Cmnparison of Staff and Administrators
Results for the chi-square Ci) test for independence computation on the survey responses of staff and administrators are displayed in Table 2. Significant differences were observed on 5 out of the 14 items, items 3,4,5, 12 and 14. The n1ost significant difference was found on item 3, where 28o/o of staff indicated only rarely or sometimes while 92Â°/o of administrators indicated they frequently or almost always "listen attentively and think about how others feel. " Overall, survey responses of staff were more aligned than faculty responses to administrator responses . Table 2. Chi Square Values
ci? for Overall Staff (n= 45) and Administrators (n=13) Results
Item 1. I understand what motivates other people, even those from different backgrounds. 2. I am sensitive to others' needs. 3. I listen attentively and think about how others feel. 4. I am attuned to others' moods. 5. I appreciate the culture and values of the group or organization. 6. I understand social networks and know their unspoken nonns. 7. I persuade others by engaging them in discussion and appealing to their selfinterests. 8. I get support from key people . 9. I coach and mentor others with compassion and personally invest time and energy in mentoring. 10. I provide feedback that people find helpful for their professional development. 11 . I articulate a compelling vision, build group pride and foster a positive emotional tone. 12. I lead by bringing out the best in people. 13. I solicit input from everyone on the team . Âˇ 14. I support all team members and encourage cooperation. Note : The term [My administrators] added to staff survey. *a 2:. 05 = 9.488
Chi Square Values 7.665
Null Hypothesis Accept
7.300 19.764 15.889 11 .300 5.793 5.405
Accept Reject Reject Reject Accept Accept
11.895 8.358 14.349
Reject Accept Reject
Administrator responses to questionnaire
Administrators were given the opportunity to elaborate on their perception of leadership qualities and challenges by responding to a set of questions related to the overall study. The responses were coded to determine if any responses were consistent with the qualities of EI. In the first question, administrators were asked to identify the top five characteristics of a good leader in higher education. Of the 13 submitted questionnaires, 61 responses were coded for the seven EI qualities identified by Goleman and Boyatzis (2008) in the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory. Out of the characteristics listed by administrators, 28% were consistent with one of the seven qualities. Out of these 28o/o, the quality of inspiration had the greatest number of identifiers with 35o/o, followed by attunement with 29%, and empathy with 23%. Influence and developing others were each only identified once. The second question asked the participants to identify the two most important factors that helped the administrator attain their current position. Many participants listed education and hard work as factors . However, only two of the 13 participants identified an EI quality as a factor. Therefore, ofthe 26 total responses, 7Â°/o of those were identified as EI qualities . The t\vo qualities identified were attunement and teamwork.
Page 32 Micronesian Educator -Volume 17, 2013
In question three, participants were asked to list the characteristics of people they would want on their leadership team. Out of the 13 participants, nine, or 69~'0, identified emotional intelligent qualities they would like to see in others. Teamwork, attunement, inspiration, and empathy were qualities woven throughout their responses. "Communicate positively and openly," "expect the best from team members," and '"create team spirit" were examples of characteristics identified by patticipants. The final question asked administrators about challenges faced early in their tenure as administrators. Of the 13 submitted surveys, six identified emotional intelligent qualities as challenges. The challenges centered on a lack of empathy, a lack of attunement, a lack of organizational awareness, and a lack of teamwork. Therefore, 46o/o of the participants indicated emotional intelligent factors were lacking that created challenges for them as leaders. Discussion The data from this study is useful in expanding our understanding of leadership and the perception of EI within a Pacific setting. The study could be considered as a foundation for future research in regional institutes of higher education. Significant differences between faculty and administrators may indicate a need for improved communication and interaction between faculty and administrators. It may also imply that although conversations occur, the authenticity is perceived differently between the two groups. Another interesting aspect of the results was on the way the majority of administrators responded frequently or almost always to survey items. These ratings were not consistent with their responses on the questions. Administrators viewed themselves as emotionally intelligent on the survey items, yet did not name EI factors as important leadership characteristics, contradicting the fact that almost half of them mentioned EI factors when asked about leadership challenges. Similarities of positive perceptions between faculty and staff on item 8 regarding the ability of administrators to get support from key people were also interesting. These results indicated a consistent EI strength of administrators. Staff and faculty experience different types of relationships with administrators, which may account for the variance in items with significant differences. The staff may view the relationship as more "boss-subordinate" than faculty. These relationships warrant further study. The self-perception of administrators and their perceived need for professional development opportunities to enhance emotional intelligent skills also emerge from the results of this study. This supports Arney (2006) who suggested that effective leaders must "seek opportunities through professional development activities, collaborating, and reading" in order to create healthy environments in higher education institutions (p. 58). Future research should include futther examination of the survey instrument and research design to strengthen validity and reliability. Piloting of test items for reliability and examining items for validity needs to be conducted. A qualitative component should also be included to triangulate results. Interviews should be conducted with both raters and administrators to provide depth and greater understanding of the participants' survey responses. Additional research should examine the relationship between EI and Pacific cultures in general as well as in regards to leadership styles, specifically in institutes of higher education. More comprehensive studies in a vari-: ety of contex-ts and cultures, for a deeper understanding of the relationship between these variables, need to be conducted. Conducting studies to compare perception of EI of leaders in regional institutes of higher education with measures of effectiveness would also be valuable. This
Page 33 Micronesian Educator -Volume 17, 2013
would include obtaining data on the demographics of participants, such as educational and cultural backgrounds, and the raters ' perceived amount of and type of access to administrator behavior.
Limitations There were some limitations to this study. Surveys were administered in a community college setting on a Pacific island and results have limited generalizations beyond that College. An additional limitation is the term "administrators" was not defined for the survey participants. However, this was intentional since a general view of administrators at the College was sought. The survey also did not differentiate the access of raters to actual administrator behavior. For example, some may have had limited interactions with administrators, yet information was not quantified as a variable in the survey. In addition, survey results captured a moment of time for all participants and results may have differed if surveys were conducted at different times of the year. There was also some assumption that participants understood and replied conscientiously and honestly to survey items and questions. Faculty who submitted responses may have been more inclined to be negative of administrators. In addition, convenience sampling was conducted. Staff and administrators who were on campus during the days of survey dissemination and collection were used for this study. Another lin1itation was in the instrument that was used. Validity and reliability of the constructed survey were not assessed. The survey was created based on the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory by Goleman and Boyatzis (2008). Only two sample questions from each of the seven qualities on the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory were included in this survey. The sample questions were not thoroughly analyzed for inclusion into the survey. Reliability testing through piloting of survey items was not conducted and should be considered for future research.
References Arney, M. (2006). Leadership in higher education. Change, 38(6), 55-58. Bar-On, R. (20 10). Emotional intelligence: an integral part of positive psychology. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 54-62. Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: Talent Smart. Chemiss, C. (1998). Social and emotional learning for leaders. Educational Leadership, 4, 2628. Chemiss, C., Extein, M. , Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychology, 41( 4), 239-245. Cooper, J. , & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123, 27-37. Eddy, P., & Vanderlinden, K. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher education. Community College Review, 34(1) 5-26. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ginsberg, R. (2008). Being a boss is hard: The emotional side of being in charge. Phi Delta Kappan, 12, 292-297. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. , & NicKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership. Boston: HBS Press. Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82-91.
Page 34 Micronesian Educa1or -Volume 17,2013
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 74-81. Goleman, D. (2011). Emotional mastery: Seek to excel in four dimensions. Leadership ÂŁ"Ccellence, 28(6), 12-13. Grewal, D., & Salovey, P. (2005). Feeling smart: The science of emotional intelligence. American Scientist, 93, 330-339. Johnson, R., Aiken, J., & Steggerda, R. (2005). Emotions and educational leadership: Narratives from the inside. Planning and Changing, 36(3/4), 235-252. Nfayer, J., DiPaolo, M. T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Personality Assessment, 54, 772781. Mayer, J. , Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. Moore, B. (2009). Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school reform. American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20-28. Munroe, M. D. (2009). Correlation of emotional intelligence and instructional leadership behaviors. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. 3401625 Murphy, J. (2006). Elephants or dinosaurs? A call to action for Ed Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(8), 529-536. Singh, P ., Manser, P ., & Mestry, R. (2007). Importance of emotional intelligence in conceptualizing collegial leadership in education. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 541563. VanderVoot, D. (2006). The importance of emotional intelligence in higher education. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 25, 4-7.
Page 35 Micronesian Educator -Volume 17, 2013
Published on May 30, 2014
Administrators at a Pacific Island Community College. By: Michelle Santos and Clare Camacho