Report on the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association (OPSOA) Leadership Study

Transcription

1 Report on the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association (OPSOA) Leadership Study (June 2008) Howard Stone 1, James D. A. Parker 2, and Laura M. Wood 2 1 Learning Ways Inc., Ontario 2 Department of Psychology, Trent University, Ontario

2 Acknowledgements The Leadership Study was conducted on behalf of the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association. 1

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 1 Table of Contents 2 1. Executive Summary Present Study Central Findings Conclusions and Recommendations 7 2. Introduction Background and Context Present Study Methodology Participants Measures Procedure Central Findings Comparisons by Gender Relationships Among Variables Predicting the Good Leader Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations 22 Tables References Appendices 7.1 EQ-i Profiles Leadership Questionnaires 35 2

4 1. Executive Summary The purpose of the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association (OPSOA) leadership study was to explore the relationship between emotional intelligence and successful leadership from supervisory officers. Specifically, this project sought to identify the key emotional and social competencies required by supervisory officers to successfully meet the demands and responsibilities of their positions within various Ontario school boards. This information can subsequently be used to enhance the content and provide direction for the instructors of the Supervisory Officer s Qualification Program provided in partnership by Ontario Principals Council and the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association (OPC/OPSOA SOQP). The findings can also be used to guide the focus of professional development activities for future and current supervisory officers. There is a growing body of research indicating that emotional and social competencies are strongly related to one s ability to cope with life s daily demands and stressors (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999). Emotional intelligence, not surprisingly, has come to be viewed as an essential factor in the quality of one s general well-being (Taylor, Parker & Bagby, 1999), as well as an important predictor of an individual s ability to succeed on the job (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan & Majeski, 2004; Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2004). Despite popular discussions of EI and workplace success (e.g., Goleman, 1995), that often focus on the top leadership level (e.g., what makes a good CEO, etc), there is growing empirical evidence to suggest that emotional and social competencies are linked with positive leadership abilities and outcomes at various levels within organizations and businesses (George, 2000). 3

5 1.1 Present Study Participants The sample included 57 supervisory officers (25 men and 32 women) from 22 different public school boards in Ontario. Geographically, the boards were from diverse parts of the province. The mean age of the participants was 52.1 years (SD = 4.75), the mean length of time participants had been in the education field was 27.8 years (SD = 6.55), and the mean length of time as a supervisory officer was 4.4 years (SD = 3.10) Procedure Participating supervisory officers provided information about their emotional intelligence by completing the on-line version of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; BarOn, 1997). The EQ-i is a 125-item self-report instrument designed to measure the core features of emotional intelligence (appendix A) using 5-point Likert scales for each item (ranging from 1 being very seldom true of me to 5 being very often true of me ). The EQ-i generates 4 main scales, which make up total emotional intelligence: intrapersonal (consisting of 5 subscales: selfregard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization), interpersonal (consisting of 3 subscales: empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship), adaptability (consisting of 3 subscales: reality testing, flexibility, and problem solving), and stress management (consisting of 2 subscales: stress tolerance, and impulse control). The EQ-i also includes a general mood scale (consisting of 2 subscales: optimism and happiness). Participating supervisory officers also completed a 42-item self-report questionnaire, the OPSOA: Survey of Essential Skills (OPSOA:SES Self-Report), specifically developed for the present study, to assess various leadership abilities. The leadership skills of the OPSOA study 4

6 participants were also rated by three to five individuals they were currently supervising (direct reports) using a parallel set of 42-items (the OPSOA:SES Staff Report). The items on this instrument were created from the qualities of effective supervisory officials outlined in the OPSOA document, A Framework for Leadership in Education. These qualities include acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, modeling lifelong learning, developing a vision for strategic doing, taking and accepting responsibility, building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, ensuring quality and excellence, demonstrating effective communication, fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and building and nurturing relationships. Taken together, scores on these items were used to calculate a total leadership score. Each of the leadership questionnaires also included a 10-point rating of overall leadership ability with 0 meaning No leadership ability and 9 meaning Highest level possible. Seventy-three participants completed the EQ-i. Of these individuals, 63 participants also provided a self-report leadership questionnaire. Fifty-seven participants also had at least three staff-rated leadership questionnaires. Participants with complete data-sets (EQ-i and all leadership questionnaires) did not differ (p >.05) on any of the EQ-i measures from individuals with incomplete data-sets. Information from the completed questionnaires were matched with EQ-i assessment results of the participating supervisory officers to identify the distinguishing emotional and social competencies. 1.2 Central Findings The above average leadership group (identified by the combined self and staff ratings on the OPSOA: Survey of Essential Skills) scored higher than the below average leadership group on 5

7 total EI and the intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and general mood scales of the EQ-i. With regards to intrapersonal abilities, the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence and self-actualization subscales. The above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship subscales of the interpersonal dimension. When investigating adaptability skills, results indicated that the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the reality testing subscale. Although there was no significant difference on the stress management scale, the above average leadership group did score higher than the below average leadership group on the stress tolerance subscale. With regards to general mood, the above average group scored higher on both the optimism and happiness subscales than the below average group. Using only staff ratings on the OPSOA:SES Staff Report to identify above average and below average leaders revealed that the above average leaders scored higher than the below average leaders on the adaptability scale and the interpersonal relationships subscale of the EQ-i. Other interesting findings, supported by previous research on the EI construct (Bar-On, 1997), found women to score higher than men on the emotional self-awareness and empathy subscales of the EQ-i. Women were also found to score higher than men on the self-reported leadership abilities of acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues and modeling lifelong learning. There were no gender differences on any of the staff-rated leadership qualities. All correlations between the leadership ratings from self-reports and staff-reports were non-significant and revealed considerable disagreement among raters. This pattern of results is 6

8 consistent with leadership ratings reported in the OPC study (Stone, Parker, & Wood, 2005), and in reports from other researchers assessing leadership abilities (Humphrey, 2002). These results provide further evidence for the common recommendation in the leadership literature on the need to get leadership ratings from multiple perspectives (e.g., self as well as staff members). 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations Total emotional intelligence was a significant predictor in identifying the supervisory officer perceived as above average on critical leadership skills identified in the OPSOA: Survey of Essential Skills, Self and Staff Reports. The following dimensions of emotional intelligence were better predictors than others. The initial results of this leadership study suggest that consideration be given to these competencies in the selection of new supervisory officers, in the delivery of the SOQP, as well as ongoing professional development of supervisory officers: self-regard (the ability to be aware of and accept one s strengths and weaknesses); emotional self-awareness (the ability to recognize and understand one s feelings and emotions); assertiveness (the ability to constructively express one s feelings and beliefs); independence (the ability to be self-directed in one s thinking and actions); self-actualization (the ability to tap potential capacities and skills in order to improve oneself); empathy (the ability to be attentive to, understand, and appreciate the feelings of others); social responsibility (the ability to demonstrate oneself as a contributing member of society); 7

9 interpersonal relationships (the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships); reality testing (the ability to assess the correspondence between subjective experience and reality); stress tolerance (the ability to withstand stressful situations without falling apart ); optimism (the ability to maintain a positive attitude, even in the face of adversity); happiness (the ability to feel satisfied with one s life and to enjoy oneself and others). Because staff perspectives are so important, it is suggested that extra emphasis be placed on developing the following EI skills that were found to be related to staff ratings of leadership: adaptability (consisting of the abilities of reality testing, flexibility and problem solving) interpersonal relationships (the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships). It is also recommended that this study be replicated with more participants. While the sample in the present study was adequate for some analyses, additional data would allow for an enhanced differentiation of the key EI skills. Consideration may also be given to using EI, specifically scores from a measure like the EQ-i, to support the selection process for supervisory officers. 8

10 2. Introduction 2.1 Background and Context There is a growing body of research indicating that emotional and social competencies are strongly related to one s ability to cope with life s daily demands and stressors (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999). Emotional intelligence, not surprisingly, has come to be viewed as an essential factor in the quality of one s general well-being (Austin, Parker, Petrides, & Saklofske, in press), as well as an important predictor of an individual s ability to succeed on the job or in the classroom (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan & Majeski, 2004; Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2004). Several recent studies, for example, have found a link between emotional intelligence and academic performance in both secondary and post-secondary environments (Parker, Creque, et al., 2004; Parker, Duffy, Wood, Bond, & Hogan, 2005; Parker, Summerfeldt, et al., 2004). Since the introduction of EI into popular media, there has been a strong interest in the relationship between EI and leadership in a variety of workplace environments. Despite popular discussions of EI and workplace success (e.g., Goleman, 1995), that often focus on the top level of leadership (e.g., what makes a good CEO, etc), there is growing empirical evidence to suggest that emotional and social competencies are linked with positive leadership abilities and outcomes at various levels within business, groups and organizations (George, 2000). Trends in the literature on successful leadership suggest that EI contributes to positive leadership behaviour in several basic ways. Individuals with above average emotional and social competencies tend to have advanced verbal and non-verbal communication skills. Communication is an essential skill for leaders who need to express goals and objectives to staff on an ongoing basis. Individuals who have higher levels of EI often have above average coping abilities (Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 1998). The ability to cope with stress is a very important skill 9

11 for successful leaders. Leaders with this skill tend to generate and maintain enthusiasm, confidence, and cooperation in the workplace. Stress is an unavoidable aspect of any workplace, but employees are more optimistic and trusting if they work around or for individuals who cope well under pressure (George, 2000). Recently, a study funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training was conducted to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence and school leadership. The Ontario Principals Council (OPC) leadership study (Stone, Parker, & Wood, 2005) sought to identify which emotional and social skills were necessary for school principals and viceprincipals to successfully fulfill their roles. School administrators have a challenging role to play in most communities. There are over elementary and secondary schools in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2006); each one of these is headed bay a school principal who has a surplus of tasks and responsibilities. The school principal has the primary leadership role for teaching and support staff; they are responsible for the counseling and discipline of students; they must implement school board and government initiatives; deal with staff-to-staff and well as schoolparent conflicts and concerns; at the same time they are in charge of managing budgets that match those of medium sized businesses. Not surprisingly, given the demanding position of school administrators, boards have invested considerable time and attention to the recruitment and training of new principals. The OPC study included a diverse sample of 464 principals or vice-principals (187 men and 277 women) from nine school boards in Ontario. Participants completed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; BarOn, 1997), a 125-item self-report instrument designed to measure the core features of emotional intelligence. The EQ-i generates 4 main scales, which make up total emotional intelligence: intrapersonal (consisting of self-regard, emotional self-awareness, 10

12 assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization), interpersonal (consisting of empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship), adaptability (consisting of reality testing, flexibility, and problem solving), and stress management (consisting of stress tolerance, and impulse control). The EQ-i also includes a general mood scale (consisting of optimism and happiness). In addition to completing the EQ-i, participants rated their own leadership abilities; participants also had their leadership abilities rated by their immediate supervisor (superintendent if principal and principal if vice-principal) and three staff members using a questionnaire that included 21 items related to leadership abilities on two broad leadership dimensions: a task-oriented leadership dimension (e.g., comes well prepared for meetings ) and a relationship-oriented leadership dimension (e.g., seeks consensus among staff members ). In order to identify individuals who were perceived by others as demonstrating above average or below average leadership, a total leadership score was calculated for each individual based on a combination of both supervisor and staff ratings. A below average leadership ability group was created by identifying individuals rated at the 20 th percentile (or less) and an above average leadership ability group was created by identifying individuals rated at the 80 th percentile (or higher). The above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on total EI and all four broad dimensions (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and stress management). However, the two groups did not differ on the general mood scale of the EQ-i. More specifically, the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the emotional self-awareness and self-actualization subscales of the intrapersonal dimension. The above average leadership group also scored higher than the below average leadership group on the empathy and interpersonal relationship subscales of the 11

13 interpersonal dimension. When it came to adaptability skills, the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the flexibility and problem solving subscales. Finally, for the stress management subscales, the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the impulse control subscale. The overall results of the OPC study suggested that professional development programs for principals and vice-principals would be wise to focus on promoting abilities like emotional self-awareness (the ability to recognize and understand one s feelings and emotions), selfactualization (ability to tap potential capacities and skills in order to improve oneself), empathy (ability to be attentive to, understand, and appreciate the feelings of others), interpersonal relationships (ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships), flexibility (ability to adjust one s emotions, thoughts, and behavior to changing situations and conditions), problem solving (ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate potentially effective solutions), and impulse control (ability to resist or delay an emotional behaviors). 2.2 Present Study The purpose of the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association (OPSOA) leadership study was to build upon empirical work done with OPC in exploring the relationship between emotional intelligence and school leadership. The role of a supervisory officer within a school board can be even more challenging than that of a principal or vice-principal. While principals may be dealing with budgets and staff of a medium sized business, supervisory officers are dealing with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars and are responsible for 1000s of employees. This project specifically sought to identify key emotional and social competencies required by board supervisory officers to successfully meet the demands and responsibilities of 12

14 their positions. It is hoped that this information can be used to guide and inform the focus of professional development activities for future and current supervisory officers. 3. Methodology 3.1 Participants The sample included 57 supervisory officers (25 men and 32 women) from 22 different public school boards in Ontario. Geographically, the boards were from diverse parts of the province. The mean age of the participants was 52.1 years (SD = 4.75), the mean length of time participants had been in the education field was 27.8 years (SD = 6.55), the mean length of time as a supervisory officer was 4.4 years (SD = 3.10). There were no gender differences on age, length of time in the field or length of time as a supervisory officer. 3.2 Measures Emotional Intelligence Participating supervisory officers provided information about their emotional intelligence by completing the on-line version of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; BarOn, 1997). The EQ-i is a 125-item self-report instrument designed to measure the core features of emotional intelligence using 5-point Likert scales for each item (ranging from 1 being very seldom true of me to 5 being very often true of me ). The EQ-i generates 4 main scales, which make up total emotional intelligence: intrapersonal (consisting of 5 subscales: self-regard, emotional selfawareness, assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization), interpersonal (consisting of 3 subscales: empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship), adaptability (consisting of 3 subscales: reality testing, flexibility, and problem solving), and stress management 13

15 (consisting of 2 subscales: stress tolerance, and impulse control). The EQ-i also includes a general mood scale (consisting of 2 subscales: optimism and happiness). High scores on these scales can be interpreted as follows: Individuals who score high on the intrapersonal scale tend to understand their emotions and are able to express and communicate their feeling and needs. Those scoring high on the interpersonal scale are likely to have satisfying interpersonal relationships, are good listeners and are able to understand and appreciate the feelings of others. Individuals with high adaptability scores are flexible, realistic, and effective in managing change; good at finding positive ways of dealing with everyday problems. Those with high scores on the stress management scale are generally calm and work well under pressure; they are rarely impulsive and can usually respond to a stressful event without an emotional outburst. Individuals who score high on the general mood scale feel satisfied with their lives and maintain a positive outlook Leadership Supervisory officers also completed a 42-item self-report questionnaire, the OPSOA: Survey of Essential Skills (OPSOA:SES Self-Report), especially developed for the present study, which assessed various leadership abilities (Appendix presents the list of items as well as instructions for this instrument). The items on this instrument were created based on the qualities of effective supervisory officials as outlined in the OPSOA document, A Framework for Leadership in Education. These qualities include acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, modeling lifelong learning, developing a vision for strategic doing, 14

16 taking and accepting responsibility, building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, ensuring quality and excellence, demonstrating effective communication, fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and building and nurturing relationships. Taken together, scores on these dimensions make up a total leadership score. Leadership skills were also rated by of the participants staff members (principals) using a parallel set of 42-items (see Appendix for the OPSOA:SES Staff Report). Each of the leadership questionnaires also included a 10- point rating of overall leadership ability with 0 meaning No leadership ability and 9 meaning Highest level possible. 3.3 Procedure Participants completed the EQ-i online following instructions distributed in an information package. Participants also completed the self-report leadership questionnaire online following instructions in the same information package. Participants were also instructed to ask five staff members to complete the staff-rated leadership questionnaire online (and to provide them with the instructions on how to do so). Invitations to participate were distributed to approximately 200 potential participants. All completed questionnaires were matched with participants EQ-i assessment results. Seventy-three participants completed the EQ-i. Of those individuals who completed the EQ-i, 63 participants also provided a self-report leadership questionnaire. Fifty-seven participants also had at least three staff-rated leadership questionnaires (there were a total of 273 staff ratings). Participants with complete data-sets (EQ-i and all leadership questionnaires) did not differ (p >.05) on any of the EQ-i measures from individuals with incomplete data-sets. 15

17 4. Central Findings 4.1 Comparisons by Gender Several independent t-tests were performed using gender as the independent variable and each of the EQ-i scales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood) and subscales (self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, self-actualization, empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, stress tolerance, impulse control, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, optimism and happiness) as dependent variables. Women were found to score higher than men on the emotional self-awareness [t (55) = 3.28, p <.05] and empathy [t (55) = 2.09, p <.05] subscales of the EQ-i. Several independent t-tests were also performed using gender as the independent variable and scores from each of the leadership ratings (self and staff-rated) as the dependent variables ( acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, modeling lifelong learning, developing a vision for strategic doing, taking and accepting responsibility, building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, ensuring quality and excellence, demonstrating effective communication, fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and building and nurturing relationships ). Women rated themselves higher than men on acquiring broadbased knowledge of education issues [t (55) = 2.64, p <.05] and modeling lifelong learning [t (55) = 2.01, p <.05]. Men and women did not differ (p >.05) on any of the staff-rated leadership qualities. 4.2 Relationships Among Variables Inter-correlations between self-reported leadership abilities and staff-rated leadership abilities (based on the mean of all ratings received) were examined for each of the leadership 16

18 qualities ( acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, modeling lifelong learning, developing a vision for strategic doing, taking and accepting responsibility, building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, ensuring quality and excellence, demonstrating effective communication, fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and building and nurturing relationships ). As shown in Table 1, all correlations between self-reported and staff-rated leadership abilities (including total leadership score and overall leadership rating) were non-significant (p >.05). Several dependent t-tests were also conducted with rater (self vs. staff) as the independent variable and each of the leadership qualities as dependent variables. Staff-rated scores were significantly higher than self-report scores on several of the leadership qualities: acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues [t (56) = 5.32, p <.05], developing a vision for strategic doing [t (56) = 2.25, p <.05], taking and accepting responsibility [t (56) = 2.19, p <.05], building emotional resilience to sustain integrity [t (56) = 5.41, p <.05], ensuring quality and excellence [t (56) = 2.77, p <.05], and demonstrating effective communication [t (56) = 2.22, p <.05]. The staff- rated total leadership score and the overall leadership rating were also significantly higher than the self-report total leadership scores [t (56) = 3.30, p <.05] and overall leadership rating [t (56) = 6.40, p <.05]. Table 2 presents correlations between EQ-i scores (scales and subscales) and selfreported leadership abilities. Many of the correlations were moderate in magnitude and significant (p <.05). Table 3 presents the correlations between EQ-i scores and staff-rated leadership abilities. The majority of correlations were non-significant (p >.05). 17

19 4.3 Predicting the Good Leader Self-Reported Leadership The total self-reported leadership score (based on the sum of the 42 items of the OPSOA: SES Self-Report) was used to separate the participants into two groups: an above average leadership ability group (top 50% based on self-report ratings) and a below average leadership ability group (bottom 50%). Table 4 presents means and standard deviations for EQ-i scores by leadership group. Several independent t-tests were performed using self-reported leadership group as the independent variable and each of the EQ-i scales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood) and subscales (self-regard, emotional selfawareness, assertiveness, independence, self-actualization, empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, stress tolerance, impulse control, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, optimism and happiness) as dependent variables. The above average self-reported leadership group scored significantly higher than the below average group on total EI [t (55) = 4.55, p <.05], intrapersonal abilities [t (55) = 4.36, p <.05], interpersonal abilities [t (55) = 4.38, p <.05], adaptability [t (55) = 3.50, p <.05], and general mood [t (55) = 4.03, p <.05]. The above average group also scored higher than the below average group on the following subscales of the EQ-i: self-regard [t (55) = 2.48, p <.05], emotional self-awareness [t (55) = 3.13, p <.05], assertiveness [t (55) = 3.35, p <.05], independence [t (55) = 2.64, p <.05], self-actualization [t (55) = 3.17, p <.05], empathy [t (55) = 4.08, p <.05], social responsibility [t (55) = 2.84, p <.05], interpersonal relationships [t (55) = 3.67, p <.05], stress tolerance [t (55) = 2.99, p <.05], reality testing [t (55) = 2.73, p <.05], flexibility [t (55) = 2.75, p <.05], problem solving [t (55) = 2.05, p <.05], optimism [t (55) = 3.92, p <.05], and happiness [t (55) = 3.34, p <.05]. 18

20 4.3.2 Staff Rated Leadership The average total staff-rated leadership score (based on the sum of the 42 items of the OPSOA:SES Staff Report) was used to separate the participants into two groups: an above average leadership ability group (top 50% based on staff ratings) and a below average leadership ability group (bottom 50%). Table 5 presents means and standard deviations for EQ-i scores by leadership group. Several independent t-tests were performed using staff-rated leadership group as the independent variable and each of the EQ-i scales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood) and subscales (self-regard, emotional selfawareness, assertiveness, independence, self-actualization, empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, stress tolerance, impulse control, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, optimism and happiness) as dependent variables. The above average staff-rated leadership group scored significantly higher than the below average group on adaptability [t (55) = 2.03, p <.05] and interpersonal relationships [t (55) = 2.58, p <.05]. There were no other significant differences between the two groups (p >.05) Leadership Ability (Based on Combined Self-Report and Staff Ratings) A total leadership score was calculated by adding the self-report scores with the mean of the staff ratings. This composite score was used to create two new groups: an above average leadership group (top 50% based on combined score) and a below average leadership group (bottom 50%). Table 6 presents means and standard deviations for EQ-i scores by leadership group (based on the combined self-report and staff ratings). Several independent t-tests were performed using the combined leadership group as the independent variable and each of the EQ-i scales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood) and subscales (self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, self-actualization, 19

21 empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, stress tolerance, impulse control, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, optimism and happiness) as dependent variables. The above average leadership group scored significantly higher than the below average group on total EI [t (55) = 3.80, p <.05], intrapersonal abilities [t (55) = 4.14, p <.05], interpersonal abilities [t (55) = 4.19, p <.05], adaptability [t (55) = 2.51, p <.05], and general mood [t (55) = 2.85, p <.05]. The above average group also scored higher than the below average group on the following subscales of the EQ-i: self-regard [t (55) = 2.36, p <.05], emotional self-awareness [t (55) = 3.00, p <.05], assertiveness [t (55) = 3.25, p <.05], independence [t (55) = 2.82, p <.05], self-actualization [t (55) = 2.60, p <.05], empathy [t (55) = 3.36, p <.05], social responsibility [t (55) = 2.58, p <.05], interpersonal relationships [t (55) = 3.67, p <.05], stress tolerance [t (55) = 2.47, p <.05], reality testing [t (55) = 2.28, p <.05], optimism [t (55) = 2.95, p <.05], and happiness [t (55) = 2.24, p <.05]. 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions Not surprisingly, women were found to score higher than men on the emotional selfawareness and empathy subscales of the EQ-i. Women were also found to score higher than men on the self-reported leadership abilities of acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues and modeling lifelong learning. There were no differences on any of the staff-rated leadership qualities. All correlations between the leadership ratings from self-reports and staff-reports were non-significant and revealed considerable disagreement among raters. This pattern is consistent with results from the OPC study and in reports from other researchers studying leadership 20

22 perceptions (Humphrey, 2002). The present study provides further evidence for the common recommendation in the leadership literature about the need to get leadership ratings from multiple perspectives (e.g., self as well as staff members). The above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group (based on combined self-report and staff ratings) on total EI and the intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and general mood scales of the EQ-i. With regards to intrapersonal abilities, the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence and selfactualization subscales. The above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationship subscales of the interpersonal dimension. In investigating adaptability skills it was revealed that the above average leadership group scored higher than the below average leadership group on the reality testing subscale. Although there was no significant difference on the stress management scale, the above average leadership group did score higher than the below average leadership group on the stress tolerance subscale. With regards to general mood, the above average group scored higher on both the optimism and happiness subscales than the below average group. The EI and leadership findings are quite consistent with past research on effective leadership. Similar to the core findings from the OPC study, the present study found that emotional self-awareness, self-actualization, empathy and interpersonal relationships differentiated between above average and below average leaders. The current study also found additional intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to be connected to effective leadership. Unlike the OPC study flexibility and problem solving were not connected to successful leadership in the present study, however reality testing was. While impulse control was identified as a critical 21

23 ability in the OPC study, stress tolerance was a predictor with the participants in the present study. General mood was not a significant predictor of leadership ability in the OPC study, but both optimism and happiness were higher in the above average leadership group in the present study. These differences may reflect the differences in job tasks and performance expectations between principals and superintendents. 5.2 Recommendations Consistent with recommendations made in the OPC study, results of the present study suggest that when evaluating leadership abilities multiple perspectives should be used (e.g., self and staff ratings), since different raters can offer quite different points-of-view. Total emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of successful school administration, but to be more specific some dimensions of emotional intelligence were better predictors than others. The results of the present study suggest that professional development programs would be wise to focus on promoting the following abilities: self-regard (the ability to be aware of and accept one s strengths and weaknesses); emotional self-awareness (the ability to recognize and understand one s feelings and emotions); assertiveness (the ability to constructively express one s feelings and beliefs); independence (the ability to be self-directed in one s thinking and actions); self-actualization (the ability to tap potential capacities and skills in order to improve oneself); empathy (the ability to be attentive to, understand, and appreciate the feelings of others); 22

24 social responsibility (the ability to demonstrate oneself as a contributing member of society); interpersonal relationships (the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships); reality testing (the ability to assess the correspondence between subjective experience and reality); stress tolerance (the ability to withstand stressful situations without falling apart ); optimism (the ability to maintain a positive attitude, even in the face of adversity); happiness (the ability to feel satisfied with one s life and to enjoy oneself and others). Because staff perspectives are so important, it is suggested that extra emphasis be placed on developing the following EI skills that were found to be related to staff ratings of leadership: adaptability (consisting of the abilities of reality testing, flexibility and problem solving) interpersonal relationships (the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships). It is also recommended that this study be replicated with more participants. While the sample in the present study was adequate for some analyses, the data was not as stable as that in the OPC study which used a much larger sample. Consideration may also be given to using EI, specifically scores from a measure like the EQ-i, to support the selection process for supervisory officers. 23

25 Table 1 Intercorrelations between self-report and staff-rated leadership abilities. Leadership Abilities Total (N = 57) Males (n = 25) Females (n = 32) Knowledge Lifelong Learning Vision Responsibility Resilience Quality Communication Stakeholders Relationships Total Overall Rating Note: All correlations are non-significant (p >.05). 24

26 Table 2 Intercorrelations for the EQ-i and self-reported leadership abilities (*p <.05). Self-Reported Leadership EQ-i scales Know Lifelo Vision Resp Resil Qual Comm Stake Relat Total Intrapersonal.33*.32*.40*.57*.51*.36*.39*.36*.09.55* Self-Regard *.38*.44*.30*.17.39*.16.41* Self-Awareness.28*.31*.15.35*.30* *.02.35* Assertiveness.29*.18.30*.49*.44*.24.47* * Independence.40*.27*.32*.51* 27*.27* 31* * Self-Actualization *.38*.36* *.09.39* Interpersonal.18.32*.33*.40*.34*.28*.35*.36*.13.43* Empathy.29*.37*.24.36*.28*.28*.38*.28*.02.41* Social Responsibility.13.33*.30* * Interpersonal Relation *.36*.24.33*.35*.12.37* Adaptability.34*.22.37*.41*.33*.36*.37* * Reality Testing *.34*.36*.34*.36* * Flexibility.33* * * Problem Solving.31*.16.29* * * Stress Management *.30* *.11.29* Stress Tolerance *.40* *.08.32* Impulse Control * General Mood *.51*.45*.37*.34*.28*.37*.47* Optimism *.48*.32*.37*.35*.22.40*.46* Happiness *.44*.47*.30*.27*.28*.26.41* Total EI.27*.28*.44*.52*.44*.37*.38*.38*.18.53* Note: Know = acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, Lifelo = modeling lifelong learning, Vision = developing a vision for strategic doing, Resp = taking and accepting responsibility, Resil = building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, Qual = ensuring quality and excellence, Comm = demonstrating effective communication, Stake = fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and Relat = building and nurturing relationships. 25

27 Table 3 Intercorrelations for the EQ-i and staff-rated leadership abilities (*p <.05). Staff-Rated Leadership EQ-i scales Know Lifelo Vision Resp Resil Qual Comm Stake Relat Total Intrapersonal Self-Regard Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Interpersonal * Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relation * *.29*.20 Adaptability Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Stress Management Stress Tolerance Impulse Control General Mood * Optimism Happiness Total EI Note: Know = acquiring broad-based knowledge of education issues, Lifelo = modeling lifelong learning, Vision = developing a vision for strategic doing, Resp = taking and accepting responsibility, Resil = building emotional resilience to sustain integrity, Qual = ensuring quality and excellence, Comm = demonstrating effective communication, Stake = fostering positive relationships with all stakeholders and Relat = building and nurturing relationships. 26

28 Table 4 Means (standard deviations) for the EQ-i scales and subscales for above and below average groups (based on self-report leadership ability). Below Average (N = 28) Mean (SD) Above (N = 29) Mean (SD) Intrapersonal (8.09) (7.67) Self-Regard (9.99) (8.30) Self-Awareness (13.01) (10.99) Assertiveness (9.56) (9.14) Independence (9.03) (7.72) Self-Actualization (8.64) (7.06) Interpersonal (10.65) (7.43) Empathy (12.24) (7.00) Social Responsibility (11.87) (5.75) Interpersonal Relation (11.80) (9.27) Adaptability (7.63) (9.26) Reality Testing (8.88) (8.06) Flexibility (10.56) (9.69) Problem Solving (10.80) (11.80) Stress Management (10.73) (9.30) Stress Tolerance (8.10) (9.42) Impulse Control (13.54) (11.31) General Mood (8.96) (6.07) Optimism (8.58) (6.77) Happiness (9.67) (6.23) Total EI (8.60) (7.78) 27

29 Table 5 Means (standard deviations) for the EQ-i scales and subscales for above and below average groups (based on staff-rated leadership ability). Below Average (N = 28) Mean (SD) Above (N = 29) Mean (SD) Intrapersonal (9.02) (8.86) Self-Regard (9.32) (9.89) Self-Awareness (12.26) (13.19) Assertiveness (10.47) (9.94) Independence (9.49) (7.81) Self-Actualization (7.52) (9.41) Interpersonal (9.91) (10.66) Empathy (10.50) (11.79) Social Responsibility (8.54) (11.09) Interpersonal Relation (12.04) (10.24) Adaptability (9.25) (8.88) Reality Testing (9.58) (8.25) Flexibility (10.52) (10.69) Problem Solving (11.50) (11.25) Stress Management (8.77) (11.44) Stress Tolerance (8.18) (10.14) Impulse Control (11.47) (13.35) General Mood (7.57) (9.41) Optimism (8.72) (8.60) Happiness (8.63) (9.22) Total EI (8.82) (9.81) 28

30 Table 6 Means (standard deviations) for the EQ-i scales and subscales for above and below average groups (based on combined self-report and staff-rated leadership ability). Below Average (N = 28) Mean (SD) Above (N = 29) Mean (SD) Intrapersonal (8.05) (7.92) Self-Regard (10.01) (8.38) Self-Awareness (12.97) (11.20) Assertiveness (9.49) (9.31) Independence (8.86) (7.77) Self-Actualization (8.84) (7.28) Interpersonal (10.20) (8.24) Empathy (12.43) (7.75) Social Responsibility (11.95) (5.91) Interpersonal Relation (11.22) (9.94) Adaptability (8.92) (8.88) Reality Testing (9.30) (7.92) Flexibility (11.67) (9.36) Problem Solving (10.91) (12.00) Stress Management (10.71) (9.42) Stress Tolerance (7.60) (10.16) Impulse Control (13.39) (11.44) General Mood (8.89) (7.26) Optimism (8.80) (7.37) Happiness (9.52) (7.77) Total EI (9.16) (7.93) 29

31 6. References Austin, E. J., Parker, J. D. A., Petrides, K. V., & Saklofske, D. H. (in press). Emotional intelligence. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.) Handbook on Personality. London: SAGE Publications. Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto: Multi- Health Systems. George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, Parker, J. D. A., Creque, R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (in press). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences. Parker, J. D. A., Duffy, J., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (2005). Academic achievement and emotional intelligence: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 17, Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, J. G., & Bagby, R. M. (1998). Alexithymia: Relationship with Ego defense and coping styles. Contemporary Psychiatry, 39, Statistics Canada (2006). A profile of elementary and secondary school principals in Canada: First results from the Survey of Principals. Insights on education: Learning and training in Canada (Vol. 3, No. 2). Stone, H., Parker, J. D. A., & Wood, L. M. (2005, February). OPC leadership study: Exploring the relationship between school leadership and emotional intelligence. Presented at the Ontario Principals Council executive meeting, Toronto, Ontario. Taylor, G. J., Parker, J. D. A., & 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, Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. M., & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53,

32 Appendix 7.1 EQ-i Profiles 31

33 Figure 1 EQ-i profile for self-reported above average and below average leadership groups (* p <.05) *Self-Regard *Self-Awareness *Assertiveness *Independence *Self-Actualization *Empathy *Responsibility *Relationship *Reality Testing EQ-i Subscales *Flexibility *Problem Solving *Stress Tolerance Impulse Control *Optimism *Happiness Above Average (n = 29) Below Average (n = 28) 32

34 Figure 2 EQ-i profile for staff-rated above average and below average leadership groups (* p <.05) Self-Regard Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Responsibility *Relationship Reality Testing Flexibility EQ-i Subscales Problem Solving Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Optimism Happiness Above Average (n = 29) Below Average (n = 28) 33

35 Figure 3 EQ-i profile for above average and below average leadership groups based on combined ratings (* p <.05) *Self-Regard *Self-Awareness *Assertiveness *Independence *Self-Actualization *Empathy *Responsibility *Relationship *Reality Testing EQ-i Subscales Flexibility Problem Solving *Stress Tolerance Impulse Control *Optimism *Happiness Above Average (n = 29) Below Average (n = 28) 34

36 Appendix 7.2 Leadership Questionnaires 35

37 7.2.1 Self-Report Questionnaire Participants were asked to provide information about their current school board, as well as their current position. Participants were also asked to rate themselves on a 10-point scale from no leadership ability to highest possible level of leadership ability. Finally, participants were asked to rate themselves from 1 (very seldom true of me) to 5 (very often true of me) on the following 42 items: 1. I stay current with new developments. 2. I respond to change in a positive manner. 3. I stay current with articles, books and journals which support personal and professional growth. 4. I provide relevant and focused training for leadership and succession planning. 5. I encourage personal and professional growth. 6. I embrace collaborative problem-solving. 7. I set high expectations for myself and others. 8. I lead by example. 9. I model commitment to student success through appropriate innovation. 10. I offer effective coaching to people on new tasks and skills. 11. My actions reflect alignment with ministry and board objectives. 12. I develop and implement effective strategies to meet organizational objectives. 13. I understand and communicate the priorities of the organization. 14. I focus activities on clear, measurable and achievable goals. 15. I ensure policies and procedures are effectively developed and implemented. 16. I respond to others in a timely and sensitive manner. 17. I demonstrate high-level decision-making skills. 18. I consider short and long-term implications of a decision. 19. I facilitate effective meetings. 20. I successfully manage resources to improve student and staff learning. 21. I demonstrate capacity to effectively manage several complex tasks at the same time. 36