Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance of High School Female Teachers

Received 12 May, 2015

Accepted 22 Nov, 2017

Published 31 Dec, 2017

Emotional intelligence (EI) has become a well-known concept in the field of work psychology. There has been an increasing realization that, beside other skills and attributes, EI is an important predictor of potential job performance. This present study aimed to explore EI as predictor of job performance among high school female teachers. The impact of work related attitudes, job satisfaction, turnover intention, and organizational commitment was also located on the relationship of EI and job performance. Female teachers (210), who had been teaching grade 10 students for 2-10 years in 35 randomly selected government high schools comprised the sample. Emotional Intelligence Test (Schutte et al., 1998), Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), and Continuance Commitment Subscale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) were used to measure the study variables. Marks of students and self-evaluation forms were employed to measure the job performance of the teachers. A theoretical model was developed, positing EI predicting job performance via job attitudes; that is job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. EI came out as a poor job performance predictor as was indicated by path analysis and regression analysis. However, teachers with high EI indicated more job satisfaction than teachers with low EI; and their students secured better grades. This has important implications for educational authorities, school administrators, and teachers in terms of teacher recruitment, training, performance and professional development.

There is ample research that indicates that teachers play a significant role in the social and emotional development of their students (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2001, 2006) that has enduring influence on their lives (Pederson, Fatcher, & Eaton, 1978). Teachers play a focal role in students’ intellectual development and life accomplishments (Corbett & Wilson, 2002; McIntyre & Battle, 1998; Murphy, Delli, & Edwards, 2004; Thomas, 1998). The job of teachers is not only to give knowledge, but also to ensure that students obtain socially and culturally useful skills and behaviours. The success of students depends on effective teaching and the emotional health of teachers play an imperative role towards that end. Students get inspiration from teachers not only by how and what they teach, but also by how they transmit, relate, teach and model.

The present study is undertaken to explore the relationship between EI and performance of high school female teachers and to explore mediating role of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions in the relationship between EI and job performance. The current study informs us regarding selection of teachers in terms of EI and job related attitudes that may mediate the factors of job success among them. The choice of teachers as the target population is informed by the fact that they constitute a core group within the education delivery system and their place is significant in their students’ life especially during the school days.

EI encompasses a range of emotional competencies that facilitate the identification, processing, and regulation of emotion (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005). EI is not the same as general intelligence; as Bar-On (1997) differentiated EI and general intelligence and argued that EI focuses on personal, social, and emotional competencies and not only the cognitive dimensions of intelligence. Bar-On (1997) further suggested that EI predicted an individual’s success better because it reflected how a person applied knowledge to the immediate situation (Kiani, 2003). Researchers have identified EI as a significant factor that plays a role in success in many fields such as business, nursing, law, medicine, sports and education (Augusto-Landa et al ., 2008; Brackett et al ., 2011; Carmeli, 2003; Song et al ., 2010; Stein et al ., 2009).

Parker et al . (2009) argue that higher EI may contribute towards more effective teaching and better job performance among teachers. According to Penrose, Perry, and Ball (2007) teachers with higher EI have better understanding of the emotional needs of others and more effective management of their own emotional feedbacks and so are more effective in their job performance. Similarly, positive relationship between EI and teacher performance has also been indicated by KoÇoĞlu (2011), who studied Turkish pre-service teachers, and found that teachers with higher EI were more likely to employ a wide range of dynamic teaching strategies which had a good impact on the outcomes of the teaching process.

Mediators between EI and Job Performance
Many job related attitudes mediate positively between EI and job performance such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied attitudes in organizational behavior. One of the oldest beliefs in the business world is that a happy worker is a productive worker. This underlies the significance of emotions. Earlier evidence suggests that there is a moderate relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Carnell, 1986). In terms of organizational commitment (OC) much of the research has been done by industrial and organizational psychologists. Similarly, Yousaf (2005) reported EI as a mediator between personality variables and managerial effectiveness among salesmen; and added that EI acts as a single variable which had a positive effect on managerial effectiveness.

Within the educational setting little attention is paid to this issue. An aim of this present study was to identify OC as a mediator in the relationship between EI and job performance. Fostering organizational commitment among the academic staff is necessary because high level of commitment leads to several favorable outcomes like long adherence to the organization, better performance, and higher job satisfaction. Past investigations have shown that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are antecedents of turnover intention (Hinshaw, Smeltzer, & Atwood, 1987).

Teachers are mainly responsible for carrying out reforms in the classroom and thus, play an important role in determining their students’ success (Barent, 2005; Reese, 2008). Reese (2008) further suggests in a meta-analysis that teachers who are having high-quality intrapersonal skills (good EI), are happier in their jobs and wanted to stay in their schools for longer periods. Moreover, they showed more commitment and put maximum efforts to improve their class results. There is also evidence that EI is effective in enhancing job satisfaction and hence, commitment to the organization, which is helpful in reducing occupational stress (Gardner, 2006). These studies provide a good framework for the present research. Teachers with high EI have shown more effective response to undesirable and negative situations than those with low levels of EI (Perry & Ball, 2007). Likewise, workplace performance-improvement skills, such as effective relations with colleagues and overall job performance, are associated with high level of EI (Lopes et al ., 2006). Fernández-Berrocal and Ruiz (2008) have asserted that the teachers with high emotional intelligence often tend more to help students to cope with behavioural challenges, develop interpersonal skills, and show better academic performance. Not much research has been conducted in Pakistan that highlights the role of emotionally intelligent teachers in the provision of better education. Interplay among various factors of teachers’ performance and their EI has also not been well researched in the Pakistani context. It is, therefore, plausible to fill this gap of knowledge through empirical studies. This study was, therefore, conducted to examine the mediators between EI and job performance among female school teachers in Pakistan.

Hypotheses

1.	Teachers’ EI is a significant positive predictor of their job performance
2.	Teachers with high EI are more job satisfied, more committed to their organizations, are higher performers, and have lesser intention to leave the organization
3.	Length of teaching experience, job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions are likely to mediate the relationship between EI and job performance

METHOD

Participants
A sample of 210 female secondary school teachers was selected from a population of 130 female public high schools using stratified random sampling technique. At first stage, 35 public schools for girls were selected from target area using random sampling technique, and from each selected school 6 teachers (3 teachers of science subjects and 3 teachers of humanities subject) teaching 10^th class were selected using random sampling technique. These teachers had academic qualifications (MA/M.Sc) and professional qualifications (B.Ed) with an experience ranging from 2 to 10 years. Age range of these teachers was 25 to 45 years (M = 35.0, SD = 5.0). The subjects which they taught were divided in two broader categories, that is science and humanities. Science subjects included physics, chemistry, biology, computer sciences, and mathematics; while, humanities included Urdu, English, Pakistan Studies, and Islamiyat. Ten students of 10^th class from the class of each sampled teacher were also selected as respondents using random sampling technique. They had to provide their opinions about the job performance of selected teachers and their academic scores in specific subjects were also used as a measure of job performance of the teachers teaching those subjects.

Measures
Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT; Schutte et al ., 1998). SREIT consist of 33 items and measures four factors of emotional intelligence which are regulation of emotions, optimism/utilization, appraisal of emotions, and emotional knowledge through items on 5-point Likert response options ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly disagree (5) with high scores indicating higher levels of emotional intelligence. Example items included, “I like to talk with others about personal feelings”; “I know when to talk about personal problems to others”; “I always present myself in a way that gives my positive impression to others”; and “I am aware of my feelings”. Correlation matrix in the present study showed significant positive relationship among all the subscales of SREIT (.46 to .90). Hence, the research tool SREIT was valid tool to meet the purpose of measurement for the study. In the current study, alpha value of .90 indicated strong internal consistency of this test which supports the claim of Schutt et al . (1998) that the items of the scale measured a single-factor.

Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr-Cook & Wall, 1979). It had 15 items that were rated on 5-point Likert scale with response categories of completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (5). These items were focused on the dimensions of working environment, freedom to work, working hours, and recent pay indicating teachers’ satisfaction from these aspects in their institutions. High score on this scale reflect higher level of job satisfaction. Cronbach alpha of .88 was achieved for this scale in the current study.

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday et al ., 1979). OCQ contained 15 items focused on an employee’s belief and acceptance of the organization’s goal, their willingness to expend efforts, and their desire to maintain the membership of organization like: “I said to my friends that it is the best organization to work with”. Responses can be acquired on the 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) and high score indicated elevated levels of commitment with the present organization. Alpha coefficient of .78 was found as an indicator of internal consistency of OCQ in this study.

Continuance Commitment Subscale (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The turnover intentions of the teachers was measured by using the subscale of Continuance Commitment with 8 items adopted from Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It had items exploring the commitment of employee with his/her organization /institution such as; “It would be difficult for me to leave this organization at this moment”. Participants responded on 7-point Likert scale constituting strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7) with higher score as an indicator of higher levels of turnover intentions. In the present study, Cronbach alpha for the subscale of Continuance Commitment was found to be .73.

Job performance of the teachers. It was measured in three ways.

Average Performance Index. Firstly by evaluating the final external academic results of Class 10 students taught by the sample teachers and their marks sheets were obtained from the relevant Board of Intermediate and Secondary Examination. Percentage of success rate was worked out from the academic result of every teacher. This yielded an index of the performance of teachers. The first step in calculating the Average Performance Index (API) for a teacher was to divide students into five performance bands A, B, C, D, and E in the subject taught by the specific teacher. At second step, the percent students in performance bands A, B, C, D, and E are multiplied by 10, 7, 5, 3, and 2; respectively. These are summed up to get API of an individual teacher (adapted from California Department of Education, 2013).

Teacher evaluation forms. Second, students were given Teacher Evaluation Forms (Khan, 2004) to rate their teachers on a 5-point rating scale. Ten students from each class filled this form and rated their teachers on 19 items. These items were about the performance of teacher in teaching learning process. For example, “The teacher of this subject relates the contents with daily life application”; “The teacher of this subject makes the contents very interesting and stimulates the students for active participation”. The mean rating of this scale was taken as another measure of teachers’ job performance. This rating of teachers’ performance by students has been considered valid during the past fifty years and is still considered a necessary component and source of faculty evaluation (Berk, 2005).

Self-evaluation. Third, teachers filled in self-evaluation questions asking them about their perceptions regarding their performance as a teacher. For example they were asked the question “What will you say about your performance as a teacher in this school” having three probes; how do you find the effectiveness of your classroom teaching? In what ways do you keep your students engaged in learning process? How would you justify that the assessment (formative and summative) methods you use are efficient? The reliability of the open-ended responses was confirmed by using two coders in data coding and analysis process as proposed by Scott (1955) and Popping (1992). Furthermore, a biographical questionnaire was developed to collect information about research participants’ (teachers’) age, work experience, subject(s) they taught, and their academic degree.

Procedure
After taking permission from the principals, teachers and students were approached in their respective schools to take their consent for participating in the study. All the questionnaires were arranged in a booklet form and booklets were given to teachers individually. The filled in questionnaire booklets were received back on the same day from the research participants. The Teachers Evaluation Forms were distributed among students and they were requested to fill for rating the performance of their relevant teachers as specified in the form.

RESULTS

For testing whether EI is a significant predictor of teachers’ performance and other job related attitudes, the teachers with high and low EI were compared on different variables using t-test. Similarly, multiple regression analysis and path analysis were applied to test how different variables mediate EI and job performance of the teachers. Multiple regression analysis determined a direct fitness of causal relationship among different variables; while, path analysis explored specific set of causal relationship among variables that determine fitness as described by Scheiner, Mitchell, and Callahan (2000). For analyzing self-evaluation report for teachers’ performance, substantive codes were used, and responses of the teachers were brought into two categories; that is, perceptions of being a good performer and being poor performer by using content analysis.

Associations among study variables. Correlations tabulated through Pearson Product Moment indicated that EI is moderately positively allied with job satisfaction (r = .22, p < .01), organizational commitment (r = .23, p < .01), and teachers’ performance in terms of students’ marks (r = .19, p < .05); however, EI was significantly negatively associated with turnover intention (r = -.33, p < .01). On the contrary, EI was significantly negatively associated with job performance measured through students’ rating (r = -.15, p < .05). Job satisfaction was positively aligned with organizational commitment (r =.51, p < .00) and job performance measured in terms of students’ marks (r =.34, p < .01). Organizational commitment was positively associated with teachers’ performance via marks of the students (r = .28, p < .01) but was negatively related with job performance evaluated by students (r = -.19, p < .05) contrary to expectation. The two measures of teachers’ performance had weak correlation (r = .15, p < .05). Both job satisfaction (r = -.28, p < .01) and organizational commitment (r = -.22, p < .01) had negative correlation with turnover intention.

Emotional intelligence and job related behaviours. It was hypothesized that the teachers with higher EI would show better job performance than those with lower EI. To analyze the data for this purpose, two groups of teachers with high EI and low EI were formed on the basis of median split across Emotional Intelligence Test. Independent sample t-tests were carried out to check this set of assumptions.

Table 1:	Scores on Study Variables by Teachers with High and Low EI (N = 210)
*p < .05. **p < .01

The results (see Table 1) indicate that teachers with high EI had significantly higher job satisfaction, higher organizational commitment, and significantly higher students’ marks based performance as compared to the teachers with low EI. However, the teachers with low EI had significantly higher turnover intention as compared to teachers with high EI, and no significant difference was found between teachers with high EI and low EI regarding performance as rated by students.

Predictors of job performance. Multiple regression analysis was carried out for this purpose. Job satisfaction proved a much stronger predictor of job performance measured in terms of students’ marks R² = .35. Students’ marks were, thus, a more tenable and more socially recognized criterion of teachers’ performance.

Results indicated significant effect of experience on job satisfaction of teachers F(2, 208) = 10.7, p < .001 and job performance when evaluated through students’ marks F (2, 208) = 20.1, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, teachers did not differ on EI due to their teaching experience F(2, 208) = 1.28, p > .05 as well as on organizational commitment F(2, 208) = 1.30, p > .05, turnover intention F(2, 208) = 1.11, p > .05, and performance evaluation through students’ rating F (2, 208) = 0.13, p > .05. The hypothesis that there would be effect of the length of teaching experience on psychological variables in this study was supported for job performance and the index of job satisfaction only. Post hoc analysis revealed the pairs of groups by experience that affected job satisfaction and job performance.

Length of teaching experience as predictor of job satisfaction and job performance. The multiple comparisons showed that job satisfaction and job performance increased with experience. Teachers who had 8 to 10 years working experience had far higher level of job satisfaction and job performance than those with an experience of up to seven years. Teachers were asked to rate themselves on a question, ‘What will you say about your performance as a teacher in the school?’ It was expected that teachers with higher EI would rate themselves as good performers and those with lower EI would rate themselves as poor performers. To investigate this, independent sample t test was carried out. Significant difference in self-evaluation of good and poor job performance was found on emotional intelligence scores t (2, 209) = 10.43, p < .001. The hypothesis was strongly supported as good performing teachers and poor performing teachers (by self-evaluation) scored significantly different on EI indicating that the teachers who rated themselves as good performers also scored more on EI.

Path analysis. On the basis of literature review a model was proposed wherein EI was the predictor of job performance and this relationship was mediated by job related attitudes namely job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. The conceptualization of this model was reinforced by observed correlation matrix. The model proposed that impact of emotional intelligence on job performance was largely indirect through job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention.

A test of Absolute Fit was run to see whether the proposed theoretical model fits the data, using software named Analysis of Moment Structure-version 5. Baseline Independence Model implied independence of variables in the matrix was rejected (X² = 1.11, df = 5, p < .05) showing that there was a sufficient structure in the data to warrant path analysis. By inspecting regression analysis paths were made in a way that job satisfaction mediated between EI and job performance (in terms of students marks); while, organizational commitment mediated the relationship between EI and teachers’ performance measured through students’ rating. Turnover intention, on the other hand, mediated the relationship between EI and both measures of teachers’ performance. Modification indices were generated to achieve a better fit between the model and data. This suggested adding a covariance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment residuals (spurious effect or error term) and covariance of residuals of both measures of teachers’ performance. This process gave a non-significant chi-square value of 2.28 (df = 4) p = .68 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of .01, values below .06 are indicative of good fitting models.

For identification, residuals of each variable are numbered from e1 to e5. Arrows represent links among variables. Path model depicts EI as a variable that had insignificant direct effect on both measures of teachers’ performance as well as turnover intention. Decomposition of this path model was carried out in terms of direct effects, indirect effects, and total effects.

Direct effects. Path coefficient (ß) given along with arrows in the path model (Figure 2) represented direct effect of exogenous variables (IVs) as well as of mediators on endogenous variables (EVs). Results given in Table 2 showed that EI had significant direct effect on job satisfaction (ß = .22, p < .001), organizational commitment (ß = .23, p < .001) and turnover intention (ß = .33, p < .001), but a nonsignificant effect on both measures of teachers’ job performance (see Table 2). Job satisfaction was found to have stronger effect on teachers’ performance in terms of students’ marks (ß = .31, p < .001). In the same way organizational commitment had negative effect on teachers’ job performance in terms of students’ rating (ß = -.17, p < .03) as well as on turnover intention and had nonsignificant effect on both measures of teachers’ performance.

Table 2:	Paths Showing Direct Effects
Note. EI = Emotional Intelligence; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment; TI = Turnover Intention; TP = Teachers’ Performance

Indirect effects. Indirect effect explains the impact of exogenous variables (IVs) on endogenous variables (EVs) via mediating variables. Indirect effects were found out by multiplying path coefficients of independent variables, mediating and dependent variables, and for the calculation of p values for indirect effect Sobel Z test was used (see Table 3).

Table 3:	Indirect Effects Depicted by Path Model
Note. EI = Emotional Intelligence; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment; TP = Teachers’ Performance

EI and job satisfaction showed a significant positive indirect effect on teachers’ performance measured in terms of students’ marks (ß = .07, p < .006). On the other hand emotional intelligence through organizational commitment proved negative predictor of teachers’ performance measured in terms of students’ rating (ß = -.03, p < .08). Turnover intention did not prove a significant additive mediating variable among the two measures of teachers’ performance.

Total effects. Summing up the direct and indirect effect yielded the total causal effect of exogenous variables.

Table 4:	Total Effects Depicted by Path Model
Note. EI = Emotional Intelligence; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment; TP = Teachers’ Performance; TI = Turnover Intention

The total effect of EI on both measures of job performance was nonsignificant through job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention so the results did not support the hypothesis that job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention mediated the relationship between EI and job performance.

DISCUSSION

The general assumption is that teachers have to be emotionally intelligent to enhance interpersonal and emotional skills among their students. A significant positive association was expected among EI, job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. The results revealed significant positive relationship of EI with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, teachers’ performance measured through students’ marks, and a significant negative relationship with turnover intention. Thus, the teachers with high EI would be more satisfied and committed to their institution and would have less or no intention to leave. This is meaningful in the sense that high EI significantly contributes for academic performance. This supports the assertion by Fernández-Berrocal and Ruiz (2008) that the teachers with high emotional intelligence tend to create a more effective learning environment, more effectively cope with behavioral challenges and disruptive behaviours, are able to better help the students in their psychological well-being, develop interpersonal relationships, and accelerate academic performance.

Two findings were, however, contrary to our expectations. First, EI was negatively associated with teachers’ efficacy measured through students’ rating. Second, organizational commitment also proved to be a negative predictor of teachers’ efficacy in terms of students’ evaluation. One reason could be the inappropriateness of the 10^th class students’ rating of their teachers’ efficacy as it was found in a study by Khan (2004) that teachers who rated themselves as communicative were rated as inefficient in communicative skills by their students.

In the regression model EI proved a weak predictor of teachers’ job performance in terms of students rating. However, it was a fairly strong predictor of work performance measured through students’ marks. The seemingly inconsistent findings indicate that these two measures of teachers’ job performance are not similar and are prone to limitations. Although, both measures have been excessively used in research and practice but, have been criticized in terms of specific limitations. For example, students ratings for teachers performance are claimed to be misleading as many times bad teachers get high ratings (Zimmerman, 2014) and good teachers receive bad evaluation (Stark & Freishtat, 2014) by their students because demanding and tough teachers are not liked by majority of students as compared to the teachers who go easy in instructional program (Asher, 2013). Similarly, gender, ethnicity, and personality of the teacher may also affect the rating by students (Stark & Freishtat, 2014). Parpala et al . (2011) claimed variation by discipline in students’ beliefs about the quality of teaching and teachers’ performance. Beran and Violato (2005) argued that teachers having lab courses receive higher rating by students as compared to the teachers who teach the subjects that involve lectures or tutorials. Furthermore, Goe, Bell, and Little (2008) have pointed out that students may lack in understanding to provide judgment on different aspects of teachers’ performance (such as curriculum, classroom management, content, knowledge, and collegiality).

The experts have pointed out different concerns about using students’ test scores for measuring performance of a teacher. For instance, Braun (2005) considers student scores as a suitable approach because it reflects teacher’s quality towards student learning besides having an objective measurement of teacher performance in terms of quantitative data. On the other hand, Isore (2009) contradicts this view arguing that students’ scores are much more than the measure of the performance of a single teacher rather there are many other factors (such as students’ own struggle, the support students receive from their families, and the influence of their peer group; school organization, resources and climate; and instructions by former teachers) that influence these scores.

It has been suggested that there are number of tools for teachers’ performance evaluation (for example teacher’s self-evaluation report, classroom observation etc.) and each tool measures exclusive aspects of teachers’ performance and may provide different values for an individual teacher. Danielson and McGreal (2000) suggest the idea of 360-degree evaluation system to include different angles of teachers’ performance by using different evaluators and evaluation tools simultaneously. In the present study, the teachers’ performance scores through students’ achievement and teachers’ self-perception are consistent with each other; while, teachers’ performance scores through students’ rating are contrary. In addition to the above mentioned reasons for this contradictory finding, the majority of teachers from the target population have teaching styles other than democratic style of teaching (Munir & Rehman, 2016). While students due to their lack of ability to evaluate teachers’ holistic performance, may have rated teachers on their teaching styles and therefore, may have assigned invalid ratings for the teachers having non-democratic styles of teaching.

It was also hypothesized that EI through job satisfaction, organizational commitment would be a positive predictor of teachers’ performance while turnover intention would be a negative predictor of teachers’ performance. This hypothesis was supported for job satisfaction attitude only. According to the results, job satisfaction proved a significant positive mediating predictor of students’ marks in the examination. The teachers who were satisfied with their jobs, their working environment, colleagues, pay, and position felt it their responsibility to improve job efforts, and they wanted to improve their productivity and performance.

Job satisfaction mediated relationship between EI and job performance measured in terms of students’ marks. On the other hand, organizational commitment mediated negatively between EI and students’ rating of teachers’ performance. As expected job satisfaction was positively related with organizational commitment. According to Mowday et al . (1979) organizational commitment is strongly related to job satisfaction. Organizational commitment had inverse relationship with teachers’ evaluation by the students. However, students’ marks as teachers’ performance are modestly correlated. Results revealed that teachers with high EI were more satisfied with their jobs than ones with low EI and they were more committed to their organizations, were less ready to leave their organizations, and their students were scoring more marks in matriculation results. Those teachers, who are more experienced (8-10 years’ experience), are more satisfied with their jobs and their students showed better academic achievement than the teachers who had less experience (2 to 7 years). It has been found that teachers with high EI would rate themselves as good performers as compared to others. Self-perception as a good performing teacher was associated with high EI. This made sense in a way that teachers, who had high EI, would be more aware of requirements for being good performers so they knew better how to improve their performance at work.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In the present study, three different measures (rating by students, students’ academic scores, and teacher self-evaluation) have been used for measuring teachers’ performance. All the three tools tend to measure different aspects of teachers’ performance, and these measures of performance have been used separately in the analysis of data. This may have led to the study possibly lacking in holistic measure of teachers’ performance as suggested by Danielson and McGreal (2000). A holistic approach for measuring teachers’ performance may provide more consistent results and a clearer picture for determining the mediating factors between teachers’ EI and their performance. Hence in further studies, a combination of evaluators and evaluating tools may be used in order to have total performance scores for teachers by summing up the scores obtained from different angles of performance measurement. Secondly, the study has limited scope of generalization across gender due to fact that its sample was drawn only from Girls High Schools of the public sector. Further studies would be conducted on larger population contacting teachers of both genders of both private and public sectors. The findings of the present study permit for providing intervention based on training for developing EI of the teachers and for investigating its impact on teachers’ job performance so that the aspect of EI may be included in teacher training and selection criteria which could lead to having more capable teachers in the system.

CONCLUSION

Observed correlational matrix guided towards framing up a model in which EI predicted job performance among high school female teachers. In this model, relationship between EI and teachers’ performance (measured in terms of students’ marks and ranking) was mediated through job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. This model was analyzed by using path analysis. Path analysis and regression analysis proved EI a poor predictor of teachers’ performance in the case rating by students. However higher EI teachers significantly differed from lower EI teachers on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance measured in terms of students’ marks. Experienced teachers were more satisfied with their jobs and their students scored higher marks in the matriculation examination. Teachers who scored high on EI also evaluated themselves as good performers as compared to those who were low on EI score.

It could be concluded that teachers with high EI are likely to be more satisfied with their jobs, more committed to their organizations and would stay with the school for longer periods of time. Besides, schools can get better results in secondary school examinations by hiring experienced teachers and teachers with high EI. This calls for including EI as an important requirement for teacher candidates during the selection and hiring processes for the job. To improve the job performance of those teachers who are already employed ways need to be explored for training them to enhance their capacities and to develop them in terms of higher EI.

REFERENCES

1. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational Psychology,63(1), 1-18.
2. Asher, L. (2013, October 27). When students rate teachers, standards drop. The Wall Street Journal.
3. Augusto-Landa, J. M., Lo´pez-Zafra, E., Berrios-Martos, M. P. & Aguilar-Luzo´n, M. D. C. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence, occupational stress and health in nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(6), 888-901.
4. Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547-558.
5. Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory: User's manual. Toronto: Multi Health Systems.
6. Barent, J. M. (2005). Principals' levels of emotional intelligence as an influence on school culture. (Doctoral dissertation), Montana State University, Bozeman, USA.
7. Beran, T., & Violato, C. (2005). Ratings of teacher instruction: How much do student and course characteristics really matter? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(6), 593-601.
8. Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48-62.
9. Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934-946.
10. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 88-103.
11. California Department of Education. (2013). Academic Performance Index.
12. Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behaviour, and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.
13. Carnall, C. A. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change.Human Relations,39(8), 745-766.
14. Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (2002). What urban students say about good teaching? Educational Leadership, 60, 18-22.
15. Gardner, L. (2006). Emotional intelligence and occupational stress. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske & K. Hansen (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: International symposium (pp. 169-195). Croydon, England: Tertiary Press.
16. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
17. Goleman, D. (1998).Working with emotional intelligence. Random House LLC.
18. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and trajectory of school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.
19. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59-72). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
20. Hinshaw, A. S., Smeltzer, C. H., & Atwood, J. R. (1987). Innovative retention strategies for nursing staff.Journal of Nursing Administration,17(6), 8-16.
21. Khan, S. S. (2004). Correlational study of self-image of teachers and their attitude towards profession as an effective teacher as perceived by themselves and their students, (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
22. Kiani, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence and conflict management at workplace, (Unpublished M.Phil. Dissertation). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
23. KoÇoĞlu, Z. (2011). Emotional intelligence and teacher efficacy: A study of Turkish EFL pre-service teachers. Teacher Development, 15, 471-484.
24. Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., & Salovey, P. (2006). An ability model of emotional intelligence: Implications for assessment and training. In V. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work (pp. 53-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?.American Psychologist,63(6), 503-517.
26. Mclntyre, T., & Battle, J. (1998). The traits of good teachers as identified by African-American and white students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. Behavioural Disorders, 23, 134-142.
27. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior,14(2), 224-247.
28. Munir, F., & Rehman, A. (2016). Most frequent teaching styles and students’ learning strategies in public high schools of Lahore. Science International, 28(2), 1669-1674.
29. Murphy, P. K., Delli, L. A. M., & Edwards, M. N. (2004). The good teacher and good teaching: Comparing beliefs of second-grade students, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 69-92.
30. Parker, J. D., Saklofske, D. H., Wood, L. M., & Collin, T. (2009). The role of emotional intelligence in education. In J. D. Parker, D. H. Saklofske, (Eds.), Assessing Emotional intelligence (pp. 239-255). New York: Springer Science.
31. Parpala, A., Lindblom‐Ylaanne, S. & Rytköönen, H. (2011). Students conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 549-563.
32. Pederson, E., Fatcher, T. A., & Eaton, W. W. (1978). A new perspective on the effects of first grade teachers on children’s subsequent adult status. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 1-31.
33. Penrose, A., Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy: The contribution of teacher status and length of experience. Issues in Educational Research, 17, 107-126.
34. Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Dealing constructively with negatively evaluated emotional situations: The key to understanding the different reactions of teachers with high and low levels of emotional intelligence. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 443-454.
35. Popping, R. (1992). Taxonomy on nominal scale agreement 1945-1990. Groningen, Germany: ProGamma.
36. Reese, T. L. (2008).Measuring co-teaching collaboration effectiveness among secondary general and special educators: Assessing needs in an inclusive, urban environment. ProQuest. Capella University.
37. Scheiner, S. M., Mitchell,R. J., & Callahan, H. S. (2000). Using path analysis to measure natural selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13 (3), 423-433.
38. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167-177.
39. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3), 321-5.
40. Song, J. W., Huang, G. H., Peng, K. Z., Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Chen, Z. J. (2010). The differential effects of general mental ability and emotional intelligence on academic performance and social interaction. Intelligence, 38(1), 137-143.
41. Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. Science, 1, 1-26.
42. Stein, S. J., Papadogiannis, P., Yip, J. A., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). Emotional intelligence of leaders: A profile of top executives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 87-101.
43. Warr, P. B., Cook. J., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129-148.
44. Yousaf, S. (2005). Personality factors as predictors of emotional intelligence among management personnel. (Unpublished M.Phil thesis). Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan.
45. Zimmerman, J. (2014, January 24). The real scandal behind the Yale course Website. The Washington Post.