Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers: Implications on Workplace Productivity

Transcription

1 1 Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers: Implications on Workplace Productivity Noriah Mohd Ishak Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Ramlee Mustapha Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Zuria Mahmud Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Siti Rahayah Ariffin Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Recent literature has shown that there are an increasing number of employers who begin to recognize the importance of EQ or emotional intelligence in the workplace. Emotional intelligence is the ability to sense, understand and effectively use the power of emotions to guide, motivate and even influence others. Emotional outbursts in the workplace can negatively affect the organization in terms of productivity, representation, and profitability. Thus, the purpose this study was two-folds: (a) to explore domains and sub-domains of emotional intelligence specific to Malaysian context, and (b) to examine the relationship among the domains of emotional intelligence of Malaysian teachers and their implications on workplace productivity. Public secondary school teachers were involved in this study. Results from the study suggest additional domains (spirituality and maturity) and sub-domains (intention, interest, compassion and helping others) that describe emotional intelligence among the Malaysian teachers. Correlations between most of the sub-domains are found to be significant with the highest correlation was between empathy and social skills (r = 0.614). Keywords: Emotional Intelligence, Workplace Productivity, Teachers, Malaysia An increasing number of employers have begun to recognize that competencies associated with emotional intelligence are crucial in a workplace (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Cooper & Sawaf, 1996). Emotional intelligence is commonly defined as the ability to sense, understand and effectively use the power of emotions to guide, motivate and even influence others (Salovey & Meyer, 1990). Emotional intelligence in the form of emotional adaptability and agility is essential to enhance personal and leadership qualities. According to Goleman (1995) the rules for work are changing (p. 1) and performance is rarely judged by one s ability to complete a task but by the ability to empower oneself and others.

2 2 Emotional intelligence is not a new concept. The construct has been studied by scientists using varied terminologies. In 1937, Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe EQ (Thorndike & Stein, 1937) while Wechsler used the term non-intellective to refer to affective, personal and social domains (Wechsler, 1940). However, the work of these pioneers was largely forgotten or overlooked until 1983 when Gardner began to put forward the theory of multiple intelligence (Cherniss, 2000). Gardner (1983) conceptualized emotional intelligence as constituting intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) were the first to use the expression emotional intelligence. Goleman (1995; 1998) took one step forward to link the theory to job performance. Other researchers have studied the relationship between EQ and academic achievement (Drago, 2004), gender (Rivera Cruz, 2004), leadership (Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005; Stubbs, 2005; Wong & Law, 2002), employment (Beekie, 2004; Eden, 1993; Jacobs, 2004), personality (Bar-On, 1988; Jordan & Troth, 2002; Lopez, 2004), and religiosity (Paek, 2004) Regarding the relationship between cognition and emotion, there is a growing understanding based on the neuroscience research that cognition and emotions are interwoven in mental life especially in complex decision-making, self-awareness, selfregulation, motivation, empathy and social interaction (Davidson, 2001). However, literature seems to suggest that we can no longer equate high cognitive ability with career success. Several research have shown that IQ by itself is a poor predictor of job performance. Hunter and Hunter (1984) estimated that at best IQ accounts for about 25 percent of the variance. Sternberg (1997) has pointed out that studies vary and that 10 percent may be a more realistic estimate. In some studies, IQ account for as little as 4 percent of the variance (Cherniss, 2000). Cherniss (2000) cited the Sommerville study as an example. The 40-year longitudinal study was conducted to trace the life of 450 boys grew up in Sommerville, Massachusetts. Two-thirds of the boys were from welfare families, one-thirds had IQ s below 90. The study found that IQ had little relation to how well they did at work. What made the significant difference was their childhood abilities such as being able to manage frustration, control emotions, and form positive interpersonal relations (Snarey & Vaillant, 1985). Another study has shown that social and emotional abilities were four times more important than IQ in determining professional success and prestige (Fiest & Barron, 1996). This is not to conclude, however, that IQ is less important. It is just to show that IQ is not the sole predictor of job performance and work productivity. Thus, innovative employers should look beyond IQ and academic credentials when screening future employees. Goleman (1995; 2001) asserts that outstanding workers usually have an edge over others in their ability to control their emotions. These stupendous individuals can endure complex task without experiencing extreme burnout, and they are known to be team players who can work exceptionally well with their coworkers to achieve organizational goals. Studies abound that show individuals with high emotional intelligence make use of their emotions to guide them in their thinking and behaviors (Bar-On, 1988; Cherniss,

3 3 2000; Weisinger, 1998). They are able to relate to others with compassion and empathy, and have well-developed social skills. They work best as team players, and normally would take the responsibility of leading the team to meet the organizational goals. These individuals also use their emotional awareness to direct their actions and behaviors that help them become better leaders. Nevertheless, some people have difficulty managing their emotions especially when faced with emotionally volatile situations (Weisinger, 1998). The inability to manage and communicate emotions effectively can lead to unresolved and repetitive conflicts among employees and that in the long run can cause severe burnout and diminished productivity. One of the critical workplaces is school. Based on international comparison, it has been established that teaching serves as one of the most stressful professions (Antoniou, 2000; Kyriacou, 1987; Manthei & Solman, 1988). Literature seems to indicate that prolonged occupational stress can lead to both mental and emotional illhealth which in turn could affect the quality of teaching (Antoniou, 2000; Borg, et al. 1991; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Travers & Cooper, 1996). Heavy workload, students disciplinary problems, and poor working condition have been identified as major factors that could lead to teachers burnout (Borg, et al. 1991; Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979). Stressful working environment can bring negative impact on the teachers psychological well-being and can cause discontentment and emotional outbursts or emotional fallouts. Findings from a study conducted by Skovholt and D Rozario (2000) suggests that effective teachers are those who display empathy towards others and have the ability to interact harmoniously with their environment. This idea supports the concept of facilitative teachers suggested by Grasher (1996). Facilitative teachers are those who empathized with their students and are sensitive to their students needs. These teachers are willing to reach out to their students, and inevitably become the students role model. In line with this argument, findings from a study conducted by Noriah et al. (2001; 2003) on student-teacher attachment and its effect on teachers commitment towards the teaching profession, demonstrate that teachers who show care and concern toward their students have had higher commitment to their teaching profession. These teachers were more sensitive to their students needs and were willing to listen to their students grievances. Subsequently, not only the teachers commitment is increased, but also the students motivation to learn in the classroom. Empirical research in Malaysia shows that that teachers emotional fallouts at their workplace was mainly due to the disruptive students behaviors who had difficulty following instruction and who displayed disrespectful behaviors toward their teachers (Noriah, 1995; Rosnah, 2003). A study conducted by Noriah (1995) shows that besides the disruptive students, heavy workload that the teachers must bear (including other tasks besides teaching) also contributed toward teachers high level of stress. Such phenomenon can produce emotionally laden behaviors among teachers that can affect their job productivity. Work or job productivity in this study was simply defined as work performance of the teachers as appraised by the school administrators.

4 4 A study conducted by Rosnah (2003) on the Malaysian teachers personality profile suggests that the teachers under study lack of positive emotions and thus, they were unable to transmit their positive feelings towards their students. The inability to transmit positive feelings can trigger disruptive behaviors among students. Assuming that the teachers were the students role model and the students were more likely to react to teachers behaviors; it is argued that the teachers personality and behaviors toward the students could affect the students psychological and emotional states. However, few studies have been conducted to measure and validate the EQ of Malaysian teachers. Thus, it is critical to conduct this study to examine the relationship among the domains of emotional intelligence of Malaysian teachers and their implications on workplace productivity. Purpose of the Study Based on the literature, this study hypothesizes that teachers who are conscious of their own feelings, who can regulate their feelings positively, motivate others, show empathy, love and care for the students, and interact positively with students will demonstrate higher emotional intelligence. Thus, this study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the factors that enhance positive emotions (and thereby increasing teachers emotional intelligence)? 2. Do these factors correlate with each other? 3. Do teachers teaching in different types of schools - boarding or daily schools - differ in their ability to promote positive emotion? 4. What are the implications of the teachers emotional intelligence on workplace productivity? Theoretical Framework of Emotional Intelligence In this study we assume emotional intelligence is synonymous with emotional quotient (EQ). Thus, we used the terms interchangeably. EQ theorists Mayer and Salovey first coined the term emotional intelligence in 1990, and most psychologists accepted the concept after Goleman successfully published his book Emotional Intelligence in According to Goleman (1995, p. 28), emotional competence is a learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work. He argued that emotional intelligence determines one s potential for learning the practical skills that are based on two competencies - personal and social competencies. Personal competency has three domains: self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-motivation while the social competency comprised two domains, namely, empathy and social skills. Selfawareness is defined as one s ability to know one s internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions (Goleman, 1995). It has three sub-domains: emotional awareness, accurate self-assessment and self-confidence. The second domain, self-regulation is marked by one s ability to manage one s internal states, impulses and resources. The indicators that

5 5 depict this ability are self-control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, and innovation. The third domain that is self-motivation illustrates emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals. The self-motivation domain consists of achievement drive, commitment, initiative and optimism. According to Goleman (1995), social competency is the individual s ability to cope with relationships (personal as well as professional). This competency has two domains: empathy and social skills. Empathy is our awareness of other people s feelings, needs, and concerns. It is the skill of perceiving and sensing the experience and feelings of another person. The five sub-domains that made up empathy are: understanding others, developing others, service orientation, leveraging diversity and political awareness. Although Holm (1997) sees communication as part of empathy, Goleman (1998) suggested that it is actually one of the components of social skills, which reveal one s ability to induce desirable responses in others. The eight sub-domains that explain social skills are influence, communication, conflict management, leadership, change catalyst, building bonds, collaborating/cooperation and team capabilities. Weisinger (1998) defined emotional intelligence as the intelligent use of emotion. According to him, emotional intelligence consists of four basic elements. The first element is the ability to accurately perceived, appraise and express emotions. The second element involves the ability to access or generate feelings on demand and it can facilitate understanding of oneself and others. The third element is the ability to understand emotions and the knowledge that derives from them. The final element of emotional intelligence is the ability to regulate emotions. Weisinger (1998) also claims that emotional intelligence is not a trait; therefore, it could be nurtured, developed, and augmented. Subsequently, one can increase his or her emotional intelligence by learning and practicing the skills and capabilities that encompass emotional intelligence. Although, there exists a number of theoretical frameworks on emotional intelligence, this study used conceptual framework suggested by Goleman (1995). Methodology The present exploratory study was part of a bigger study to examine emotional intelligence of the Malaysian workforce. The study was made possible by a grant provided by the Malaysian government under its Intensified Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) project. The study involved two phases. The first phase was to explore the predictor and criterion variables of emotional intelligence of Malaysian teachers. A focus group and in-depth interview methods were employed in order to identify the main domains of emotional intelligence within the Malaysian context. The second phase employed a cross-sectional design that used a questionnaire as instrument to collect the data needed to answer the research questions. One hundred and eighty (180) secondary schools teachers were involved in the first phase of the study (male = 73, female = 107) and, 640 teachers (male = 286, female = 354) were involved in the second phase of this study (total = 820). Out of 640 teachers,

6 6 338 were teaching at the Malaysian boarding schools, while the remaining 302 teachers were teaching at the Malaysian daily schools. The respondents age were between 25 to 45 years old. The majority of the teachers were from the Malay ethnic group, while the remaining numbers were from other ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese, Indian and others). This ethnic composition is a typical of any Malaysian school. The teachers were selected using a stratified random sampling method based on the directories of Malaysian teachers obtained from the Ministry of Education and MARA (Trust Council of the People). Instrumentation In the first phase, two different sets of interview protocol (focus group and in-depth interviews) were used to explore attributing factors that contribute to the domains of emotional intelligence. The in-depth interview protocol has 28 questions that enabled interviewers to explore more deeply the participants ideas about emotional intelligence, and factors that contribute toward the development of healthy emotions. The focus group protocol has five sets of open-ended questions arranged consecutively (the total number of questions is 38). Focus group questions help the researchers to explore new domains of emotional intelligence. Data from the first phase of the study was validated using several methods suggested by Yin (1994). The methods used were: (a) establishing chain of evidence (construct validity), (b) review of transcript interview by informants (construct validity), (c) developed pattern matching (internal validity), (d) used replication logic (external validity), and (e) developed case study data base (reliability). Data Collection In the second phase of the study, data collected in the first phase was used to develop a new EQ instrument known as the Malaysian Emotional Quotient Inventory (MEQI). This instrument is divided into 11 sections (A to K). Sections A, C, D, F, G, J, and I consist of items that measure domains of the perceived emotional intelligence. The domains are self-awareness (35 items), self-regulation (40 items), self-motivation (36 items), empathy (45 items), social skills (52 items), spirituality (9 items), and maturity (6 items). These items were developed on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Section B, E, H, and K are items that measure emotional performance. Section B displays pictures that depict face expression and respondents were asked to identify the expression according to how they feel. Findings from a study conducted by Davies et al. (2000) shows that identification of correct face expression is a better way to measure emotions when compared to other measures such as self-report. Section E exhibits panoramic pictures, and respondents were asked to indicate their feelings towards each of the pictures. Section H is an open-ended questions pertaining to respondents ability to self-regulate in a given situation. In this section, respondents were asked to rate their responses according to the points given in the instruction. Finally, Section K displays 11 pictures of mazes. Respondents were asked to progressively complete each maze according to its level of difficulty. The 263 items in the MEQI were developed from data collected during in-depth as well as focus group interview.

7 7 Reliability analysis conducted on each domain revealed values of Cronbach Coefficient Alpha between 0.87 to Results Data from the first phase of the study was transcribed, coded and analyzed using Nu*dist software. All five domains suggested by Goleman (1995) emerged throughout the interviews. The domains are (a) self-awareness, (b) self-regulation, (c) self-motivation, (d) empathy, and (e) social skills. Goleman (1995) suggested three sub-domains that explained emotional awareness, and these are: (a) emotional awareness, (b) accurate selfassessment, and (c) self-confidence. However, findings from the study suggested additional sub-domain to explain self-awareness. The new sub-domain was identified as intention. The numbers of sub-domains for self-regulation remain the same, i.e., (a) self-control, (b) trustworthiness, (c) conscientiousness, (d) adaptability, and (e) innovation. An additional sub-domain was also found for self-motivation which is interest (see Table 1). Table 1. MEQI Domains and Sub-Domains Original Domains Original Sub-Domains Additional Sub- Domains 1 Self-Awareness Emotional awareness Accurate self-assessment Self-confidence 2 Self-Regulation Self-control Trustworthiness Conscientiousness Adaptability Innovation 3 Self-Motivation Achievement drive Commitment Initiative Optimism 4 Empathy Understanding others Developing others Service orientation Leveraging diversity Political awareness 5 Social Skills Influence Communication Conflict management Leadership Change catalyst Building bonds Collaborating & Intention - Interest Compassion Helping others -

8 8 Additional Domains cooperation Team capabilities 6 Spirituality Maturity - - Two additional sub-domains were identified for empathy, i.e., compassion and interest besides the original sub-domains for empathy which are (a) understanding others, (b) developing others, (c) service orientation, (d) leveraging diversity, and (e) political awareness. The numbers of sub-domains that explain social skills remain the same, and they are: (a) influence, (b) communication, (c) conflict management, (d) leadership, (e) change catalyst, (f) building bonds, (g) collaborating and cooperation, and (h) team capabilities (see Table 1). Table 1 also portrays two additional domains emerged from in-depth as well as focus group interviews, and they are identified as spirituality and maturity. Most respondents defined spirituality as one s feelings towards his or her creator (God), and the sense of connectedness they developed with the divine being. It also explained how those feelings help in maintaining emotional stability. Many interviewees posit that spirituality is closely related to one s own religious beliefs and the moral standard embraced by the individuals. Example of excerpt that indicates such idea is to get some sense of calmness, my religion told me to pray to God. The ability to use life experience as a tool to develop emotional stability was termed as maturity. Many interviewees relate maturity with age (example of excerpt: I become more matured in my decision making because I am older now ). However, data from the interviews did not indicate any emergence of sub-domains for both spirituality and maturity. Table 2 shows correlation values among the seven emotional intelligence domains of MEQI. All correlational values are found to be positive, indicating positive association between the domains. The values are also significantly correlated (p <0.01) with the exception of the following relationships: self-awareness and spirituality (r = 0.047, p = 0.237, n = 640), self-awareness and maturity (r = 0.044, p = 0.261, n = 640), selfregulation and spirituality (r = 0.065, p = 0.099, n = 640), and self-motivation and maturity (r = 0.062, p= 0.117, n = 640). The r values range from low to moderately high correlation. The highest correlation value was found between empathy and social skills (r = 0.614, p=0.000, n = 640), followed by self-awareness and self-regulation (r = 0.515, p = 0.000, n = 640), and self-regulation and self-motivation (r =0.507, p=0.000, n = 640). Table 2. Correlation between Domains

9 9 1 Self-Awareness Self-Regulation 0.515** Self-Motivation 0.341** 0.507** Empathy 0.205** 0.340** 0.262** Social Skills 0.172** 0.275** 0.203** 0.614** Spirituality ** 0.385** 0.439** Maturity ** ** 0.204** ** Significance at α = 0.01 Table 3 illustrates the variance explained among the correlated domains. The contributed variance to be in the range of 26% to 38%. It is also interesting to note that empathy correlates moderately high (r=0.614) with social skills. This insinuates that teachers who empathize with others also have good social skills (and vice versa), and 38% of the total variance of empathy explained the variability in social skills. Table 3. Variance of Association between Domains Correlation Between r r² Sig. Self-Awareness * Self-Regulation ** Self-Awareness * Self-Motivation ** Self-Awareness * Empathy ** Self-Awareness * Social Skills ** Self-Awareness * Spirituality Self-Awareness * Maturity Self-Regulation * Self-Motivation ** Self-Regulation * Empathy ** Self-Regulation * Social Skills ** Self-Regulation * Spirituality Self-Regulation * Maturity ** Self-Motivation * Empathy ** Self-Motivation * Social Skills ** Self-Motivation * Spirituality ** Self-Motivation * Maturity

10 10 Empathy * Social Skills ** Empathy * Spirituality ** Empathy * Maturity ** Social Skills * Spirituality ** Social Skills * Maturity ** ** Significant at 0.01 Table 4 shows mean difference (from total score of all 7 domains) of emotional intelligence between teachers teaching in the two different types of schools (boarding school and daily government school). Mean for the boarding school teachers is (n = 338, SD = ) while mean for daily government secondary school teachers is (n = 302, SD = ). The mean difference is (see Table 5) and this value is found to be statistically significant (α = 0.05, t=2.409, p=0.016). The data clearly shows that the boarding school teachers have higher mean score when compared to their counterpart in daily schools. This finding implies that teachers teaching in the boarding school have higher emotional intelligence than teachers teaching in the daily government school. Table 4. Mean Difference of Emotional Intelligence among Teachers in Different Schools Type of Schools n Mean SD SEM Boarding School Daily Government Secondary School Table 5. T-Test of Emotional Intelligence among Teachers in Different Schools t df Sig. MD Emotional Intelligence * * Significance at α = 0.05 Discussion and Conclusion

11 11 The findings from this study validated the existence of the five domains (self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills) of emotional intelligence suggested by Goleman (1995). However, the five domains are not adequate to describe emotional intelligence among the Malaysian teachers. The respondents seem to suggest that spirituality and maturity are imperative to the development of stable emotion. This is probably true for the teachers from the Asian region that subsumed spirituality in many aspects of their life. The idea of reaching out to the divine power may help the teachers to vent their stressful feelings triggered from their personal or working environments. In terms of maturity, perhaps due to the traditional culture of Malaysians that put emphasis on respecting the elders, the respondents feel that maturity should be one important component of emotional intelligence. The older the person, the more matured they are assumed to be, and invariably, they are expected to make wiser decision. A popular saying states that wisdom comes with age and experience. This study found that social skills shows a moderately high correlation (r=0.614) with empathy. Therefore, people with good social skills may demonstrate high level of empathy. Conversely, people with poor social skills may demonstrate lack of empathy. Teachers with low social skills are unlikely to be effective teachers. They may further alienated the students. A study conducted by Noriah and Nor Shakinah (2001) found that teachers who were not willing to interact with their students, were also found to be less sensitive to the students learning needs. On a more positive note, a study conducted by Holm (1997) shows that students performance increased when teachers show emphatic communication. According to Goleman (1998), individuals who lack empathy may not be able to sense other people s feelings and perspectives, and subsequently may not take an active interest in other people s concern. Such inability would inhibit them from recognizing other people s potential. Similarly, teachers who lack social skills and empathy are unlikely to be able promote healthy development among their students. This statement is supported by a study conducted by Noriah at el. (2004) which shows that teachers with low emotional intelligence are more likely to leave the teaching profession. Teachers teaching in boarding schools were found to have higher emotional intelligence compared to their counterparts teaching in daily schools. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, boarding school teachers deal with fewer students with disruptive behaviors because all the students are highly selected. Thus, the teachers faced with less frustration and less emotional outbursts. Second, the teacher-students ratio in boarding school (usually 1:25) is much less than the ratio in the daily schools (usually 1:45). The lower teacher-students ratio in boarding schools also implies that the teachers have less teaching and clerical workload, therefore, less stress.

12 12 In conclusion, this study found that MEQI validated the 5 domains of Emotional Intelligence proposed by Goleman (1995) and added two new domains, i.e., spirituality and maturity. For Malaysian teachers, most of the domains correlated with each other with the highest correlation between social skills and empathy. The study revealed that teachers teaching in boarding schools possessed higher emotional intelligence than their counterparts in daily schools. Implications Toward Workplace Productivity Based on the findings of the study, several implications on workplace performance can be derived. Teachers and students compliment each other and both play an important role in developing favorable teaching and learning environment. The sagacious use of emotions in the workplace is being recognized as an influential factor in organizational effectiveness, leadership and work productivity (Amundson, 2004). The findings of this study support previous studies that individuals who possess high EQ were better able to respond flexibly to changes in their social environments and build supportive social networks. In addition, teachers with high emotional intelligence were more likely to excel in their career because they are constantly seeking feedback about their teaching from the students. This would open a good communication channel that enables students to vent their negative feelings. What are the benefits for teachers, if EQ is embedded into the teacher trainees curriculum program? McDowelle and Bell (1997) posit that educational leadership preparation programs should systematically and intentionally include knowledge on emotional intelligence. Planned activities that emphasize on team building, networking, conflict-management, and negotiation should be included in the training curriculum. This may enhance teachers EQ and can assist them to teach effectively. The EQ embedded curriculum could accentuate on how teachers control and manage their own emotions, as well as understand the feelings of others in preparation for their teaching career. Since educational activities are considered as life long activities, and one can develop emotional intelligence over time, therefore, these two aspects of life are actually parallel to each other. Hence, infusing emotional intelligence content knowledge at any part of the learning curve is possible. Teacher trainees in the pre-service program, for instance, would benefit from learning how to be more aware of their own feelings and the effects of those feelings on others. It would also be advantageous for them to recognize their strengths and limitations, and to build self-worth and capabilities that can enhance their self-confidence. Weisinger (1998) also suggested that emotional intelligence be developed upon a number of building blocks. Therefore, once the trainees are able to look at themselves introspectively, they can then learn how to self-regulate their feelings, impulses and resources, and move on to other competencies needed to increase their emotional intelligence, and thereby preparing them for their teaching career. Suggestion for Future Research

13 13 Research on emotional intelligence among teachers are very few and far in between. This particular research itself is one of the few research on emotional intelligence that was conducted among Malaysian teachers. The Malaysian Ministry of Education has taken initiatives to integrate EQ in the teachers training program. It is therefore timely that more research on emotional intelligence be conducted to explore the issues especially among teachers and students with diverse backgrounds. Goleman (1998) and Weisinger (1998) also suggested that emotional intelligence capacities or competencies build upon one another. The question is, at what stage this building occurs and how it occurs? Therefore, future researchers interested in this area should conduct longitudinal studies that examine the developmental stage of emotional intelligence among teachers. These could help teacher educators develop interventions to increase emotional intelligence among teachers. In lieu of the fact that effective teachers are more likely to produce outstanding students, therefore, future research should also focus on emotional intelligence of the students and explore if their emotional intelligence mirrors that of their teachers. Finally, future researchers may also examine relationship between teachers emotional intelligence and their commitment to the teaching profession. References Amundson, S. (2004). An exploratory study of emotional intelligence, group emotional competence, and effectiveness of health care and human service teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University. Antoniou, A.S. (2000). Sources of stress and professional burnout of teachers of special educational needs in Greece. Paper presented at ISEC 2000, University of Manchester. Bar On, R. & Parker, J. (2000). The Handbook Of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, And Application At Home, School, And In The Workplace. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Borg, M., Riding, R., & Falzon, J. (1991). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary schoolteachers. Educational Psychology, 11, Bowlby, J. (1988). Attachment. New York: Basic Books Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment And Healthy Human Development. New York: Basic Books. Cherniss, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence: What it is and why it matters? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, April 15.

14 14 Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (2001). The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How To Select For, Measure, And Improve Emotional Intelligence In Individuals, Groups, And Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, R.K. & Sawaf, A. (1996). Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence In Leadership And Organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam. Davies, M., Stankov, L. & Roberts, R.D. (1995,1998). Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an Elusive Construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, Emmerling, R.J. & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Issues and common understanding. Article published in Goleman, D (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Book. Goleman, D (1998). Working With Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Book. Grasher, A.F. (1996). Teaching With Styles. Cincinnati: Alliance Pub. Guglielmi, R. & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: a methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of educational Research, 68, 1, Holm, O. (1997). Ratings of Emphatic Communication: Does Experience Make a Difference. Journal of Psychology. 131,6, Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational Research, 29(2), Kyriacou, C. & Suttcliffe, J. (1978). A model of teacher stress. Educational Studies, 4, 1-6. Manthei, R. & Solman, R. (1988). Teacher stress and negative outcomes in Canterbury State Schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 23, Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence. In Salovey, P & Sluyter, D. (Eds.). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators. (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books. McCaughtry, N. & Rovegno, I. (2003). Development of pedagogical content knowledge: moving from blaming students to predicting skillfulness, recognizing motor development, and understanding emotion. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 22,4,

15 15 McDowelle, J.O., & Bell, E.D. (1997). Emotional intelligence and educational leadership at East Carolina University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Professors of Educational Administration. Noriah, M.I., Ramlee, M. & Norehah, K. (2001). Personality profile of technical and non-technical students. Journal of Vocational and Technical, 10, 2, Noriah, M.I.. (1995). Pola tekanan, punca tekanan, personality, dan cara menangani tekanan. Jurnal Pendidikan, 10, Noriah, M.I. & Nor Shakinah, M. (2003). Pola pertautan guru-pelajar dan komitmen terhadap profesion perguruan di kalangan guru-guru: satu kajian kualitatif. VirTEC Journal. 3,1, Noriah, M.I., Ramlee, M., Siti Rahayah, A. & Syed Najmuddin, S.H. (2004). Kepintaran emosi dan nilai kerja. Jurnal Teknologi, 39, Rivera Cruz, B. (2004). Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender difference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rosnah (2003). Profil personality guru-guru. Masters Thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Saarni, C. (2000). Emotional competence. A developmental perspective. In Bar-On, R. & Parker, J.D.A. (Eds.) The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Skinner, C. & Spurgeon, P. (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in leadership: A study of empathy, leadership behavior and outcome effectiveness. Management Research, 18(1), Travers, C. & Cooper, C. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching profession. London: Routledge. Weisenger, H. (2000). Emotional intelligence at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wong, C. & Law, K.S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13(3),

16 16