Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers: Implications on Workplace Productivity

Emotional Intelligence of
Malaysian Teachers: Implications
on Workplace Productivity
Noriah Mohd Ishak, Ramlee Mustapha,
Zuria Mahmud, and Siti Rahayah Ariffin
The National University of Malaysia
Abstract
Recent literature has shown that there is an increasing number of employers
who  begin  to  recognize  the  importance  of  emotional  intelligence
(emotional quotient; EQ) in the workplace. Emotional intelligence is the
ability to sense,  understand, and  effectively  use the power of emotions
to guide, motivate, and even in uence others. Emotional outbursts in the
workplace can negatively affect the organization in terms of productivity,
representation,  and  profitability.  Thus,  the  purpose  of  this  study  was
twofold: (a) to explore domains and subdomains 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. Results  from the study suggest
additional domains (spirituality and maturity) and subdomains (intention,
interest,  compassion,  and  helping  others)  that  describe  emotional
intelligence of the Malaysian teachers.
Introduction
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;
Weisenger,  1998).  Emotional  intelligence  is  commonly  defined  as  the
ability to sense,  understand, and  effectively  use the power of emotions
to guide, motivate, and even in uence others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Emotional intelligence in the form of emotional adaptability and agility
is  essential  to  enhance  personal  and  leadership  qualities.  According  to
Goleman (1995, p. 1), “the rules for work are changing” and performance
is rarely judged by  one’s ability  to complete a task but by  the  ability to
empower oneself and others.
Emotional  intelligence  is not  a new concept. The  construct  has  been
 
8
Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers
studied  by  scientists  using  varied  terminologies.  Darwin’s  early  work
on the importance  of  emotional expression  for  survival  and  adaptation
has  opened  a  new  frontier  on  emotional  intelligence  (1872/1965).  In
1937, Thorndike used the term
social intelligence
to describe emotional
quotient  (EQ;  Thorndike  &  Stein,  1937),  whereas  Wechsler  used  the
term
nonintellective
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 & Aviram, 1993; Jacobs, 2004), personality (Bar-On, 1988; Jordan
& Troth,  2002; Lopez,  Salovey,  &  Straus, 2003), 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, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social
interaction (Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000; Emmerling & Goleman,
2003; Hung, 2003). However, literature seems to suggest that we can no
longer equate high cognitive ability with career success. Several studies
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% of the
variance. Sternberg (1996) has pointed out that studies vary and that 10%
may be a more realistic estimate. In some studies, IQ accounts for as little
as 4% of the variance (Cherniss, 2000). Cherniss cited the Sommerville
study  as  an  example. The  40-year longitudinal  study was  conducted  to
trace the life  of 450 boys who grew up  in Sommerville, Massachusetts.
Two-thirds  of  the  boys  were  from  welfare  families;  one-third  had  IQs
below  90. The  study  found  that  IQ had  little  relation  to how  well  they
did at work. What made the significant difference were 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  emphasize  that  IQ  is  not  the  sole  predictor  of  job  performance  and
 
International Journal of Vocational Education and Training •
Vol. 14 • No. 2
9
work  productivity.  Thus,  innovative  employers  should  look  beyond
cognitive  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 tasks  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;  Beekie,  2004;  Skinner  &  Spurgeon,  2005;  Weisenger,
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 (Weisenger).
The inability to manage and communicate emotions effectively can lead
to unresolved and repetitive  con icts among employees and  in the long
run that 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 ill-health, which in turn could
affect the quality of teaching (Antoniou, 2000; Borg, Riding, & Falzon,
1991;  Kyriacou  &  Sutcliffe,  1978;  Travers  &  Cooper,  1996).  Heavy
workload, students’ disciplinary problems, and poor working conditions
have been identified as major factors that could lead to teachers’ burnout
(Borg  et  al.  1991;  Guglielmi  &  Tatrow,  1998;  Kyriacou  &  Sutcliffe,
1978). A stressful working environment can bring  a negative impact on
the teachers’ psychological well-being and can cause discontentment and
emotional outbursts or emotional fallouts.
Arnold  (2005)  argues  that  effective  teachers  are  those  who  display
empathy  toward  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
empathize 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  Ishak  and  Mohamad  (2003)  on  student–teacher
attachment and  its  effect on  teachers’  commitment toward the teaching
profession, demonstrate that teachers who show care and concern toward
 
10
Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers
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 teachers’ emotional fallouts
at their workplace was mainly due to the disruptive behavior by students
who had difficulty following instruction and who displayed disrespectful
behaviors  toward  their  teachers  (Idris,  2003;  Ishak,  1995).  A  study
conducted  by  Ishak  (1995)  shows  that  besides  the  disruptive  students,
heavy workload that the teachers must bear (including other tasks besides
teaching)  also  contributed  toward  teachers’  high  levels  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.
A  study  conducted  by  Idris  (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
toward  their  students.  The  inability  to  transmit  positive  feelings  can
trigger disruptive behaviors among students. Assuming that the teachers
were the students’ role models and the students were more likely to react
to  teachers’  behaviors,  it  is  argued  that  the  teachers’  personalities  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
increase teachers’ emotional intelligence)?
2. Do these factors correlate with each other?
 
International Journal of Vocational Education and Training •
Vol. 14 • No. 2
11
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
EQ. Thus, we used the terms interchangeably. Salovey and Mayer (1990)
first  coined  the  term
emotional  intelligence
and  most  psychologists
accepted  the  concept  after  Goleman  successfully  published  his
book,
Emotional  Intelligence,
in  1995.  The
Encyclopedia  of  Applied
Psychology
(Spielberger,  2004)  stated  that  there  are  currently  three
major  conceptual  models of EQ:  (a) the  Salovey-Mayer  model  (Mayer
& Salovey, 1997), which defines the construct as the ability to perceive,
understand, manage,  and  use  emotions to  facilitate  thinking, measured
by an  ability-based  measure  (Mayer,  Salovey,  &  Caruso,  2002); (b) the
Goleman model (1995, 1998), which views this construct as a wide array
of competencies and skills that drive managerial performance, measured
by multirater assessment (Boyatzis, Goleman, & HayGroup, 2001); and
(c)  Bar-On  model  (1997a,  1997b)  which  describes  a  cross-section  of
interrelated  emotional  and  social  competencies,  skills,  and  facilitators
that  in uence  intelligent  behavior,  measured  by  self-report  (Bar-On  &
Handley, 2003a, 2003b).
This  study  used  the  Goleman  model  as  the  theoretical  framework
because  the  model  relates  EQ  to  work  performance.  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,  whereas
the  social  competency  comprised  two  domains,  namely,  empathy
and  social  skills.  Self-awareness  is  defined  as  one’s  ability  to  know
one’s  internal  states, preferences,  resources, and intuitions (Goleman,
1995).  It  has  three  subdomains:  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  depict  this  ability  are self-control,
trustworthiness,  conscientiousness,  adaptability,  and  innovation.  The
third  domain  that  is  self-motivation  illustrates  emotional  tendencies
 
12
Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers
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  subdomains  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  subdomains that  explain  social
skills  are  in uence,  communication,  con ict  management,  leadership,
change  catalyst,  building  bonds,  collaborating–cooperation,  and  team
capabilities.
Weisenger (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  perceive,
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.  Weisenger  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 the  conceptual
framework suggested by Goleman (1995).
Methodology
Participants
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
 
International Journal of Vocational Education and Training •
Vol. 14 • No. 2
13
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  secondary  (180)  schools  teachers  were
involved in  the first phase  of the study  (men  = 73,  women  = 107),  and
640  teachers  (men  =  286,  women  =  354)  were  involved  in  the  second
phase of this study (total = 820). Out of 640 teachers, 338 were teaching
at  the Malaysian boarding schools, whereas the remaining  302 teachers
were teaching at the Malaysian daily schools. The respondents’ ages were
between 25 and 45 years old. The majority of the teachers were from the
Malay  ethnic  group,  whereas  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  Trust  Council of
the People (MARA).
Instrumentation
In  the  first  phase,  two  different  sets  of  interview  protocols  (focus
groups 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 were validated using several methods
suggested by Yin (1994). The  methods used were: (a)  established  chain
of  evidence  (construct  validity),  (b)  reviewed  transcript  interview  by
informants (construct validity), (c) developed pattern matching (internal
validity), (d) used replication logic (external validity), and (e) developed
case study database (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
 
14
Emotional Intelligence of Malaysian Teachers
(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
).  Sections  B,
E,  H,  and  K  are  items  that  measure  emotional  performance.  Section
B  displays  pictures  that  depict  facial  expression  and  respondents
were  asked  to  identify  the  expression  according  to  how  they  feel.
Findings  from  a  study  conducted  by  Davies,  Stankov,  and  Roberts
(1998)  indicate  that  identification  of  “correct”  facial  expression  is  a
more effective method of measuring emotions when compared to other
measures  such  as  self-report.  Section  E  exhibits  panoramic  pictures,
and  respondents were  asked to  indicate their  feelings toward  each  of
the pictures. Section H consists of 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. And finally, Section K illustrates 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  interviews  as  well  as
focus group interviews. Reliability analysis conducted on each domain
revealed  values  of  Cronbach’s  coefficient  alpha  between  0.87  and
0.97.
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  subdomains  that
explained emotional awareness, and these are: (a) emotional awareness,
(b) accurate self-assessment, and (c) self-confidence. However, findings
from  the  study  suggested  an  additional  subdomain  to  explain  self-
awareness.  The  new  subdomain  was  identified  as  “intention.”  The
numbers  of subdomains for self-regulation  remain  the same, that is, (a)
self-control, (b)  trustworthiness, (c) conscientiousness, (d)  adaptability,
and  (e)  innovation. An  additional  subdomain  was  also  found  for  self-
motivation,  which  is  “interest”  (see  Table  1  for  MEQI  domains  and
subdomains).