148
Debeş, Gülyüz. (2021). The predictive power of
emotional intelligence on self-efficacy: A case of
school principals. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(1). 148-167.
Received : 12.09.2020
Accepted : 23.10.2020
THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ON SELF
EFFICACY: A CASE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Gülyüz Debeş https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-8174
Affiliation
University of Mediterranean Karpsia, Northen Cyprus
gulyuzd5@gmail.com
gulyuz.debes@akun.edu.tr
Biodata(s): She is an Assistant Professor of Educational Sciences at University of
Mediterranean Karpsia. She has been currently supervising and teaching graduate and
undergraduate studies.
Copyright by Informscope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published
elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET.
mailto:gulyuzd5@gmail.com
mailto:gulyuz.debes@akun.edu.tr
http://orcid.org/xxxx
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
149
THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ON
SELF EFFICACY: A CASE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Gülyüz Debeş
gulyuzd5@gmail.com
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the Emotional Intelligence (EI) and its relationship to self-
efficacy among school principals. The study was conducted to determine whether school
principals develop their EI, and whether EI would increase their levels of self-efficacy. The
participants of the study were composed of 50 school principals. The participants were
selected randomly. In the study a multidimensional instrument for school principals’
emotional intelligence competence scale (EIC) was developed and validated. Therefore, the
present study used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to establish the construct validity of the EIC model. The data were based on
quantitative data. For the data analysis Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, Simple Linear
Regression and a series of Mann Whitney-U test were conducted (ANOVA non-parametric
test) were utilized. The results revealed that there was a positive significant correlation
between perceived EI and self-efficacy (r = 53). Thus, it can be stated that EI competence of
school principals predicts strong power on their self efficacy perceptions of them.
Meanwhile, the study showed that school principals' EI competence and self-efficacy
perceptions were high. The results also showed that the perceptions of females on self
efficacy were higher than males.
Keywords: Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy, Educational Leadership, School
principals
1. Introduction
Since the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) has been introduced in the field of
management in recent years. EI has been associated with ‘organizational effectiveness in
form of leadership management and success in the workplace’. Recently, there have been
many models of EI that involve a combination of competence of self-awareness, self-
management, social awareness and relationship management. EI allows for individuals
understanding one’s own and others’ feeling and emotion to differentiate among them to
use this information to regulate one’s thinking and actions while implementing effective
managerial and organizational strategies to strive for excellence in productive workforce
(Goleman , 1998;Boyatzis,Goleman and Rhee,2000).
To deal with factors that promote personal work-related performance and organizational
effectiveness, EI has been defined as ‘best practice to distinguish outstanding
performance from average one’ (The American Society for Training and Development
(ASTD), 2000). In addition, Harvard Business School has also reported that there is no
significant correlation between career success and ‘intellectual aptitude’ (IQ).Goleman
and colleagues (2000) have been reported an analysis data on experiences over 3000
executives have demonstrated link between EI competence leads to superior work
mailto:gulyuzd5@gmail.com
Debes
150
performance and success in workplace. Mainly due to the study, it has been reported that
‘truly effective leaders are distinguished by high degree of emotional intelligence’.
With regard to organizational effectiveness, EI explains higher percentages of variance in
performance criteria than IQ and managerial competency (MQ). An existing research
showed that the measure of emotional intelligence accounted for 36 percent of the
variance to the prediction of level of organizational advancement however IQ accounted
for 27 percent and MQ accounted for 16 percent. Evidence suggests that EI contributes to
‘best practice’ to career advancement than does IQ (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000).
The most effective leaders are those who have the ability to manage own emotions and
create a working climate is favorable for effectiveness of organizations (Williams, 1994;
Hay and McBer, 2000; Robinson et al, 2009). An existing research, using an incidental
sample of 3.781 executives, found that there was significant correlation between EI
competence in a leader and perception of the leader’s team about working climate. The
climate survey predicted from about 50 percent to 70 percent of variance in perception of
the team about working climate was linked to the EI characteristics of the leader.
Drawing attention on EI based leadership style affect climate (Hay and McBer, 2000).
With regard to leadership style EI has influence on organizational effectiveness (McCall,
1998; Barber et al 2010). Evidence suggests that leadership style can also stimulate
students’ academic achievement by directly affecting school climate (Barnard, 1999;
Bryke et al 2000; Robinson, 2009). The most effective school leaders are those who
create not only a positive working climate and promote organizational advancement. In
recent review, research has been reported that teachers’ attitudes are more positive when
the school leader is high on EI (Hay and McBer, 2000).
On the other hand, self-efficacy is a powerful facilitator to improve leaders’ attitudes and
work-related performances in the manner of ‘can do’ beliefs that lead to them to reach
higher degree of goals (Bandura, 1997).The predictive power of self-efficacy relative to
organizational effectiveness is distinguished in job performance and organizational
effectiveness (Wood and Bandure, 1989; Williams and Anderson, 1991; Stajkovic and
Luthan, 1998).
With regard to job performance, a sense of self-efficacy has influence on a leader’s effort
and persistence when the leader is involved in challenging tasks. Effective leaders are
those who have a sense of self-efficacy are incapable of challenging these complex tasks;
they are likely to persist in their efforts. However, leaders are those who have low sense
of efficacy are likely give up to solve the complex tasks when the challenges surface
(Bandura, 1994; Avolio, 2009; Vancouver and Kendall, 2006).
Meta-analyses reported that self-efficacy as motivational construct correlated with work-
related performance in the workplace (Jackson et al, 1997; Bandura, 200; Bandura and
Locke, 2003).
As mentioned above, the effective managerial and organizational implications have
resulted in call for incorporation EI and self-efficacy in the workplace. When literature is
examined, it is seen that the effects of EI competence and self-efficacy on organizational
effectiveness have not been studied previously in combination; therefore, studying these
variables would contribute to the understanding of importance of the positive sources in
education. In addition, there is no study which has been conducted on the relationship
between EI competence and self-efficacy perception of organizational leaders in
particular for educational leadership. Thus, the study is conducted on the relationship
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
151
between EI competence and self-efficacy perception of school leaders. The purpose of the
study is to determine EI level of school leaders and investigating its relation to factors
such as self-efficacy and same demographic variables. Considering that EI and self-
efficacy have influence on organizational effectiveness in forms of personal and work-
related performance, it is important to carry out studies that investigate EI competencies
and self-efficacy perceptions of educational leaders in particular for school leaders that
have critical role in students’ achievement and teachers’ work-related performance in
achieving desired educational goals and objectives.
Moreover, El competence and self-efficacy would help educational leaders to be efficient
role models with respect to leadership style is a continuing concern for organizational
effectiveness.
2. Literature Review
The concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ was first defined as a form of ‘social intelligence
theory’ that referred an individual effect of emotional and motivational response to act wisely
in relationships (Throndike, 1982). Wechsler (1940) introduced that intelligence had
influence on personality traits such as social and emotional factors therefore EI could be an
integrated part of an individual’s personality development. Mainly due to the work of
Gardner (1983), ‘multiple intelligence theory’ (MIT) had widely gave approval theoretical
foundation of ‘interpersonal intelligence ‘and ‘intrapersonal intelligence’. In addition,
Williams and Sternberg (1988) introduced ‘interpersonal intelligence’ and ‘intrapersonal
intelligence’ as a proven record of MIT that referred to understand direct experiences and use
them to function effectively in different situations. Following the literature, Bar-On (1988)
firstly developed a measurement of well-being to assess ‘emotional aptitude’ (EQ).
To extend with MIT, EI has been formulated an emotional intelligence model as a
psychological theory. With regard to the theory, ‘emotional intelligence’ is as a multiple
concept that involves understanding one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions to
differentiate among them to use this information to manage or control one’s thinking and
actions (Salovey and Mayer,1990).
Goleman (1995) has described EI into five groups of skill: self awareness, self regulation,
and motivation, empty and social competence. According to him, EI is as a system of
reflectively regulates social and emotional traits which can evolve cognitive activities into
desired and successful solutions. The following step, EI has been represented the current
version of EI framework. El framework has identified four dimension of EI has been
comprised twenty five competence (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) EI framework
illustrated in figure 1.
Self awareness and self management as EI skills consider being aware of one’s own
emotions, impulses, strengths and weakness in order to control and evaluate them (Mayer and
Stevens, 1994; Taylor, Parker and Bagby, 1999; Davidson, Jackson and Kalin, 2000).
Furthermore, there is a significant body of claim that social awareness is an essential
ingredient of relationship management in social life. Relationship management not only
enables people to use conflict management and collaboration strategies in order to create
effective communication but also it enables them understanding others’ feelings and
emotions to use these information to regulate their thinking and actions to function
effectively in different situations (Bar-On, 2000b; Davidson, Jackson and Kalin,2000) .
To deal with factors that lead to organizational effectiveness, EI plays an important role of
organizational leadership. Spencer and Spencer (1993) conducted a study to compare
leadership performance and EI competencies. The analyzed data form 286 organizations
Debes
152
worldwide reported that eighteen of the twenty-one competencies in their generic model for
distinguishing superior from average performers were EI based. Moreover, Bar-On (1997)
has analyzed data from US and Canada based on a sample of 342 employees has been
indicated that there is strong connection between EQ score and job performance. Evidences
also suggest that emotionally intelligent leadership is key to creating a positively working
climate. There is a significant relationship between the EI abilities and the organizational
climate that reflects a positive sense to do the best (Williams, 1994; Hay and Mcber, 2000;
Cherniss, 2001).
Drawing on models from forty organizations’ effective leaders have shown that average
performers of cognitive capacities are 27 percent however emotional competencies are 53
percent (Goleman, 1998).An extensive review of the growing body of study in the literature
about EI has been mostly conducted on work-related personal and organizational
effectiveness in form of work performance and creating a working climate. Research has
been analyzed data form longitudinal study which compares the EI and intellectual aptitude
(IQ) that contributes to work performance. To deal with the study, EI competence has been
accounted for 36 percent of variance in work performance however IQ has been accounted
for 27 percent (Dulewicz and Higgs, 1998).
On the other hand, leadership style can lead to organizational performance (Barber et al.
2010; McCall, 1998; George, 2000). To deal with the leadership style a substantial body of
research reported that school leadership style has an influence on student learning (Robinson
et al 2009; Bryk et al 2010). In addition, a study has been conducted on forty-two school in
United Kingdom reported that leadership style directly affects organizational performance
and students’ academic achievement. Based on the study, teachers’ attitudes are more
positively affected and students’ academic achievement higher when the school leader is high
on EI (Hay and McBer, 2000).
Furthermore, data have been analyzed from nine large scale of meta-analyses reported that
self-efficacy correlated with personal motivation and performance (Locke and
Latham,2002,Bandura and Locke,2003) thus, self-efficacy is a powerful facilitator to
improve leaders’ attitudes and work-related performance in the manner of ‘can do’ beliefs
that lead to them to reach higher degree of goals (Bandura,1997).
The predictive power of self-efficacy relative to organizational effectiveness is
distinguished in job performance and organizational effectiveness (Stajkovic and Luthan,
1998).Most recently, a number of studies have attempted to define the concurrent validity of
self-efficacy in task performance in the workplace, either in relation to motivational
resources. Based on the studies, self-efficacy mobilizes motivational resources stimulating
high degree work performance when challenges surface (Cortina, 2001; Raub and Liao,
2012).
3. Research Questions
This study aimed to explore the following four research questions:
1. What are the school principals’ EI competence and self-efficacy perception
levels?
2. Does the gender of school principals cause any significant difference in their EI
competence and self-efficacy perception?
3. Does the age of school principals cause any significant in their EI competence
and self-efficacy?
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
153
4. Does the working experience of school principals cause any significant in their
EI competence and self-efficacy perception?
5. Do professional training and development on EI cause any significant between
the school principals?
6. Does EI of school principals predict their self-efficacy?
2. Method
Given the continued consideration in EI and self- efficacy, and the recent interests in
understanding prerequisite leader depositions and skills to succeed in the workplace, the
current study provides an examination about the relationship between EI competence and
self-efficacy perception of school administrators in particular for educational leadership.
Mainly due to the research, a multidimensional instrument for school principals for emotional
intelligence competence scale (EIC) developed and validated. Therefore, the present study
has used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
establish the construct validity of the EIC model. The development and validation of the EIC
factor structure by testing the scale on a second sample of 50 school principals. An initial
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have been outlined. In addition, a series of one-
way ANOVA has been conducted to investigate the effect of demographic variables on EI
and self-efficacy beliefs has been also examined with respect to gender, age, working
experience and professional development. The results also obtained through using Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation and a simple linear regression analysis has been conducted to
predict the power of EI on self-efficacy.
2.1. Participants
The participants of this study were 50 school principals (26 males, 24 females) working
middle schools (secondary school and high school) and primary schools in North Cyprus
Republic (TRNC). These school principals were between the ages of 33 and 59, and have
been in the teaching profession from 10 to 30 years. Regard to professional development of
the school principals on emotional intelligence, there have been 11 participants are those who
have EI training and professional development whereas 39 participants have not attended any
training or professional development program.
Table 1. Demographic Variables
Variables n %
Gender female 24 51.1
Male 26 48.9
Working experiences 10-20 years 14 23.4
21-30 years 22 46.8
31-40 years 14 29.8
Professional
development
Received 11 23.4
Not received 39 76.6
Debes
154
2.2. Research Instrument
2.2.2. Emotional Intelligence Competence Scale (EIC)
The data were collected using Emotional Intelligence Competence Scale (EIC) developed and
validated for this study. Case An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using factor was
conducted to determine the factor structure. EFA is performed in the early stages of
developing EIC. Before performing EFA, measurement appropriateness for the 26 survey
items was evaluated through use of descriptive statistics. The 15 items were factor analysis
by SPSS using maximum likelihood factor analysis with rotation. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.89 and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was
significant (p<.001). As a result, 15 of 26 items were removed. Item analyses were conducted
on the remaining 15 items fit a three factor; self regulation, relationship management and
optimism constructed variance of %68.83. Table 2 shows factor loadings items for
exploratory factor analysis of the items for measuring EIC.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used AMOS version to confirm the factors within an
new sample, followed by a reilability analysis to determine internal and external validity of
scale items. The conventional chi‐square test, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean
square error approximation (RMSEA) values were used to evaluate model fit. A non-
significant level of (P >0.05) χ2 is desirable and suggests the model adequately represents
the data. The CFI can range from 0 to 1.0 and estimates the proportion of the sample
variances and co-variances explained by the model. CFI values > 0.95 and RMSEA values <
0.08 are considered to represent ‘good’ correspondence between observed. Standardized path
coefficients (factor loadings), factor correlations and second order loadings were examined to
evaluate the relationship between each indicator with its associated factor. The table 3 shows
the model fit measurement statistic.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
155
ER
EQ36e1
,59
EQ27e2
,82EQ20e3
,66
EQ18e4
,76
EQ15e5 ,66
EQ11e6
,75
RM
EQ33e7
,30
EQ32e8
,46EQ31e9
,73
EQ30e10
,85
EQ29e11 ,63
EQ19e12
,86
O
EQ38e13
,87EQ37e14
,77
EQ21e15
,58
,78
,30
,32
Debes
156
Table 2. Items and Factor Loadings
Items
S
e
lf
re
g
u
la
ti
o
n
R
e
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
t
O
p
ti
m
is
im
EQ11 .67
EQ15 .78
EQ18 .65
EQ19 .64
EQ20 .74
EQ21 .72
EQ27 .62
EQ29 .70
EQ30 .74
EQ31 .73
EQ32 .62
EQ33 .57
EQ36 .80
EQ37 .80
EQ38 .86
Table 3. Model Fit Statistic
CMIN/DF GFI CFI RMSEA
Model fit indeks <3.00 0.95 0.95 <0.08
Model 1.18 .96 .97 .063
Factor correlations with respective factor, and with each of the factor were demonstrated
significant positive correlations between SR and RM; r=.53(p<.001); SR and OP, r=.38
(p<.001);SR and EIC; r=.82 (p<.001).As predicted, there was a significant correlation
between SR and RM; r=.53 (p<.001); SR and OP; r=.38 (p<.001);SR and EIC; r=.82
(p<.001). Table 4. Factors correlation
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
157
Tabla 4. Factors Correlation
Self Regulation Relationship
Management
Optimizm
Self Regulation -
Relationship
Management
.53** -
Optimizim .38** .37** -
Emotional
Competence
.82** .87** .60**
Reilability analysis for the internal consistency was tested using Cronbach’s alpha for each
competence in SPSS. The Cronbach’s Alpha reilability coefficient was. 86 for the complete
scale (15 items), .86 for self regulation (46items), .80 for Relationship Management (6 items)
and. 76 for iyimserlik ( 3 items). As a resule, strong evidence of consistency in response to
the EIC items was observed. Table 5 Show itam total correlations
Tablo 5. Items Total Correlations
Items R
EQ2 .34
EQ5 .39
EQ7 .57
EQ16 .32
EQ18 .64
EQ19 .69
EQ20 .45
EQ21 .42
EQ27 .68
EQ29 .55
EQ30 .67
EQ31 .58
EQ32 .47
EQ33 .32
EQ37 .48
2.2.3. General Self-Efficacy Scale
Debes
158
The General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale was used in the study. It was consisted on two
dimensions such as effort and persistence and ability and confidence. Alpha internal
consistencies for the two factors were found between .79 and .63 respectively. The overall
alpha internal consistency of the GSE was found. 83. Test-retest reilability scale was found to
be (r=.80) (Alpay,2010).
3. Findings
Findings of the study are given under each related research question as in the following:
3.1. Research Question 1
The research question 1 concerns about what school principals’ EI competence and self-
efficacy perception. According to results, the total EIC score of school principals were X̄=
61.06 (SS=7.35) of the three dimensions from high to low were listed as follows: self
regulation X̄=24.70 (SS=3.40), relationship management X̄=23.94 (SS=3.85), and optimism
X̄=12.42 (SS=2.02), with the highest value of 75. In addition, the self efficacy score of school
principals were X̄= 34.81 (SS=4.77) of the two dimensions from high to low were listed as
follows: effort and persistence X̄=20.83 (SS=2.96) and general ability and confidence
X̄=13.98 (SS=1.98), with highest value of 40. Table 6 shows relative the statistic.
Table6. Emotional Intelligence Competence and Self Efficacy
n Min. Max. X̄ SS Skewness Kurtossis
Self regulation 47 17.00 30.00 24.70 3.40 -.159 -.358
Relation
Management
47 9.00 30.00 23.94 3.85 -.300 .759
Optimism 47 5.00 15.00 12.42 2.02 -.277 .180
Emotional
Competence
47 42.00 75.00 61.06 7.35 -.182 .254
Effort persistence 47 14.00 24.00 20.83 2.96 -.658 -.555
Ability confidence 47 9.00 16.00 13.98 1.98 -.650 -.547
General self-efficacy 47 24.00 40.00 34.81 4.77 -.585 -.729
3.2. Research Question 2
The research question 2 concerns about does the gender of school principals make any
difference in their EI competence and self-efficacy perception. To explore whether there were
significant gender differences in school principals’ EI competence and self-efficacy, Mann
Whitney-U test was conducted. The results revealed that there was no significant difference
between male and female school principals concerning their EI competence. The dimensions
of EI competence statistics were listed as follows: self regulation (r=.14, p>.05), relation
management (r=.04, p>.05), optimism (r=.26, p>.05), EICS (r=.16, p>.05). In addition to
examine whether there were significant gender differences in school principals’ self-efficacy
second Mann Whitney-U Test analysis was conducted. The results revealed that there was
significant difference between male and female school principals’ self-efficacy perceptions.
Accordingly, female ( =28.38) managers’ self-efficacy was significantly higher than male (
=19.43) school principals (U (47) =171.000, Z=-2.259, p<.05). Significant differences were listed
as follows: effort and persistence; female ( =28.04); male ( =19.78) indicated that there
was signficant difference between female and male in effort and persistence dimension (U(47)
=179.000, Z=-2.097,p<.05) and ability and confidence female( =28.15); male ( =19.67)
sira
x
sira
x
sira
x
sira
x
sira
x
sira
x
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
159
indicated that there was significant difference between female and male in ability and
confidence dimension (U(47) =176.500, Z=-2.173,p<.05).
Table 7. Mann Whitney-U Test results according to examine gender differences
score Groups
Self
regulation
female 24 26.56 637.50
214.500
-
1.319
.19 male 23 21.33 490.50
Total 47
Relation
Man.
female 24 26.23 629.50
222.500
-
1.147
.25 male 23 21.67 498.50
Total 47
Optimism
female 24 25.42 610.00
242.000 -.746 .46 male 23 22.52 518.00
Total 47
Emotional
competence
female 24 26.52 636.50
215.500
-
1.290
.20 male 23 21.37 491.50
Total 47
Effort and
persistence
female 24 28.04 673.00
179.000
-
2.097
.04
male 23 19.78 455.00
Total 47
Ability and
confidence
female 24 28.15 675.50
176.500
-
2.173
.03 male 23 19.67 452.50
Total 47
General self-
efficacy
female 24 28.38 681.00
171.000
-
2.259
.02 male 23 19.43 447.00
Total 47
3.3. Research Question 3
The research question 3 concerns about does the age of school principals make any
difference in their EI competence and self-efficacy perception. To explore whether there were
significant age differences in school principals’ EI competence and self-efficacy, Pearson
Product-Moment correlation was conducted. The results revealed that there was no
significant difference school manager concerning their EI and self-efficacy. The dimensions
of EI competence statistics were listed as follows: self regulation (r=.14, p>.05), relation
management (r=.04, p>.05), optimism (r=.26, p>.05), EICS (r=.16, p>.05), effort and
persistence (r=.22, p>.05), ability and confidence (r=.14, p>05), general self efficacy (r=.19,
p>.05). Table 8 shows age differences statistic.
N sirax sira U z p
Debes
160
Table 8. Pearson product moment correlation analysis according to age differences
age
Self Regulation .14
Relationship Management .04
Optimizm .26
Emotional Competence .16
Effort and persistence .22
Ability and confidence .14
General self efficacy .19
3.4. Research Question 4
The research question 4 concerns about does the school principals make any difference
than other managers are those who have any training and professional development on EI. To
explore whether there were significant professional development differences in school
principals’ EI competence and self-efficacy, Kruskal Wallis-H test was conducted. The study
analyzed the relationships between managers are those who have any training and
professional development on EI and school principals are those who have any training and
professional development on EI thus, sample of managers divided into two groups (1) the
school principals are those who have any training and professional development on EI (2) the
school principals are those who have any training and professional development on EI.
Accordingly, managers no make any difference than other managers are those who have any
training and professional development on EI and self efficacy. Table 9 shows professional
development differences among managers.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
161
Table 9. Kruskal Wallis-H test results according to professional development
differences among managers
score Groups
Self regulation
have 11 17.05 187.50
121.500 -1.937 .06 have not 36 26.13 940.50
Total 47
Relation
Management
have 11 22.45 247.00
181.000 -.430 .68 have not 36 24.47 881.00
Total 47
Optimism
have 11 16.59 182.50
116.500 -2.110 .06 Have not 36 26.26 945.50
Total 47
Emotional
competence
have 11 17.86 196.50
130.500 -1.699 .09 have not 36 25.88 931.50
Total 47
Effort and
persistence
have 11 26.73 294.00
168.000 -.766 .44
have not 36 23.17 834.00
Total 47
Ability and
confidence
have 11 24.09 265.00
197.000 -.026 .98 have not 36 23.97 863.00
Total 47
General self
efficacy
have 11 25.45 280.00
182.000 -.406 .68 have not 36 23.56 848.00
total 47
3.5. Research Question 5
The research question 5 concerns about does the working experience of school principals
make any difference in their EI competence and self-efficacy perception. To explore whether
there were significant working experiences differences in school principals’ EI competence
and self-efficacy, Kruskal Wallis-H test was conducted. Accordingly, managers no make any
difference than other managers are those who get higher working experience in educational
settings. Table 10 shows working experiences differences among managers.
N sirax sira U z p
Debes
162
Table 10. Kruskal Wallis-H test results according to working experiences differences
among managers
Effort & persistence Ability& confidence General self Efficacy
Self Regulation .51** .42** .49**
Relationship
Management
.56** .40** .51**
Optimizm .12 .08 .11
Emotional
Competence
.56** .43** .53**
3.6. Research Question 6
A research question 6 concerns about does EI has influence on self-efficacy as a predicted
power. When dealing with the question whether there were significant relationship between
EI and self-efficacy, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was run. To deal with the
predictive power of EI on self efficacy Simple Linear Regression analysis was conducted.
According to results, a positive correlation was observed between the scores of school
principals' EI (three dimensions), and self-efficacy(r=.53, p<.001). Table 11 shows the
relationship between EI and self efficacy. The correlation coefficients of school mangers' EI
and self-efficacy, and were, R=.526, R2=.277, F (1, 45) =17.224, p<.01) respectively. The
degree of correlation between the total score of EI and self-efficacy was the highest (R2>.26)
thus EI predict strong power on self efficacy. Table 12 shows the predictive power of EI on
self efficacy.
Table 12. Pearson Correlation Results
Effort&persistence Ability&confidence General self Efficacy
Self Regulation .51** .42** .49**
Relationship
Management
.56** .40** .51**
Optimizm .12 .08 .11
Emotional
Competence
.56** .43** .53**
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
163
Table 13. Simple Linear Regression Results
predictor predictor B SHB β t p Δ R2 R2 F P
general
self
efficacy
Emotional
competence
.811 .195 .526 4.150
.00
0
.261
.27
7
17.224*
*
.00
0
3.3. Discussion and Implication of Findings
The total EI scores and self-efficacy scores of school principals were compared with those
reported by EIC and GSE. This discrepancy could be due to the fact that only 50 school
principals were engaged in the present study. Meanwhile, the study showed that school
principals' EI competence in identifying EIC’s dimensions were high as well as self-efficacy
perception in identifying GSE’s dimensions. Hence, school principals still had no any
limitations in effective leadership management. These findings were compared with the
samples of female and male. When dealing with findings, the perception of females on self
efficacy was significantly higher than males. On the other hand, there were no significant
differences between female and male according to EI competence. This finding was
consistent with other studies. The findings were also compared with school principals’ age
differences. When dealing with the findings, there were no significant differences between
school principals according to their age.
As the professional development of EI knowledge and skills into actions have been required
by school principals when faced with increasingly leadership management has been not
reported in the study that school principals do not required to be endowed with professional
development on EI.
To further identify the impacts of EI on the school principals’ self efficacy perceptions, this
research conducted an analysis on the predictive effects of EI. The results indicated that the
EI's direct action on the school principals’ self-efficacy perception.
Meanwhile, this result is beneficial to better understand the relation between the school
principals' EI and their self-efficacy perceptions. Therefore, the realization of the relationship
between the variables to some extent is likely possible. The findings proved that three factors
of the school principals' EI exhibited a significant positive correlation with the sense of self-
efficacy; therefore, EI is a predictive power on self-efficacy.
These results could not be consisted with other relevant studies because there have been no
any study in literature to explore the relation the relation between the school principals' EI
and self-efficacy perceptions. In our knowledge, the effects of EI competence and self-
efficacy on organizational effectiveness have not been studied previously in combination;
therefore, studying these variables would contribute to the understanding of importance of the
positive sources in education, therefore, determining EI power’s on self efficacy will provide
important contributions to the literature.
4. Conclusion, Recommendations
4.1. Conclusion
This study has verified the effect of EI between school principals' self-efficacy
perceptions. Considering that emotional intelligence and self-efficacy have influence on
organizational effectiveness in forms of personal and work-related performance, it is
Debes
164
important to carry out studies that investigate EI competencies and self-efficacy perceptions
of educational leaders in particular for school leaders that have critical role in students’
achievement and teachers’ work-related performance in achieving desired educational goals
and objectives. Thus, the study attempted to assess also EI and its relationship to self-efficacy
among school principals. The realization of the relationship between the variables to some
extent is likely possible. The findings proved that three factors of the school principals
groups' EI exhibited a significant positive correlation with the sense of self-efficacy; also, EI
is a predictive power on self-efficacy. Thus, the study will contribute to the understanding of
importance of the positive sources in education as well as determining EI power’s on self
efficacy will provide important contributions to the literature.
4.2. Recommendations
In general, high level of EI competence and self efficacy perceptions means that school
principals have been already strengthened. The study has been identified school principals’
condition as the effective leadership roles; correspondingly, future studies can be verified EI
and its relationship to self-efficacy among school principals. The realization of the
relationship between the variables to some extent is likely possible. In summary, EI was not
only intervening variable. Between the school principals' EI and self-efficacy, other variables
may exist that can play important role. Further studies can be verified EI competence and
influencing process between the EI and effective leadership management.
5. Challenges Encountered in the Course of the Study
The study was limited to the sample of 50 school principals in North Cyprus. The samples of
school principals were lower than expected sample thus a series of Mann Whitney-U test
(ANOVA non-parametric test) was conducted.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
165
References
Andersen LL, Kjaer M, Sogaard K, Hansen L, Kryger AI, Sjogaard G. Effect of two
contrasting types of physical exercise on chronic neck muscle pain. Arthritis
Rheum. 2008;59:84–91.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Allison, M. J., & Keller, C. (2004). Self-efficacy intervention effects on physical
activity in older adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26,31–46.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Quotient Inventory. in R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of
emotional intelligence (pp. 345–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brackett, M.A, Rivers, S. E. & Salovey, P. (2011).Emotional intelligence and its
realation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36 1387-
1402
Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in Emotional
Intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory. In R. Bar-On &
J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 313–352).
SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive
competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18, 124-
131.
Chan, D. K.-S., Lam, C. B., Chow, S. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job-
related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A
meta-analytic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 362–376.
Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and organizational effectiveness. In
C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 3–12).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive e.g.: Emotional intelligence in leadership
and organizations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation
study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–372
Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). Emotions in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 121-234.
Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behaviour related to
employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.
Gardner, H. (1983). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, W. L., Rozell, E. J., & Barnes, J. H. (1999). Dispositional affectivity and
explanatory style as predictors of work attitudes, behavior, and performance.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Chicago, IL
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam).
Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam).
Debes
166
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9),
707-717.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning
activities. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 141–156.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and
myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Mayer, J. D. and Salovey, P. (1997) What is emotional intelligence?, in: P. Salovey and
D. Sluyter (Eds) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:
Implications for Educators, pp. 3 – 31 (New York: Basic Books).
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2000b). Competing models of emotional
intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (2nd eds.
,pp.396-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In I. P. Salovey &
D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence (pp. 3-
13). New York: Basic Books.
Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional
episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 805 – 819.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M. and Matthews, G. (2001) Does emotional intelligence meet
traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions,
Emotion, 1(3), pp. 196 – 231.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M. and Matthews, G. (2001) Does emotional intelligence meet
traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions,
Emotion, 1(3), pp. 196 – 231.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books.
Spencer, L. M. Jr., Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. New York: Wiley.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1988). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
Thorndike, E.L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216, 271–275.
Williams, W.M. & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Grup intelligence: Why soma groups are
better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351–377.
Weinberger, L. A. (2002) Emotional intelligence: its connection to HRD theory and
practice, Human Resource Development Review, 1(2), pp. 215 – 243.
Weinberger, L. A. (2004). An examination of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership style. Human Resource Development Review, 54(1),
1151-1158.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R., & Matthews, G.M. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be
schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37, 215–231.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 148-167.
167