Chen Guo 2018 Emotional Intelligence Can Make A Difference The Impact of Principals Emotional Intelligence On Teaching

Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Emotional intelligence can 2020, Vol. 48(1) 82–105
ª The Author(s) 2018
make a difference: The impact Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143218781066
of principals’ emotional journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
intelligence on teaching
strategy mediated by
instructional leadership
Junjun Chen and Wei Guo
Abstract
This paper reports on a study that examined the effect of school principals’ emotional intelligence,
and their instructional leadership, on improving teachers’ instructional strategies. A sample of 534
primary teachers from 54 primary schools in China was approached and invited to respond to a
questionnaire. Structural equation modelling identified the relationships between three constructs
– Wong’s Emotional Intelligence Scale, the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, and
the Instructional Strategy Scale – and between the dimensional levels. The study confirmed the
theoretical proposition that principals’ EI and their instructional leadership behavior are influential
factors with regard to teachers’ instructional strategies. The findings are of particular interest
because they include the element of emotional intelligence for improvement of teaching practice
and evaluating the effectiveness of the principal.
Keywords
Emotional intelligence, principal instructional leadership, structural equation modeling, teaching
strategy
Introduction
Research conducted in East Asia has found that recent educational reforms have often failed to take
hold at the classroom level, and that school principals are finding it difficult to adapt to these new
expectations of their role (Hallinger and Walker, 2017). Such outcomes have also challenged
principals in China, where a set of intensive educational reforms has been initiated in the last
decade. In addressing this challenge, the existing related literature has shown that researchers have
Corresponding author:
Junjun Chen, Department of Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai
Po, NT, Hong Kong SAR.
Email: jjchen@eduhk.hk
Chen and Guo: Emotional intelligence can make a difference 83
put in much effort to emphasize the technical and cognitive dimensions of principals’ leadership
role (e.g. instructional supervision, setting directions) (Hallinger, 2010), but have largely ignored
the principals’ ‘emotive dimensions’ (Bridges, 2012; Crawford, 2011).
Bridges (2012) highlighted the disjoint between the rational perspectives of leadership on which
scholars focused, and the emotionally laden task of leading in organizational settings. It has been
pointed out that principals have to juggle many sensitive demands: the needs of relevant stake-
holders, competing objectives, tricky stakeholder interactions, and the impression others have of
them (Berkovich and Eyal, 2015). All of these are emotionally draining for principals (Maxwell
and Riley, 2017) and place increased pressure on them to engage actively as instructional leaders
(Fullan, 2015). This increased accountability calls for principals who are involved in daily lead-
ership to handle emotional demands and to motivate their teachers to adapt to the changes. Indeed,
researchers have recently begun to examine systematically the ways in which emotional aspects
shape leaders’ thinking and actions and the impacts on others (Bridges, 2012; Crawford, 2011;
Leithwood and Beatty, 2009). The capacity to manage the emotional side of leadership undoubt-
edly becomes very challenging during times of rapid change. However, published research on the
emotional aspects of principal leadership, especially instructional leadership, remains limited
(Berkovich and Eyal, 2017).
Among factors that influence teaching and learning, principal leadership has been identified as
the second most determining factor affecting student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). One
particular aspect of principal leadership, instructional leadership, has been confirmed as the most
effective for promoting teaching quality and for student learning outcomes in both empirical and
synthesis studies (Adams et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2008). Moreover, research has shown that
emotionally intelligent principals can devise better ways to deliver their instructional leadership
behaviors in order to influence their teachers and their teaching instructional strategy (Grobler
et al., 2017; Maxwell and Riley, 2017). This study thus aims to provide empirical evidence for this
by examining the relationship between principals’ EI and teachers’ instructional strategy mediated
by principal instructional leadership: this was achieved using a questionnaire survey with a cohort
of primary school teachers in China.
Literature review
Emotional intelligence
EI, sometimes deemed an elusive concept, has become an increasingly pivotal topic for educa-
tional research in the last two decades (Goldring et al., 2015; Wong, Wong and Law, 2007).
Among the several definitions and domains of EI, two distinct models have become the most
dominant: the ability-based model, and the mixed model (Goleman, 1995; Mayer et al., 2008).
Salovey and Mayer developed the first ability-based model in which EI was defined as
involv[ing] the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/
or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional
knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (Salovey
and Mayer, 1990: 10)
In this model the construct of EI is broken down into four separate ability areas, ranging from
basic to more complex in the following order: Perceiving and expressing emotions; emotional
84 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 48(1)
facilitation of thinking; understanding emotion; and reflectively regulating emotions (Mayer

et al., 2008).
The mixed model, based on the ability model, adds other personality traits and performance
theories. This model defines EI as ‘the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of
others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relation-
ships’ (Goleman, 1995: 317). In this framework, EI is divided into four domains:
1. Appraisal and expression of emotion in the self;

2. Appraisal and recognition of emotion in others;
3. Regulation of emotion in the self; and
4. Use of emotion to facilitate performance (Wong, Wong, and Law, 2007).
As Matthews et al. have pointed out, these two bifurcated models of EI ‘seem to be among those
providing the most serious challenges to researchers interested in EI’ (Matthews et al., 2004: 85).
However, as Murphy and Sideman (2006) noted, it is the researchers’ responsibility to make the
initial decision as to which EI model to use when carrying out research.
In this current research, although the ability-model has been criticized as comprising ‘not a
complete theory of workplace management’ and being ‘intended to co-exist with, supplement, and
clarify existing models of leadership-not replace them’ (Mayer et al., 2008: 5), its nature meets
better the purposes of this study, which aims to examine the relationships between three constructs:
principals’ leadership behavior, their EI, and teaching strategy.
Instructional leadership
Instructional leaders are described as strong leaders who have been successful at turning their
schools around, although such a leadership style attracts criticism of being outmoded (Day et al.,
2016; Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Qian et al., 2017). Such leaders define a clear direction for the
school and motivate their team to achieve it. The direction of a school with instructional leadership
focuses primarily on the improvement of student academic outcomes (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
Principals work closely and directly with teachers to improve the alignment of teaching and
learning with the strategies and activities of the school academic mission (Hallinger and Wang,
2015; Robinson et al., 2008). Although several notable models of instructional leadership have
been proposed, Hallinger and Murphy’s model (1985) has been widely employed in studies of
instructional leadership over the past three decades.
As one of the most widely studied school leadership approaches, instructional leadership has
attracted academic interest with ample research findings impacting on many factors, such as
teaching practices (Blasé and Blasé, 1999) and student learning (Robinson et al., 2008). However,
empirical evidence of Chinese principals’ instructional leadership practice is rare in the English-
language literature (Qian et al., 2017), the number of empirical studies in the Chinese literature is
small and the studies are limited to descriptive analysis (Zhao and Song, 2014). The only other
Chinese studies on instructional leadership mainly offer comments on foreign studies (Wang,
2013) or produce theoretical argumentation (Feng, 2012). Consequently, it is argued that more
empirical research is needed to understand Chinese principals’ instructional practice, particularly
so because of the global interest expressed in Chinese students’ success in international tests (Liu
et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017).
Teaching strategy
Literature on teacher effectiveness shows that teachers’ classroom strategies are the most critical
factors with regard to predicting student learning success (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2012;
Weisberg et al., 2009). Various methods have been devised to measure teaching strategy, with a
variety of strengths, such as the International System for Teacher Observation and Feedback by
Teddlie Creemers et al. (2006); the 8-dimension teaching model by Kyriakides et al. (2014), the
Classroom Assessment Scoring System by Pianta et al. (2008); and the Instructional Strategies
Scale by Reddy et al. (2015).
Taking the most recent, the Instructional Strategies Scale, as an example, this draws mainly on
direct instruction, differentiated instruction, and constructivist teaching models (Brophy and Good,
1986; Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006). It is grounded in an educational effectiveness literature
base that has accumulated evidence over 50 years (Marzano, Frontier and Livingston, 2011) and
a number of classroom observations in primary and secondary schools (Reddy et al., 2016). It is
promoted as fully conceptualizing the current teaching and learning process, taking advantage of
previous modes (e.g. multiple effective dimensions of strategies), but avoiding the disadvantages
of these models (e.g. infrequency of classroom observations, summative evaluation). A set of
teaching strategies not only encourages but also challenges students of whom high levels of
concentration and cognition, which help them invest in academic tasks, are demanded (Reddy
et al., 2015). These features align more with the student-centered instructions aiming at school
effectiveness required by the recent reforms in China (Tan and Chua, 2015). Since its inception,
numerous studies have confirmed that a classroom’s quality as assessed by the Instructional
Strategies Scale correlates with multiple measures of student learning and achievement (Reddy
et al., 2016). Although the relativity and validity of the new instrument of the Instructional
Strategies Scale are not fully testified other than for the validation studies conducted by the
development team, this instrument was adopted to evaluate the construct of instructions because
it was tested using a small sample of 150 teachers in China before the large survey reported in
this study.
The Chinese education context

‘The concept of instructional leadership has travelled across borders’ with its contextual sensitivity
being taken into account (Qian et al., 2017: 188). Chinese principals are widely regarded as
instructional leaders (Qian et al., 2017). Leadership practices that appear similar can be interpreted
and enacted differently in different social, cultural and organizational contexts. It is therefore
necessary to increase understanding of instructional leadership, particularly with regard to the
ways that contextual factors shape instructional leadership in the Chinese context (Day et al.,
2016; Hallinger et al., 2016; Qian, Walker and Zheng, 2016).
Chinese school principals currently face many obstacles, because the requirements of recent
reform initiatives, traditional cultural expectations, and change transformation can result in contra-
dictions, ambiguities and competing obligations (Qian et al., 2017; Walker and Qian, 2015). First,
in light of the nationally imposed reforms, principals need to take on the role of school-based
curriculum decision makers, by launching new courses and new extracurricular activities and
providing external learning opportunities such as community and research projects (Huang
and Wiseman, 2011). Second, to establish these changes, principals need to ensure that the thinking
and behavior of all relevant stakeholders, within and beyond the education system, changes
(Mertkan, 2010). However, faced with the public’s entrenched faith in the exam-oriented model,
this is a difficult task (Ni et al., 2011). Unless the beliefs of students, parents, teachers, and even
principals change, the exam-oriented education model will persist (Zhao and Qiu, 2012). Prin-
cipals need to persuade these stakeholders to accept the new beliefs. Third, because students
today expect to qualify for places at prestigious universities (Tan and Chua, 2015), principals
need to balance the competing demands for holistic student development and student-
centeredness reforms and the examination performance required by traditional expectations
(Qian et al., 2017). To manage these changes, Chinese principals are expected to understand
relevant stakeholders, deal with relationships and conflicts, be resilient, motivate change, and
manage their own emotions and the emotions of the people around them. Hence, attention to a
principal’s EI as a component of instructional leadership may be a possible way to promote
instructional change of their staff, and thus student learning.
To summarize, published research focusing on the relationship between principals’ leadership
behavior, their EI, and teaching strategies is scant. However, some studies have investigated the
relationship between two of the constructs. For example, Munroe (2009) found, in the USA, that
the primary school principals’ instructional leadership behavior related significantly to their EI
score. Furthermore, Goldring et al. (2015) identified that principals’ instructional leadership was
associated with their EI in school settings, also in the USA. However, knowledge about how
instructional leaders improve teaching strategy remains limited (Marks and Printy, 2003; Spillane
and Diamond, 2007) with only a few studies having examined the relationship (Firestone and
Riehl, 2005; Stoelinga and Mangin, 2008). Nevertheless there is little doubt regarding the theore-
tical argument that instructional leadership is essential.
The research mentioned above has provided sufficient evidence to suggest there might be a
relationship between principals’ EI and instructional leadership; and instructional leadership and
teachers’ classroom strategies. Hence, three hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship from principals’ EI to their instructional leadership.

Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship from principals’ instructional leadership to their
teachers’ instructional strategy.
Hypothesis 3: There is a relationship from principals’ EI to their teachers’ instructional
strategy mediated by principals’ instructional leadership.
However, it is difficult to identify clear sub-links between different dimensions of these three
constructs, because the limited relevant studies have used different scales and different meth-
odologies, and the linkages between sub-dimensions of the three constructs have been driven by
the data.
Method
Sample
This study used a sample from 54 primary schools in one city in China arising from a teacher
conference held by the education bureau. After obtaining ethics approval, the researchers briefed
education bureau officers about the project in order to gain permission to recruit volunteer teacher
participants attending this conference. Once the teachers agreed to participate, they were asked to
return completed questionnaires directly to the research team at the conference site. The ques-
tionnaire was distributed to 800 Chinese primary school teachers: 534 valid questionnaires were
returned, a response rate of 66.8%. Of these teacher participants, approximately 60% were female;
about 28% were younger than 30 years, 34% aged between 31 and 40 years, and 38% older than 40
years; around 28% of the teachers held junior teacher certificates, 33% held intermediate teacher
certificates, and 39% held senior teacher certificates; 25% of the teachers had less than five years’
work experience, 28% had 6–15 years’ work experience, and 20% had more than 16 years’ work
experience. The majority (76%) of the teachers held a Bachelor’s qualification.
Instruments
The three instruments used in this study were Wong’s Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS) (Wong
and Law, 2002); the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) (Hallinger, 2013);
and the Instructional Strategy Scale (ISS) (Reddy et al., 2015). All three instruments were used in
the teacher form.
The WEIS was originally developed for Chinese respondents in business settings, but is now
used in educational settings, measuring teachers’ or leaders’ EI in Hong Kong and Mainland
China. The 16-item WEIS consists of four emotional intelligence domains: self-emotion appraisal;
others’-emotion appraisal; use of emotion; and regulation of emotion. Each domain includes four
items; and a five-point Likert scale is used. The reliability and validity of the WEIS has been tested
in studies in the contexts of Hong Kong and Mainland China (Wong et al., 2010; Yin et al., 2013).
The PIMRS teacher short form is designed especially for teacher users, to measure their school
leadership behaviors. It has been revised, based on the full version of PIMRS which has 50 items,
to increase data collection efficiency (Hallinger, 2013). The 22-item PIMRS constructs instruc-
tional leadership in three domains: defining the school mission; managing the instructional pro-
gram; and developing a positive school learning climate. The reliability and validity of the PIMRS
were tested in a Chinese context (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
The ISS is designed to measure teachers’ self-report ratings of how often specific, empirically-
supported instructional classroom strategies were used in the classroom. The 26-item ISS consists
of four domains: Student Focused Learning and Engagement; Instructional Delivery; Promoting
Student Thinking; and Academic Performance Feedback. Teachers were asked to rate the use of
specific teaching strategies using a frequency Likert rating scale with seven points. The ISS has
been identified as a valid and reliable measurement of classroom instructional strategies, although
it has been developed further (Reddy et al., 2015, 2016).
Analysis procedure
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine whether the responses of the partici-
pants fitted the pre-existing factor models of the WEIS, the PIMRS, and the ISS. Upon discovering
poor-fit for each model, exploratory factor analysis was used to develop an alternative model for
each inventory (WEIS, PIMRS, and ISS respectively). Confirmatory approaches were used to
establish the fit of the new trimmed model. A conventional approach was taken to determining
the number of potential factors and their items based on the following criteria:
(a) eigenvalues > 1.00;

(b) at least three items which were conceptually aligned;
(c) items with regression loadings of > 0.30;
(d) all cross-loadings had to be < 0.30; and

(e) modification indices were utilized to identify and remove items with strong cross-factor
loadings (Bandalos and Finney, 2010).
Structural equation modelling (SEM) was then used to identify the structure of WEIS, PIMRS,
and ISS. Predictor paths were tested from each of the WEIS factors to the PIMRS factors, and to
the ISS factors. The original models for WEIS, PIMRS and ISS were found to be either inad-
missible or very poor fitting; hence, some items were removed to gain a better model fit based on
modification indices. In addition to the criteria used in the CFA models, modification indices were
used to remove statistically non-significant paths and change the paths of the models to achieve
better model fit. During this procedure, four items were removed from the WEIS, five items were
removed from the PIMRS and 10 items from the ISS. The original factors were all retained for the
three scales. In line with current practice (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau and Wen, 2004), a
multi-criteria approach for acceptable model fit was adopted; models were not rejected if gamma
hat and CFI were 0.90, root mean square errors of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized
root mean residuals (SRMR) were 0.08, and the w2/df ratio was statistically non-significant (p >
0.01). Models that met these criteria were not rejected.
Results
Measurement models
WEIS model. The revised 12-item WEIS measurement model consisted of the original four factors
(Self-Emotion Appraisal, Others’ Emotion Appraisal, Use of Emotion, and Regulation of Emo-
tion) (w2 ¼ 214.818; df ¼ 84; w2/df ¼ 2.557, p ¼ 0.11; CFI ¼ 0.96; gamma hat ¼ 0.97; RMSEA ¼
0.054; SRMR ¼ 0.041). The Self-Emotion Appraisal factor consisted of three items referring to
having good understanding of one’s own emotions and the reasons of having these emotions. The
Others’ Emotion Appraisal factor (also three items) described a good sense of knowing and
observing other people’s emotions. The Use of Emotion factor (three items) dealt with being
competent and self-motivated and achieving goals using emotions. Finally, the Regulation of
Emotion factor referred to regulating emotions in different ways (see the left-hand factors in
Figure 1 and item information in Table 1).
PIMRS model. The revised 17-item PIMRS measurement model comprised the original three factors
(Defining a School Mission, Managing the Instructional Program, and Developing a Positive
School Learning Climate) (w2 ¼ 593.625; df ¼ 167; w2/df ¼ 3.555, p ¼ 0.06; CFI ¼ 0.92; gamma
hat ¼ 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.06; SRMR ¼ 0.06). The Defining a School Mission factor comprised five
items referring to use of assessment data to develop common academic goals which could be used
for making curricular decisions. The Managing the Instructional Program factor, with five items,
focused on ensuring schools’ goals were consistent with teachers’ classroom priorities, making
clear the identity of staff responsible for curriculum coordination, and making curricular decisions
using assessment data. The Developing a Positive School Learning Climate factor, with seven
items, described principals’ actions on encouraging teachers, talking and complimenting teachers
informally, attending extra-curriculum activities, and contact with parents and students (see the
middle factors in Figure 1 and items in Table 1).
R2=.20
f2=.04 R2=.80
Self-Emotion Student-focused
f2=1.78
Appraisal Learning and
.45 Defining a Engagement
School Mission
.39 .41
.46
Other’s Emotion R2=.13 Instructional R2=.82
f2=.02 f2=2.05
Appraisal .69 Delivery
.33
Managing the
Instructional
.39 Program Promoting
.68 R2=.14
Use of Student f2=.02
Emotion Thinking
.41 R2=.66
f2=.77 .36
.42 .41
Developing a Academic
R2=.85
Regulation of Positive Learning .47 Performance
f2=2.60
Emotion .36 Climate Feedback
9
Figure 1. The structural model of principals’ emotional intelligence, instructional leadership, and teachers’
instructional strategies.
ISS model. The revised 16-item ISS model consisted of the original four factors (Student-Focused
Learning and Engagement, Instructional Delivery, Promoting Student Thinking, and Academic
Performance Feedback) (w2 ¼ 418.044; df ¼ 146; w2/df ¼ 2.86, p ¼ 0.09; CFI ¼ 0.94; gamma hat
¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.05; SRMR ¼ 0.04). The Student-Focused Learning and Engagement factor,
with four items, focused on encouraging students’ participation in group activities, assigning the
group tasks, and using questioning techniques to need student needs. The Instructional Delivery
factor (four items) stated that teachers changed their tone of voice, and used pauses, to emphasize
key ideas, use multiple methods, and summarize the major concepts. The Promoting Student
Thinking factor (four items) referred to asking students to summarize and repeat key points and
describe how they arrived at these answers. The Academic Performance Feedback factor (four
items) described encouraging students to check their work in order to enhance their understanding
using feedback. Students were also encouraged to work independently and to answer open ques-
tions (see the right-hand factors in Figure 1 and item information in Table 1).
Measurement model factor characteristics

WEIS model. The teachers gave ‘agree’ ratings to two factors: Regulation of Emotion, and Self-
Emotion Appraisal (Table 2). They gave a mid-point between ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and
‘agree’ for the Use of Emotion factor. The mean score for the Others’ Emotion Appraisal factor
was just over 3.00 (‘neither agree nor disagree’), suggesting that, on average, these teachers only
slightly agreed with this factor. Effect size differences were large between the Regulation of
Emotion factor and the other two factors Others’ Emotion Appraisal (d > 0.97) and Use of
Emotion (d > 0.77) (Table 3). The Others’ Emotion Appraisal factor had a small effect size
with the Use of Emotion factor (d > 0.11). Effect sizes were otherwise moderate. The factor inter-
correlations (Table 3) ranged from r ¼ 0.38 to 0.56, with an average within inventory correlation
Table 1. Emotional intelligence, principal instructional leadership, instructional strategy factors, items, and
factor loadings.
Scale and items Factor loading
Emotional Intelligence
EIF1. Self-Emotion Appraisal
1. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time 0.81
2. I have good understanding of my own emotions 0.71
3. I really understand what I feel 0.74
EIF2. Others’ Emotion Appraisal
5. I always know the emotions of the people around me from their behavior 0.72
6. I am a good observer of others’ emotions 0.85
7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others 0.90
EIF3. Use of Emotion
9. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them 0.95
10. I always tell myself I am a competent person 0.70
11. I am a self-motivated person 0.75
EIF4. Regulation of Emotion
14. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions 0.74
15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry 0.58
16. I have good control of my own emotions 0.73
Principal Instructional Leadership
PIM1. Defining a School Mission
1. Develop a focused set of annual school-wide goals. 0.85
2. Use data on student performance when developing the school’s academic goals. 0.87
3. Develop goals that are easily understood and used by teachers in the school. 0.68
4. Communicate the school’s mission effectively to members of the school community. 0.83
5. Refer to the school’s academic goals when making curricular decisions with teachers. 0.91
PIM2. Managing the Instructional Program
6. Ensure that the classroom priorities of teachers are consistent with the goals and 0.43
direction of the school.
8. Make clear who is responsible for coordinating the curriculum across grade levels. 0.42
9. Draw upon the results of school-wide testing when making curricular decisions. 0.42
11. Meet individually with teachers to discuss student progress. 0.45
12. Use tests and other performance measure to assess progress toward school goals. 0.41
PIM3. Developing a Positive School Learning Climate
13. Encourage teachers to use instructional time for teaching and practicing new skills and 0.78
concepts.
14. Take time to talk informally with students and teachers during recess and breaks. 0.80
15. Attend/participate in extra- and co-curricular activities. 0.78
16. Compliment teachers privately for their efforts or performance. 0.72
18. Create professional growth opportunities for teachers as a reward for special 0.77
contributions to the school.
19. Lead or attend teacher in-service activities concerned with instruction. 0.75
22. Contact parents to communicate improved or exemplary student performance or 0.72
contributions.
Instructional Strategy
ISF1. Student-Focused Learning and Engagement
10. Actively participates in new activities with students. 0.67
16. Assigns students a task or project to complete with a partner or small group. 0.55
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
Scale and items Factor loading
17. Encourages students to participate in lessons or learning activities. 0.60

21. Uses different questions and activities to accommodate student learning needs. 0.61
ISF2. Instructional Delivery
2. Changes tone of voice to emphasize key concepts and words. 0.79
3. Uses multiple methods during lesson. 0.79
5. Summarizes major concepts. 0.83
7. Pauses to emphasize key concepts and words. 0.66
ISF3. Promoting Student Thinking
1. Asks students to describe how they arrived at their answers. 0.83
8. Asks students to summarize or repeat key points. 0.55
9. Encourages students to perform a skill or answer a question independently. 0.48
11. Asks students open ended questions. 0.43
ISF4. Academic Performance Feedback
12. Encourages students to check and correct their work. 0.71
15. Acknowledges students’ academic strengths. 0.79
18. Checks students’ completion of in-class assignments and homework. 0.83
24. Provides feedback to students on their learning or understanding of key content areas. 0.64
of r ¼ 0.47. These values suggest reasonable independence of the factors within the Emotion
Intelligence Scale.
PIMRS model. The teachers endorsed the Managing the Instructional Program factor as stronger
than ‘agree’ and the Defining a School Mission factor as just ‘agree’ (see Table 2). The rating for
the Developing a Positive School Learning Climate factor was just over ‘neither agree nor dis-
agree’ and ‘agree’, suggesting that, on average, these teachers only slightly agreed with this factor.
Effect size differences were large between the Developing a Positive School Learning Climate
factor and the other two factors (d > 0.66) (see Table 3). However, the effect size difference was
small between the Managing the Instructional Program factor and the Defining a School Mission
factor. The factor inter-correlations ranged from r ¼ 0.38 to 0.65, with an average within inventory
correlation of r ¼ 0.52. These values suggest reasonable independence of the factors within the
Principal Instructional Management Scale.
ISS model. The teachers gave an ‘often used’ rating to two factors: Student-Focused Learning and
Engagement and Instructional Delivery (Table 2). The mean score for Student-Focused Learning
and Engagement was just over ‘often used’ and the mean score for Instructional Delivery was
slightly below ‘often used’. They gave the mid-point to the Academic Performance Feedback
factor. However, they ranked the Promoting Student Thinking factor lowest, just over ‘sometimes
used’, indicating that, on average, these teachers used this strategy rarely. Effect size differences
were large between the Promoting Student Thinking factor and the other three factors (d > 0.96)
(Table 3). Otherwise, effect sizes were small to moderate. The factor inter-correlations ranged
from r ¼ 0.46 to 0.73, with an average within inventory correlation of 0.61. These values suggest
reasonable independence of the factors within the Instructional Strategy Scale.
Table 2. Emotional intelligence, principal instructional leadership, instructional strategy factor means, SDs,
Cronbach a, and effect size.
Cohen’s |d|
Scale M SD Cronbach a effect sizes*
Emotional Intelligence1 EIF2 EIF3 EIF4

EIF1. Self-Emotion Appraisal 3.88 1.18 0.80 0.56 0.41 0.34
EIF2. Others’ Emotion Appraisal 3.20 0.93 0.70 — 0.11 0.97
EIF3. Use of Emotion 3.45 1.17 0.85 — 0.77
EIF4. Regulation of Emotion 4.27 1.10 0.72 —
Principal Instructional Leadership2 PIM2 PIM3
PIMF1. Defining a School Mission 4.00 1.11 0.90 0.25 0.66
PIMF2. Managing the Instructional Program 4.27 0.94 0.65 — 1.00
PIMF3. Developing a Positive School Learning Climate 3.32 0.96 0.77 —
Instructional Strategy3 ISF2 ISF3 ISF4
ISF1. Student-Focused Learning and Engagement 6.08 1.25 0.77 0.24 1.45 0.43
ISF2. Instructional Delivery 5.74 1.58 0.87 — 1.03 0.19
ISF3. Promoting Student Thinking 4.28 1.24 0.76 — 0.96
ISF4. Academic Performance Feedback 5.47 1.59 0.83 —
Note: 1 ¼ maximum agreement is 5.00; 2 ¼ maximum agreement is 5.00; 3 ¼ maximum agreement is 7.00.
* ¼ effect sizes shown as absolute values.
Table 3. Emotional intelligence, principal instructional leadership, instructional strategy factor inter-
correlations.
Principal
Emotional Instructional Instructional
Scale Intelligence Management Strategy
Emotional Intelligence EIF1 EIF2 EIF3 EIF4 PIMF1 PIMF2 PIMF3 ISF1 ISF2 ISF3 ISF4
EIF1. Self-Emotion Appraisal — 0.55 0.38 0.41

EIF2. Others’ Emotion Appraisal — 0.49 0.56
EIF3. Use of Emotion — 0.24
EIF4. Regulation of Emotion —
Principal Instructional Leadership

PIMF1. Defining a School Mission — 0.52 0.65
PIMF2. Managing the Instructional — 0.38
Program
PIMF3. Developing a Positive School —
Learning Climate
Instructional Strategy
ISF1. Student-Focused Learning and — 0.65 0.53 0.65
Engagement
ISF2. Instructional Delivery — 0.46 0.65
ISF3. Promoting Student Thinking — 0.73
ISF4. Academic Performance —
Feedback
Note. Values in bold are inter-correlations within inventories; values < .06 are not statistically significant.
Structural model
Since there is no previous evidence to establish a relationship between EI, instructional leadership,
and instructional strategy, the correlations between factors in the different constructs were used to
test the linear relations between them. A higher correlation between factors was an indicator for
establish a linear relation. Based on the criteria above, statistically non-significant paths were
removed. Due to the inter-correlated multi-collinear nature of the WEIS, the PIMRS, and the ISS
measurement models, a 40-item structural equation model was identified (w2 ¼ 1733.074; df ¼
718; w2/df ¼ 2.414, p ¼ 0.12; CFI ¼ 0.90; gamma hat ¼ 0.91; RMSEA ¼ 0.052; SRMR ¼ 0.062)
(see Figure 1). The structural model had 16 statistically significant paths out of a possible 24 paths
from the four WEIS factors to the three PIMS factors to the four ISS factors. All paths were
positive (b ranged from 0.14 to 0.92 with an average value of 0.39).
The proportion of variance explained for each of the PIMRS factors was small to large. More
specifically, R2 ranged from 0.13 to 0.66 with an average of 0.33 (Defining a School Mission: R2
¼ 0.20; Managing the Instructional Program: R2 ¼ 0.13; Developing a Positive School Learning
Climate: R2 ¼ 0.66). Values of f2 ranged from 0.02 to 0.77 with an average of 0.28 (Defining a
School Mission: f2 ¼ 0.04; Managing the Instructional Program: f2 ¼ 0.02; Developing a Positive
School Learning Climate: f2 ¼ 0.77) (Cohen, 1992). The proportion of variance explained for
each of the ISS factors was small to large. More specifically, R2 ranged from 0.1 to 0.85 with an
average of 0.65 (Student-Focused Learning and Engagement: R2 ¼ 0.80; Instructional Delivery:
R2 ¼ 0.82; Promoting Student Thinking: R2 ¼ 0.14; Academic Performance Feedback: R2 ¼
0.85).Values of f2 ranged from 0.02 to 2.60 with an average of 1.61 (Student-Focused Learning
and Engagement: f2 ¼ 1.78; Instructional Delivery: f2 ¼ 2.05; Promoting Student Thinking: f2 ¼
0.02; Academic Performance Feedback: f2 ¼ 2.60 (Cohen, 1992). The proportion of variance
explained for each of the instructional leadership factors and the instructional strategies was
small to large (f2 ranged from 0.02 to 0.77; 0.02 to 2.60) (Cohen, 1992). Thus there are signif-
icant and meaningful relations between principals’ emotional intelligence, principal instruc-
tional management behaviors, and teachers’ instructional strategies. These relations explain
up to a large amount of variance in principal instructional management behaviors and teachers’
instructional strategies.
Discussion
Based on conceptualizations of emotional intelligence, instructional leadership, and instructional
practice, we hypothesized a link between principals’ EI and teachers’ instructional strategy
mediated by principals’ instructional leadership. Drawing conclusions from a reasonably large
sample of school teachers, this study not only identified the hypothesized links between the three
models, but also revealed more solid empirical connections between principals’ EI, instructional
leadership and instructional practice on dimensional levels.
Understanding three measurement models

Guided by the empirical framework, all three proposed hypotheses were supported by statistical
evidence in the SEM. One of the interesting findings from the WEIS model is that teachers in this
study gave comparatively higher ratings to their principals’ competencies, including understanding
their own emotions and regulating these emotions. The effect sizes also indicated that the statistical
differences are moderate to large between the two higher rankings competencies and the two lower
ranking ones. These findings are different from those in Wendorf-Heldt’s study (2009) in which
these two competencies of school principals in the USA were given lower rankings than the other
two interactive competencies. One explanation for this is that this discrepancy is caused by the
differing participating groups. The participants of this study were school teachers, whereas those in
the Wendorf-Heldt’s study were school principals. In addition, cultural differences may contribute
to this difference (Cates, 2012). Emotion is a socio-culturally psychological construction; and,
accordingly, understanding emotional scenarios and managing emotions is not merely a personal
process, but is influenced by cultural contexts, through which we define the ways our world is
structured and our lives are organized (Mesquita and Albert, 2007; Yin, 2016). School leaders who
decentralized power and responsibility for managing schools reported less isolation and shorter
professional distance to their staff (Cates, 2012). Being in a position of power over the teachers
prevented principals from developing comfortable, mutually beneficial relationships with them
(Alligood, 2005). Furthermore, Matsumoto et al. (2008), in their cross-cultural study, identified
that superiors in cultures which emphasize the maintenance of social order, especially those that
are long-term hierarchically oriented, are less likely to pay attention to subordinates’ feelings and
tend to have suppressing attitudes in management. Hofstede (2011) pointed out that the ‘Chinese-
ness’ of Chinese culture lies in its relatively high power distance, high collectivism, and long-term
orientation, indicating that Chinese culture emphasizes the maintenance of social order. The
individuals in this culture need to suppress their personal needs and feelings in order to fit in and
maintain a harmonious relationship, in order to keep the collectivism spirit alive. Such an ideal of
harmony has been found to actually hinder emotions. People tend to suppress spontaneity, which is
considered the hallmark of true feelings and is the way to express authentic emotions. By contrast,
people in Western cultures emphasize individualism and so are more likely to express their
authentic emotions than Chinese people (Sundararajan, 2015). The teachers in this study might
consider that their school principals need to work more on understanding their staff’s emotions and
on using emotional strategies to manage the relationship and reduce professional distance from
their staff.
The PIMRS model revealed that teachers perceived that their principals put great value on
managing instructional programs and defining school missions but less value on developing a
positive school learning climate. The large effect sizes indicated statistically significant differ-
ences between them. These align with the findings from the previous Chinese study by Feng
(2012), but are different from the Western studies (Owens, 2015). One possible explanation might
be that the hierarchical structure in Chinese schools is strong and principals still rely extensively on
administrative orders (Jiang et al., 2010). However, a recent Chinese study found that Chinese
principals in Shanghai have started to promote teacher learning culture within the school and
across schools (Qian et al., 2017). Indeed, since the success of Shanghai’s PISA, scholars have
looked more closely at other Chinese principals (Liang et al., 2016).
Principals in Shanghai managed to improve instructional delivery and promote teacher learning.
They were found to personally observe between 30 and 50 classes each term, give teachers in-
depth feedback on their performance, and to set up Teacher Research Groups to promote teacher
learning (Liang et al., 2016). In light of these findings, it is considered that Chinese principals
could take a more egalitarian approach and become more engaged at the classroom level. This
echoes teachers’ compliments for their principals in Canada who provided constructive interac-
tions with teachers and students in the classrooms. In doing so, principals could serve as role
models for their teachers, just as teachers are role models for students. By using this approach,
principals could understand what was actually happening in the classrooms, so that they could
construct school missions and instructional plans that were more relevant and practical (Leithwood
and Beatty, 2008).
A major distinctive result of the ISS model is that Promoting Student Thinking ranked the
lowest in its effect sizes with other dimensions. These results indicated that the participants in this
study responded to the Promoting Student Thinking dimension differently from the other three
factors, which were perceived as being relatively alike. It is interesting that promoting students’
thinking is unfamiliar in the eyes of Chinese teachers, considering that Chinese government has
been transforming its curriculum system from a teacher-and-text focused method to a quality-and-
student focused method which starts out with requiring teachers to advocate student thinking in the
classroom (Qian et al., 2016).
Understanding the structural model

Having established the models of measurement, we further tested the three hypotheses that deter-
mine the relationships among principals’ EI, instructional leadership, and teachers’ classroom
strategies. In general, teachers’ classroom strategies positively predicted principals’ EI mediated
by principals’ instructional leadership behaviors. Specifically, the first hypothesis investigates a
relationship between principals’ EI and their instructional leadership. The results revealed that all
four dimensions of EI emerged as key emotional components to support the work of principals as
instructional leaders. Considering the scarcity of empirical evidence detailing the role of using
emotions intelligently in school leadership (Berkovich and Eyal 2017; Cai, 2011), particularly the
one that relates to instruction, this paper offers empirical evidence that principals’ EI predicted
their instructional leadership behaviors. This conclusion aligns with findings from previous studies
that report a positive relationship between principals’ EI and their leadership behaviors (Bipath,
2008; Goldring et al., 2015; Grobler et al., 2017). It further supports the results that subordinates’
perceived leadership behaviors strongly relate to their leaders’ EI (Kerr et al., 2006), and reinforces
the argument that skills of effectively handling emotions contribute to successful leadership (e.g.
Maxwell and Riley, 2017), this time using an Asian dataset.
According to Gray (2009), emotional intelligence is the cornerstone of every decision a prin-
cipal makes). A leader’s competency in self- and other-emotion appraisals can exert a positive
influence over their teachers in fulfilling school missions and plans (Gray, 2009). As mentioned,
Chinese school leaders’ accountability and performance demands have increased exponentially,
along with the new initiatives. Their diverse tasks include managing staff, organizing budgets,
handling conflicts and resilience, and providing strategic organizational focus alongside high
stakes testing (Lingard et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2017). Studies have shown that these demands can
be stressful (De Nobile and McCormick, 2010) and chronic stress leads to feelings of burnout,
affecting job performance, satisfaction, and the motivation to remain in the role of principal
(Maxwell and Riley, 2017). In contrast, the emotionally skilled leader who can identify emotions
has a high awareness not only of their own feelings, but also those of their followers. These leaders
can express emotions accurately and identify false emotions. They understand emotions and so can
recognize and develop relationships that are needed to lead others through change (Berkovich and
Eyal, 2017; Maxwell and Riley, 2017). It is therefore understandable that an instructional leader
defines school missions through their competencies of self- and others’- emotion appraisal in this
study.
As might be expected, principals in this study were perceived as needing capacities for eval-
uating others’ emotions, because managing and using emotions is pivotal in managing instructional
programs. It is important for a leader to have the ability to facilitate thought through the appropriate
use of emotions. This ability reflects an understanding of how emotions impact on thinking and
decision making when managing instructional programs. These leaders also motivate through their
use of emotions and can understand different perspectives to plan which kinds of instructional
programs could promote a teacher learning culture and maximize students’ and teachers’ full
potential to achieve school effectiveness (Gray, 2009; Qian et al., 2017). A leader who understands
emotions can recognize and develop relationships that are needed to lead their teachers to be
successful through change. The leader must be able to manage their emotions by handling the
pressure and challenges that come with the leadership position, and the implementation of instruc-
tional programs, as well as acting in the best interest of effective outcomes (Day et al., 2016;
Hallinger and Walker, 2017).
One of the striking findings is that principals were perceived to develop a positive school
climate without considering other’s emotion appraisal, despite involving the other three compe-
tencies of emotional intelligence. As mentioned above, teachers gave the lowest rating to the
dimension of developing a positive school climate. George (2008) noted that emotionally intelli-
gent leaders use an intuitive sense to understand their followers’ emotions and to instill in them an
appreciation of the importance of their work. This skill is most useful when an organization faces
challenges or opportunities that require mutual trust among its members. Grobler et al. (2017)
found that school principals could use EI skills to achieve teacher collaboration and commitment,
in order to implement the mandated curriculum changes. In addition, its relevance to school
leadership is important because principals make decisions that affect the well-being of everyone
in their learning communities (Berkovich and Eyal 2017; Cates, 2012).
The second hypothesis posits a relationship between instructional leadership and teacher’s
classroom strategies. Instructional leadership is specifically defined as relating to teaching and
learning, with a strong theoretical nature to support and promote teachers’ instructional practice
(Adams et al., 2017; Day et al., 2016). This definition rules out any doubt about the relationship
between instructional leadership and teaching practice, leaving little room to argue against such a
relationship. This relates to why few empirical studies contribute to confirm the link. Despite a
general relationship between instructional leadership and instructional practice having been con-
firmed, more empirical evidence is needed to identify which leadership behaviors are more likely
to affect a certain set of instructional strategies. The findings of this study not only confirmed a
positive relationship between instructional leadership and instructional practice as predicted by a
former study (Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012), but also, more importantly, it placed the linkages
at specific dimensional levels.
Interestingly, the dimension of promoting student thinking within an instructional strategy has
only one predictive factor, while the rest have two or three. Referring back to the results of a large
effect size of this dimension within a group, (see Table 2), comparing the linkage between
developing a positive school learning climate leadership behavior and promoting student thinking
teaching strategy invites more thoughts. The dimension of promoting a student thinking strategy
can only be mediated by the dimension of developing positive school learning climate leadership
behaviors. This result is not consistent with Sebastian and Allensworth’s (2012) finding that the
school learning climate is a significant path to link principal leadership and classroom instruction.
However, Barent’s (2005) study built connections between principals’ EI and school learning
culture building, which does align with this result. It indicates that a positive school learning
climate might be a prerequisite for teachers to deliver promoting a student-thinking teaching

strategy. As Hallinger (2010) claimed, advocating the instructional strategy of promoting student
thinking is difficult because school culture building is complex and takes time. This conclusion
echoes the literature in highlighting the critical role of school climates in promoting teaching
(Heck and Hallinger, 2014; Liu et al., 2017).
Another noteworthy finding is the linkage between managing instructional programs leadership
behavior and three teaching strategies (apart from the promoting student thinking strategy). Given
that the education policy in China demands performance accountability measures based on high-
stakes assessments (Tan and Chua, 2015), the instructional leadership aims to meet such needs.
Because the major aim of instructional programs is to enhance student learning and outcomes
(Hallinger and Heck, 2011), its linkages to student engagement, giving feedback, and doing
instructional delivery are understandable. However, the missing linkage with student thinking is
remarkable. Teachers in other studies reported that instructional programs in their schools still
focused on teaching-for-examination strategies under the pressure of increasing academic school
accountability in China (Tan and Chua, 2015). It has also been claimed that the instructional
programs launched by instructional leadership are aimed at contributing to student outcomes rather
than students’ authentic learning processes (Ni et al., 2011). However, the reasons go beyond the
scope of this study and future studies can explore these.
The third hypothesis postulated a mediated relationship between principals’ EI and teachers’
instructional strategy by instructional leadership. The 22 relationships between principals’ EI
and instructional strategy by instructional leadership were found to be significant on dimensional
levels, which confidently confirmed the structural hypothesis. Specifically, the two instructions
(e.g. Student-Focused Learning, and Engagement and Academic Performance Feedback) are
affected by four principals’ EI through two kinds of leadership behaviors (e.g. Managing the
Instructional Program, and Developing a Positive Learning Climate); Instructional Delivery is
predicted by four principals’ EI through two kinds of leadership behaviors (e.g. Defining School
Mission, and Managing the Instructional Program); Promoting Student Thinking is affected by
only one leadership behavior (e.g. Developing a Positive Learning Climate) mediated by three EI
(except for Other’s Emotion Appraisal). These results emphasized the importance of principals’
EI, because the four instructions can be affected by different kinds of instructional leadership
that are further influenced by four components of principals’ EI. These are empirically concur-
rent with the findings that instructional leadership focuses on core matters in school (e.g.
Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Robinson et al., 2008) because all its dimensions contribute to
promoting the instructional strategy of engaging student learning. Moreover, together with the
findings of relationships between principals’ EI and instructional leadership, the quality of
principal instructional leadership was perceived by teachers in the way that each principal’s
unique style reflected the principal’s own capability of EI. This links to the results of Barent
(2005), that personalized leadership may include managing emotions. In this way, principals’ EI
could explain why those who have same scores on instructional leadership are perceived with
different leadership effectiveness.
The abilities of emotion management are important to leadership performance, particularly in
these times when school leaders are facing rapid change in the school environment. Fullan (2015)
reminds us that change is emotional in nature. Scoring high on emotion management indicates a
leader’s high level of awareness of self-emotions and the emotions of others. In order to work with
multitudes of people and facilitate the organization progress, it is essential to understand how to
engage in, prolong, and detach from emotional situations (Ashworth, 2013; Grobler et al., 2017).
Embarking on a different path of teaching and learning viewed through a different lens may cause a
level of discomfort and anxiety in the changing situation. Leaders who are emotionally competent
are able to understand and provide further help to others who are involved in these emotions,
through identifying barriers and locating effective solutions to achieve school goals (Hebert, 2011;
Moore, 2009). Leadership behaviors which are flavored by emotional competency inevitably
contribute to teachers’ educational beliefs and classroom practice in different perspectives, which
can direct further efforts towards student learning outcomes (Heck and Hallinger, 2014; Sebastian
and Allensworth, 2012). As Küpers and Weibler (2005) claimed, emotionally intelligent school
leaders are expected to be able to secure completion of school tasks, promote a school culture of
vision and belief sharing in common action, and advance both teacher and school effectiveness
through maneuvering a set of emotions that they and their staff experience when interacting with
educational change. These outcomes can be achieved by accurate identification of emotions,
whereby school leaders read situations involving emotion effectively and prepare appropriate
responses (Hebert, 2011; Maxwell and Riley, 2017).
Implications
The current study, together with prior relevant research, offers several implications for future
research, preparation and evaluation of principals, and improvement of teaching practice. The
study confirmed the theoretical prediction that principals’ EI is an influential factor in teachers’
instructional strategy mediated by principal instructional leadership behaviors in the eyes of
teachers. Previous work on emotional intelligence and school leadership had identified a relation-
ship between emotional intelligence and leadership, and relationships between leadership and
instructional strategies, but had not described adequately the relationship between these three
constructs, let alone the relationships on the dimensional levels of the three constructs.
This finding concerning the three constructs can provide a new perspective for investigating
school leadership research by taking principals’ emotional intelligence into account. The relation-
ship findings at the dimensional level provide concrete information on how they connect with each
other. It is noted that the four kinds of instructions can be affected by different kinds of instruc-
tional leadership behaviors, which are further influenced by four components of principals’ EI.
Although more empirical data are needed to make the claim with confidence in schools, this study
offers enough empirical evidence to guide subsequent research to further explore the relationships
among relevant school effectiveness constructs. Further, this study begins to lay a foundation for
how effectively the principal will be perceived by teachers at employing appropriate instructional
leadership behaviors that enable affecting teachers’ instructional strategies. This research not only
speaks to the need for a theoretical model of the emotional intelligence capacity as a must for all
school leaders, but also demonstrates how to use these capacities to enhance teaching improvement
through appropriate leadership behaviors. It frames, refines and extends prior theoretical models
on school leadership effectiveness and school improvement.
The findings of this study are also informative for principal preparation. Principal preparation
programs and courses in universities and contentious training programs might consider including
knowledge of emotional intelligence in the list of four domains as Self-Emotion Appraisal, Others’
Emotion Appraisal, Use of Emotion, and Regulation of Emotion. Interventions can be developed to
promote the EI capacity of future and current principals. In addition, specific strategies can be
designed to enhance principals’ capacities in daily communications with the key stakeholders and
prompt teacher and school effectiveness through instructional leadership, particularly during rapid
educational change (Nelson and Low, 2011). Walker and Qian’s (2015) review of Chinese princi-
pals shows that principal development has attracted the attention of several scholars and a promis-
ing base of knowledge is now available in that field. This is reflected at the policy level, in which
there has been increasing recognition of the need to focus on principals as a means to effect change
in schools, with consequent shifts in the content, pedagogy and curriculum of principal develop-
ment programs. Learning from the British (Hobson et al., 2009) and Canadian school systems
(Cates, 2012), city and/or district educational bureaus might also consider the incorporation of
emotional intelligence skill building and instructional leadership as an ongoing element of lead-
ership professional development for principals and aspiring principals.
The standards for educational administration might need to include the element of emotional
intelligence for evaluating principal effectiveness (Hebert, 2011). It is suggested that policy mak-
ers, researchers and school leaders be made aware of the importance of principal’s emotional
intelligence. The Chinese government recently enacted the first official ‘Professional standards for
compulsory education of school principals’ in which instruction-related functions are emphasized.
‘Leading curriculum and instruction’ and ‘promoting teacher development’ are now major criteria
for recruiting new principals and assessing a principal’s performance (Ministry of Education of the
People’s Republic of China (MOE), 2013). It is suggested that, based on the findings of this study,
‘demonstrating emotional intelligence’ should be included in such standards aiming for school
improvement. In today’s ever-changing world, China badly needs principals who operate with
peak effectiveness (Walker and Qian, 2015). School leaders with high emotional intelligence will
not only have stronger relationships with their colleagues, parents and students, but also be more
effective in maximizing teachers’ and students’ learning potentials, leading to school improvement
(Moore, 2009).
Limitations and future directions

This study has some limitations. First, although the corpus of the study involved a generous
convenience sample of the population in one city in China and was sufficient for doing the
statistical analysis of the Structural Equation Modeling, 534 teachers cannot be regarded as
representing the entire primary school teacher population in China. Furthermore, although the
findings of the study provided concrete information on the relationships between a principal’s
EI, instructional leadership behavior, and teachers’ instructional strategies and informative
implications for the primary schools, these findings cannot be generalized to apply to all primary
school populations. Emotional intelligence is a relatively new concept in school leadership.
Expanding research in this area using large, random samples is necessary to achieve more
universally applicable results.
Second, this study only used self-reported data, which could introduce bias since self-report
data may or may not reflect the reality of their principals’ behaviors (Atwater et al., 1998). Future
studies may consider 360-degree assessment surveys from different stakeholders such as the
principal, the principal’s supervisors, and all of the teachers in the principal’s school (Goldring
et al., 2015). Such multi-source feedback typically entails a more robust self-evaluation of the
leader as well as parallel evaluations from subordinates, peers, and/or superiors. It would be very
beneficial for education leadership scholars and practitioners to learn more about the relationships
between these measures (Hebert, 2011).
Nevertheless, a principal’s emotional intelligence is the cornerstone from which to make every
decision (Gray, 2009). Crawford (2007) described school leadership as ‘a complex synergy of
emotion and leadership’ and claimed ‘emotion as inherent to the practice of leadership rather than
separate from it’ (Crawford, 2007: 2). This present study has reinforced the notion that emotional
intelligence is a must for effective instructional school leadership and instruction. Although there
are different ideas about methods for improving student learning, an emotionally intelligent
instructional leader has the ability to lead their school to reach agreement through appreciation
of all school members’ stakes (Gray, 2009). School leaders who are emotionally intelligent can
create resonance within their school classrooms, playgrounds, and teachers’ offices. They create
the necessary conditions for teachers and, more importantly, support students to learn to thrive,
achieve, and succeed. Emotionally intelligent leadership may be one of the greatest gifts of service
school leaders can offer to those they lead in tomorrow’s schools (Wendorf-Heldt, 2009).
Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest to exist with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
Adams CM, Olsen JJ and Ware JK (2017). The school principal and student learning capacity. Educational
Administration Quarterly 53(4): 556–584.
Alligood JP (2005) Georgia female school superintendents’ perceptions of isolation. Doctoral Dissertation,
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA.
Ashworth AR (2013) The relationship between the emotional intelligence of secondary public school princi-
pals and school performance. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, TX.
Atwater LE, Ostroff C, Yammarino FJ and Fleenor JW (1998) Self-other agreement: Does it really matter?
Personnel Psychology 51(3): 577–598.
Bandalos DL and Finney SJ (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In: Hancock GR and
Mueller RO (eds) The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences. New York:
Routledge, 93–114.
Barent JM (2005) Principals’ levels of emotional intelligence as an influence on school culture. Doctoral
Dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman, MO.
Berkovich I and Eyal O (2015) Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical
evidence 1992–2012. Review of Educational Research 85(1): 129–167.
Berkovich I and Eyal O (2017) Methodological review of studies on educational leaders and emotions (1992-
2012): Insights into the meaning of an emerging research field in educational administration. Journal of
Educational Administration 55(5): 469–491.
Bipath K (2008) The emotional intelligence of the principal is essential in the leadership of a functional
school. The International Journal of Learning 15(10): 57–64.
Blasé J and Blasé J (1999) Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspec-
tives. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(3): 349–378.
Bridges E (2012) Administrator preparation: Looking backwards and forwards. Journal of Educational
Administration 50(4): 402–419.
Brophy JE and Good T (1986) Teacher behavior and student achievement. In: Wittrock MC (Eds.) Handbook
of Research in Teaching, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Macmillian, pp. 328–375.
Cai Q (2011) Can principals’ emotional intelligence matter to school turnarounds? International Journal of
Leadership in Education 14(2): 151–179.
Cates S (2012) Exploring school principals’ perspectives on emotional intelligence. Master’s Thesis, Brock
University, Ontario, Canada.
Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–159.
Crawford M (2007) Emotional coherence in primary school headship. Educational Management Adminis-
tration and Leadership 35(4): 521–534.
Crawford M (2011) Rationality and emotions. In: Day C and Chi-kin L (eds) New Understandings of Teacher
Education: Emotions and Educational Change. LaVergne, TN: Springer.
Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives
8(1): 1–44.
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 52(2): 221–258.
De Nobile JJ and McCormick J (2010) Occupational stress of Catholic primary school staff: A study of
biographical differences. International Journal of Educational Management 24: 492–506.
Feng D (2012) Xifang jiaoxue lingdao yanjiu de zaidu xingsheng ji luoji zhuanxiang [Refocus on instructional
leadership and its new logic in western literature]. Educational Research 3: 135–139.
Firestone WA and Riehl C (2005) A New Agenda for Research in Educational Leadership. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan M (2015) The New Meaning of Educational Change (5th ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gardner L and Stough C (2002) Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in
senior level managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 23(2): 68–78.
George JM (2008) Emotions and Leadership: The Role of Emotional Intelligence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Goldring E, Cravens X, Porter A, Murphy J and Elliott S (2015) The convergent and divergent validity of the
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED), instructional leadership and emotional
intelligence. Journal of Educational Administration 53(2): 177–196.
Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Gray D (2009). Emotional intelligence and school leadership. Available from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1071402.pdf (accessed 8 June 2018).
Grobler B, Moloi C and Thakhordas S (2017) Teachers’ perceptions of the utilization of Emotional Intelli-
gence by their school principals to manage mandated curriculum change processes. Educational Man-
agement Administration & Leadership 45(2): 336–355.
Hallinger P (2010) Making education reform happen: Is there an ‘Asian’ way? School Leadership and
Management 30(5): 401–408.
Hallinger P (2013) Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment.
Educational Administration Quarterly 50(4): 539–576.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2011) Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing
patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 22(1): 1–27.
Hallinger P, Li D and Wang W (2016) Gender differences in instructional leadership: A meta-analytic review
of studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Educational Administration Quar-
terly 52(4): 567–601.
Hallinger P and Walker A (2017) Leading learning in Asia: Emerging empirical insights from five societies.
Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 130–146.
Hallinger P and Wang WC (2015) Assessing Instructional Leadership with the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale. Dordrecht: Springer.
Heck RH and Hallinger P (2014) Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and
learning. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 653–681.
Hattie JAC (2012) Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.
Hebert EB (2011) The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and effec-
tiveness in school principals. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University, GA.
Hobson AJ, Ashby P, Malderez A and Tomlinson PD (2009) Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know
and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 207–216.
Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology
and culture 2(1): 1–26.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria vs. new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.
Huang TD and Wiseman AW (2011) The landscape of principal leadership development in Mainland China:
An analysis of Chinese and English research. In: Huang TD and Wiseman AW (eds) The Impact and
Transformation of Education Policy in China. Emerald: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 125–152.
Jiang ML, Chen JJ and Lv P (2010) Xuexiao neihan fazhanzhongde xiaozhang lingdaoli (Instructional
leadership in school development). Global Education 39(8): 78–83.
Kerr R, Garvin J, Heaton N and Boyle E (2006) Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Lead-
ership & Organization Development Journal 27(4): 265–279.
Küpers W and Weibler J (2005) How emotional is transformational leadership really? Leadership and
Organization Development Journal 27(5): 368–383.
Kyriakides L, Creemers BPM, Panayiotou A, Vanlaar G, Pfeifer M, Cankar G and McMahon L (2014) Using
student ratings to measure quality of teaching in six European countries. European Journal of Teacher
Education 37(2): 125–143.
Leithwood K, Louis KS, Anderson S and Wahlstrom K (2004) How leadership influences student learning.
New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood KA and Beatty B (2007) Leading with teacher emotion in mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Leithwood KA and Beatty B (2008) Leading with Teacher Emotions in Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Liang XY, Kidwai H and Zhang MX (2016) How Shanghai Does It: Insights and Lessons from the Highest-
Ranking Education System in the World. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Lingard B, Martino W and Rezai-Rashti G (2013) Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy:
Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy 28(5): 539–556.
Liu S, Hallinger P and Feng D (2016) Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: Does trust
matter? Journal of Educational Administration 54(6): 661–682.
Liu W, Song Z, Li X and Liao Z (2017) Why and when leader’s affective states influence employee upward
voice. Acad Manage J 60: 238–263.
Marks HM and Printy SM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transfor-
mational and instructional leadership. Educational administration quarterly 39(3): 370–397.
Marsh HW, Hau K and Wen Z (2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to
setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings.
Structural Equation Modeling 11(3): 320–341.
Marzano RJ, Frontier T and Livingston D (2011) Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of
teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matthews G, Emo AK, Zeidner M and Roberts RD (2004) What is this thing called emotional intelligence? In:
Murphy KR (ed.) A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed?.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 3–36.
Matsumoto D, Seung Hee Y and Fontaine J (2008) Mapping expressive differences around the world: the
relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. J Cross Cult Psychol
39: 55–74.
Maxwell A and Riley P (2017) Emotional demands, emotional labor and occupational outcomes in school
principals: Modelling the relationships. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(3):
484–502.
Mayer JD, Salovey P and Caruso DR (2008) Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits. American
Psychologist 63(6): 503–517.
Mertkan S (2010) Planning for educational change: Putting people and their contexts first. Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education 40(5): 688–690.
Mesquita B and Albert D (2007) The cultural regulation of emotions. In: Gross JJ (eds) Handbook of Emotion
Regulation. New York: Guilford Press, pp.486–503.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE) (2010) National outline for mid and long-
term education reform and development 2010-2020. In: 17th Communist Party of China National Con-
gress, Beijing, China, July.
Moore B (2009) Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school reform? American
Secondary Education 37(3): 20–28.
Munroe MD (2009) Correlation of emotional intelligence and instructional leadership behaviors. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Phoenix, AZ.
Murphy K and Sideman L (2006) The two EIs. In: Murphy KR (eds) A Critique of Emotional Intelligence.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp.37–58.
Nelson D and Low G (2011) Emotional intelligence: Achieving academic and career excellence (2nd ed).
Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Ni YJ, Li Q, Li X and Zou J (2011) China’s new millennium curriculum reform in mathematics and its impact
on classroom teaching and learning. In: Huang TD and Wiseman AW (eds) The Impact and Transforma-
tion of Education Policy in China. Emerald: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.99–124.
Owens JL (2015) Principal and teacher perceptions of instructional leadership and organizational health in
secondary schools. Doctoral Dissertation, Baker University, USA.
Pianta RC, LaParo KM and Hamre BK (2008) The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Manual K-3.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Qian H, Walker A and Zheng Y (2016) China: Research on Chinese principals and their work. In: A Decade of
Research on School Principals. Berlin: Springer, pp. 331–355.
Qian H, Walker A and Li X (2017) The west wind vs the east wind: Instructional leadership model in China.
Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 186–206.
Reddy LA, Dudek CM and Shernoff ES (2016) Teacher formative assessment: The missing link in response to
intervention. In: Jimerson SR, Burns MK and VanDerHeyden AM (eds) Handbook of Response to Inter-
vention: The Science and Practice of Multi-tiered Systems of Support. Berlin: Springer, 607–623.
Reddy LA, Dudek CM, Fabiano GA and Peters S (2015) Measuring teacher self-report on classroom prac-
tices: Construct validity and reliability of the Classroom Strategies Scale-Teacher Form. School Psychol-
ogy Quarterly 30(4): 513–533.
Robinson V, Lloyd C and Rowe K (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the
differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.
Salovey P and Mayer JD (1990) Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3):
185–211.
Sebastian J and Allensworth E (2012) The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and
student learning a study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(4):
626–663.
Spillane JP and Diamond JB (2007) A distributed perspective on and in practice. In: Spillane J. P. and
Diamond J. B. (eds) Distributed leadership in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 146–166.
Stoelinga SR and Mangin MM (2008) Drawing conclusions about instructional teacher leadership. In: Mangin
MM and Stoelinga SR (eds) Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform. New
York: Teachers College Press, 183–192.
Sundararajan L (2015) Understanding Emotion in Chinese Culture: Thinking Through Psychology. New
York: Springer International Publishing.
Tan C and Chua CSK (2015) Education policy borrowing in China: Has the west wind overpowered the east
wind? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 45(5): 686–704.
Teddlie C, Creemers B, Kyriakides L, Muijs D and Yu F (2006) The international system for teacher
observation and feedback: evolution of an international study of teacher effectiveness constructs. Educa-
tional Research and Evaluation 12: 561–582.
Tomlinson CA and McTighe J (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Walker A and Qian H (2015) Review of research on school principal leadership in mainland China,
1998–2013: Continuity and change. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 467–491.
Wang S (2013) Dangdai zhuliu xifang jiaoyu lingdao lilun xinjinzhan [The new development of contempo-
rary mainstream educational leadership theory in the west]. Studies in Foreign Education 5: 43–54.
Weisberg D, Sexton S, Mulhern J, Keeling D, Schunck J, Palcisco A and Morgan K (2009) The widget effect:
Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project.
Available from http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf (accessed 8 June 2018).
Wendorf-Heldt KK (2009) Emotional intelligence: The link to school leadership practices that increase
student achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University, USA.
Wong CS and Law KS (2002) The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and
attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly 13(3): 243–274.
Wong CS, Wong PM and Law KS (2007) Evidence of the practical utility of Wong’s emotional intelligence
scale in Hong Kong and mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24: 43–60.
Wong CS, Wong PM and Peng KZ (2010) Effect of middle-level leader and teacher emotional intelligence on
school teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(1): 59–70.
Yin HB, Lee JCK, Zhang ZH and Jin YL (2013) Exploring the relationship among teachers’ emotional intel-
ligence, emotional labor strategies and teaching satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education 35: 137–145.
Yin HB (2016). Knife-like mouth and tofu-like heart: Emotion regulation by Chinese teachers in classroom
teaching. Social Psychology of Education 19(1): 1–22.
Zhao Y and Qiu W (2012) Policy changes and educational reforms in China: Decentralization and market-
ization. On the Horizon 20(4): 313–323.
Zhao C and Song H (2014) The investigation on edagogic leadership of head teacher in compulsory schools.
Journal of the Chinese Society of Education 3(4): 43–47.
Zheng Q, Li L, Chen H and Loeb S (2017) What aspects of principal leadership are most highly correlated
with school outcomes in China? Educational Administration Quarterly 53(3): 409–447.
Author biographies
Junjun Chen is an assistant professor at the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, the
Education University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on measuring teacher and principal
effectiveness and school improvement.
Wei Guo is a lecturer at the Department of Foreign Languages, Henan University of Economics
and Law. Her research focuses on teaching practice, teacher development and school leadership.

Chen Guo 2018 Emotional Intelligence Can Make A Difference The Impact of Principals Emotional Intelligence On Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen Guo 2018 Emotional Intelligence Can Make A Difference The Impact of Principals Emotional Intelligence On Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

make a difference: The impact Article reuse guidelines:

Junjun Chen and Wei Guo

facilitation of thinking; understanding emotion; and reflectively regulating emotions (Mayer

1. Appraisal and expression of emotion in the self;

The Chinese education context

Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship from principals’ EI to their instructional leadership.

(a) eigenvalues > 1.00;

(d) all cross-loadings had to be < 0.30; and

Measurement model factor characteristics

Scale and items Factor loading

Scale and items Factor loading

17. Encourages students to participate in lessons or learning activities. 0.60

Emotional Intelligence1 EIF2 EIF3 EIF4

EIF1. Self-Emotion Appraisal — 0.55 0.38 0.41

Principal Instructional Leadership

Understanding three measurement models

Understanding the structural model

climate might be a prerequisite for teachers to deliver promoting a student-thinking teaching

Limitations and future directions

Declaration of conflicting interests

You might also like