Content uploaded by Hillman Wirawan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hillman Wirawan on Feb 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Educational Management
PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES: THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT
MOTIVATION
Hillman Wirawan, Muhammad Tamar, Elvita Bellani,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hillman Wirawan, Muhammad Tamar, Elvita Bellani, "PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES: THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION", International Journal of Educational Management , https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2018-0127
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2018-0127
Downloaded on: 23 May 2019, At: 01:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:226873 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
1
Principals’ leadership styles: the role of emotional intelligence and achievement
motivation
ABSTRACT
Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the effect of Emotional Intelligence and Achievement
Motivation on Elementary School Principals’ leadership styles. This study investigated the
contribution of Emotional Intelligence and Achievement Motivation on the two major
leadership categories; the task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership.
Methods
This paper is a quantitative study with the implementation of correlation and hierarchical
regression analysis. The surveys (i.e., Emotional Intelligence scale, Achievement Motivation
scale, Leadership Style Questionnaire) were randomly sent to 280 Elementary School
Principals in South Sulawesi, Indonesia and 90 of them completed the survey (mostly male=
77.78%).
Findings
Principals’ Emotional Intelligence significantly predicted both task-oriented and relationship-
oriented leadership. In contrast, the Principals’ Achievement Motivation yielded non-
significant results in predicting both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership style.
The results also suggested that the effect of Emotional Intelligence on two major leadership
styles (i.e., task- and relationship-orientation) outperformed the leader’s Achievement
Motivation.
Research Limitations
This study did not consider the principals’ performance in the analysis. Future studies should
also address this issue by considering leadership performance as well as different culture and
context. On the other hand, the authors developed new measures rather than using preexisting
measures. Although the measures have been constructed according to the scale construction
principles and reached an acceptable standard, future research should advance the
psychometric property of the scales.
Originality
This study discusses the effect of Emotional Intelligence and Achievement Motivation on
task- and relationship-orientation leadership. In addition, this study has also brought a new
insight to understanding leadership styles in collective culture such as Indonesia.
Keywords: Leadership Styles, Emotional Intelligence, Achievement Motivation, and School
Principal.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
2
INTRODUCTION
Leadership styles such as task- and relationship – orientation affect follower’s
attitude, motivation and behaviors (Tabernero and others, 2009). To illustrate, abundant of
studies have also found that transformational leadership style and charisma positively
influence performance (Bass, 1990a; and Shea and Howell, 1999), organizational citizenship
behavior (Humphrey, 2012), and organizational commitment (Dai, et. al., 2013) and brings
positive effects (Deichmann and Stam, 2015; Jacquart and Antonakis, 2015; Nohe et al.,
2013; Wells et al., 2014; Yucel et al., 2014). Regardless of the number of investigations in
the area of leadership style, the transformational and transactional style emerged from the
task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership approach (Bass, 1990b). The effect of some
leadership styles on employees’ behavior and attitude has been well documented (Bass,
1990a; Shea & Howell, 1999; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015). However, there is a paucity in
understanding the antecedents of one’s leadership style.
The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) had been around for decades. Pope &
Singer (1990) and Salovey & Mayer (1990) introduced one of the most cited EI definitions
among researchers. Pope & Singer (1990) defined EI as "the subset of social intelligence that
involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate
among them and use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.” Salovey & Mayer
(1990) defined EI as the ability to manage, recognize, use, understand, and regulate emotions.
Moreover, Bar-On (2000) postulated that emotional and social intelligence is a
“multifactorial array of interrelated emotional, personal, and social abilities that influence our
overall ability to actively and effectively cope with daily demands and pressures.”
Emotion (feeling and moods) serves important aspects of human lives which also
includes the aspects of leadership practices. Decision making is one of the major components
of leadership practice and effective decision making is greatly influenced by the ability to
manage emotion or in other words emotional intelligence. As claimed by George (2000),
people’s cognitive capabilities are informed and influenced by their emotions and their
abilities to manage their emotions effectively. Thus, leaders’ behaviors and decisions are
potentially impacted by the leaders’ emotions and capability to maintain controls over their
emotions.
Based on the works of Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios (2001), Salovey &
Mayer (1990), and Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso (2004) at least there are four major aspects of
EI: the Appraisal and Expression of Emotion, the Use of Emotion to Enhance Cognitive
Process and Control Decision Making, Knowledge about Emotions, and Management of
Emotion. Higgs & Aitken (2003) also claimed that the aspects of EI (i.e., self-awareness,
emotional resilience, influence, interpersonal sensitivity, motivation, intuitiveness, and
conscientiousness and integrity) predicted leadership potential.
The components of EI which have been constructed by the previous findings (Mayer
et al., 2001, 2004; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Schutte et al., 1998) were closely related with
effective leadership behaviors. Leadership tasks require a high level of decision-making
whereas effective decision-making involves some degree of emotional intelligence. Leaders
who possess high emotional intelligence have the capability of monitoring their expression of
emotion, enhance their cognitive process, and control their decisions. Also, the leaders may
have better interpersonal sensitivity, motivation, and influence. All those aspects are
determinants for effective leader behaviors and later also influence certain leadership styles
such as relationship-oriented leadership.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
3
To support, Sosik and Mergerian (1999) highlighted some intersections between
Emotional Intelligence and the aspects of Authentic Transformational Leadership (Bass and
Steidlmeier, 1999). For instance, leaders with high emotional intelligence tend to motivate
their followers in completing tasks while “Individual focus on others” is also related to
individualized attention. The leaders also have professional controls over their behaviors
which they are related to idealized influence or charisma. In addition, high emotional
intelligence allows leaders to control and influence life events (Mcenrue and Groves, 2006).
Another important predictor for leader behaviors is Achievement Motivation (AM).
Emotional intelligence and AM are closely linked because the two constructs determine and
even direct executive functions (Pessoa, 2009). Similar to EI, leaders’ AM potentially acts as
the antecedent of leader behaviors. Achievement motivation is an effort to attain successful
completion and avoid failure (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Murray, 1938).
Meaning, people’s behavior is centered on this two orientations, to attain success or to avoid
failure. Later, Ames & Archer (1987) suggested that two goal-orientations influenced AM;
the performance and the mastery goal. The performance goal focused on the demonstration of
competence while the mastery goal focused on developing competence. Both orientations had
distinct consequences, for example, people with performance goal would withdraw their
effort in the face of failure while people with mastery goal would persist (Elliot and Church,
1997). However, although the performance and mastery goal have different consequences,
Elliot and Church (1997) considered both as the “approach” form of motivation or AM.
Leaders are expected to complete various tasks in organisations. Like other
employees, leadership position also required some degree of AM to complete difficult tasks
successfully. In this case, the effect of AM on leaders’ behaviors is crucial. This has been
supported by some previous findings where AM correlated with leadership behaviors (Alston,
Dastoor and Sosa-Fey, 2010; Corona, 2010 and Hur, van den Berg and Wilderom, 2011).
Considering the above AM theory, leaders are motivated to either approach “success”
or to avoid “failure.” The “performance vs. mastery” is a form of “success” approach
motivation (Elliot and Church, 1997). Leaders with performance or mastery orientation
would seek for successful completion and minimize any potential failure. Successful
accomplishment becomes a source of motivation (Bandura, 1982). Leaders may persist to
succeed as they successfully have accomplished challenging tasks. As the leaders are
persisted to completing tasks or goals, they tend to be more task-oriented. Some studies have
documented various claims that the task-oriented leaders were more transactional and
motivated to use rewards and punishment (Bycio et al., 1995; Dai et al., 2013; Den Hartog et
al., 1997; Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013).
School principals also face similar challenge in leading their organisations (schools).
There are numerous tasks that must be accomplished in daily basis and a principal-teacher
relationship must be maintained. Wahlstrom & Louis (2008) argued that effective principal-
teacher relationship positively impacted teacher’s instructional practices. Further, an effective
principal at school leads to many student and school achievements. To illustrate, effective
principal leadership style encourages teachers to develop competencies and build school
organisational capacity (Youngs and King, 2002).
Implementing one particular leadership style (or approach) is an important aspect of
effective leadership (Yukl, 2012). Although there are some considerable factors, principal’s
choice of a particular approach determines effective leadership at school. A previous call
from Yukl (2012) also stated that future study needed to investigate why a leader commits to
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
4
a particular leadership style. Therefore, investigating the antecedents of leadership style
contributes important information to the field.
Given the above discussions, this study aims to focus on investigating the role of EI
and AM on two leadership styles (i.e., task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Task-Oriented vs. Relationship-Oriented Leadership
Despite the growing definition of leadership, Northouse (2010) identified four
components of leadership; a) leadership is a process, b) leadership involves influence, c)
leadership occurs in groups, and d) leadership involves common goals. These are four
important components to define leadership. Furthermore, leadership is a complex field of
study, and it attracts many scientists and practitioners. To respond to this issue, many
scientists explained the emergence and the existence of either leader or leadership using
various approaches. Northouse (2010), for example, introduced some approaches to
understanding leadership (e.g., trait approach, skill approach, and style approach).
Many of previous studies investigated the various form of leadership styles.
Transformational vs. transactional (Avolio et al., 1999), charisma (Antonakis, 2012), and
authentic leadership (Luthans and Avolio, 2003) are among of the most studied leadership
behaviors. However, those constructs emerge from two leadership taxonomies; task- and
relationship-orientation (Yukl, 2012; Blake and Mouton, 1982). The task orientation is more
closely to explain the degree to which a leader focuses on goal achievement, defining the
roles of followers, and introducing well-defined patterns of communication while the
relationship-orientation leader shows concern and respect for their followers, focuses on their
well-being, and express support. Then, this concept developed and well known as
transactional and transformational leadership style (Bass, 1990b).
In terms of positive effect, Tabernero and others (2009) found that a task-oriented
leader influenced group efficacy and positivism while relationship-oriented leaders increased
cohesion among the group’s members. The transformational leadership and charisma
(relationship-oriented leader) had been found positively influenced followers’ performance
(Bass, 1990a; and Shea and Howell, 1999) improved organizational commitment (Dai et al.,
2013) and fostered organizational citizenship behavior (Humphrey, 2012). Transactional
leadership (task-oriented) could also leverage performance for a short-term project and a very
specific task (Tyssen et al., 2014). Additionally, Dai and others (2013) also postulated that
transactional leadership style influenced organizational commitment via distributive justice.
Emotional Intelligence and Relationship-Oriented Leadership
Goleman (1998) introduced the Emotional Intelligence as an important factor for
leadership effectiveness, and its effect was more vital than cognitive ability. Some studies
suggested that Emotional Intelligence positively predicted transformational leadership
(Alston, Dastoor, and Sosa-Fey, 2010; Corona, 2010 and Hur, van den Berg and Wilderom,
2011). Similarly, Corona (2010) found a statistically significant positive correlation between
Emotional Intelligence and transformational leadership. It appears that emotion plays an
important part in predicting the leader-follower relationship.
The above findings were consistent with the theory of Emotional Intelligence (Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios (2001); Salovey & Mayer (1990); Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
5
2004). Leaders with a sufficient level of Emotional Intelligence can master and regulate their
own emotion. Interpersonal relationship between leader and followers would be fostered and
supported by the leaders’ capability to control their emotional expressions. The Appraisal and
Expression of Emotion, the Use of Emotion to Enhance Cognitive Process and Control
Decision Making, Knowledge about Emotions, and Management of Emotion are very
supportive of maintaining a leader-follower relationship. Therefore, followers may perceive
the leaders as more relationship-oriented rather than the task-oriented leaders.
However, some cultural differences might apply in this case. Tang, Yin & Nelson
(2010) contended that in Taiwan, Emotional Intelligence had a significant and positive
correlation with all areas of transformational leadership practice. In contrast, involving
managers in Rusia as participants, Genderen (2012) found a weak relationship between
Emotional Intelligence and transformational leadership style. These two contrasting findings
indicated that different culture could change the relationship between Emotional Intelligence
and transformational leadership.
Given the above findings, it appears that the evidence supports the relationship
between Emotional Intelligence and transformational leadership behavior. However,
transformational leadership behavior was initially developed from the idea of relationship-
oriented leadership (Bass, 1990b). Thus, the first hypothesis is Emotional Intelligence
predicts the relationship-oriented leadership.
Achievement Motivation and Task-Oriented Leadership
Achievement Motivation is necessary for every employee and anyone who aims to
complete tasks. It directs people either to approach success or to avoid failure (McClelland,
Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Murray, 1938). To approach successful accomplishment,
individuals tend to demonstrate (performance-focused) or develop (mastery-focused) their
competence (Ames & Archer, 1987). This mechanism does not only occur among
subordinates but also explains leadership orientation towards tasks.
Leadership requires a set of competence to complete tasks and achieve leadership
mission. Motivation to achieve goals encourages leaders to focus on observable targets such
as everyday tasks in organisation. High AM directs to perform effectively according to
particular achievement standard (Alston, Dastoor, and Sosa-Fey, 2010; Corona, 2010 and
Hur, van den Berg and Wilderom, 2011). The leader may use rewards and punishments to
maintain high accomplishment standard (Bycio et al., 1995; Dai et al., 2013; Den Hartog et
al., 1997; Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013). According to some previous findings (e.g., Avolio et
al., 1999; Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013), leaders who implement the reward-punishment
approach, motivated towards task completion, and lead followers specific task would be
perceived as a task-oriented leader (or transactional leadership).
The effect of AM on task-oriented leadership could bring some advantages to the
organization, particularly in completing specific task (Tyssen et al., 2014). As the leader
focuses on achieving immediate task accomplishment, his/her orientation shifts to task-
oriented. Although the leader might still possess some degree of transformational leadership,
his/her high motivation to accomplish goals would make him/her perceived as more task-
oriented by followers. Follower perceptions play a dominant part in determining either the
leader is transformational (relationship-oriented) or transactional (task-oriented) (Jacobsen
and Bøgh Andersen, 2015). Thus, when a leader is highly motivated by focusing on
demonstrating or developing competence, committing to reward-punishment approach and
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
6
targeting specific task achievement, he/she don’t only perform as a task-oriented leader but
also perceived as task-oriented leaders.
Brandmo, Tiplic & Elstad (2014) suggested that the achievement goal theory was a
fruitful tool to understand principal school leadership. They analyzed two goal-orientations;
the mastery-goal and performance-goal orientation. The mastery-goal orientation correlated
significantly with principals' efficacy, belief for leading, autonomy, and teacher-principal
trust (Caillier, 2014). In respect with the AM, the performance-approach goal was positively
correlated with the intention to perform well on tasks and break achievement limits (Corker
& Donnellan, 2012).
Linking Emotional Intelligence, Achievement Motivation, and Leadership
Leaders may approach their followers with task-oriented or/and relationship-oriented
style (Stogdil, 1950; Blake & Mounton, 1982; and Northouse, 2010). These two leadership
styles affect followers in different ways (Tabareno et al., 2009). To illustrate, leaders who put
more attention on task achievement prone to be more task-oriented while leaders who care
about followers’ emotion tend to display the relationship-oriented approach. In general, these
two major approaches have formed different terms in leadership studies such as transactional,
transformational and charisma (Yukl, 2012).
Consistent with the previous discussions, this study argues that the EI predicts
leader’s relationship-oriented approach (Alston, Dastoor & Sosa-Fey, 2010; Corona, 2010
and Hur, van den Berg & Wilderom, 2011) while AM predicts leader’s task-oriented
approach (Corker & Donnellan, 2012; Caillier, 2014; and Brandmo, Tiplic & Elstad, 2014).
Ability to effectively understand emotion and manage emotional expressions is an essential
element of a leader-follower relationship. EI would favor the leader to express emotions to
the followers and help to cultivate a leader-follower relationship. Therefore, high EI predicts
relationship-oriented leadership. On the other hand, some leaders are motivated to achieve
goals by focusing on tasks, regular targets, and measurable performance index. In this case,
the leaders commit to high AM, and they potentially utilize rewards and punishment, set
specific task accomplishment, and implement the transactional approach. This, then, leads to
task-oriented as the leaders repeatedly treat their followers with such behaviors.
The relationship-orientation style is also closely related to the servant leadership
where the leaders place the needs of their followers before theirs (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002)
and they make sure the needs of followers are fulfilled (Greenleaf, 1977). On the other hand,
the servant leadership style is positively associated with Public Service Motivation (Liu, Hu
& Cheng, 2015). It is plausible that leaders in public service such as school principals employ
high emotional intelligence to satisfy the need of teachers and students. Consequently, it
forms a relationship-oriented leadership as the leaders attempt to fulfill others’ needs.
Similarly, leaders in many sectors (i.e., public and private) are assigned particular targets and
tasks. As the leaders focus on the accomplishment and prone to display high AM, they start to
form a task-oriented approach.
Both EI and AM are essential for leadership practices in any organisations (Barbuto et
al., 2002; Brown, 2014; Modassir and Singh, 2008). In public service like school, principals,
as well as other leaders, also possess a various degree of EI and AM. Accordingly, school
principals would form a particular leadership approach to deal with day-to-day tasks and
cultivate a leader-follower relationship. One of the antecedents (i.e., Emotion and
Motivation) of leadership approach could dominate leader’s behaviors and eventually created
either task- or relationship orientation.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
7
Based on the above reviews, this study proposes two hypotheses: First, emotional
intelligence significantly predicts leader’s relationship-orientation style (H1), and second,
Achievement Motivation significantly predicts leader’s task-orientation style (H2).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were Schools Principals in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Initially, the
questionnaires were sent randomly to 280 School Principals. There were 100 participants
returned the questionnaires by the deadline (10 workdays to complete). However, 10
participants were discarded from analysis due to incomplete responses. Most of the
participants were men (77.78%) with ages ranging from 35 to 58 years (M= 42.32, SD=
4.75). The majority of participants had served as a school principal for two to four years with
educational level included Bachelor (n= 60) and Masters (n= 30).
Measures
Emotional Intelligence measure
The 22-item Emotional Intelligence scale was constructed in the Indonesian language.
The scale was a five-point Likert scale (1= not at all to 5= very often) with eight reverse-
scored items. The scale was constructed by generating items based on Goleman’s (1995)
dimension of Emotional Intelligence (i.e., self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, and
empathy and social skill). The initial scale had 36 items, and 14 of them were dropped due to
low inter-item correlation (r< .30). The final scale had 22 items with Cronbach’s alpha .77.
An example of the items is saya dapat mengendalikan ekspresi emosi diri yang berlebihan (I
can control my excessive emotional expression).
Achievement Motivation measure
The 16-item Achievement Motivation scale was constructed in Indonesia language.
The scale was a five-point Likert scale (1= not at all to 5= very often) with eight reverse-
scored items. The scale was constructed based on Hartono’s (2007) three facets of
Achievement Motivation (i.e., wishes, desire, and drive). Of 33 initial items, 17 of them were
dropped due to low inter-item correlation (r< .30) resulting 16 final items with Cronbach’s
alpha .72 (e.g., saya bekerja keras untuk menyaingi prestasi rekan kerjaku/ I work harder to
achieve better than my colleagues).
Leadership Style measure
The leadership style measure was constructed in Indonesia language based on two
leadership taxonomy categories; task-orientation and relationship-orientation (Yukl, 2012).
Samson (2006) suggested that the task orientation had five facets (i.e., planning, organizing,
executing, directing, and controlling) and relationship orientation had four facets (i.e.,
supporting, accessible interaction, active listening, and feedback). Researchers preferred
using these two categories of facets in constructing leadership style measures since they had
been used by the prior study (Samson, 2006). The measure was a 28-item Likert scale (1= not
at all to 5= very often) with seven reverse-scored items. There were 28 out of 56 items were
dropped due to low inter-item correlation (r< .30) resulting in 28 final items with Cronbach’s
alpha .74 (e.g., saya menyelesaikan pekerjaan yang lebih prioritas terlebih dahulu/ I
complete the job with higher priority first and saya memberikan target yang harus dicapai
oleh guru dan staf/ I assign target that must be attained by teachers and staff).
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
8
Procedure
Researchers sent all questionnaires (i.e., Emotional Intelligence scale, Achievement
Motivation scale, and Leadership Style scale) randomly to potential participants. In order to
reach the potential participants, three research assistants distributed the questionnaires to 280
schools where each school led by one school Principal. Each school Principal received one
package of surveys containing three separate questionnaires and a letter from the Principal
Investigator. The letter informed the Principals that the study aimed to collect information
about the Principal’s own experience. The researchers had complied with the ethical code
standard, and the data were only treated confidentially and collectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
The descriptive analysis yielded results for all variables in the study. The mean scores
were 69 (SD= 6.93), 87 (SD=8.36), 54 (SD=4.42), and 63.16 (SD=4.92) for motivation, EI,
task orientation, and relationship orientation, respectively.
Table 1
Bivariate Correlations Among Emotional Intelligence, Achievement Motivation, Task
Orientation, and Relationship Orientation
Variable
1
2
3
4
1. Emotional Intelligence
--
.55**
.48**
.41**
2. Achievement Motivation
--
.39**
.26*
3. Task Orientation
--
.53**
4. Relationship Orientation
--
Note: N= 90, **p< .01 and *p< .05
A Pearson product-moment correlation revealed the relationship among EI, AM and
two leadership style variables (i.e., the task orientation and relationship orientation). As can
be seen in table 1, the relationship between EI and AM was found to be significant (r= .55,
p< .01). EI and the two leadership styles also indicated significant correlation. The correlation
between EI and the task orientation (r= .48, p< .01) and the correlation between EI and the
relationship orientation were both significantly positive (r= .41, p< .01). Moreover, the
relationship between AM and two leadership styles was also significant. Achievement
Motivation was found to be positively correlated with the task orientation (r= .39, p< .01) and
the relationship orientation (r=.26, p< .05). Nevertheless, these two correlations were lower
than the correlations among EI, the task orientation, and the relationship orientation. The two
leadership styles also indicated a significant positive correlation (r=.53, p< .01).
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Task Orientation as a criterion
Variable
β
t
R
R2
Adj. R2
ΔR2
ΔF
Step 1
.48
.23
.22
.23
26.73
Emotional Intelligence
.25***
5.17***
Step 2
.51
.26
.24
.02
2.65
Emotional Intelligence
.20**
3.45**
Achievement Motivation
.11
1.63
Note: N= 90; ***p< .001, **p< .01 and *p< .05
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
9
Table 2 revealed the results of hierarchical regression for participant’s task orientation
as the criterion. In step one, EI contributed significantly to the regression model (ΔF = 26.73,
p< .001) and accounted for 22% of the variance in the task orientation. In step two, the
combination of EI and AM also yielded a significant contribution to the regression model (ΔF
= 14.94, p< .001). Additionally, the step 1 revealed significant beta weight (β= .25, p< .001)
for the model. However, after including AM in step 2, it only added 2% of the variance to the
regression model. Moreover, the AM variable did not contribute significant beta weight (β=
.11, p> .05) to the regression model. This first hierarchical regression analysis suggested that
adding AM to the model did not contribute significant incremental value to the regression
model. Thus, AM was not considered a variable that can contribute unique and significant
variance to the participant’s task orientation.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Relationship Orientation as a criterion
Variable
β
t
R
R2
Adj. R2
ΔR2
ΔF
Step 1
.41
.17
.16
.17
18.01
Emotional Intelligence
.24***
4.24***
Step 2
.41
.17
.15
.01
.14
Emotional Intelligence
.23**
3.31**
Achievement Motivation
.03
.371
Note: N= 90; ***p< .001, **p< .01 and *p< .05
The second hierarchical regression for the relationship orientation as a criterion is
described in table 3. In step one, EI contributed significantly to the regression model (ΔF =
18.01, p< .001) where the model contributed 17% to the variance of relationship orientation.
In contrast, the step two contributed non-significant amount of change (ΔF= .14, p> .05) to
the variance. Moreover, the EI yielded significant beta weight for the step one (β= .24, p<
.001) and step two (β= .23, p< .01) but not for AM (β= .03, p> .10). These results suggested
that adding AM to the model contributed no incremental value. Achievement motivation was
not a significant predictor of the leader’s relationship orientation. However, EI explained
17% variance in the leader’s relationship orientation with significant beta weight. The use of
EI as a predictor was more effective than adding AM to the model.
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the effect of EI and AM on two leadership styles; the
task-orientation and relationship-orientation leadership. This study hypothesized that the
Principals’ EI significantly predicted their relationship orientation while their AM
significantly predicted their task-oriented approach. The results suggested that all variables
were significantly correlated. However, the Hierarchical Regression Analysis indicated that
only EI that significantly accounted for variance in both styles (task-orientation and
relationship-orientation). Achievement Motivation did not add significant contribution to the
model.
Based on the analysis, only the first hypothesis was supported. Emotional Intelligence
significantly predicted and added incremental values to the relationship-orientation and task-
orientation style. In contrast, despite the significant relationship with both leadership styles,
AM did not add any significant incremental values to predict the task-orientation.
Surprisingly, EI became a significant predictor for both task- and relationship-orientation
style.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
10
A number of studies found that the EI predicted a transformational leadership style
(Alston, Dastoor & Sosa-Fey, 2010; Corona, 2010 and Hur, van den Berg & Wilderom,
2011). Further, in this study, EI also predicted the principals’ task-orientation style. The role
of emotion and relationship in the public sector is pervasive. The leader’s EI did not only
influence the relationship-orientation but also affected the task-orientation.
This study suggested that EI was an important predictor for the two major leadership
categories. The results indicated that the school principals utilized their EI to lead with
relationship-orientation or task-orientation approach. EI may have acted as an important
factor for cultivating leader-follower relationship as well as becoming the factor for the task-
orientation approach. The principal’s EI influenced either or both the relationship-orientation
or task orientation both.
Some studies have documented robust evidence that motivation predicted leadership
performance (Corker & Donnellan, 2012; Caillier, 2014; and Brandmo, Tiplic & Elstad,
2014). However, motivation towards goal attainment or task completion could not predict a
particular leadership style. This study did not find evidence that high AM could lead to task-
orientation style. The principals possibly utilized a more task-orientation approach to achieve
greater performance. Unfortunately, there was no clear evidence whether or not AM caused
the leader task-orientation.
School Principal plays important roles in bringing success to school, students, and
teachers. Like other leaders in private organisations, a principal also prone to display one
dominant leadership approach. However, a single leadership approach may not be sufficient
for effective school leadership (Day et al., 2016; Marks and Printy, 2003). In this study, it
appeared that Emotional Intelligent should be fostered and utilized properly to improve
principal’s effective leadership style. School teachers (followers) possibly perceived effective
task- or relationship-oriented leadership if the principal approached them with high EI.
Emotional Intelligent also could have facilitated integration between two or more leadership
styles as suggested by Day et al. (2016) and Marks & Printy (2003). Thus, EI became an
important aspect of the school leadership practices. Further, this claim needs future
investigation.
Regardless of the significant contribution of EI and the weak effect of AM, the results
should be interpreted with caution. This study did not investigate the effect of EI and AM on
the leaders’ performance. Researchers only analyzed the influence of the independent
variables on the leadership approach and should not be considered as the principal’s
performance.
CONCLUSIONS
This study found that EI significantly predicted school principals’ task- and
relationship – orientation leadership. In contrast, AM did not add any incremental values to
both leadership styles. This finding suggested that EI was a significant predictor and added
incremental value to the principals’ leadership styles at schools. In contrast, no significant
effects of AM on both leadership styles were found.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
In this study, the scales were designed to specifically capture the school principal’s
leadership styles (i.e., the task – and relationship – orientation style). Albeit all the measures
reached the acceptable psychometric standard, further investigation is encouraged to improve
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
11
the psychometric property of the scales. Therefore, future study should advance the validity
and reliability of the scales.
Second, this study paid less, if any, attention to the effect of the independent variables
on the school principal’s performances. Future study should also focus on the effect of
emotion and motivation on instructional leadership performance. Moreover, the mediating
variables that strengthen the relationship between emotion (or motivation) and leadership
performance should be investigated. Some variables such as gender, organizational climate,
and prior experience could have mediated the relationship among variables.
Finally, although this study employed random sampling and recruited 90 participants,
the generalization of this study should be made with caution. All participants were School
Principals who mostly lived in the same remote area. The future studies should also consider
this issue, whether or not culture or values mediate the relationship between emotion (or
motivation) and leadership styles (or performance).
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
12
REFERENCES
Ames, C, & Archei; J. (198S), “Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning
strategies and motivation processes”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3,
pp. 260-267.
Antonakis, J. (2012), “Transformational and charismatic leadership”, The Nature of
Leadership, Vol. 41 No. 0, pp. 256–288.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re‐examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership”, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441–462.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 122–147.
Barbuto, J.E., Fritz, S.M. and Marx, D. (2002), “A field examination of two measures of
work motivation as predictors of leaders’ influence tactics”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 5, pp. 601–616.
Bar-On, R. (2000), “Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the Emotional Quotient
Inventory”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181–217.
Brown, C. (2014), “The Effects of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Leadership Style on Sales
Performance”, Economic Insights - Trends and Challenges, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 1–14.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership.”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468–478.
Dai, Y. D., Dai, Y. Y., Chen, K. Y. and Wu, H. C. (2013), “Transformational vs.
transactional leadership: which is better?: A study on employees of international tourist
hotels in Taipei City”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 760–778.
Day, C., Gu, Q. and Sammons, P. (2016), “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes:
How Successful School Leaders Use Transformational and Instructional Strategies to
Make a Difference”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 221–258.
Deichmann, D. and Stam, D. (2015), “Leveraging transformational and transactional
leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas”, Leadership
Quarterly, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 204–219.
Elliot, A.J. and Church, M.A. (1997), “A Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance
Achievement Motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1,
pp. 218–232.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027–1055.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
13
Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), “Transactional versus
transformational leadership : An analysis of the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1997, pp. 19–34.
Higgs, M. and Aitken, P. (2003), “An exploration of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership potential”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No.
7–8, pp. 814–823.
Jacobsen, C.B. and Bøgh Andersen, L. (2015), “Is Leadership in the Eye of the Beholder? A
Study of Intended and Perceived Leadership Practices and Organizational Performance”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 829–841.
Jacquart, P. and Antonakis, J. (2015), “When Does Charisma Matter for Top-Level Leaders?
Effect of Attributional Ambiguity.”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 1051–1074.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: A positive developmental
approach”, K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational
Scholarship, pp. 241–261.
McClelland, D. C, Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953), "The achievement
motive", Appleton-CenturyCrofts, New York, NY.
Marks, H.M. and Printy, S.M. (2003), “Principal Leadership and School Performance: An
Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 370–397.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2004), “Emotional Intelligence and the
Intelligence of Emotions”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 216–222.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitarenios, G. (2001), “Emotional Intelligence as
a Standard Intelligence”, Emotion, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232–242.
Mcenrue, M. and Groves, K. (2006), “Choosing Among Tests of Emotional Intelligence:
What Is the Evidence?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9–
42.
Modassir, A. and Singh, T. (2008), “Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavio”, International
Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3–21.
Murray, H. (1938), "Explorations in personality", Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nohe, C., Michaelis, B., Menges, J.I., Zhang, Z. and Sonntag, K. (2013), “Charisma and
organizational change: A multilevel study of perceived charisma, commitment to
change, and team performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 378–389.
Odumeru, J. a. and Ifeanyi, G.O. (2013), “Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership
Theories: Evidence in Literature”, Internationational Review of Management and
Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 355–361.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
14
Pessoa, L. (2009), “How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?”, Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.006.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional Intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185–211.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J. and
Dornheim, L. (1998), “Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167–177.
Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A. and Spieth, P. (2014), “The challenge of transactional and
transformational leadership in projects”, International Journal of Project Management,
Elsevier Ltd and IPMA, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 365–375.
Wahlstrom, K.L. and Louis, K.S. (2008), “How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 458–495.
Wells, J.E., Peachey, J.W. and Walker, N. (2014), “The relationship between
transformational leadership, leader effectiveness, and turnover intentions: Do
subordinate gender differences exist?”, Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, Vol. 7, pp. 64–
79.
Youngs, P. and King, M.B. (2002), “Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 643–
670.
Yucel, I., McMillan, A. and Richard, O.C. (2014), “Does CEO transformational leadership
influence top executive normative commitment?”, Journal of Business Research,
Elsevier Inc., Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1170–1177.
Yukl, G. (2012), “Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need
More Attention”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 66–85.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
Table 1
Bivariate Correlations Among Emotional Intelligence, Achievement Motivation, Task
Orientation, and Relationship Orientation
Variable
1
2
3
4
1. Emotional Intelligence
--
.55**
.48**
.41**
2. Achievement Motivation
--
.39**
.26*
3. Task Orientation
--
.53**
4. Relationship Orientation
--
Note: N= 90, **p< .01 and *p< .05
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Task Orientation as a criterion
Variable
β
t
R
R2
Adj. R2
ΔR2
ΔF
Step 1
.48
.23
.22
.23
26.73
Emotional Intelligence
.25***
5.17***
Step 2
.51
.26
.24
.02
2.65
Emotional Intelligence
.20**
3.45**
Achievement Motivation
.11
1.63
Note: N= 90; ***p< .001, **p< .01 and *p< .05
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Relationship Orientation as a criterion
Variable
β
t
R
R2
Adj. R2
ΔR2
ΔF
Step 1
.41
.17
.16
.17
18.01
Emotional Intelligence
.24***
4.24***
Step 2
.41
.17
.15
.01
.14
Emotional Intelligence
.23**
3.31**
Achievement Motivation
.03
.371
Note: N= 90; ***p< .001, **p< .01 and *p< .05
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 01:52 23 May 2019 (PT)
