articulates vision, stimulates subordinates,

challenges traditional ways of thinking, and develops oneself and others to the highest

levels of potential, at the other, enabling leadership behaviors are highly supportive, and

minimally restrictive and directive (Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp, 1991).  Consequently,

high measures of enabling leadership should predict high levels of principal openness.

80
 Structural Equation Model

The three hypotheses proposed above examine pairs of relationships

independently of one another, but a simultaneous analysis of these relationships may be

more useful in identifying the effects principal emotional intelligence has on leadership

behavior and organizational climate. Structural Equation Modeling translates the

relationships of these three variables into such a simultaneous model. The structural

theory will be confirmed or supported statistically by a non-significant chi square and a

number of other “Goodness of Fit” statistics.

The structural model identified in Figure 2.8 proposes principal emotional

intelligence as a latent, exogenous variable that influences latent endogenous variables of

principal leadership style (H1) and school climate (H2) directly, and on school climate

indirectly through principal leadership (H3).

The work of Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) provides the framework for

which emotional intelligence influences both leadership and climate. The latent variable

emotional intelligence is measured by teacher responses on the Emotionally Competent

Inventory (ECI-2) as well as principal self-reports on the same instrument of 18

emotional intelligence competencies that cluster into four domains, self-awareness, self-

management, social awareness, and relationship management. Ultimately, these four

domains collapse into one principal emotional intelligence score.

The exogenous variable principal emotional intelligence predicts principal

leadership behavior, measured by teacher and principal responses to the Principal

Leadership Inventory (PLI v. 4.0). The latent variable, enabling principal leadership, is

81
measured by 14 survey items that make up commanding, visionary, coaching, and

distributive leadership.

The endogenous variable openness, as measured by the Organizational Climate

Descriptor Questionnaire-Rutgers Elementary (OCDQ-RE), measures the openness of the

principal in three dimensions, supportive, directive, and restrictive behavior of the

principal. The items for each of these dimensions will serve as the observed variables of

principal openness.

82
 Visionary Coaching Distributive

Enabling
Principal
Leadership
Sle

Self- Openness
Awareness

Social Principal
Awareness
Emotional
Intelligence Principal
Self-
Management Openness

Relationship
Management

Figure 2.5 Principal Leadership Structural Equation Model

83
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
The type of research used to investigate the effects of emotional intelligence and
principal leadership behavior on principal openness will be a correlational study with data
collected by questionnaires measuring teacher perceptions of principal emotional
intelligence, leadership behavior and principal openness. This chapter identifies the
population and sample for the proposed study, data collection procedures, a description of
all variables, and a structural equation model expressing the relationship among observed
and latent variables in the proposal. This chapter also describes the development and
validity of three questionnaires that will be used to collect data for this study: the
Emotional Competence Inventory v 2 (ECI-2), the Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire-Rutgers Elementary (OCDQ-RE), and the Principal Leadership Inventory
(PLI v 4.0) developed specifically for the present study. The latter includes reliability
and validity indicators obtained through three pilot studies.

Sample

One hundred and fifty elementary schools throughout Ohio were randomly

selected and invited to participate in the study. Principals from each of these schools were

solicited via e-mail seeking consent for their teachers to complete one of three

questionnaires measuring perceptions of principal emotional intelligence, principal

leadership behavior, or principal and teacher openness. Principals who did not reply to

the e-mail within three days received a follow-up e-mail message seeking their consent.

84
Two days later, a third and final consent request was e-mailed to non-responsive

principals.

Schools whose principals declined to participate or failed to reply to the final

request were removed from the sample and replaced by other randomly selected schools.

Consent was sought from a total of seven hundred principals in order to obtain a sample

size of 67 schools. No incentives, inducements, or reimbursements were offered;

however, participants elected to receive survey results from their respective school as

well as overall results of the study. In all, 1598 teachers completed one of the three

surveys. Respondents were fulltime teachers under the direct supervision of the building

principal to ensure that respondents had sufficient opportunity to observe principal

behaviors.

Also, the sample included urban, suburban, and rural schools as well as schools

with a wide range in student enrollment. Limiting this study to elementary schools

controlled for potential variations as a result of differences in organizational structure

(i.e., elementary, middle, secondary) of the schools.

Data Collection
Data collected were from surveys of perceived principal emotional intelligence,
principal leadership behavior, and school climate. Data were obtained from teachers
from 67 public elementary schools throughout Ohio and used to identify significant
relationships between perceived emotional intelligence of elementary principals,
principal leadership behavior, and principal openness.
Three instruments were used to collect data from teachers. The Emotional
Competence Inventory (ECI-2) measured perceived principal emotional intelligence
captured in a 72-question survey that took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The
85
OCDQ-RE (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991), a 42-item instrument with six subtests that

describe the behavior of elementary teachers and principals, measured principal

openness. The OCDQ-RE took less than ten minutes to complete. The third instrument,
the Principal Leadership Inventory (Reed & Hoy, 2004), consists of principal leadership

behaviors, perceived by teachers and scored on on a 1 to 5 Likert scale where: 1 = Almost

Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Frequently; 5 = Almost Always. The PLI took
approximately 5 minutes to complete. None of the questionnaires gathered personally
identifiable data such as names, social security number, ID number, grade level, or
subject area taught.
Each consenting principal identified a school designee to whom packets of
surveys were mailed from early April to mid May. Survey packets included specific
instructions to the school designee to randomly distribute one questionnaire for every
fulltime, certificated teacher in the school during regularly scheduled faculty meetings.
Designees were instructed to read a statement prior to teachers completing the
questionnaires describing the purpose of the research project and explaining that teacher
participation was voluntary and anonymous. Following administration of the surveys, the
school designee collected and promptly returned all used and unused instruments in a
pre-paid, addressed priority mail envelope provided.

Variables
The dependent variables in this study were enabling principal leadership style and
principal openness, perceived emotional intelligence of the principal served as the
independent variable that predicts principal leadership behavior as well as principal
openness. The decision to investigate the relationship between the dependent variables
and emotional intelligence was made in light of relatively recent studies attempting to
establish the significance of leader emotional intelligence, leadership style, and
86
organizational climate in organizational literature. The present study attempts to replicate

general findings amassed by Goleman (1995, 1998, 2000, 2002) and Boyatzis (1982,

1999, 2000) and other research based on their work (Carulli & Com, 2003; Sala, 2002;

Williams, 2003) that purport significant relationships between perceived emotional

intelligence, leadership behavior, and climate factors.

Measuring Emotional Intelligence

The concept emotional intelligence refers to a set of competencies, or abilities, to

recognize, understand, and use emotional information about oneself or others that leads to

or causes effective or superior performance (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).

Emotional intelligence competencies cluster in the four domains: Self-Awareness, Self-

Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management. One way to measure

emotional intelligence competencies is by capturing third-party perceptions of individual

behaviors nested in the four domains. The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI-2)

developed by Goleman, et al. (2000) represents such an instrument. The ECI-2 is an

assessment of one’s demonstrated competencies based on a contingency theory of

effective performance and a holistic personality theory. Extensive research indicates that

the ECI-2 is a reliable and valid predictor of leadership style, job performance, and

organizational climate (Carulli & Com, 2003; Sala, 2002; William, 2003).

The ECI-2 is a questionnaire designed as such for ease of use,

comprehensiveness, and validity, measuring individual perceptions of leader behavior

rather than actually observed behaviors as measured by other emotional intelligence

instruments. The resulting ECI-2 has four items per competency, resulting a total of 72

items. The items reflect alternate demonstrations, not variations, of the competency. The
87
items represent degrees of the competency being exhibited. For example, emotional self-

awareness is measured by the following items:

• Level 1 Is aware of own feelings

• Level 2 Recognizes the situations that arouse strong emotions in him/her

• Level 3 Knows how his/her feelings affect his/her actions

• Level 4 Reflects on underlying reasons for feelings

The first item reflects the most basic manifestation of emotional self-awareness,

being aware of one’s own feelings. The last item represents a more complex

manifestation of the same competency, reflecting on the underlying reasons for feelings.

The response set asks the respondent about his or her observation of the frequency with

which the person being assessed demonstrates the behavior in the item. The 1-5 scale has

the following five behavioral anchors are: 1=Never; 2=Rarely; 3=Sometimes; 4=Often;

5=Consistently; and 6 = Don't Know. Consequently, the ECI-2 measures both the

frequency in which an emotional intelligence competency is demonstrated, as well as the

degree to which it is demonstrated.

Reliability measures of the 18 competencies return alphas that are higher for

assessments completed by others than for self-assessments. In the Self-Awareness

domain, items revealed reliability scales between .81 and .87 in “Others’ Assessment”

and between .52 to .72 on the “Self-assessment.” Cronbach’s alphas for others’

assessment ranged from .71 to .86 for the Self-Management cluster but dropped to .51 to

.71 for the self-assessment. The Social Awareness domain returned alphas from .81 to

.89 on the others’ assessment, .68 to .74 on the self-assessment, and the Relationship
88
Management domain revealed the widest reliability scales ranging from as low as .54 to

as high as .90 on the others’ assessment but .45 to .77 on the self-assessment. Clearly,

the reliability of the ECI-2 is much stronger when used as a multi-rater, third-party

reporting instrument.

ECI-2 ECI-2:
Self Assessment Others’ Assessment
Self-Awareness
Emotional Self-Awareness .71 .87
Accurate Self-Assessment .52 .82
Self-Confidence .72 .81
Self-Management
Self-Control .71 .86
Transparency .52 .74
Optimism .68 .86
Adaptability .56 .81
Achievement .62 .80
Initiative .51 .71
Social Awareness
Empathy .68 .89
Organizational Awareness .69 .81
Service Orientation .74 .89
Relationship Management
Inspirational Leadership .77 .90
Influence .63 .81
Developing Others .73 .89
Change Catalyst .71 .83
Conflict Management .45 .54
Teamwork & Collaboration .56 .83

Table 3.1 ECI-2 Cronbach’s alphas for Mean Item Scores (N = 6,056 – 6,601)

Measuring Climate

Perceptual measures occupy a significant position of utility in climate research not

only in the United States (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Smith, 2000) but in Nigeria

(Idiris & Fraser, 1994), the Philippines (John & Taylor, 2004), Hong Kong (Wong & Ng,

89
2003) and Australia (Young, 1998). Like Halpin and Croft (1962), Anderson (1982)

reported “in most climate research the actual behavior was less important than perceived

behavior because perception is what controls one’s responses” (p. 387).

Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991), and Hoy and Tarter (1997a, 1997b) have refined

the OCDQ to accurately measure climate characteristics specifically related to principal

and teacher openness in elementary, middle, and secondary schools, the OCDQ-RE,

OCDQ-RM, and OCDQ-RS, where “R” stands for Rutgers, the university where the

revisions were developed. The present inquiry utilized the OCDQ-RE, a 42-item scale, to

measure principal openness dimensions in 67 elementary schools in urban, suburban, and

rural schools in Ohio using the OCDQ-RE.

Supportive principal behavior reflects a basic component of distributive leadership.

Communication between the principal and faculty flows two ways. The principal

respects the competence and expertise of the faculty and exhibits trust in teachers to make

decisions in the best interest of students and aligned with the goals of the school. Sample

items for supportive principal behavior include:

• The principal uses constructive criticism.

• The principal listens to and accepts teachers’ suggestions.

Directive principal behavior reflects rigid, close supervision. The principal

maintains constant monitoring and control over all teacher and school activities, down to

the smallest detail. Sample items for directive principal behavior include:

• The principal monitors everything teachers do.

• The principal rules with an iron fist.

Restrictive principal behavior is that which hinders rather than facilitates teacher
90
work. The principal burdens teachers with paper work, committee requirements, routine

duties, and other demands that interfere with teaching responsibilities. Some OCDQ-RE

sample items for restrictive principal behavior include:

• Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching.

• Teachers have too many committee requirements.

Each of these dimensions was measured by a subtest of the OCDQ-RE. The

reliability of the scales of the principal openness dimensions are: Supportive (.94),

Directive (.88), Restrictive (.81). The construct validity of each dimension of principal

openness was supported by correlating each dimension with the original OCDQ index of

openness (Hoy, 1972). The index of teacher openness correlated positively with the

original general school openness index (r=.67, p<.01) as did the index of principal

openness (r=.52, p<.01). Moreover, the factor analysis supports the construct validity of

organizational climate (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 2000).

The three subtests of the OCDQ-RE that define principal openness, supportive,

directive, and restrictive leadership behavior, form an index for the degree of openness in

principal-teacher relations. Principal openness can be computed by standardizing the

school scores on these dimensions and subtracting the sum of the directive and restrictive

scores from the supportive score.

Measuring Principal Leadership Behavior

The earlier review of literature demonstrates that the measure of leadership
behavior has been emerging over the past 50 years. During the past half-century, various
approaches to the measure of leadership have examined leadership skills and attributes,
contingency leadership, participative leadership, transformational leadership, and the
91
impact of leadership on organizational climate (Likert, 1961; McClelland, 1965, 1985;

Fiedler, 1967; Blake & Mouton, 1978; Vroom & Yetton, 1974; Hershey & Blanchard,

1982; Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nannus, 1985; Hoy & Tarter, 1995).

Development of the Principal Leadership Inventory

The measure of principal leadership behavior employed in the present study is
guided by an enabling leadership model that reflects the contributions of the major
movements in leadership theory: trait theory, situation/contingency theory,
transformational leadership theory, and human relation theory. Additionally, the measure
of principal leadership behavior used in this study is based on the six leadership
behaviors introduced by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) and outlined in the
preceding review of literature.
The Principal Leadership Inventory (PLI) inventories principal leadership
behavior as perceived by teachers and was developed by adapting the theoretical
constructs proposed by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) in Primal Leadership.
Goleman, et al.’s (2002) concept of leadership behavior proposes six leadership styles
arrayed along two dimensions of task and relation. Two of the styles, authoritative and
pacesetting, described by Goleman et al are task-oriented leadership behaviors and

suspect in creating dissonant organizational climate. Two others, coaching and affiliative
leadership, are conceptualized by Goleman et al as relation-oriented behaviors, resonant
styles that enhance organizational climate. Visionary and democratic leadership,
considered “integrated” behaviors that blend varying degrees of task and relation-
orientation, also serve as resonant styles.
An important distinction exists between Goleman’s leadership styles and the
model considered in the present study. Where Goleman and others characterized
leadership in terms of task and relation orientation, the present study conceptualizes
92
leadership behavior in a similar, but distinct context of goal and needs orientation. The

role of the leader extends beyond the completion of tasks and the nurturing of

relationships. The role of the leader is to achieve results and meet the goals of the
organization and the needs of individuals within the organization. The present study

asserts that the way to achieve desired outcomes most efficiently is by demonstrating and
directing behavior consistent with the goals of the organization, while tending, when
necessary, to the needs of individuals and groups. This distinction between goal and
needs-oriented leadership results in the identification of six principal leadership styles on
the first version of the Principal Leadership Inventory. Each principal leadership style
was represented by specific, observable principal behaviors rather than general beliefs or
attitudes, which could only be inferred from expressions or actions of the principal.
Building on descriptors and anecdotes of leadership included in Goleman, et al (2002, pp.
53-88), critical emotional intelligence competencies were identified and characteristics of
the six individual leadership styles articulated in short descriptions that encapsulated the
distinguishing characteristics of each style.

Identifying Principal behaviors

Referring to Goleman, et al.’s (2002) descriptions of the leadership styles, a

research team consisting of a teacher leader, professor of educational leadership, and

school superintendent generated between nine and thirteen concise statements of school

principal behaviors that exemplified each leadership style. These statements all presume

beginning with, “My Principal…” and were carefully constructed to record observable

principal behaviors rather than infer perceived attitudes or beliefs. The questionnaire was

designed as a 1-5 Likert scale where: 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 =

Frequently, 5 = Almost Always

93
 Goal-oriented Principal Behaviors

Commanding Leadership

Commanding leaders exercise formal authority and power to get compliance.

Command and custodial control are key concepts within this principal leadership style

used to direct teacher and student behavior. Principal behaviors displayed in the

commanding leadership style included:

My principal…

• reminds the faculty who is in charge.

• uses formal authority to get teacher compliance.

Pacesetting Leadership

Pacesetting leaders are doers. They set high standards for themselves and others,

and demonstrate the desired behavior necessary to achieve organizational goals.

Principal behaviors shown in the pacesetting leadership style included:

My principal…

• sets an example for others to follow.

• exhibits high standards of excellence for everyone.

Needs-oriented Principal Behaviors

Affiliative Leadership

Affiliative leaders focus on meeting individual needs of faculty, staff, and students.

Conflict management and teamwork are keys to the affiliative leader’s success. Principal

behaviors demonstrated by the affiliative leadership style included:

My principal…

• encourages collaboration to ensure harmony.

94
 • puts people first, tasks second.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic leaders solicit input from the faculty before making decisions. They

strive to build a group in which members feel safe to share ideas. Collaboration,

consensus, and buy-in are critical to meeting the needs of the group. Principal behaviors

exhibited in the democratic leadership style included:

My principal…

• seeks input from the faculty before making a decision.

• listens to parents’ concerns about the school.

Integrated Principal Behaviors

Coaching Leadership

Coaching leaders focus on improvement of individual skills. Coaches provide

valuable feedback to individuals in a patient, non-judgmental manner, and help them set

goals to improve performance. The coaching leadership style is focused simultaneously

on individual needs and the goals of the organization. Principal behaviors that

characterize the coaching leadership style included:

My principal…

• helps teachers identify strengths and weaknesses.

• encourages teachers to set goals.

Visionary Leadership

Visionary leaders communicate a clear vision for the organization. As big thinkers,

visionary leaders understand the potential rewards of calculated risks. Innovation and

95
change are key concepts to visionary leaders who combine group needs with

organizational goals. Principal behaviors indicative of the visionary leadership style

included:

My principal…

• communicates a clear vision for the school.

• uses the mission to move faculty toward shared goals.

Empowering Principal Behaviors

A seventh leadership style reaches beyond Goleman’s six leadership categories and

considers the development of empowering principal behaviors, termed here as

distributive leadership.

Distributive Leadership

Distributive leaders trust and empower faculty. They urge self-regulation and

recognize when to yield authority to teachers and entrust them to take initiative and make

decisions. Principal behaviors exhibited by the distributive leadership style included:

My principal…

• delegates important decisions to teachers.

• urges teachers to take initiative.

A total of 82 items were written for the seven leadership styles measured in the
Principal Leadership Inventory. In a subsequent step to insure survey validity, an expert
panel, teacher leader, professor of educational leadership, and school superintendent,
reviewed each survey item considering two criteria:
1.) Conceptual consistency - Does each item adequately represent one of the
seven principal leadership styles outlined above?

96
 2.) Observability - Is each item an articulated behavior than can be observed

rather than an attitude or belief that must be inferred?

Results

Data from three pilot studies were analyzed using SPSS and factor analysis to

validate the statistical strength and reliability of the items as indicators of specific

leadership styles. Results of the third and final pilot study, visionary leadership

indicators exhibited factor loadings between .72 and .88. Reliability of the scales of the

visionary leadership indicators yielded an alpha of .90. Democratic leadership indicators

displayed factor loadings ranging between .81 and .88, and reliability of the scales of

democratic leadership indicators yielded an alpha of .93 maximized with five items.

Factor loadings for the coaching leadership behaviors ranged from .74 and .90. A

reliability analysis of these coaching indicators yielded an alpha of .93, with the alpha

maximized at four items. The factor loadings for affiliative leadership range from .68 to

.88 and an alpha of .87 maximized with five items.

Factor loadings for the commanding leadership style indicators range between .65

and .80. A reliability analysis of commanding leadership indicators yielded an alpha of

.85 maximized at 6 items. Pacesetting leadership showed the lowest factor loadings.

ranging between .16 and .84. A reliability of the scales of pacesetting leadership

indicators yielded an alpha maximized with three items at .74.

Distributive leadership displayed strong factor loadings between .77 and .90 and,

a reliability of the scales yielded an alpha of .92 with the alpha maximized at 5 items.

97
 Revisions

A factor analysis of leadership behavior extracted four components, explaining a

total of 66.2 percent of the variance. The highest loadings in component 1 were among

distributive leadership (DS) items. In component 2, the strongest loadings were

commanding leadership (CM) items. The strongest loadings in component 3 were

coaching (CO) behaviors, and in component 4, three visionary (VS) and one pacesetting

(PC) item.

As a result, the PLI questionnaire was reduced to the 14 leadership indicators with

the strongest factor loadings and that maximize the alpha for each of the four leadership

styles as shown below.

Component 1

Distributive α = .90 (alpha is maximized with 3 items)

• DS05 is comfortable with teachers taking the lead. .77

• DS06 entrusts important decisions to teachers. .73

• DS09 delegates leadership to teachers. .79

Component 2

Commanding α = .80 (alpha is maximized with 3 items)

• CM01 reminds the faculty who is in charge. .71

• CM02 uses formal authority to get teacher compliance. .90

• CM13 is a “do as I say” administrator. .66

Component 3

Coaching α = .91 (alpha is maximized with 3 items)

• CO04 gives me valuable feedback. .74

98
 • CO05 challenges me with important assignments. .68

• CO09 helps me think through problems. .82

• CO12 coaches me. .81

Component 4

Visionary α = .89 (alpha is maximized with 4 items)

• VS01 communicates a clear vision for the school. .73

• PC02 exhibits high standards of excellence for everyone. .77

• VS02 uses the mission to move faculty toward shared goals. .78

• VS13 is a visionary. .70

Leadership styles have typically been described as discrete categories in the

leadership literature (see Blake & McCanse, 1991; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Goleman, et al., 2002). However, it is more useful to think of leadership

styles along a continuum or spectrum as suggested by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973),

and examining their effects simultaneously as the latent construct enabling principal

leadership.

99
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter reports the results from the collection and analysis of the data used

for the current study. First, sample demographics are described followed by reliability of

the scales, factor analyses of the means, and descriptive statistics for each variable. Three

research hypotheses are tested using both correlation analyses of purported relationships

as well as a structural equation model subsequently analyzed for goodness of fit.

Sample of Elementary Schools

Seven hundred elementary schools in Ohio were randomly selected and invited to

participate in the study. Principals from each of the selected schools were recruited via

multiple e-mail messages identifying the purpose and scope of the study with the only

incentive being to gain better understanding of how members of their respective teaching

staffs perceive the principal’s emotional intelligence, leadership behavior, and openness.

Of those invited, 78 principals consented to participate, and 67 schools completed the

data collection required of the study.

Geographically, participating schools were distributed throughout 41 of Ohio’s 88

counties (47%) with no more than three elementary schools being from the same county.

School area codes were used to determine regions of the state in which each school is

located. A total of 19 schools (28%) were located in the northeast part of the state, 18 in

100
the northwest (27%), 13 in the southwest (19%) and also in the southeast (19%), and four

in central Ohio (6%). While these numbers indicate a fairly equitable distribution of

schools in the sample, the division is not representative of elementary school locations

throughout the state. More than one-third of the elementary schools in Ohio have area

codes from the northeast part of the state, about six percent higher than the number in the

sample. Schools from central and southwest Ohio are also underrepresented in the

sample. On the other hand, schools from the less populous parts of the state are

overrepresented in the sample, by 10 percent in the northwest and about 4 percent in the

southeast. The sample was relatively distributed among urban (27%), suburban (31%),

and rural (42%) schools.

Location in Zip Codes Number Percent of State

Ohio of Schools Sample Percentages
Northeast 216, 330, 440 19 28.3% 34.2%

Northwest 419 18 26.9% 16.9%

Southwest 513, 937 13 19.4% 23.2%

Southeast 740 13 19.4% 15.2%

Central 614 4 6.0% 10.2%

Total 67 100.00% 99.70%

Table 4.1 Regional Distribution of Sample Schools by Area Code

Demographically, the sample drew on schools representing a broad selection of

demographic diversity in student enrollment, student socio-economic status, and student

achievement. For example, four schools showed enrollment of less than 150 students in

the 2003-04 school year according to data maintained by the Ohio Department of
101
Education. Sixteen schools had enrollment between 151-300 students; 24 schools had

enrollment of 301-450 students; 23 schools had enrollment greater than 450 students. As

evidence in Table 4.2 below, the enrollment demographics of the sample are fairly

representative of the enrollment demographics statewide.

Student Number of Percent of State

Enrollment Schools Sample Percentage
1-150 4 6% 5.4%

151-300 16 24% 24.4%

301-450 24 36% 40.1%

451 and above 23 34% 30.1%

Total 67 100.00% 100.00%

Table 4.2 Distribution of Sample Schools by Enrollment

Additionally, the survey sample includes schools with low socio-economic

student populations (SES) ranging from 0-96 percent. Nearly half of the schools have

low SES student populations of 25 percent or greater and the mean of low SES students

from the sample is 29.2 percent. The state average is 30.1 percent. Further, the sample

displayed a range from 14 to 95 percent of students proficient on the 2003-04 Ohio

Fourth Grade Proficiency Test in reading and 16 to 82 percent of students proficient in

math. The mean proficiency test scores of the sample slightly exceed the mean state

scores. In reading, the mean of the sample was more than six percentage points higher

that the state average, and in math the mean of the sample exceeded the state average by

nearly seven percentage points.

102
 Two other differences in comparing demographics of the sample to those of the

state are less pronounced. Females hold teaching positions in elementary schools by an

overwhelming 9 to 1 majority. In 2003-04, the state average for percentage of female

teachers on an elementary faculty was 89.3 percent. The sample for this study displays a

similar average of 90.8 percent of female teachers. Likewise, the state average teacher

salary in 2003-04 was $47,520. The average teacher salary for the sample in the same

year was $47,721.

2003-04 Sample Sample Sample State

Minimum Maximum Mean Average

Low Student Socio-economic 0% 96% 29.2% 30.1%

status (SES)
Fourth grade reading proficiency 14% 95% 76.46% 70.13%

Fourth grade math proficiency 16% 100% 71.54% 64.70%

Percentage of female teachers 74% 100% 90.85% 89.34%

Average teacher salary $38,409 $65,999 $47,721 $47,520

Table 4.3 Demographics of Sample Schools (Ohio Department of Education, 2005)

The sample obtained for this study is fairly representative in terms of average

teacher salary and percentage of female teachers in elementary schools in Ohio.

However, achievement scores of the sample schools are somewhat higher than state

averages. Further, because schools could not compelled to participate, but instead

required consent from the principal, self-selection bias combined with a relatively small

sample size for the study (N = 67) may result in sampling error that dissuades

generalizability of the findings to populations outside the sample set. Therefore, any

attempt to generalize the results of this study should be made with caution.
103
 Examination of the Variables

The current section examines the reliability of the scales, factor analyses of the

instruments, and descriptive statistics for each variable in the study: principal emotional

intelligence, enabling principal leadership, and openness. Each is discussed in separate

sections.

Emotional intelligence

The construct of emotional intelligence has been both conceptualized and

operationalized in two different measurement models (see Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &

Sitarenios, 2003; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). The Mayer and Salovey model is

an ability-based model that measures how well people perform specific tasks and solve

emotional problems in a controlled setting. Boyatzis and Goleman’s model, on the other

hand, is a perception-based model that measures how an individual’s emotional

intelligence is perceived by others. This study examines the latter and therefore utilizes

the Emotional Competency Inventory v. 2.0 (ECI v. 2.0) developed by Boyatzis, et al

(2000), and emotional intelligence refers to the principal’s ability to perceive emotions, to

access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and

emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so to promote emotional and

intellectual growth. (Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P., 1997).

The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI v. 2.0) measures emotional

intelligence based on the four skill clusters identified and documented by Goleman,

Boyatzis, and McKee (2002). These competencies are predictive of success in the

workplace and provide four main scores and a total EI score generated from a 72-

question, multi-rater measure. Extensive research indicates that the ECI-2 is a reliable
104
and valid predictor of leadership style, job performance, and organizational climate

(Carulli & Com, 2003; Sala, 2002; William, 2003).

The 72 indicators on the ECI v. 2.0 questionnaire measure 18 specific emotional

intelligence competencies, four items for each competency. The school means of the four

indicators for each competency have been averaged for an overall score, ranging from

almost never (1.0) to almost always (5.0) perceived principal behavior by teachers. As

shown in the table below, the three self-awareness competencies exhibit relatively high

means, with each clustering around 4.0. This suggests that principals in the study were

perceived as exhibiting emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-

confidence “often.” This may be a reflection of self-selection bias in the study.

Arguably, principals who agree to participate in a study knowing that teachers will be

rating the principal’s emotional intelligence and leadership characteristics as well as

principal openness, likely possess high levels of self-confidence and self-reflection.

Therefore, the mean scores in the sample may be biased by principal self-selection.

The school means for the self-management competencies met or exceeded the

target scores provided for the ECI v. 2.0. Overall, principals were perceived as

demonstrating high levels of emotional self-control, optimism, achievement orientation,

and adaptability. The single competency that fell significantly below the target was

principal initiative with a mean of 3.6 and a target of 4.0. One conceivable explanation

that might lead teachers to rate their principal below the targeted score is rooted in the

diffused range of programmatic oversight for which the principal is responsible.

Building principals are responsible for an array of programs that stretch vertically

through grade levels, horizontally across subject areas, and cross-sectionally through
105
demographic student groups. Some teachers may only observe principal initiative as it

relates to programs specific to their own classroom. At the least teachers must be

advocates for their students and may wish the principal were doing more to meet the

needs of students these teachers serve. Lacking a wider perspective of school and

district-level initiatives, a teacher may rate the principal lower in this emotional

intelligence competency. However, the sub-target score may be a more statistical

function than substantive. The alpha for the four “initiative” indicators in this study is

.54, second lowest of the 18 competencies, suggesting teachers may have interpreted the

initiative indicators inconsistently.

Similarly, all means in the relationship management domain cluster just below 4.0

with the exception of conflict management (3.2), the lowest mean of the 18 emotional

intelligence competencies. Given that conflict management is one of the key functions of

building administration, teachers should have ample opportunity to observe principal

behavior related to this competency. Consequently, one might conclude from the table

below that of all the emotional intelligence competencies, principals are perceived at

being least skilled in conflict management. However, another explanation might suggest

that principals who are highly skilled in conflict management do so discretely and

privately, thereby reducing the opportunities teachers have to observe conflict

management behavior. Another explanation for the sample mean falling below the target

level considers ambiguity in one or more of the conflict management indicators. For

example, the item, “My principal publicly states everyone’s position to those involved in

a conflict,” may be perceived as a positive trait in conflict situations that are related to

programs, resources, and facilities as publicly identifying all positions related to a

106
conflict may be valuable in coming to a successful resolution. However, publicly stating

conflicting positions between individuals may be perceived more negatively. Further,

skills and techniques used in conflict management among adults are distinctly different

than managing conflict among elementary children. Student conflicts often require high

levels of principal custodialism. Publicly stating positions of students involved in the

conflict may be an effective strategy in sorting facts from lies in order to reach a just

conclusion.

This ambiguity in interpreting conflict management items on the questionnaire is

also supported statistically. An individual item analysis of the relationship management

indicators revealed that three of the four conflict management items exhibit high

variability in responses. The item noted above showed the highest standard deviation

(1.130) of all indicators in the relationship management domain and the lowest reliability

alpha (.48) suggesting that teachers may be interpreting the conflict management items

differently.

Finally, the three competencies that comprise the social awareness domain range

from 3.76 to 4.02, indicating that as a whole, teachers generally perceive principals as

“often” behaving with service orientation, empathy, and organizational awareness.

However, organizational awareness is the competency with the highest range (3.05) and

the lowest minimum score (1.5). The wide variability in organizational awareness may

reflect the district-level bureaucratic constraints that may hinder principals in some

districts but not in others.

107
Competency Range Min Max Mean Std. Target
Deviation Score
SELF AWARENESS

1. Emotional self awareness 1.74 2.96 4.70 3.8507 .42967 3.0

2. Accurate self assessment 2.35 2.50 4.85 3.9014 .49401 3.0
3. Self-confidence 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.2737 .45254 4.0

SELF MANAGEMENT

Optimism 1.66 3.25 4.91 4.1822 .38536 3.0

Initiative 1.88 2.50 4.38 3.6007 .34998 4.0
Achievement orientation 2.06 2.75 4.81 3.9288 .46973 3.0
Adaptability 2.50 2.50 5.00 3.9364 .48057 4.0
Transparency 1.81 2.75 4.56 3.7615 .42634 3.0
Emotional self-control 2.00 2.75 4.75 3.9273 .46750 3.0

RELATIONSHIP MNGMENT

Change catalyst 1.90 2.65 4.55 3.8228 .43121 3.0

Teamwork and collaboration 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.9981 .46528 3.0
Developing others 1.99 2.76 4.75 3.8891 .51396 3.0
Conflict management 2.01 2.49 4.50 3.2668 .39142 4.0
Inspirational leadership 2.75 2.25 5.00 3.8573 .65632 3.0
Influence 2.11 2.50 4.61 3.8500 .47423 3.0

SOCIAL AWARENESS

Service orientation 2.11 2.89 5.00 4.0294 .47551 4.0

Empathy 1.90 2.90 4.80 3.9818 .47873 4.0
Organizational awareness 3.05 1.50 4.55 3.7690 .46038 3.0

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of EI Competencies

The 18 competency-level means have also been collapsed into four domain-level

means and summed together for a total perceived principal emotional intelligence score

shown in the table below.

108
Domain Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

Self Awareness 1.85 2.92 4.77 4.0086 .41095

Self Management 1.76 2.83 4.60 3.8895 .36832

Relationship Management 1.83 2.79 4.63 3.7807 .43320

Social Awareness 1.68 3.00 4.68 3.9267 .42725

Emotional Intelligence Score 1.72 2.89 4.61 3.9014 .39943

Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Intelligence Domains

Reliability scores of the 18 competencies returned alphas consistent with those

reported in the psychometrics of the ECI v. 2.0. In the Self-Awareness domain, items

showed reliability scales between .86 and .89. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .63 to .89

for the Self-Management cluster. The Social Awareness domain returned alphas from .73

to .89, and the Relationship Management domain revealed the widest reliability scales

ranging from as low as .60 to as high as .95. Clearly, low alphas (α < 0.7) on Initiative

(.54), Organizational Awareness (.67), and Conflict Management (.48) indicate some

level of ambiguity in these survey items, thus suggesting the four statements that are to

reflect the three domains cited previously may not be measuring single concepts or may

not be interpreted by teachers similarly.

109
 ECI v. 2.0 Current Study
(N>6,056) (N>440)
Self-Awareness
Emotional Self-Awareness .87 .84
Accurate Self-Assessment .82 .80
Self-Confidence .81 .76
Self-Management
Self-Control .86 .79
Transparency .74 .72
Optimism .86 .80
Adaptability .81 .78
Achievement .80 .79
Initiative .71 .54
Social Awareness
Empathy .89 .83
Organizational Awareness .81 .67
Service Orientation .89 .82
Relationship Management
Inspirational Leadership .90 .89
Influence .81 .80
Developing Others .89 .86
Change Catalyst .83 .72
Conflict Management .54 .48
Teamwork & Collaboration .83 .80

Table 4.6 ECI v. 2.0 Cronbach’s Alphas for Individual Cases

Factor Analysis

Boyatzis and Goleman (1998) conceptualize emotional intelligence as a four-

factor structure with components termed as Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social

Awareness, and Relationship Management. According to this four-factor model, the 18

emotional intelligence competencies should cluster into four domains. However,

principal axis factoring of the school-level means of the 18 emotional intelligence

competencies yield only one factor with loadings between .61 and .96, and accounting for

72.6 percent of the variance.

110
 Factor I
INSP_MN .962
INFL_MN .944
DEVL_MN .943
OPT_MN .934
ADP_MN .932
EMOT_MN .910
EMP_MN .910
ACH_MN .901
SERV_MN .886
TEAM_MN .883
TRNSP_MN .876
ACCU_MN .840
SLFC_MN .834
ORG_MN .805
CHG_MN .716
INIT_MN .680
CNFL_MN .649
ESC_MN .611

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Table 4.7 Factor Analysis of EI Competencies

The single factor extracted above suggests all of the emotional intelligence

competencies are highly correlated. In fact, a bivariate correlation matrix for the 18

competencies reveals statistically significant correlations for all pairs of emotional

intelligence competencies at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) except for Emotional Self

Confidence (ESC_MN) and Initiative (INIT_MN) which is significant at the 0.05 level

(2-tailed).

111
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 EMOT_MN 1
2 ACCU_MN .824 1
3 SLFC_MN .697 .594 1
4 OPT_MN .873 .837 .785 1
5 INIT_MN .585 .609 .543 .585 1
6 ACH_MN .783 .660 .822 .835 .633 1
7 ADP_MN .831 .780 .766 .863 .730 .876 1
8 TRNSP_MN .834 .737 .666 .795 .629 .770 .836 1
9 ESC_MN .606 .596 .620 .713 .303* .536 .604 .426 1
10 CHG_MN .628 .476 .683 .667 .631 .800 .686 .620 .250 1
11 TEAM_MN .833 .860 .633 .819 .602 .731 .765 .791 .507 .576 1
12 DEVL_MN .871 .786 .793 .847 .633 .856 .850 .869 .555 .674 .845 1
13 CNFL_MN .617 .552 .580 .569 .334 .602 .601 .582 .347 .446 .566 .627 1
14 INSP_MN .856 .788 .859 .900 .654 .870 .893 .820 .590 .721 .825 .906 .641 1
15 INFL_MN .813 .780 .838 .859 .706 .853 .864 .797 .559 .719 .855 .879 .580 .915 1
16 SERV_MN .820 .665 .751 .808 .509 .811 .783 .820 .483 .625 .824 .904 .662 .866 .837 1
17 EMP_MN .891 .858 .690 .862 .539 .734 .825 .845 .595 .529 .885 .871 .636 .857 .832 .846 1
18 ORG_MN .663 .673 .715 .754 .621 .758 .804 .688 .564 .615 .712 .683 .471 .764 .808 .643 .701 1

Table 4.8 Bivariate Correlations of EI Competencies

Principal Leadership

The principal leadership survey used in this study was developed by Reed & Hoy

(2004) in three pilot studies. The questionnaire includes 14 leadership indicators clustered in

four leadership styles: commanding, visionary, coaching, and distributive. School-level

descriptive statistics for teacher perceptions of principal leadership exhibit reasonable ranges,

means, and standard deviations. The largest range is in visionary leadership (2.91) between 2.03

and 4.94, also yielding the highest mean 3.98 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 suggesting a large

number of teachers perceive their principal as one who communicates a clear vision for the

school, exhibits high standards of excellence, and uses a stated mission to move faculty toward

shared goals. The lowest mean, commanding leadership (2.43) reveals that teachers in the

sample schools rarely see their principals exhibit coercive, authoritative leadership behaviors.

112
 Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.Deviation

Leadership Behavior

Commanding 2.43 1.17 3.60 2.4391 .50689

Visionary 2.91 2.03 4.94 3.9822 .61193

Coaching 2.27 2.06 4.33 3.4270 .51091

Distributive 1.96 2.44 4.40 3.7398 .44143

Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics for School-level Principal Leadership

Cronbach’s alphas for each of the four leadership styles are shown below along

with factor loadings for each of the 14 survey items. The alphas for the four domains are

reasonably consistent with findings from the pilot studies. Similarly, factor loadings for

the indicators generally improved from the third pilot to the current study. These

consistently strong loadings suggest the Principal Leadership Inventory (PLI) is a reliable

measure of principal leadership behavior.

3rd Pilot Current

Distributive α = .90 α = .84

Coaching α = .91 α = .87

Visionary α = .89 α = .94

Commanding α = .80 α = .79

Table 4.10 PLI Cronbach’s Alphas of Individual Cases

113
 A factor analysis of principal leadership behavior extracted two factors,

explaining a total of 70.6 percent of the variance. Factor I included items from

distributive (DS), visionary (VS), and coaching (CO) leadership styles. All factors but

one loaded higher than .67, suggesting items clustered in this factor are leadership

behaviors that enable successful outcomes in schools. An enabling leader is guided by a

clear vision for the school, maintains high expectations for everyone, and provides

valuable feedback to teachers. The enabling leader entrusts important decisions to

teachers, challenging faculty with important assignments.

Factor II included the three commanding (CM) items between .62 and .76 as well

as one distributive item (DS12), which negatively loaded at -.50. This second factor

might best be conceptualized as commanding leadership. The commanding leader uses

formal authority to get teacher compliance, reminds faculty who is in charge, and is not

comfortable with teachers taking the lead; teachers need direction. These two

components account for 65.8 percent of the variance in principal leadership measures.

114
 I II
Enabling Commanding

COACH8 .880
VIS5 .876
VIS4 .855
VIS6 .842
COACH10 .839
DIS14 .779
VIS7 .776 .478
DIS13 .772
COACH11 .706
COACH9 .673

COM3 -.425 .762

COM2 .651
COM1 .616
DIS12 .476 -.501
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Factor loadings < .33 suppressed

Table 4.11 Factor Analysis of Principal Leadership Inventory

Principal Openness

The survey used to measure principal openness was developed by Hoy, Tarter, and

Kottkamp (1991) for the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-RE

(OCDQ_RE), a 42-item scale that measures school climate factors specific to elementary

schools. Principal openness is measured by three subtests of the OCDQ-RE: Supportive

principal behavior, Directive principal behavior, and Restrictive principal behavior. The

reliability scores for the scales as reported by Hoy, et al (1991) were: Supportive (.94),

Directive (.88), Restrictive (.81). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each dimension from

the present study were: Supportive (.94), Directive (.73), Restrictive (.76).

115
Principal Openness OCDQ-RE Present Study

Supportive Principal Behavior α = .94 α = .94

Directive Principal Behavior α = .88 α = .73

Restrictive Principal Behavior α = .81 α = .76

Table 4.12 Comparative OCDQ-RE Alpha Coefficients

Factor analysis of the 42 openness items using Varimax rotation and Kaiser

normalization supported a six-factor solution explaining 59.3 percent of the variance of

the measure. Factor loadings less than 0.5 were suppressed, and results of the factor

analysis yield all items clustered as conceptualized by Tarter, et al. (1991). Factor

loadings for supportive principal behavior (SPT) ranged from .68 to .84. Factor loadings

for the five restrictive principal behaviors (RES) were between .60 to .72. Half of the

indicators for directive principal behavior (DIR) loaded between .56 and .84. Based on

these statistical tests, OCDQ-RE appears to have yielded consistent measures of principal

openness previously purported by this survey instrument.

116
 1 2 3 4 5 6
SUPPORTIVE
Q23_SPT .844
Q22_SPT .795
Q42_SPT .794
Q28_SPT .793
Q4_SPT .784
Q16_SPT .772
Q29_SPT .725
Q15_SPT .684
Q9_SPT .677
COLLEGIAL
Q19_COL .572 .516
Q40_COL .572
Q12_COL .559
Q6R_COL .544
Q37R_COL .536
Q32_COL .527
INTIMATE
Q33_INT .879
Q38_INT .745
Q2_INT .674
Q7_INT .657
Q20_INT .560
Q27_INT .545
RESTRICTIVE
Q36_RES .723
Q11_RES .632
Q25_RES .621
Q18_RES .605
Q31R_RES .600
DIRECTIVE
Q34_DIR .838
Q30_DIR .703
Q41_DIR .624
Q5_DIR .561
DISENGAGED
Q14_DIS -.672
Q8_DIS -.689 .307
Q3_DIS .628
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 4.13 Factor Analysis of OCDQ-RE

117
 The three subtests of principal openness, i.e. Supportive, Directive, and Restrictive

behavior, form an index for the degree of openness in principal-teacher relations.

Principal openness was computed using a formula that standardized the school scores of

the present sample to the sample in the original OCDQ-RE study (Hoy, Tarter, &

Kottkamp, 1991), which combines the three standardized scores in an openness index

such that 500 is average and the standard deviation is 100.

Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation
Principal Behavior

Supportive 16.46 19.54 36.00 27.6788 4.11414

Directive 15.50 10.00 25.50 17.8915 2.87816

Restrictive 8.56 7.67 16.23 10.8428 1.90469

Principal Openness 163.63 451.00 614.63 549.9217 38.65627

Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics of Principal Openness

Hypothesis Testing

According to Goleman, et al’s (2002) leadership style framework, different

emotional intelligence competency clusters relate to different leadership styles.  For

example, visionary leadership is indicative of high levels of self-confidence, optimism,

inspirational leadership, and change catalyst.  Commanding leadership is marked by high

levels of initiative and achievement. Coaching leadership is evidenced by the

competencies of developing others, empathy, and emotional self-awareness, while

distributive leadership consists of high levels of organizational awareness, conflict

management, and teamwork and collaboration.  Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) “Tri-

118
Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness Model” considers the correlation between

relationship-oriented behavior, task-oriented behavior, and the readiness or “maturity” of

the group. Like Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) “Leadership Continuum” specific

situations require different leadership behavior. Therefore, the more EI competencies a

principal has developed, the more leadership styles that principal may use to enable

successful outcomes determined by specific situations, leading to the first hypothesis:

H1 The greater the emotional intelligence of a principal, the more enabling the

principal's leadership style.

Principal openness as described by Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991, 2000)

consists of subsets, or dimensions, conceptualized as supportive, directive, and restrictive

principal behavior. Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee’s (1999) emotional intelligence

competencies cluster in a similar manner.  The social awareness cluster of EI

competencies relate closely to supportive principal behavior dimension of the OCDQ-RE

including empathy, organizational awareness, and service orientation.  High measures of

these competencies should predict highly supportive principal behavior.  Therefore, the

second hypothesis is:

H2 The greater the emotional intelligence of the principal, the greater the openness

of the principal.

Enabling leadership behaviors are those that rely on high levels of trust and

expertise of faculty and empower teachers to make important decisions for the school and

for students.  Similar to the principals of Bass and Avolio’s (1994) “Full Range

Leadership” model characterized by principal behavior that articulates vision, stimulates

subordinates, challenges traditional ways of thinking, and develops oneself and others to
119
the highest levels of potential, enabling leadership behaviors are highly supportive, and

minimally restrictive and directive (Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp, 1991).  As a result,

Hypothesis three states:

H3. The greater the enabling principal leadership style, the greater the openness of

the principal.

Simple Correlations

The hypotheses stated above purport positive correlations between pairs of

variables in this study. The unit of analysis is the building principal, and measures of the

variables are methodologically independent with three randomly selected subgroups of

teachers from randomly selected elementary schools completing only one of the three

surveys used to gather teacher perceptions of principal emotional intelligence, leadership

behavior, and openness.

The first test of these hypotheses calculates simple bivariate shown in Table 4.15,

and support each hypothesis at the 0.01 level in a one-tailed test. As predicted in H1,

teacher perceptions of principal emotional intelligence are positively and strongly

correlated to enabling principal leadership behavior (r = .78, p < .01). The simple

correlation between perceived emotional intelligence of the principal and principal

openness also is both positive and strong (r = .44, p < .01), thus supporting H2. Finally, as

predicted in H3, the correlation matrix yielded a significant, although moderate,

correlation between enabling principal leadership behavior and principal openness (r =

.336, p < .01).

120
 1 2 3
1 Emotional 1.00
Intelligence

2 Enabling .782** 1.00

Leadership

3 Principal .440** .336** 1.00

Openness

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.15 Simple Bivariate Correlations

Partial Correlations

Coleman’s research from 1966 demonstrated the significant influence of socio-

economic status (SES) on outcomes in schools. Because SES has consistently served as a

powerful predictor of performance, student socio-economic status is an important control

variable to consider in any analysis of school-related variables. While SES would not be

predicted to influence personal principal emotional intelligence traits such as self-

awareness or self-management, SES might establish organization or community-based

expectations that suppress or demand specific principal leadership styles or constrain or

promote specific principal openness characteristics.

As a result, Table 4.16 presents the partial correlations between the relevant set of

variables in the study with low student socio-economic status (SES) as measured by

disadvantage student data maintained by the Ohio Department of Education as the control

variable. Also shown in the table along the diagonal are alpha coefficients of reliability

of the scales.

121
 The partial correlations reveal that SES has little or no influence on perceived

principal emotional intelligence, leadership behavior, or openness. The partial

correlation between perceived principal emotional intelligence and enabling leadership

yielded a statistically significant correlation of .78 (p < .01) in a one-tailed test,

unchanged from the simple correlations and further supporting H1. The partial

correlations also support H2. Perceptions of principal emotional intelligence and

principal openness share a strong, positive correlation of .43 (p < .01) in a one-tailed test.

Finally, the partial correlation between enabling principal leadership and principal

openness purported in H3 increased slightly to .33 (p < .05). Partial correlations of the

variables controlling for school size yielded nearly identical coefficients (r1 = .77; r2 =

.43; r3 = .32)

Emotional Enabling School

Intelligence Leadership Openness
Emotional (.98)
Intelligence
Enabling .78** (.87)
Leadership
Principal .43** .34* (.76)
Openness
Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
*Correlation significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).
a
Reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) on diagonal.

Table 4.16 Partial Correlations Controlling for Low Student SES

Structural Equation Model Testing

The bivariate and partial correlations above examine pairs of hypothesized

relationships independent of one another. However, a simultaneous analysis of the

122
hypothesized relationships may be more useful in identifying the effects principal

emotional intelligence has on enabling leadership behavior and principal openness.

The theoretical model proposed in Chapter 2 was tested and refined using

structural equation modeling techniques. The structural model posits perceived principal

emotional intelligence is a latent, exogenous variable that influences latent endogenous

variables of enabling principal leadership style (H1) and principal openness (H2) directly,

and principal openness indirectly through principal leadership (H3).

The work of Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) provides the framework for

which emotional intelligence influences both leadership and climate. The latent variable

emotional intelligence is measured by teacher responses on the Emotionally Competent

Inventory (ECI-2), a measure of 18 emotional intelligence competencies that cluster into

four domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship

management. Ultimately, these four domains collapse into a single construct shown in

the model as Principal Emotional intelligence.

The exogenous variable Principal Emotional Intelligence predicts Enabling

Leadership, measured by teacher responses on the Principal Leadership Inventory (PLI).

The latent variable Enabling Leadership is measured by the means of visionary, coaching,

and distributive leadership.

The endogenous variable Principal Openness, operationalized in the

Organizational Climate Descriptor Questionnaire-Rutgers Elementary (OCDQ-RE), is a

measurement of supportive, directive, and restrictive principal behavior. Because the

control variable low student socio-economic status of the school had no significant effect

between the bivariate and partial correlations, it was not included as a control variable in

123
the structural equation model. Below is the correlation matrix of observed variables,

means, and standard deviations used to calculate the standardized solutions of the

proposed model. Latent variables include: Emotional Intelligence, Enabling Leadership,

and Openness. The baseline model assumes no significant correlation among the

measurement variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
M 4.0086 3.8895 3.7807 3.9267 3.9822 3.4270 3.7398 549.9217
SD .41095 .36832 .43320 .42725 .61193 .51091 .44143 38.65627

Table 4.17 Means and Standard Deviations for LISREL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SLFAWARE 1
SLFMNGMT .938 1
RELMNGMT .942 .930 1
SOCAWARE .920 .921 .942 1
VIS_MN .647 .696 .737 .652 1
COACH_MN .693 .734 .764 .728 .841 1
DISTR_MN .612 .611 .624 .634 .530 .623 1
PRN_OPEN .450 .434 .413 .434 .185 .297 .413 1

Table 4.18 Correlation Matrix for LISREL

124
 Hypothesized Model

Visionary Coaching Distributive

Enabling
Principal H3
Leadership
Self-
Awareness Principal
Openness
H1
Social
Awareness
Principal H2 Principal
Emotional Openness
Self- Intelligence
Management

Relationship
Management

Figure 4.1 Hypothesized Structural Equation Model

125
Baseline Model

Visionary Coaching Distributive

.9
.88 5 .6
Enabling 6
Principal
Leadership -.20
Self-
Awareness .81 Principal
.9 Openness
6
Social .93
Awareness
.9
6
Principal 1.00
Emotional
Intelligence Principal
Self-
Management
.9 Openness
8
.9
Relationship 6
Management

Chi-square = 37.80, df = 24, P-value = 0.03637, RMSEA = 0.094, R2 = .60

Figure 4.2 Baseline Structural Equation Model

126
 The hypothesized model yielded standardized solutions that support two of the

three hypotheses and explained 60 percent of the variance. According to this model,

principal emotional intelligence is a strong predictor of enabling principal leadership and

principal openness (β1= .81, β2= .93). However, enabling principal leadership is not

significantly correlated with principal openness (β3= -.20). Most surprisingly, the

coefficient is negative, suggesting as enabling leadership behavior increases, openness

decreases, a relationship not supported conceptually. Therefore, the coefficient may be

indicative of a multicollinearity problem between the two constructs. Further, a

significant chi-square of 37.80 (p = .036) with an RMSEA statistic of 0.094 reveals this

model is not a good fit.

The baseline model assumes that the measurement variables are discrete

components of the latent variables with little or no significant correlation. In considering

the basic goodness-of-fit statistics, however, measurement error of closely related

observed variables may be highly correlated. For example, the measurement error for

self-awareness may be closely correlated to the measurement error for self-management,

given that both domains reflect a principal’s personal traits. Similarly, visionary and

coaching leadership, measures of how a principal is perceived to interact with others,

may also yield highly correlated measurement error. As a result, it may be reasonable to

allow the error coefficients of these pairs of measurements to freely co-vary, shown in the

revised model as arced arrows.

127
 Revised Model

Visionary Coaching Distributive

.79 .8 .7
6 1
Enabling
Principal
Leadership
Sle
-.27
Self-
Awareness
.90 Principal
.9 Openness
Social
Awareness
.9 6 Principal 1.00
5 Emotional .9
Intelligence 5
Self- Principal
Management
.9 Openness
8
.9
Relationship 6
Management

Chi-square = 30.85, df = 22, P-value = 0.09932, RMSEA = 0.079, R2 = .58

Figure 4.3 Revised Structural Equation Model

The revised model performs marginally better that the hypothesized baseline

model, yielding a non-significant chi-square of 30.85 (p = .099) and an RMSEA of .079 ,

where an RSMEA of .05 is “good” and .08 reflects a “moderate” fit. The revised model,

however, only explains about 58 percent of the variance (R2 = .57). Allowing

measurement error to co-vary freely among similar observed variables within the two

exogenous variables serves to improve the model, although it is still far from a good fit.

128
Also, the standardized solution still supports H1 and H2 (β1= .90, β2= 1.00), but fails to

support H3 (β3= -.27).

In further refining the model, shared error variance not only between

measurements within each latent variable, but between observed variables of different

latent variables, must be considered. For example, given that visionary and coaching

leadership behaviors reflect how principals are perceived to interact with others, it is

reasonable to assert that those two observed variables might also share error variance

with relationship management, an observed variable for emotional intelligence.

Consequently, the final revision of the model allows visionary and coaching leadership to

freely co-vary with relationship management, shown in the model as a dashed line.

Again, H1 and H2 are supported (β1=.88, β2=.82), while H3 is not (β3= -.08).

Also, the third model returned the best fit statistics by freeing the error co-variation

between non-related observed measures, yielding a non-significant chi-square (χ2 =

24.41; p = 0.22475), a RMSEA goodness of fit statistic approaching the “good” range

(RMSEA = 0.058), and an R2 explaining about 57 percent of the variance. Model 3

appears to support the portion of the structural model that posits emotional intelligence

directly influences enabling principal leadership and openness, but does support the

hypothesis that emotional intelligence indirectly influences openness through enabling

principal leadership.

129
 Final Revision

Visionary Coaching Distributive

.8
.76 5 .7
Enabling
Principal
3
Leadership
-.08

Self-
Awareness .88 Principal
Openness
.9
Social 6 .82
Awareness Principal .9
.9 Emotional
6
5 Intelligence Principal
Self- Openness
Management .9
8 .9
Relationship 6
Management

Chi-square = 24.41, df = 20, P-value = 0.22475, RMSEA = 0.058, R2 = .57

Table 4.4 Final Structural Equation Model

Essentially, increasing the complexity of the model by allowing numerous

measurement variables to freely co-vary significantly improved the model statistically.

However, the revised model uses an additional 4 degrees of freedom, and the model’s

complexity now becomes a concern when considering its parsimony substantively. To

account for model complexity, James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) introduced the Parsimony

Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI). Mulaik, et al. suggest that non-significant chi square

statistics and goodness of fit indices in the range of .9 along with parsimony indices in

the range of .5 are typical. Model 3 meets all two criteria with a non-significant chi-

130
square of 24.41 and a goodness of fit index (GFI) of .92. However, the parsimony

goodness of fit index (PGFI) of .41 is marginal. Coupled with the RMSEA of .058,

falling just beyond the “good” range, Model 3 may not be as good of fit as preliminary

findings indicated.

In addition, certain confidence intervals can be influenced significantly by sample

size and by model complexity (MacCallum, et al., 1996). If a sample size is small and

the number of estimated parameters is high, the confidence interval will be wide.

Therefore, a complex model requires a very large sample size in order to obtain a more

narrow confidence band (Byrne, 1998). The third model is clearly more complex than

the hypothesized baseline model, and the sample size (N = 67) is likely too small to

provide reasonable confidence in the model.

Conclusions

Statistical analyses of three variables, principal emotional intelligence as

perceived by teachers, enabling principal leadership style, and openness of school

climate, seem to support the hypothesized relationships between pairings of the variables.

However, descriptive statistics presented for each of the measurement instruments reveal

inflated means and little variability in the statistical set among indicators for each of the

surveys. This lack of variability may be a function of sample self-selection: principals, as

the unit of study, agreeing to participate in the study may be more open and self-aware.

Cronbach’s alphas for specific clusters of items from the questionnaires used in

the study scored reasonably consistent with other alphas previously reported for the

survey instruments. However, the present study was unable to verify the four-factor

131
structure of emotional intelligence proposed by Boyatzis, Goleman, et al (2002). Instead,

the 18 competencies clustered in a single factor with strong loadings between .61 and .96.

Principal axis factoring did support the construct of enabling principal leadership as

proposed and also replicated the Tarter, Hoy, & Kottkamp (1991) findings related to a

six-factor construct of the OCDQ-RE.

Simple bivariate correlations between pairs of variables in the study yielded

strong, significant and positive findings. Additionally, partial correlations between the

variables when controlling for low student socio-economic status were found to be

strong, positive, and significant, and relatively unchanged from the simple correlations.

Thus the three hypotheses were supported as predicted, and SES exhibited no influence

on the paired variables in the hypothesized relationships. To sum, perceived emotional

intelligence of the principal is strongly and positively related to enabling principal

leadership style and principal openness. The correlation between principal leadership

style and principal openness is also significantly and positively correlated.

In an attempt to offer a more refined test of the hypothesized relationships, a

structural equation model was tested but failed to yield acceptable goodness of fit

statistics. A revised, but more complex, model that accounted for correlated error

variance between related observed variables within specified latent variables and between

related measurements in different latent variables returned a non-significant chi square,

strong goodness-of-fit statistic, a more favorable RMSEA approaching the “good” range.

However, the model supported only two of the three hypotheses and lacked both

parsimony and a large enough sample size to provide reasonable confidence levels in the

findings.

132
 While this study has revealed some interesting relationships among emotional

intelligence, leadership, and openness of principals, the findings must be considered in

the context of an exploratory work. To verify the results shown here, further study would

require more rigorous methods of data collection and significantly greater sample size

than included here. These issues as well as specific results will be discussed in more

detail in Chapter 5.

133
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the results of the present study beginning with a summary

of the findings related to perceptions of principal emotional intelligence, leadership

behavior, and openness. Next, the findings are discussed in the context of previous

research and theoretical and practical implications of the findings are considered.

Finally, conclusions of this study and questions to guide future research are presented.

Summary of Findings

Emotional Intelligence

The school-level means of the three competencies in the self-awareness domain

were relatively high, each around 4.0 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, meeting or exceeding

target scores established by the authors of the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI).

Similarly, school means for the self-management competencies also met or exceeded the

target scores, and, overall, principals were perceived as demonstrating high levels of

emotional self-control, optimism, achievement orientation, and adaptability. The single

self-management competency that was significantly below the target was principal

initiative with a mean of 3.6 and a target of 4.0. Likewise, school means in the

relationship management domain clustered just below 4.0 with the exception of conflict

management (3.2), the lowest mean of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies.

134
Finally, the three competencies that comprise the social awareness domain range from

3.76 to 4.02, indicating that as a whole, teachers generally perceive principals as “often”

behaving with service orientation, empathy, and organizational awareness.

Principal axis factoring of the school-level means of the 18 emotional intelligence

competencies yielded just one factor with strong loadings and accounting for a large

portion of the variance in the measurement of the construct, not withstanding that

Boyatzis and Goleman (1998) conceptualized emotional intelligence as a four-factor

structure that should cluster into four domains. The single factor extracted from this data

suggests teachers perceived indicators of emotional intelligence in terms of a single

construct rather than four distinct domains of behaviors.

Leadership

Earlier in this study principal leadership was proposed as a “spectrum” of

behaviors that effective principals move among to ensure successful outcomes of specific

situations. A leadership questionnaire described leadership behaviors embedded in four

leadership styles, commanding, visionary, coaching, and distributive, arrayed accordingly

along a continuum. However, a factor analysis of the means of the principal leadership

behaviors measured in the study failed to support this single-dimension theoretical

construct. Instead, the factor analysis extracted two factors, one that included items from

distributive (DS), visionary (VS), and coaching (CO) leadership styles and the other that

included commanding leadership indicators. This finding loosely supports the Blake and

McCanse (1991) “Managerial Grid,” aligning concern for people along one dimension

and concern for task on the other as well as other two dimensional theories (Halpin &

135
Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Hersey & Blanchard,

1993).

The finding also prompts redefining the leadership spectrum to reflect two

dimensions, one that could be termed enabling leadership, characterized by behaviors that

enable individuals and groups to be successful in schools and the other commanding

leadership, characterized by dominant, directing behaviors of the leader. An enabling

leader is guided by a clear vision for the school, maintains high expectations for

everyone, and provides valuable feedback to teachers. The enabling leader entrusts

important decisions to teachers, challenging faculty with important assignments. The

commanding leader, by comparison, uses formal authority to get teacher compliance,

reminds faculty who is in charge and is not comfortable with teachers taking the lead,

behaviors that may hinder or constrain effectiveness of individuals or groups.

More specific descriptive statistics showed visionary leadership as the style with

the highest range as well as the highest mean, suggesting a large number of teachers

responding to the survey perceived their principal as one who communicates a clear

vision for the school, exhibits high standards of excellence, and uses a stated mission to

move faculty toward shared goals. Conversely, relatively low scores in commanding

leadership demonstrated that teachers in the participating schools were not often

confronted with principals who exhibited coercive, authoritarian leadership behaviors.

Climate

The survey used to measure the principal’s impact on climate was the OCDQ-RE

(Tarter, Hoy, & Kottkamp, 1991), which measures principal openness in terms of three

subtests of the OCDQ-RE: Supportive principal behavior, Directive principal behavior,

136
and Restrictive principal behavior. Tests of the reliability of the scale for this instrument

as well as a factor analysis of specific survey items closely replicated results reported in

previous studies.

In a general analysis of the overall results, supportive principal behavior was the

highest mean among the principal openness measures while restrictive behavior was the

lowest. These findings suggest that teachers in the study perceived their principals as

communicating openly, respecting the competence and expertise of the faculty and

exhibiting trust in teachers to make decisions aligned with the goals of the school and in

the best interest of students.

Hypotheses

Simple bi-variate correlations between pairs of variables in the study yielded

strong, significant and positive findings. Additionally, partial correlations between the

variables when controlling for low student socio-economic status were found to be

strong, positive, and significant, and relatively unchanged from the simple correlations.

Partial correlations between the variables controlling for school size yielded almost

identical results. Thus the three hypotheses were supported as predicted, and neither SES

nor size exhibited influence on the paired variables in the hypothesized relationships. To

sum, perceived emotional intelligence of the principal is strongly and positively related to

enabling principal leadership style as well as principal openness, and the openness of the

principal seems to be significantly and positively correlated to principal leadership style.

Structural Equation Model

In an attempt to offer a more refined test of the hypothesized relationships, a

structural equation model was tested but failed to yield acceptable goodness of fit

137
statistics. A revised, but more complex, model that accounted for correlated error

variance between related observed variables within specified latent variables and between

related measurements in different latent variables returned a non-significant chi square,

strong goodness-of-fit statistic, a more favorable RMSEA approaching the “good” range.

However, the model supported only two of the three hypotheses and lacked parsimony.

Also, the sample size was a little small to provide reasonable confidence levels in the

findings. Yet, the results are encouraging enough to guide future research and refinement

of the model.

Discussion of Findings

Emotional Intelligence

The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) includes four indicators for each of

18 competencies that comprise Boyatzis, Goleman, and Rhee’s (1999) construct of

emotional intelligence. For the purpose of this study, elementary teachers rated how

frequently they observed their principal demonstrating specific EI behaviors from never

(1) to consistently (5). In examining the results of the study, the three competencies in

the self-awareness domain exhibit relatively high means around 4.0, suggesting that

principals participating the study were perceived as often exhibiting emotional self-

awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence. These results are not

surprising. Presumably, principals who consent to participate in a study knowing they

are the unit of analysis are likely to possess high levels of self-confidence and self-

reflection.

Similarly, school-level means for competencies in the self-management domain

indicated that principals, overall, were perceived as demonstrating high levels of

138
optimism followed closely by a strong orientation toward achievement, two highly

correlated competencies of self-management. Goleman (1998) defined optimism as the

persistence to pursue goals despite obstacles and setbacks, a critical component of

achievement as optimism can determine how a principal reacts to unfavorable events or

circumstances. McClelland's “The Achieving Society” (1961) established achievement

orientation as the competence that drives success. In its most general sense, this

competence refers to a striving to continually improve performance. Achievement is not

just accomplishing things. Rather, it is accomplishing things through one’s own efforts,

against a clear, challenging standard of excellence. Political and social emphasis on

increasing student achievement in the face of rising academic standards of accountability

seems to make achievement orientation an essential competency for building principals.

One self-management competency that scored marginally lower than the others was

principal initiative. Goleman (2000) defined initiative as the ability to identify a problem,

obstacle, or opportunity and take action in light of that to address current or future

problems or opportunities. Initiative should be seen in the context of proactivity.

Interestingly, the same drive and proactive behavior that guides achievement orientation

should significantly influence initiative, raising the question why did teachers score the

two competencies so differently?

One conceivable explanation for why teachers might rate their principal lower in

initiative than achievement orientation is rooted in the diffused range of programmatic

oversight for which the principal is responsible. Achievement, by and large, is reported

as a singular school-wide measure. However, building principals are responsible for an

array of programs that stretch vertically through grade levels, horizontally across subject

139
areas, and cross-sectionally through demographic student groups. Some teachers may

only observe principal initiative as it relates to programs specific to their own classroom.

Lacking a wider perspective of school and district-level initiatives, a teacher may rate the

principal lower in this emotional intelligence competency. However, the sub-target score

may be a more statistical function than substantive. The alpha for the “initiative”

indicators was the second lowest of the 18 competencies, suggesting teachers simply may

have interpreted the initiative indicators less consistently.

The highest mean in the relationship management domain was teamwork and

collaboration. Teamwork and collaboration represents the ability to work cooperatively

with others, to be part of a team, to work together as opposed to working separately or

competitively (Goleman, 2002). It means working with others toward shared goals, and

creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals. Collaboration has taken on

increased importance in the last decade with the trend toward team-based work in many

organizations (Goleman, 1998) including schools. Intervention assistance teams, school

improvement planning teams, site-based management teams, and even student leadership

teams appear to be gaining favor in school-based leadership structure, making this

competency more important for teachers and principals alike (Marzano, 2003).

On the other hand, conflict management, the ability to handle difficult individuals,

groups of people, or tense situations with diplomacy and tact, yielded the lowest mean

overall of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies. A talent of those skilled in the

conflict management is spotting trouble as it is developing and taking steps to calm those

involved. Listening and empathizing are crucial to the skills of handling difficult people

and situations with diplomacy, encouraging debate and open discussion, and

140
orchestrating win-win situations (Goleman, 1998). Again, with each of the competencies

being so highly correlated, how did this specific competency score so much lower than

all the others?

One explanation considers that principals who are highly skilled in conflict

management are discrete and private in managing highly volatile situations, thereby

reducing the opportunities teachers have to observe conflict management behavior.

Unless teachers regularly elevate the level of public conflict, some faculty may have few

chances to truly see how skilled the principal is in conflict management.

Another explanation for such a low mean for this competency also takes into

account the ambiguity in one or more of the conflict management indicators. For

example, the item, “My principal publicly states everyone’s position to those involved in

a conflict,” may be perceived as a positive trait in conflict situations that are related to

programs, resources, and facilities as publicly identifying all positions related to a

conflict may be valuable in coming to a successful resolution. However, publicly stating

conflicting positions between individuals may be perceived more negatively. Further,

skills and techniques used in conflict management among adults are distinctly different

than managing conflict among elementary children. Publicly stating positions of students

involved in the conflict may be an effective strategy in sorting facts from lies in order to

reach a just conclusion. Publicly stating positions of conflicting adults may erode trust

and escalate or prolong the conflict rather than resolve it.

Finally, the means social awareness competencies indicate teachers generally

perceive principals as often exhibiting service orientation, empathy, and organizational

awareness. Service orientation, the highest competency mean within this domain, reflects

141
the perception teachers have of the principal’s desire to help to meet their needs. It also

suggests a willingness to sometimes trade off immediate gains in order to preserve

faculty relationships.

The construct of emotional intelligence has been both conceptualized and

operationalized in two different models (see Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003;

Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). The Mayer and Salovey model is an ability-based

model that measures how well people perform specific tasks and solve emotional

problems in a controlled setting. Boyatzis and Goleman’s model, on the other hand, is a

perception-based model that measures how an individual’s emotional intelligence is

perceived by others.

Though often criticized, many researchers have utilized perceptual measures when

studying the human component of organizations. To some degree perception depends on

previous experiences, needs and values, and so the accuracy and reliability of perceptions

have been questioned (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Anderson, 1982) as may be the case in

the present study. As exhibited in the analysis of the EI measures, the reliability of the

scales of some competencies is questionable. Nonetheless, perceptual measures continue

to demonstrate utility in social science research (see Smith, 2000; Idiris & Fraser, 1994;

John & Taylor, 2004; Wong & Ng, 2003; Young, 1998). Relative to education leadership

research, schools should be recognized as open systems influenced by multiple internal

and external factors. As a result, as Anderson (1982) stated regarding organizational

climate research, “the actual behavior [is] less important than perceived behavior

because perception is what controls one’s responses” (p. 387).

142
Leadership

Recalling from Chapter 2 James MacGregor Burns’ (1978) suggestion that

leadership is the one of the most often observed and least understood phenomenon on

earth, the present study of principal leadership and its relationship to perceived emotional

intelligence and principal openness certainly supports that declaration, adding to

Stogdill’s (1974) survey of four decades of research which failed to find consensus as to

a general theory of leadership.

Not without merit, the results of the study reemphasize the importance of relation-

oriented behaviors in principal leadership while further contributing to the body of

evidence connecting emotional intelligence to leadership behavior. Enabling leadership

behaviors are those that rely on high levels of trust and expertise of faculty and empower

teachers to make important decisions for the school and for students.  Similar to the

principles of Bass and Avolio’s (1994) “Full Range Leadership” model characterized by

principal behavior that articulates vision, stimulates subordinates, challenges traditional

ways of thinking, and develops oneself and others to the highest levels of potential,

enabling leadership behaviors are highly supportive, and minimally restrictive and

directive (Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp, 2000).  The findings of this study found a

moderate, significant correlation between enabling principal leadership style and the

openness of the principal that was slightly stronger when controlling for SES.

Nonetheless, the study leads back to the roots of the two dimensional model of

consideration v. initiating structure (Halpin & Winer, 1957) and further supports

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) “Leadership Continuum” as well as Hersey and

Blanchard’s (1993) “Tri-dimensional Leadership” model specifying different leadership

143
behavior according to specific situations.

Climate

Halpin and Croft (1963) maintained that how a leader genuinely behaves is less

important than how followers perceive it. More recently, Tarter, Hoy, and Kottkamp

(1991) offered the analogy that climate is to organization as personality is to individual.

The strong correlations exhibited in this study between perceived principal emotional

intelligence and principal openness serve to further support the personality analogy.

The distinctive characteristics of the openness are cooperation, respect, and open

and authentic communication within the faculty and between the faculty and principal.

The principal is receptive to teacher ideas, offers genuine and frequent praise, and

respects the competence of faculty, measured as “high supportiveness.” Principals also

give their teachers freedom to perform without close supervision, measured as “low

directiveness” and provide facilitating leadership absent bureaucratic constraints,

measured as “low restrictiveness” (Tarter, et al., 1991). These principal openness

behaviors are characteristic of distributive leadership behavior where principals entrust

important decisions to faculty and are comfortable with teachers taking the lead.

Fox (1973) found that school climate was the “shadow” of its principal. Principals

create and refine the symbols and symbolic activity of the organization that shape the

climate (Deal & Peterson, 1993), such as establishing high expectations for both staff and

students (Leithwood, 1994) and creating a vision for the school and enlisting others to

share this vision (Bass, 1985; Bennis, Kouzes & Posner, 2000). Clearly, enabling

principal leadership descriptors of visionary and coaching behavior and principal

openness are critical to establishing open school climate.

144
Hypotheses

According to Goleman, et al’s (2002) leadership style framework, different

emotional intelligence competency clusters relate to different leadership styles.  For

example, visionary leadership is indicative of high levels of self-confidence, optimism,

inspirational leadership, and change catalyst.  Commanding leadership is marked by high

levels of initiative and achievement. Coaching leadership is evidenced by the

competencies of developing others, empathy, and emotional self-awareness, while

distributive leadership consists of high levels of organizational awareness, conflict

management, and teamwork and collaboration. 

The findings of this study, however, have shown strong, significant correlations

between virtually every emotional intelligence competency with virtually every

leadership style. With few exceptions, components of emotional intelligence as

measured in this study by the ECI v. 2.0 are highly correlated with each other as well as

highly correlated with the four styles of leadership measured by the Principal Leadership

Inventory. As larger constructs, perceived principal emotional intelligence and perceived

principal openness were strongly and positively correlated at the .01 level in simple

bivariate and partial correlations controlling for low student socio-economic status (SES).

In fact, controlling for SES resulted in no change in the correlation coefficient from the

simple to partial correlations. While SES would not likely influence personal principal

such as emotional intelligence those measured on the ECI v. 2.0, SES might influence

school-wide or community-based expectations that demand specific principal leadership

styles or constrain specific principal openness dimensions, requiring a principal to be

more or less restrictive or more or less directive than in a school with dramatically

145
different SES characteristics.

Principal openness as described by Tarter, Hoy, and Kottkamp (1991, 2000)

consists of subsets, or dimensions, of principal behavior conceptualized as supportive,

non-directive, and non-restrictive. Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee’s (1999) social

awareness cluster of EI, including empathy, organizational awareness, and service

orientation, relates closely to supportive principal behavior dimension of the OCDQ-RE. 

The findings of this study offer statistically significant support for the second hypothesis

positing a positive correlation between principal emotional intelligence and supportive

principal behavior, a subtest of principal openness.

Structural Equation Model

The structural equation model hypothesized in Chapter 2 and tested in Chapter 4

provides a simultaneous analysis of the relationships between principal emotional

intelligence, enabling principal leadership, and principal openness. Goleman, Boyatzis,

and McKee (2002) provide the framework for which emotional intelligence influences

both leadership and climate. Four domain clusters of EI competencies collapse into a

single construct shown in the model as the latent variable Principal Emotional

intelligence which predicts the latent construct Enabling Principal Leadership, measured

by the observed variables of visionary, coaching, and distributive leadership,

as well as the latent construct Principal Openness.

The hypothesized model yielded standardized solutions supporting two of the three

hypotheses. Yet, the model failed all preliminary goodness-of-fit indicators and proved

not to be a good fit. One problem with the model as conceptualized was the assumption

that measurement variables are discrete components of the latent variables with little or

146
no significant correlation to other measurement variables. Two subsequent revisions of

the model appeared to support parts of the structural model that posit emotional

intelligence directly influences enabling principal leadership as well as open principal

behavior. However, the model did not support the hypothesis that emotional intelligence

indirectly influences openness through enabling principal leadership; the relationship is

direct.

In other analyses, revising the model by freeing the error covariance of

conceptually related measurements resulted in significantly improved goodness-of-fit

statistics. To illustrate, visionary and coaching leadership measures reflect how teachers

perceive principal interactions with others. Consequently, error measures for both

observed variables might co-vary with each other as well as with the observed variable

relationship management, a measurement of the latent variable emotional intelligence.

Increasing the complexity of the model by allowing numerous measurement

variables to freely co-vary significantly improved the model statistically. However,

certain confidence intervals can be influenced significantly by model complexity

(MacCallum, et al., 1996). The relatively small sample size used in the present study and

the high number of estimated parameters widen the confidence intervals of the results.

Consequently, although the goodness-of-fit statistics of the third model were much more

favorable, the model was more complex than hypothesized and the sample size (N = 67)

limits confidence in the findings. Yet the results provide enough support to pursue the

model in a larger, more comprehensive study.

147
 Theoretical Significance

Hoy and Sweetland (2001) proposed the concept of enabling bureaucracies,

suggesting schools can effectively function within a structure of formalized procedures

and hierarchy that help rather than hinder. Enabling bureaucracy is described as a system

of rules and regulations that guide problem solving. In an enabling structure, principals

and teachers work cooperatively across recognized authority boundaries while retaining

their distinctive roles. Likewise, rules and regulations serve as flexible guidelines toward

successful resolutions of problems rather than absolute constraints that create them.

Fundamentally, both the hierarchy and formalization of the bureaucracy are mechanisms

that support the mission of the organization and the work of the teachers rather than

enhancing the power of the principal.

Visionary, coaching, and distributive leadership are descriptive behaviors utilized

by principals to establish and maintain enabling structure in schools. An enabling leader

is guided by a clear vision for the school, maintains high expectations for everyone, and

provides valuable feedback to teachers. The enabling leader entrusts important decisions

to teachers, challenging faculty with important assignments.

However, the enabling leader does not function without specific constraints and

expectations. The enabling leader is not lasses-faire. Rather, the enabling leader works

cooperatively with subordinates to collectively define goals, strategies, and action plans

that move the entire organization toward a shared mission. Enabling leaders also

demonstrate high levels of specific emotional intelligence competencies.

Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland (2001) posit principals in enabling organizations are

flexible, view situations from multiple perspectives, and work to change expectations and

148
devise new possibilities for solutions. Goleman, et al., (2000) term these EI

competencies as adaptability, empathy, and optimism. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) also

have demonstrated that enabling bureaucracies are associated with a greater degree of

trust and teacher perceptions of honesty in the principal. Goleman, et al, (2000)

characterizes trust as transparency, described by a leader’s ability to maintain integrity by

keeping promises, raising ethical concerns, publicly admitting mistakes, and acting in

ways that are congruent with one’s values.

The results of this study seem to suggest that perceptions of principal emotional

intelligence may not only be strongly correlated to enabling principal leadership behavior

that helps individuals and groups achieve success, but principal emotional intelligence

may also be a necessary condition for fostering enabling bureaucratic structures that

systematically guide problem-solving and aid organizational decision-making.

A Structural Equation Model of Student Achievement

School effectiveness is often measured in terms of student achievement .

However, isolating the independent variables that influence student achievement, and to

what degree, represent ongoing query for educational researchers and school leaders

alike. Ideally, student achievement could be easily expressed in a bi-variate regression.

The dependent variable, student achievement (y), would be a simple function of the

independent variable, for example classroom instruction (x), such that: y = a + β(x) + e,

where a = constant, e = error. What educational research continues to reveal, however, is

student achievement is a complex, endogenous latent variable with multiple latent and

observed exogenous variables whose causality may at times be reciprocal. In other

149
words, schools are open social systems whose outcomes affect and are affected by many

other outcomes, some of which are inside the school’s locus of control, some outside

(Hoy & Miskel, 2004). To illustrate, a student’s socio-economic status (SES) has long

been a strong predictor of achievement (Coleman, 1966; Welch, 1974; White, 1982), but

the effects of SES largely lie beyond the control of the school. Student ability is another

individual trait that predicts levels of achievement (see Bloom, 1976, 1984; Boulanger,

1981; Walberg, 1984; Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999) as is student motivation (Bloom,

1976; Steinkamp & Maehr, 1983; Schiefele & Krapp, 1996; Willingham, Pollack, &

Lewis, 2002).

On the other hand, the quality of the classroom teacher is one predictor within the

school’s locus of control attributable to traits of individuals and with an impact that is

virtually equal to SES (Sanders & Horn, 1997; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997; Haycock,

1998). From an organizational perspective, trust, collective efficacy, and academic

emphasis all have consistently been related to student achievement (Bandura, 1997;

Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001;

Goddard, Smith, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Another organizational

feature of schools that likely affects teaching and learning is enabling structure, providing

administrative structures unencumbered by formal authority (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001).

Similarly, mindfulness (Langer, 1989; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001; Hoy, 2003), both as an

individual and collective construct, has been used to describe school structures sensitive

to student learning that identify mistakes early and avoid crises, resist temptation to

oversimplify, and are resilient.

150
 The task at hand is a matter of sorting through all of the influences, determining

which are or are not within the school’s locus of control, and identifying how much

impact each has on student achievement and, ultimately, school effectiveness. As more

recent studies are demonstrating, there appear to be as many influences on achievement

within the school’s locus of control than beyond it (Marzano, 2003). On one hand, such

findings are encouraging because schools understand their efforts are not futile and

seriously accept their charge of education every child. On the other hand, schools remain

challenged to make large gains because so few of these influences have been sufficiently

isolated and articulated by researchers. As a result, schools are left to simply do the best

they can with many pieces of the student achievement puzzle missing or obscured.

However, one variable related to student achievement within the school’s locus of

control is its structure (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Enabling bureaucracy and flexibility in

the interpretation and application of rules allows school employees to more readily make

student-centered decisions driven by individual student needs. Principal behavior may be

critical to the fostering and sustaining an enabling structure. Principals may choose to be

guided by clearly articulated hierarchy and clearly defined rules and may choose to

establish a structure for the school strictly within the boundaries of those regulations.

Conversely, the principal may be guided by less formal structure where hierarchy of

authority yields to levels of expertise as teachers and administrators work collaboratively

to find student-centered solutions. As this inquiry has demonstrated, perceptions of

principal emotional intelligence are strongly correlated to principal leadership behavior.

Another school-based variable related to school effectiveness is that the school

functions openly (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). The distinctive characteristics of

151
openness are cooperation, respect, and transparency within the faculty and between the

faculty and principal. The principal is receptive to teacher ideas, offers genuine and

frequent praise, and respects the competence of faculty. Principals also give teachers

freedom to perform without close supervision and provide facilitating leadership absent

constraints. Likewise, teachers support open and professional behavior among teachers.

Teachers know each other well and are committed to the task of teaching. In order to

facilitate open processes, a principal must possess high levels of emotional intelligence as

described by Goleman (2000). The principal must be acutely self-aware, exhibit self-

control, and show high levels of empathy, optimism, and adaptability, all critical

emotional intelligence competencies.

Yet, enabling structure and open processes do not independently impact student

achievement. Rather, the two variables converge, coming together at a third school-

controlled variable called academic optimism (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2005). Preliminary

research by Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy (2005) offers three school properties that result from

enabling structure and open processes that are consistently related to student

achievement, even controlling for SES and other demographic variables: the collective

efficacy of the faculty, the faculty’s trust in parents and students, and academic emphasis

of the school. Hoy, et al. (2005) propose that the commonalities of these three variables

form a single latent construct termed academic optimism which shapes the normative and

behavioral environment of the school and ultimately impacts student achievement.

These relationships are shown in the refined structural equation model proposed

below. Enabling principal leadership directly influences enabling school structure.

Similarly, principal emotional intelligence directly influences openness as well as

152
enabling principal leadership. Openness and enabling structure converge to directly

influence academic optimism, which directly influences student achievement. Socio-

economic status (SES) of the students serves as the control variable.

Visionary Coaching Distributive Collective Trust Academic

Efficacy Emphasis

Enabling
Principal Enabling
Leadership Structure

Academic Student
Optimism Achieve-
Self-
Awareness ment

Social
Awareness
Principal
Emotional Openness
Intelligence
Self-
Management

Relationship Principal Teacher SES

Management Openness Openness

Figure 5.1 Student Achievement Structural Equation Model

Although this newly proposed structural model requires rigorous empirical testing,

the hypothesized relationships are grounded in existing theoretical foundations of school

structure, climate, and student achievement.

153
 Practical Significance

An emerging body of research suggests emotional intelligence may serve as the

common thread that binds together discrete leadership themes such as organizational

outcomes, power and politics, and decision-making processes (see Mayer & Salovey,

1997; Goleman, 1997, Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). As theorized, a dynamic combination of

emotional intelligence competencies informs cognition and guides leadership behavior.

More specifically, emotionally informed cognition drives decision-making processes and

regulates a leader’s deployment of power and authority. The resulting leadership

behavior, guided largely by an individual’s emotional intelligence capacity, can have

either a positive or negative effect on organizational climate (Goleman, 1997). A healthy

and open organizational climate generates high levels of commitment to the mission of

the organization as well as high levels of trust and collegiality (Hoy & Tarter, 1997;

Goddard, Smith, & Hoy, 2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).

Effective leaders influence, inspire, initiate, communicate, create, adapt, achieve,

empathize, support, and serve. They are highly self-confident and optimistic individuals,

who possess acute organizational awareness and political adeptness. All of these

represent emotional intelligence competencies that guide leadership behavior, and all can

be developed over time through accurate self-assessment, reflection, and experience

(Goleman, 1997).

As proposed by Goleman, et al. (2002), effective leaders possess high levels of

emotional intelligence, and they understand what emotions are stoked by which stimuli,

understand the implications of their emotional reactions to those stimuli, and demonstrate

154
the ability to manage disruptive emotions and keep impulses in check. By doing so,

leaders more effectively regulate their power and authority, apply efficient decision-

making processes, assume appropriate orientations to organizational tasks and individual

needs, and increase their likelihood to positively affect the climate and outcomes of the

organization.

Executive research posits significant relationships between a leader’s emotional

intelligence and leadership behavior as well as subordinate perceptions of a leader’s

emotional intelligence competencies and organizational climate (Goleman, et al, 2002;

Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Likewise, organizational research has long established

significant relationships between specific leadership behaviors and the openness of

organizational climates (Halpin & Croft, 1962, 1963; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991;

Hoy & Tarter, 1997, Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002,

Haygroup, 2004).

Consequently, leadership, particularly that of the principal, appears to be an

essential component in fostering school climate (Brookover, et al., 1978; Fox, 1973;

Kelley, 1980; Triosi, 1982; Krug, 1992; Paredes, 1991), and, as Fox (1973) asserted, that

school climate was the “shadow” of its principal. Principals create and refine the symbols

and symbolic activity of the organization that shape the climate (Deal & Peterson, 1993;

Kouzes & Posner, 1989), such as establishing high expectations for both staff and

students (Edmonds, 1978; Kelley, 1980; Leithwood, 1994; Lezotte, 1986) and creating a

vision for the school and enlisting others to share this vision (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1990;

Kouzes & Posner, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 2000). Holley (1995) concluded from a study

of high school administrators and staff members of an urban school district that the

155
leadership style of the administrators can create a climate that is conducive and

supportive of the instructional emphases in the school.

An enabling leadership model in schools aims to match appropriate principal

leadership styles to specific situations to enable individuals and groups to realize

successful outcomes. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) describe effective, enabling

leadership as “balanced,” a matter of knowing when, how and why to do what needs to be

done. Contingency theory helps answer the question when and how specific leadership

behaviors should be deployed. Humanistic theory helps address why. The utility of the

emotional intelligence construct is that it may inform the “what” in enabling leadership.

Schools are being held ever more accountable for increased student achievement

and higher standards of academic excellence, and enabling leadership is a critical

component to establishing and maintaining an open and healthy school climate that

fosters learning for every child. Although theoretical significance exists showing that

individual competencies may impact individual performance, demonstrating such

relationships may prove to be an artificial exercise. In a more practical application of

emotional intelligence theory, people often exhibit these competencies in clusters that

allow competencies to support one another. Emotional competencies seem to operate

most powerfully in synergistic groupings, with the evidence suggesting that mastery of a

"critical mass" of competencies is necessary for superior performance (Boyatzis,

Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). In McClelland's analysis (1998) of the competencies that

distinguish star performers from average ones, he found a “tipping point” effect when

people exhibited excellence in six or more competencies. McClelland (1998) argues that

a critical mass of competencies above the tipping point distinguishes exemplary from

156
average performers. The typical pattern shows that the highest performers are above the

“tipping point” on at least six EI competencies and demonstrate strengths in at least one

competency from each of the four clusters.

Thus, understanding EI competencies, their effect on organizational climate and

their relationship to leadership may be important components of a comprehensive

leadership professional development plan to help principals enhance and develop critical

EI competencies. The competency indicators also might exhibit predictive insight into

the likelihood of principal success in specific situations, thus greatly aiding in the

selection and placement of building leaders who are most likely match the leadership

needs of a specific situation.

Future Research

Mayer, et al., (1990) published the first empirical study that explicitly used the term

“emotional intelligence” and examined individual’s abilities to identify emotions in faces,

abstract designs, and colors, capabilities that had not been studied previously. Goleman

(1998) later popularized emotional intelligence, describing the construct in terms of

emotional competencies in dimensions of awareness and management of oneself or

others that lead to effective or superior performance.

Goleman’s emotional intelligence framework aligns closely to Gardner’s (1983)

intrapersonal intelligence, the ability to step outside of one’s self and reflect.

Intrapersonal intelligence accounts for deeply philosophical concepts such as

concentration of the mind, mindfulness, meta-cognition, awareness of personal goals and

motivations, and a transpersonal sense of the self. Individuals with high intrapersonal

157
intelligence generally are self-reflective and self-aware, and therefore recognize their

own strengths and weaknesses, evaluate their thinking patterns, reason with themselves,

and understand their role in relationship to others (Gardner, 1983). Intrapersonal

intelligence is much more difficult to correlate to Mayer and Salovey’s framework of

emotional intelligence, which in part relates emotions to mental sensations such as taste

and color and using emotion in reasoning and problem solving.

Similarly, Goleman’s (1998) model is directly related to Gardner’s (1983)

interpersonal intelligence, conceptualized as one’s ability to relate to and understand

others. Interpersonal intelligence includes seeing things from other perspectives,

listening, using empathy, understanding other people's moods and feelings, counseling,

co-operating with groups, noticing people's moods, motivations and intentions,

communicating both verbally and non-verbally, building trust, peaceful conflict

resolution, establishing positive relations with other people. Again, Mayer and Salovey’s

ability-based model lacks a direct relationship to Gardner’s work. At best, interpersonal

intelligence is reflected in Mayer and Salovey’s fourth branch of emotional intelligence

termed emotional management, understanding the implications of social acts on emotions

and the regulation of emotion in self and others.

This general lack of consensus among emotional intelligence researchers in the

concepts that make up the construct serves as an overarching criticism of the theory and

simultaneously draws into question results of the hypothesized relationships proposed in

this study. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000) expressed concern that the construct of

emotional intelligence has been distorted, and that other researchers have impeded the

establishment of emotional intelligence as a legitimate construct by including unrelated

158
variables, adding unsupported components to the definition, and creating questionable

tests which claim to measure emotional intelligence. As a result, significant correlations

from the present inquiry that are based on Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence

may not be replicated when using the Mayer and Salovey ability-based model. Only

further testing using both frameworks will help establish greater confidence in a general

construct of emotional intelligence.

Additionally, emotional intelligence researchers also lack consensus in methods for

measuring emotional intelligence. Goleman’s (1995) methodology for studying

emotional intelligence in the workplace has relied heavily self-perception and perceptions

of others to measure an individual’s level of emotional competence. However, a

common criticism of the self/others reporting is that people do not always report their

own feelings accurately because they want to respond in the more socially desirable

ways, yielding systematic internal validity questions related to a rater’s self-concept,

emotional or situational factors at the time of the survey. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey

(2000), on the other hand, propose an ability-based model, attempting to assess how well

people perform tasks and solve emotional problems. Ability scores are relatively

unaffected by self-concept, response set, emotional state, and other measurement error

common to self or third-party perception inventories (Caruso, 2003).

This study assumes teachers’ perceptions of consenting principals that were

collected late in the school year are accurate measures of each principal’s emotional

intelligence. Further research is needed to test for variations in teacher perceptions of

principal emotional intelligence at different times of the year and in schools that have not

self-selected to participate in the inquiry.

159
 Additionally, high schools and elementary schools differ in structure. High

school structures often exhibit more clearly defined divisions of labor, more formal

hierarchy of principals, assistant principals, and department chairs, and greater teacher

autonomy overall. Also, high schools and elementary schools differ in levels of parental

engagement. Parental involvement generally is much more direct and ever-present in

elementary schools than in high schools. Therefore, it is reasonable to further consider

the following questions:

• Is there a significant difference between the emotional intelligence of

elementary and secondary principals?

• Is there a positive relationship between perceived principal emotional

intelligence and a parental engagement in the school?

• Is emotional intelligence of the principal related to shared decision making

with parents and teachers?

Goleman (1995) asserts that emotional intelligence may be developed over time

and with experience. If emotional intelligence is, in part, a reflection of how one

perceives oneself and others, significant questions arise related to not only the experience

of the perceived, but also the perceiver.

• Does perception of principal emotional intelligence co-vary with principal

experience?

• Is a teacher’s perception of principal emotional intelligence related the

teacher’s experience as a teacher?

• How does perception of principal emotional intelligence impact principal

selection, retention, or promotion in school districts?

160
 • Is the degree of congruence between teacher perception of principal

emotional intelligence and the principal’s self-perception a predictor of

healthy school climate? Open interpersonal relations? Authentic principal

behavior?

Finally, principal effectiveness is described by Waters, Marzano, and McNulty

(2003) as balanced leadership, a matter of knowing when, how and why to do what needs

to be done, which prompts the following questions:

• Are high levels of specific emotional intelligence competencies necessary

for balanced leadership?

• Is perceived principal emotional intelligence a necessary condition to

perceived principal effectiveness?

All of the questions posed above as well as the earlier hypothesized model of

student achievement are illustrative of the many possibilities for future research on the

emotional intelligence of principals.

161
 Conclusion

This exploratory study of perceived principal emotional intelligence, principal

leadership behavior, and principal openness should be considered as such: exploratory.

Goleman, et al. (1998, 2000, 2001) have published popular findings of strong and

significant relationships of similar variables in corporate environments, and this study

attempted to probe the heuristics of those findings in elementary school settings. This

study and its tentative findings should be viewed as a starting point for more extensive

research related to principal emotional intelligence, leadership style, openness, and other

variables presumed related, either directly or indirectly, to student achievement.

Although the results reported earlier in this study are constrained by limitations of

principal self-selection and relatively small sample size, this study of principal emotional

intelligence, leadership and openness offers some important findings and should not be

discounted entirely. To begin, this exploration conceptually links specific emotional

intelligence competencies such as transparency, adaptability, empathy, and optimism to

other theoretical constructs such that support higher performance in schools as enabling

bureaucracy (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001), academic optimism (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2005),

and organizational climate (Tarter, Hoy, & Kottkamp, 1991). Goleman, et al. (2001),

assert that emotional intelligence of the organizational leader is a strong predictor of an

organization’s climate and performance in a business environment. Although more

empirical data is needed to make as confident of a claim in schools, the present study

offers enough evidence to guide subsequent research. Further, the present work begins to

lay the foundation for how perceptions of emotional intelligence of the principal is

predictive of how effective the principal will be perceived by teachers at employing

162
appropriate leadership behaviors that enable successful outcomes.

Similarly, Hoy and Sweetland (2001) offer as a further research question related to

their findings on enabling structure, “What kind of enabling leadership is necessary for

enabling schools?” (p. 317). The present inquiry demonstrates three different types of

enabling leadership behavior that may be critical to the development of enabling

bureaucracies:

Enabling principals are visionary leaders who…

• Communicate a clear and compelling vision for the school

• Maintain high expectations for everyone

• Uses a common mission to move people toward shared goals

Enabling principals are coaches who…

• Provide meaningful feedback to teachers

• Promote reflective practice among colleagues

• Challenge faculty with important assignments

Enabling principals are distributive leaders who…

• Entrust important decisions to teachers

• Confidently delegate leadership to groups and individuals

• Comfortably encourage others to assume leadership roles in the school

However, this study also reveals that enabling principal leadership behaviors should

not be considered as discrete leadership styles that exist in isolation of one another.

Rather, enabling principal leadership behavior should be viewed as a combination of

visionary, coaching, and distributive leadership and driven by critical emotional

163
intelligence competencies that lead to enabling structure, and ultimately, high performing

schools.

It may well be that emotional intelligence is a prerequisite to enabling principal

leadership. Self and social awareness as well as management of self and others are

critical aspects of the principal’s behavior that enable the development of supportive

principal action and open interpersonal processes in schools. Thus principal emotional

intelligence is essential in fostering the openness of school climate as well as facilitating

enabling principal leadership.

Ultimately, the structure and functions of the school need to facilitate higher levels of

student achievement. The preliminary findings of this inquiry support the notion that

enabling leadership of the principal will promote enabling school structure. When such

structures are combined with openness in interpersonal functions, it seems reasonable to

expect that a culture of academic optimism is not only possible, but likely, and that such a

culture can overcome the drag of low socio-economic status and promote higher levels of

student achievement. Of course, the latter conclusion remains an untested hypothesis,

which is suggested by the findings of the present research. Such is the nature of

exploratory research. It frames, refines, and extends more focused theoretical models.

164
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J. D. (1986). Transforming Leadership.  Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.

Al-Gasim, S. S. (1991). The relationship between principal leader behavior and middle
school climate in Hail District, Saudi Arabia . Unpublished dissertation.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). Effective Leadership. Local Government Management Board,

London.

Amabile, T. (1988). The intrinsic motivation principle of creativity. In Staw, B. and

Cummings, L.L.(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 10. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.

Anderson, D. P. (1964). Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools. Minneapolis:

Educational Research and Development Council.

Appleberry, J. B., & Hoy, W. K.  (1969). The pupil control ideology of professional
personnel in 'open' and 'closed' elementary schools.  Educational Administration
Quarterly, 5, 74-85. 

Aquino, G. (1985). Educational Administration. Quezon City: Rex Printing.

Argyris, C. (1958). The organization: What makes it healthy? Harvard Business Review,
March-April, 107-116.

Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management

Review, 10, 837-847.

Bachman, W. (1988). Nice guys finish first: A SYMLOG analysis of U.S. Naval
commands. In Polley, R.B. et al. (Eds.), The SYMLOG practitioner: Applications of
small group research. NY: Praeger.

Bailey, S. S. (1988). The relationship between leadership styles of high school principals
and school climate as perceived by teachers. Unpublished dissertation.

Bancroft, R. M. (1986). Principal's leadership style and school climate. Unpublished

dissertation.

165
Barnes, K. M. (1994). The organizational health of middle schools, trust, and decision
participation. Unpublished dissertation. Rutgers University.

Bar-On, R. (2000b). Presentation at Linkage Emotional Intelligence Conference, London,

May 18.

Bar-On, R. & Parker, J.D.A. (Eds.). Handbook of Emotional Intelligence . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., and Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and
performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78.

Barsade, S & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from the top and bottom. In
D. Gruenfeld et al. (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.

Barsade, S. G. & Ward, A. J. et al. (2000). To Your Heart's Content: A mode of affective
diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802-836.

Bartel, C. & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 187-231.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass B.M. and Avolio B.J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: why women may make
better managers. Human Resources Management, 33(4), 549-560. Bennis,
W. (1989).  On Becoming A Leader.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Inc.

Bennis, W. G. (1969). Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects.

Reading, MA:Addison Wesley.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1987).  Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge.  New York:
Harper & Rowe.

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works:  Understanding Success and

166
 Failure in the College Presidency.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bishop, H., & Dagley, D. (1991). The relationship between leadership behavior or
principals and organizational climate within selected middle school. Unpublished
dissertation.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Blake, R. R. & McCanse, A. A. (1991) Leadership Dilemmas – Grid Solutions. Houston,

TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blatt, D. A. (2002). A Study to Determine the Relationship Between the Leadership

Styles of Career Technical Directors and School Climate as Perceived by Teachers.
Unpublished dissertation, West Virginia University.

Block, P. (1993).  Stewardship:  Choosing Service Over Self-Interest.  San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Boyatzis, R. (1999). The financial impact of competencies in leadership and management

of consulting firms. Department of Organizational Behavior Working Paper, Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Boyatzis, R. and Burrus, J.A. (1995). The heart of human resource development:
Counseling competencies. Unpublished manuscript.

Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., and Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On
and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Brody, N. (2000). History of theories and measurement of intelligence (pp. 16-33). In

R.J. Sternberg (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Brothers, L. (1989). A biological perspective on empathy. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 146(1), 10-19.

Burbach, M. E. (2004). Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and full-

167
 range leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept. Unpublished
dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and
SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
J. Earlbaum, Associates Publishers.

Byrne, J. C. (2004).The role of emotional intelligence in predicting leadership and related

work behavior. Unpublished dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology.

Byron, K. L. (2003). Are better managers better at 'reading' others? Testing the claim that
emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance. Unpublished dissertation,
Georgia State University.

Campbell, C. and Wilson, G. K. (1995). Death of a Paradigm; The End of Whitehall?

Oxford: Blackwell.

Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally Intelligent Manager . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Catholic Health Association (1994). Transformational leadership for the healing

ministry: Competencies for the future. St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association of
the United States.

Clark, E. & Fairman, M. (1983). Organizational health: A significant force in planned

change. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 108-113.

Clarke, J. W. and Associates. (1997). Report on emotional intelligence.

Chang, D. (1990). A study of teacher commitment and performance in the public junior
high schools of Taiwan . Unpublished dissertation.

Cherniss, C. and Adler, M. (2000). Promoting Emotional Intelligence in Organizations.

Alexandria, Virginia: ASTD.

Childers, J. H., & Fairman, M. (1985). Organizational health: School counselor as

facilitator. Planning and Changing, 16, 161-166.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. A., & Associates (1988).  Charismatic Leadership.  San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Covey, S. R. (1991).  Principle-Centered Leadership.  New York: Summit Books.

168
Crant, J.M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among
real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80.

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New
York: Grosset/Putnam.

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of
consciousness. New York: Harcourt.

Daus, C. S., and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003), Will the real emotional intelligence please
stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence "debate".
http://siop.org/tip/Oct03/16daus.htm (visited January 12, 2005)

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.

de Fries, M.F.R. (1997). The leadership mystique. In K. Grint (ed.) Leadership: classical,
contemporary and critical approaches. Oxford: O.U.P.

DePree, M. (1989).  Leadership is an Art.  New York: Dell Publishing.

Dominguez-Cruz, G. (2003). Relationship of leadership orientations to emotional

intelligence of public elementary, intermediate and high school principals in Puerto
Rico. Unpublished dissertation, Downing College.

Drucker, P. (1954).  The Practice of Management.  New York: Harper & Rowe.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). The Age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 274 (5),
53-80.

Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Phi Delta Kappan,

64 (4), 4-11.

Emmerling, R. J. & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional Intelligence: Issues and Common

Misunderstandings. Issues in Emotional Intelligence,
1(1).http://www.eiconsortium.org

Ekvall, G (1987). The climate metaphor in organizational theory. In B. Bass & P. Drenth
(Eds.) Advances in organizational psychology, 177-190. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:McGraw Hill

Fisher, J. L. (1994). Reflections on transformational leadership. Educational Record. pp

54-65.

169
Fleishman, G. (1973). Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale, IL:
South Illinois University Press.

Forehand, G. & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in the study of organizational

behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382.

Gantt, S. P., & Agazarian, Y. M. (2004). Systems-Centered Emotional Intelligence:

Beyond Individual Systems to Organizational Systems. Organizational Analysis,
12(2), 147-170.

Gardner, H. (1995).  Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership.  New York:

BasicBooks – Harper Collins Publishers.

George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of
customer service. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25(9), 778-794.

George, J.M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

Gibb, C. A. (1952) in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology.

Addison-Wesley.

Gibbons, T. C. (1987) Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of
development of transformational leaders.” Unpublished dissertation, Fielding
Institute.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November-

December.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-
April.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the
Power of Emotional Intelligence, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Halpin, A. W. & Croft, D. B. (1962). The organization climate of schools. Contract

#SAE 543-8639. U. S. Office of Education, Research Project.

Halpin A.W., & Winer B.J. (1957). A factoral study of the leader and behavior

170
 descriptions in R.M. Stogdill and A.E. Coons (ed.) Leader behavior. Its description
and measurement. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Bureau of Business
Research.

Halpin, A. W. & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago:

The Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago.

Hartley, M. C., & Hoy, W. K. (1972). Openness of school climate and alienation of high
school students. California Journal of Educational Research, 23, 17-24. 

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Hay/McBer (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness

report by Hay McBer to the Department for Education and Employment. Report
prepared by Hay/McBer for the government of the United Kingdom.
http://www.dfee.gov.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/

Haygroup (2004). Driving personal and professional development. Accreditation

training. Boston.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organizational behavior; utilizing

human resources. Eaglewood cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall

Holahan, C.K. and Sears, R.R. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Holley, V. I. (1995). Relationship of administrative style toward attitudes and

implementation of arts education. Unpublished dissertation.

Hooper A., & Potter J. (1997). The Business of Leadership. London: Ashgate Publishing
Co.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16, 321-338.

House, R.J. et al. (1988). Charismatic and non-charismatic leaders: Differences in

behavior and effectiveness. In Conger, J.A. et al. (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The
Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. R. (1986). School climate: A revision of the OCDQ.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 93-100.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and
nature of enabling school structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296-

171
 321.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook
for change, Elementary Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2005). Academic optimism of schools: A
second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Unpublished.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools:
Measuring organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W. K. (2003). Instructional leadership: A learning-centered guide.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. J. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and

Practice, 7th edition.  New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K. & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality Middle Schools: Open and Healthy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978).  The Social Psychology of Organizations.  New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1952). Some recent findings in human relations research. In E.
Swanson, T. Newcombe, and E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in social psychology. New
York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Kelner, S. P. & Rivers, C. A. & O'Connell, K. H. (1996). Managerial Style as a

Behavioral Predictor of Organizational Climate. Boston: McBer & Company.

Kirkpatrick S.A., & Locke E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology 81(1), 36-51

Kottkamp, R. B., Mulhern, J. A., & Hoy, W. K. (1987). Secondary school climate: A
revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 31-48.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. London: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why
People Demand It.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Leban, W. V. (2003). The relationship between leader behavior and emotional

172
 intelligence of the project manager and the success of complex projects. Unpublished
dissertation, Benedictine University.

Lees, A. and Barnard, D. (1999). Highly effective headteachers: an analysis of a sample

of diagnostic data from the Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers. Report
prepared for Hay/McBer.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Likert, R. L. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. L. (1967). The Human Organization. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.
Boston: Division Research, Harvard Business School.

Lord, R.G., DeVader, C.I., & Alliger G.M. (1986). Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
402-410.

Lusch, R.F. and Serpkenci, R. (1990). Personal differences, job tensions, job outcome
and store performance: A study of retail managers. Journal of Marketing, January.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.

Mathews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and
myth . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.

Mayer, J.D., DiPaolo, M.T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in
ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 54, 772-781.

Mayer, J.D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional Intelligence and the identification of
emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-113.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.(2000). Emotional intelligence as Zeitgeist, as
personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional
intelligence. In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.).

173
 Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring and
modeling emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V 2.0. Emotion , 3, 97-105.

Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.J.
Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence. New York: Basic
Books.

Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and
regulation of feelings. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 197-208.

Mayer, J.D.,& Salovey, P. (1993). The Intelligence of Emotional Intelligence. 

Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
Mayer, J. D., & Stevens, A. (1994). An emerging understanding of the reflective (meta-)
experience of mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 351-373.

McBane, D. (1995). Empathy and the salesperson: A multidimensional perspective.

Psychology and Marketing, 12.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, Reinholdt.

McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington Press.

McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

McClelland, D. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.

Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-340.

McGregor D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Metcalfe, L. & Richards, S. (1990). Improving Public Management, 2nd edition. London:
Sage.

Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In F.
D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Moos, R. H. (1987). The Social Climate Scales: A User’s Guide. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale Manual, 2nd Ed.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., & McCaullay, B. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of

174
 the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Norton, M. S. (1984). What's so important about school climate?  Contemporary

Education, 56(1), 43-45.

Pace, J., & Stern, G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psychological

characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 269-
277.

Pacifico, E. (1994). School climate and teacher commitment. Unpublished master's

thesis, College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman.

Payne, W. L. (1985). A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence,; self-

integration; relating to fear, pain, and desire. Unpublished dissertaion, The Union for
Experimenting Colleges and Universities.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, A, & Bommer, M. (1996). Meta-analysis of the

relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee
experience, job attitudes, role perceptions and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 380-399.

Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organization climates. In R. D. McPhee & P.

K. Thompkins (Eds.), Organizational Communication: Tradition, Themes, and New
Directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Reiss, F., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Faculty loyalty: An important but neglected concept in
the study of schools. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 4-21.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Rosier, R.H. (Ed.). (1996). The Competency Model Handbook, Volume 3. Boston:
Linkage.

Sabo, D., Barnes, K., & Hoy, W. K. (1996). Organizational health and decision
participation: An empirical analysis of healthy interpersonal dynamics and teacher
participation. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 576-599.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. (2001). The positive psychology of emotional
intelligence. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), The Handbook of Positive
Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

175
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437-453.

Schulman, P. (1995). Explanatory style and achievement in school and work. In

Buchanan, G. and Seligman, M. (Eds.), Explanatory style. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Schulte, M. J. (2003). Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in

ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? Unpublished
dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University.

Spencer, L., and Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at Work. New York: John Wiley.

Sternberg, R.J., & Detterman, D.K. (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary

viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School climate, teacher empowerment,

and effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.

Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G.H. (1968). Organizational climate: explorations of a concept.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt W.H. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard
Business Review, May-June.

Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K.  (1988).  The context of trust:  Teachers and the principal. 
High School Journal, 72, 17-24.

Tarter, C. J., Hoy, W. K., & Kottkamp, R.  (1990).  School health and organizational
commitment.  Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 236-243.

Taylor, G.J., Parker, J.D.A., and Bagby, R.M. (1999). Emotional intelligence and the
emotional brain: Points of convergence and implications for psychoanalysis. Journal
of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 27(3), 339-354.

Thorndike, E.L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 12, 123-147, 195-216, 271-275.

Totterdell, P. et al. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1504-1515.

Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school

176
 classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93-102.

Wahlberg, H. J. (1969). Social environment as a mediator of classroom learning. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 60, 443-448.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years
of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring

Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weinberger, L. A. (2003). An examination of the relationship between emotional

intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness . Unpublished
dissertation. University of Minnesota.

West M.A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration,
in M.A. West (ed.) Handbook of Work and Group Psychology. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.

Williams, D. (1994). Leadership for the 21st Century: Life Insurance Leadership Study.
Boston: HayGroup

Williams, H. W. (2004). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals:

Emotional intelligence, problem-solving competencies, role perception and
environmental adaptation. Unpublished dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University.

Winslow, E. K. (1986). Basic human elements in managing: A set of givens. Media

Management Journal.

Withrow, J. W. (1993). An investigation of the influence on and the relationship between

principal leadership style, school climate, and school and teacher variables in
secondary schools of Halifax county, Bedford district school board, Nova Scotia,
Canada. Unpublished dissertation.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of

Management, 15, 59-68.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

177