ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR, AND OPENNESS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY DISSERTATION

Transcription

1 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

2 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

3 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

4 VITA December 27, Born Columbus, Ohio B.S., Elementary Education The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio M.S, Education Administration University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio Jr. High Teacher, Jackson Center High School, Jackson Center, Ohio Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Shelby County Educational Service Center, Sidney, Ohio Superintendent, Jackson Center Local School District Jackson Center, Ohio Graduate Research Assistant, The Ohio State University Novice G. Fawcett Graduate Scholar, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: College of Education Educational Policy and Leadership Educational Administration iv

5 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 Chapter 2 - Literature Review Emotional Intelligence Leadership Organizational Climate Hypotheses Structural Equation Model Chapter 3 - Methodology Sample Data Collection Variables Measuring Emotional Intelligence Measuring Organizational Climate v

6 Measuring Principal Leadership Behavior Chapter 4 - Results Sample of Elementary Schools Emotional Intelligence Principal Leadership Principal Openness Hypothesis Testing Structural Equation Model Testing Conclusions Chapter 5 - Discussion Summary of Findings Discussion of Findings Theoretical Significance Practical Significance Future Research Conclusion Bibliography vi

7 LIST OF TABLES Chapter 3 - Methodology 3.1 ECI-2 Cronbach s Alphas for Mean Item Scores Chapter 4 - Results 4.1 Regional Distribution of Sample Schools by Area Code Distribution of Sample Schools by Enrollment Demographics of Sample Schools Descriptive Statistics of EI Competencies Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Intelligence Domains ECI v. 2.0 Cronbach s Alphas for Individual Cases Factor Analysis of EI Competencies Bivariate Correlations of EI Competencies Descriptive Statistics for School-level Principal Leadership PLI Cronbach s Alphas of Individual Cases Factor Analysis of Principal Leadership Inventory Comparative OCDQ-RE Alpha Coefficients Factor Analysis of OCDQ-RE Descriptive Statistics of Principal Openness Simple Bivariate Correlations Partial Correlations Controlling for Low Student SES Means and Standard Deviations for LISREL Correlation Matrix for LISREL vii

8 LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Emotional Intelligence Typology Primal Leadership Styles Winslow s Organizational Climate Model Typology of School Climate Principal Leadership Structural Equation Model Chapter 4 - Results 4.1 Hypothesized Structural Equation Model Baseline Structural Equation Model Revised Structural Equation Model Final Structural Equation Model Chapter 5 - Discussion 5.1 Student Achievement Structural Equation Model viii

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 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: Selfawareness, 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 selfconfidence 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

15 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

16 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, selfsecure, 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 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 interpersonal 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

23 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, selfdiscipline, 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

24 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 ). 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

25 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

26 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

27 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

28 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

29 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 problemsolving 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

30 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

31 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

32 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 twentyfive 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 subtests 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

33 Awareness Self-Awareness Social Awareness - Emotional self-awareness - Accurate self-assessment - Self-confidence - Empathy - Service orientation - Organizational awareness Personal Social Competence Self-Management Self-control Trustworthiness Conscientiousness Adaptability Achievement drive Initiative Relationship Management Developing others Influence Communication Conflict management Leadership Change catalyst Building bonds Teamwork & collaboration Competence 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

34 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 selfawareness 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 selfawareness, 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

35 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

36 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

37 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

38 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

39 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 prefrontal 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 prefrontalamygdala 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

40 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

41 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

42 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

43 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

44 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

45 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

46 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

47 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

48 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, selfconfidence, 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

49 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

50 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

51 participative and collaborative style of democratic leadership that encourages selfmanaged 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

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

53 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

54 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 bosscentered 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

55 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, taskoriented 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

56 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

57 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

58 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 laissezfaire, 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

59 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

60 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

61 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

62 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

63 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

64 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

65 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

66 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

67 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

68 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 selfconcept; 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

69 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

70 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

71 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 Problem-centered Procedure-oriented Neutrality Individuality Certainty Descriptive Solution-centered Vision-oriented Empathy Collegiality 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

72 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

73 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

74 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

75 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

76 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

77 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

78 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

79 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 Teacher Behavior Open Open Climate Engaged Climate 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

80 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

81 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

82 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

83 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

84 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

85 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 decisionmaking 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

86 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: H 1 The greater the emotional intelligence of a principal, the more enabling the principal's leadership style. Rationale for H 1 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

87 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. H 2 The greater the emotional intelligence of the principal, the greater the openness of the principal. Rationale for H 2 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

88 restrictiveness, thus increasing openness. A principal who exhibits high levels of competence in the self awareness and self-management clusters, emotional selfawareness, 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. H 3. The greater the enabling principal leadership style, the greater the openness of the principal. Rationale for H 3 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

89 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 (H 1 ) and school climate (H 2 ) directly, and on school climate indirectly through principal leadership (H 3 ). 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, selfmanagement, 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

90 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

91 Visionary Coaching Distributive Enabling Principal Leadership Sle Self- Awareness Openness Social Awareness Self- Management Principal Emotional Intelligence Principal Openness Relationship Management Figure 2.5 Principal Leadership Structural Equation Model 83

92 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 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 within three days received a follow-up message seeking their consent. 84

93 Two days later, a third and final consent request was ed 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

94 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

95 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

96 items represent degrees of the competency being exhibited. For example, emotional selfawareness 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

97 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 Self Assessment ECI-2: Others Assessment Self-Awareness Emotional Self-Awareness Accurate Self-Assessment Self-Confidence Self-Management Self-Control Transparency Optimism Adaptability Achievement Initiative Social Awareness Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation Relationship Management Inspirational Leadership Influence Developing Others Change Catalyst Conflict Management Teamwork & Collaboration 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

98 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

99 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

100 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 relationorientation, 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

101 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 ), 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

102 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

103 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

104 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

105 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

106 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

107 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

108 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 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

109 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, % 34.2% Northwest % 16.9% Southwest 513, % 23.2% Southeast % 15.2% Central % 10.2% Total % 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 school year according to data maintained by the Ohio Department of 101

110 Education. Sixteen schools had enrollment between students; 24 schools had enrollment of 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 Enrollment Number of Schools Percent of Sample State Percentage % 5.4% % 24.4% % 40.1% 451 and above 23 34% 30.1% Total % % 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 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

111 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 , 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 was $47,520. The average teacher salary for the sample in the same year was $47, Sample Sample Minimum Maximum Sample Mean State 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

112 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

113 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 selfconfidence 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 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

114 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

115 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

116 Competency Range Min Max Mean Std. Deviation SELF AWARENESS Target Score 1. Emotional self awareness Accurate self assessment Self-confidence SELF MANAGEMENT Optimism Initiative Achievement orientation Adaptability Transparency Emotional self-control RELATIONSHIP MNGMENT Change catalyst Teamwork and collaboration Developing others Conflict management Inspirational leadership Influence SOCIAL AWARENESS Service orientation Empathy Organizational awareness 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

117 Domain Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev. Self Awareness Self Management Relationship Management Social Awareness Emotional Intelligence Score 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 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

118 ECI v. 2.0 (N>6,056) Current Study (N>440) Self-Awareness Emotional Self-Awareness Accurate Self-Assessment Self-Confidence Self-Management Self-Control Transparency Optimism Adaptability Achievement Initiative Social Awareness Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation Relationship Management Inspirational Leadership Influence Developing Others Change Catalyst Conflict Management Teamwork & Collaboration Table 4.6 ECI v. 2.0 Cronbach s Alphas for Individual Cases Factor Analysis Boyatzis and Goleman (1998) conceptualize emotional intelligence as a fourfactor 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

119 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

120 EMOT_MN 1 2 ACCU_MN SLFC_MN OPT_MN INIT_MN ACH_MN ADP_MN TRNSP_MN ESC_MN * CHG_MN TEAM_MN DEVL_MN CNFL_MN INSP_MN INFL_MN SERV_MN EMP_MN ORG_MN 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

121 Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.Deviation Leadership Behavior Commanding Visionary Coaching Distributive 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. 3 rd 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

122 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 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

123 I Enabling II Commanding COACH8.880 VIS5.876 VIS4.855 VIS6.842 COACH DIS VIS DIS COACH COACH9.673 COM COM2.651 COM1.616 DIS 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

124 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

125 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 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 Q8_DIS Q3_DIS.628 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Table 4.13 Factor Analysis of OCDQ-RE 117

126 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. Principal Behavior Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Supportive Directive Restrictive Principal Openness 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

127 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: H 1 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: H 2 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

128 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: H 3. 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 H 1, 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 H 2. Finally, as predicted in H 3, the correlation matrix yielded a significant, although moderate, correlation between enabling principal leadership behavior and principal openness (r =.336, p <.01). 120

129 1 Emotional Intelligence 2 Enabling Leadership 3 Principal Openness ** **.336** 1.00 ** 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 socioeconomic 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 selfawareness 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

130 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 H 1. The partial correlations also support H 2. 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 H 3 increased slightly to.33 (p <.05). Partial correlations of the variables controlling for school size yielded nearly identical coefficients (r 1 =.77; r 2 =.43; r 3 =.32) Emotional Intelligence (.98) Enabling Leadership Emotional Intelligence Enabling.78** (.87) Leadership Principal 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..43**.34* (.76) Table 4.16 Partial Correlations Controlling for Low Student SES School Openness 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

131 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 (H 1 ) and principal openness (H 2 ) directly, and principal openness indirectly through principal leadership (H 3 ). 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

132 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 M SD Table 4.17 Means and Standard Deviations for LISREL SLFAWARE 1 SLFMNGMT RELMNGMT SOCAWARE VIS_MN COACH_MN DISTR_MN PRN_OPEN Table 4.18 Correlation Matrix for LISREL 124

133 Hypothesized Model Visionary Coaching Distributive Self- Awareness Enabling Principal Leadership H 3 Principal Openness Social Awareness Self- Management H 1 Principal Emotional Intelligence H 2 Principal Openness Relationship Management Figure 4.1 Hypothesized Structural Equation Model 125

134 Baseline Model Visionary Coaching Distributive Enabling Principal Leadership -.20 Self- Awareness Social Awareness Self- Management Relationship Management Principal Emotional Intelligence.93 Principal Openness 1.00 Principal Openness Chi-square = 37.80, df = 24, P-value = , RMSEA = 0.094, R 2 =.60 Figure 4.2 Baseline Structural Equation Model 126

135 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 (p =.036) with an RMSEA statistic of 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

136 Revised Model Visionary Coaching Distributive Self- Awareness Social Awareness Self- Management Relationship Management Principal Emotional Intelligence Enabling Principal Leadership Sle Principal Openness.9 5 Principal Openness Chi-square = 30.85, df = 22, P-value = , RMSEA = 0.079, R 2 =.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 (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 (R 2 =.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

137 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 (χ 2 = 24.41; p = ), a RMSEA goodness of fit statistic approaching the good range (RMSEA = 0.058), and an R 2 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

138 Final Revision Visionary Coaching Distributive Enabling Principal Leadership Self- Awareness Social Awareness Self- Management Relationship Management Principal Emotional Intelligence.82 Principal Openness.9 6 Principal Openness Chi-square = 24.41, df = 20, P-value = , RMSEA = 0.058, R 2 =.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

139 square of 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

140 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

141 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

142 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

143 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

144 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

145 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

146 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 selfawareness, 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 selfreflection. Similarly, school-level means for competencies in the self-management domain indicated that principals, overall, were perceived as demonstrating high levels of 138

147 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

148 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

149 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

150 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

151 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 relationoriented 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

152 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

153 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

154 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

155 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

156 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

157 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

158 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

159 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

160 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 selfcontrol, 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 schoolcontrolled 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

161 enabling principal leadership. Openness and enabling structure converge to directly influence academic optimism, which directly influences student achievement. Socioeconomic status (SES) of the students serves as the control variable. Visionary Coaching Distributive Collective Efficacy Trust Academic Emphasis Enabling Principal Leadership Enabling Structure Self- Awareness Academic Optimism Student Achievement Social Awareness Self- Management Principal Emotional Intelligence Openness Relationship Management Principal Openness Teacher Openness SES 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

162 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

163 the ability to manage disruptive emotions and keep impulses in check. By doing so, leaders more effectively regulate their power and authority, apply efficient decisionmaking 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

164 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

165 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

166 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

167 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

168 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

169 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

170 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

171 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

172 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

173 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, Aquino, G. (1985). Educational Administration. Quezon City: Rex Printing. Argyris, C. (1958). The organization: What makes it healthy? Harvard Business Review, March-April, Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review, 10, 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

174 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, Bartel, C. & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 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), Bass B.M. and Avolio B.J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: why women may make better managers. Human Resources Management, 33(4), 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

175 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 ). 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), Burbach, M. E. (2004). Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and full- 167

176 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, 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, 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

177 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". (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, 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), Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (4), Emmerling, R. J. & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional Intelligence: Issues and Common Misunderstandings. Issues in Emotional Intelligence, 1(1). Ekvall, G (1987). The climate metaphor in organizational theory. In B. Bass & P. Drenth (Eds.) Advances in organizational psychology, 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

178 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, Gantt, S. P., & Agazarian, Y. M. (2004). Systems-Centered Emotional Intelligence: Beyond Individual Systems to Organizational Systems. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 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), 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, 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 U. S. Office of Education, Research Project. Halpin A.W., & Winer B.J. (1957). A factoral study of the leader and behavior 170

179 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, 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. 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, 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), Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and nature of enabling school structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37,

180 321. 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), Kottkamp, R. B., Mulhern, J. A., & Hoy, W. K. (1987). Secondary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 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

181 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, 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, 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, Mayer, J.D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional Intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 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

182 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, 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, Mayer, J.D.,& Salovey, P. (1993). The Intelligence of Emotional Intelligence. Intelligence, 17, Mayer, J. D., & Stevens, A. (1994). An emerging understanding of the reflective (meta-) experience of mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 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), 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, 2 nd Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B., & McCaullay, B. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of 174

183 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), Pace, J., & Stern, G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 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,; selfintegration; 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, 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, 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, Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 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

184 Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 40, 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, 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, Tarter, C. J., Hoy, W. K., & Kottkamp, R. (1990). School health and organizational commitment. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 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), Thorndike, E.L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, , , Totterdell, P. et al. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school 176

185 classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, Wahlberg, H. J. (1969). Social environment as a mediator of classroom learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 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, Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 177