Purpose

At this juncture, one needs to analyze the problem statement and the purpose of this article. It is an undeniable fact that the schools are no longer classroom-oriented teaching but demands a higher level of teaching that will help students enhance their maximum potential. Having instructional based knowledge, knowledge of policies both in national and regional level and implementing them on time is not adequate for their success. Research in this area has prompted academicians to delve further into factors that can convert a manager to an instructional leader with the ability to provide a synthesis of responsibilities, which might help in positively impacting the learning outcome of the students (Wendorf-Heldt, 2009). School principals have moved into a different paradigm, and no longer being a good manager is sufficient to run a school. Academicians have been engaged to study the subject from various dimensions, and yet there remains a certain amount of uncertainty about the qualities of being an effective leader in a school (Greenockle, 2010). Question arises that what are the most effective qualities that a school principal must possess – is it the ability to motivate, inspire or communicate the vision and mission of the school? Stakeholders have changed too, they are now more direct, more outspoken and more demanding than ever before and these critical elements have to be understood well by the principal who is connected to a larger community of people (Greenockle, 2010). It is therefore, becoming imperative that the importance of emotional intelligence (EI) is understood by the educational policymakers who need to advocate adequate training and understanding of school principals in directing the advancement of their EI. Increasing understanding and the importance of EI of school leaders and its relation to their years of experience and school impact thus become a significant area to study, mainly in the context of UAE.

Design/methodology/approach

Research design is described as the study framework, which helps researchers to follow procedures during the process of collecting, analyzing and reporting data (Creswell, 2012). Since the main objective of the study was to assess whether a correlation exists between the EI of school principals and the school environment as perceived by teachers, the study is categorized under a quantitative correlational design. This study design focuses mainly on collecting numerical data and determining the relationship between two quantifiable variables (McBurney and White, 2009). It is worth mentioning that there are two types of variables called “independent” and “dependent’ variables. Johnson and Christensen (2008) differentiated between these two types of variables by defining an “independent’ variable as “a variable that is presumed to cause a change in another variable”, while a “dependent” variable is “a variable that is presumed to be influenced by one or more independent variables” (p. 39). Based on these definitions, it can be said that the EI of school principals is the independent variable, while the dependent variable is the school environment.

Findings

The levels of emotional intelligence of school principals in UAE public schools. The first objective of the study is to identify the EI levels of school principals. The results show that the EI scores of principals range from 32.53 (consider development) to 100.15 (high average score) with a mean of 67.21 (consider development). As shown in Figure 1, 55 % of principals score in the “Consider Development” range, 40 % are in the “Consider Improvement” category, and only 5 % are in the “High Average Score” range. Interestingly, no principals score in the “Low Average Score”, “Competent”, “Strength” and “Significant Strength” range. The mean of EI (67.21) is categorized under the “Consider Development” range which means that the level of EI of principals is low. In other words, principals are unable to recognize and express emotions, use emotions to assist problem solving, understand the emotions of others, or manage and control their own emotions. As explained in the MSCEIT user manual, scoring low in the MSCEIT indicates that those principals have a shortfall in their EI abilities which indeed may have a negative impact on the workplace and hold principals back from performing their roles effectively (Mayer et al., 2002). This has been supported by the literature as West-Burnham (2002) stated that those with low levels of EI might not become effective leaders as they are unable to interact effectively with others, enhance effective collaboration, or create a positive school climate that promotes effective learning. This is a key finding which needs to be addressed by the MoE policymakers to improve principals’ low levels of EI.

Research limitations/implications

In this study, the researcher applied the quantitative research method in which the MSCEIT framework was used to measure principals’ EI levels and the R-SLEQ to measure the SC as perceived by teachers. However, relying only on quantitative assessment tools may not be enough to describe the levels of EI of the principals. Therefore, it is recommended that future research endeavors to incorporate qualitative research methods such as interviews and observations to elaborate more on the EI levels of principals and get a broader picture of the principal state. Using both quantitative and qualitative assessment tools, according to Creswell (2012), would ensure the accuracy and credibility of the study, increase trustworthiness, enhance the verification process and get a deeper understanding of the topic. Another limitation in this research is related to the sample size. In this study, the sample included twenty school principals and ten teachers working with each principal from the RAK education zone. This was due to the restricted number of schools that were available to study in RAK and the difficulty of accessing schools outside RAK. For future research, it is recommended that researchers use a larger sample size from different emirates as this would increase the accuracy and reliability of the research, help to generalize the research findings on a large scale, lend support to the findings of this study and nurture the existing research on the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness.

Practical implications

The practical implications include EI skills in the principals’ recruitment process. The recruitment system of school principals is a pivotal process that puts in place the most qualified and skilled principals who strongly fit the needs of the Ministry of Education (MoE). Currently, the recruitment system of school principals in the UAE relies on academic qualifications as candidates for school principalship are required to hold a bachelor’s degree in education, however, there is no test that measures their EI skills. According to Serrat (2017), qualifications alone cannot indicate principals’ effectiveness as some of them may have high academic ratings yet are lacking social and interpersonal skills. For this reason, it is recommended that MoE policymakers add the skills of EI to the recruit system of school principals and include these skills in the licensing project which has been recently launched to develop principals' abilities and skills. Such abilities and skills, as argued by Lunenburg and Ornstein (2004), can determine leaders’ effectiveness. This is evident as this study proves that highly emotionally intelligent principals do have a positive impact on the school environment, and with the current emphasis of the MoE on leading change, EI should become more critical.

Social implications

Provision of professional development for school principals. Principals, as argued by Cook (2006) are change agents who hold the main accountability for creating and sustaining a positive school climate for stakeholders. Thus, they should be well-qualified and skilled to deal with different emotions of teachers and lead change effectively. Nevertheless, the results of this study indicate that 95 of principals scored low in the MSCEIT which indeed led to a negative impact on the school climate in their schools. To improve the levels of EI, principals need to be aware of emotional knowledge which is defined as ‘learning about emotions’ (Greenberg et al., 1995). This can be achieved by implementing professional development and training programs that would help to increase principals’ effectiveness as school leaders. As argued by Moore (2009), such professional development can promote empathy, self-awareness and flexibility as well as help principals acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and practices to restructure and redesign schools.

Originality/value

The overall aim of the study was to explore whether a correlation exists between the levels of EI of school principals and the SC as perceived by teachers. Other objectives were to identify the EI levels of school principals and investigate whether the number of years of experience as a school principal is correlated to the levels of EI. It was found that principals have low levels of EI as revealed by the MSCEIT scores. The findings also urge that continued research in this field will be beneficial for the schools and have a deeper and positive impact on the student’s achievements. The recruitment process of the principals can undergo alterations and adequate awareness and training can be built on decision making abilities, responding to the environmental stimuli, relationship building and the ability of the principal to motivate (Moore, 2009). The multi-faceted requirement of a school principal typically judged by student’s achievements seems to reckon with the theories of EI and therefore warrants further investigation in this neglected yet a vital area. Leading any institution is a stressful and emotionally laden activity. Hence school leaders need to be capacitated on issues related to emotions and school leadership. This paper concludes with the recommendation that leadership development programs for pre-service and in-service school principals should consider including sessions on EI.

中文翻译：

---

阿拉伯联合酋长国公立学校校长情商及其对学校氛围影响的调查

目的

此时，需要分析本文的问题陈述和目的。不可否认，学校不再是课堂教学，而是要求更高层次的教学，帮助学生发挥最大潜能。拥有基于教学的知识、国家和地区层面的政策知识并按时实施这些政策并不足以使其成功。该领域的研究促使院士进一步深入研究可以将管理者转变为具有综合责任能力的教学领导者的因素，这可能有助于对学生的学习成果产生积极影响（Wendorf-Heldt，2009） . 校长已经转变为一种不同的范式，不再是一名优秀的管理者就足以经营一所学校。院士们一直致力于从各个维度研究该主题，但对于成为学校有效领导者的素质仍然存在一定的不确定性（Greenockle，2010）。问题出现了，校长必须具备的最有效的品质是什么——是激励、启发或传达学校愿景和使命的能力？利益相关者也发生了变化，他们现在比以往任何时候都更直接、更直言不讳、要求更高，并且与更大的人群有联系的校长必须很好地理解这些关键要素（Greenockle，2010）。因此，教育政策制定者必须了解情商 (EI) 的重要性，他们需要提倡对校长进行充分培训和了解，以指导其 EI 的发展。因此，增加对学校领导者 EI 的理解和重要性及其与他们多年的经验和学校影响的关系成为一个重要的研究领域，主要是在阿联酋的背景下。

设计/方法/方法

研究设计被描述为研究框架，它帮助研究人员在收集、分析和报告数据的过程中遵循程序（Creswell，2012）。由于该研究的主要目的是评估校长的 EI 与教师所感知的学校环境之间是否存在相关性，因此该研究被归类为定量相关性设计。本研究设计主要侧重于收集数值数据并确定两个可量化变量之间的关系（McBurney 和 White，2009）。值得一提的是，有两种类型的变量，称为“独立”和“因”变量。Johnson 和 Christensen (2008) 通过将“独立”变量定义为“假定会导致另一个变量发生变化的变量”来区分这两种类型的变量，而“因”变量则是“假定会导致另一个变量发生变化的变量”。受一个或多个自变量的影响”（第 39 页）。基于这些定义，可以说校长的EI是自变量，而因变量是学校环境。

发现

阿联酋公立学校校长的情商水平。该研究的第一个目标是确定学校校长的 EI 水平。结果显示，校长的 EI 分数范围从 32.53（考虑发展）到 100.15（高平均分），平均值为 67.21（考虑发展）。如图1所示，55%的校长得分在“考虑发展”范围内，40%在“考虑改进”类别中，只有5%在“高平均分”范围内。有趣的是，没有校长在“低平均分”、“称职”、“实力”和“显着实力”范围内得分。EI (67.21) 的平均值属于“考虑发展”范围，这意味着委托人的 EI 水平较低。换句话说，校长无法识别和表达情绪，使用情绪来辅助解决问题，了解他人的情绪，或者管理和控制自己的情绪。正如 MSCEIT 用户手册中所述，MSCEIT 得分低表明这些校长的 EI 能力存在不足，这确实可能对工作场所产生负面影响并阻碍校长有效履行职责（Mayer等。, 2002)。这得到了文献的支持，因为 West-Burnham (2002) 指出那些 EI 水平低的人可能无法成为有效的领导者，因为他们无法与他人有效互动、加强有效合作或创造积极的学校氛围来促进有效的领导。学习。这是教育部决策者需要解决的一项关键发现，以改善校长的低水平 EI。

研究限制/影响

在本研究中，研究人员应用了定量研究方法，其中使用 MSCEIT 框架来衡量校长的 EI 水平和R-SLEQ 来衡量教师所感知的 SC。然而，仅仅依靠定量评估工具可能不足以描述校长的情商水平。因此，建议未来的研究努力结合诸如访谈和观察等定性研究方法，以更详细地阐述校长的 EI 水平，并更广泛地了解校长状态。根据 Creswell (2012) 的说法，同时使用定量和定性评估工具将确保研究的准确性和可信度，增加可信度，加强验证过程并更深入地了解主题。本研究的另一个限制与样本量有关。在这项研究中，样本包括来自 RAK 教育区的 20 名校长和 10 名与每位校长一起工作的教师。这是因为可在 RAK 学习的学校数量有限，并且很难进入 RAK 以外的学校。对于未来的研究，建议研究人员使用来自不同酋长国的更大样本量，因为这将提高研究的准确性和可靠性，有助于大规模推广研究结果，支持本研究的结果并培育EI与领导效能关系的现有研究。

实际影响

实际意义包括校长招聘过程中的 EI 技能。校长的招聘系统是一个关键过程，它可以安置最符合教育部 (MoE) 需求的最合格和最熟练的校长。目前，阿联酋校长的招聘系统依赖于学历，因为校长候选人必须持有教育学士学位，但没有衡量他们的 EI 技能的测试。根据 Serrat (2017) 的说法，仅凭资格并不能表明校长的有效性，因为其中一些可能具有较高的学术评级，但缺乏社交和人际交往能力。为此原因，建议教育部政策制定者将 EI 技能添加到校长招聘系统中，并将这些技能纳入最近启动的许可项目，以培养校长的能力和技能。正如 Lunenburg 和 Ornstein (2004) 所论证的，这种能力和技能可以决定领导者的有效性。这一点很明显，因为这项研究证明了高情商的校长确实对学校环境产生了积极的影响，而且随着教育部目前对引领变革的重视，情商应该变得更加重要。

社会影响

为学校校长提供专业发展。正如库克 (Cook) (2006) 所说，校长是变革推动者，他们主要负责为利益相关者创造和维持积极的学校氛围。因此，他们应该具备足够的素质和技能来处理教师的不同情绪并有效地引领变革。尽管如此，这项研究的结果表明，95 名校长在 MSCEIT 中得分较低，这确实对他们学校的学校氛围产生了负面影响。为了提高 EI 水平，校长需要了解情绪知识，即“学习情绪”（Greenberg等人., 1995)。这可以通过实施有助于提高校长作为学校领导的效率的专业发展和培训计划来实现。正如摩尔（2009 年）所说，这种专业发展可以促进同理心、自我意识和灵活性，并帮助校长获得必要的知识、技能和实践，以重组和重新设计学校。

原创性/价值

该研究的总体目的是探讨校长的 EI 水平与教师所感知的 SC 之间是否存在相关性。其他目标是确定校长的 EI 水平，并调查担任校长的年数是否与 EI 水平相关。结果发现，MSCEIT 分数显示，校长的 EI 水平较低。调查结果还敦促继续在该领域进行研究将对学校有益，并对学生的成就产生更深入和积极的影响。校长的招聘过程可能会发生变化，而充分的意识和培训可以建立在决策能力、对环境刺激的反应、关系建立和校长的激励能力上（Moore，2009 年）。通常根据学生的成绩来判断校长的多方面要求似乎符合 EI 的理论，因此值得在这个被忽视但又至关重要的领域进行进一步调查。领导任何机构都是一项充满压力和情绪化的活动。因此，学校领导需要在与情绪和学校领导相关的问题上有能力。本文的结论是建议职前和在职学校校长的领导力发展计划应考虑包括有关 EI 的课程。因此，学校领导需要在与情绪和学校领导相关的问题上有能力。本文的结论是建议职前和在职学校校长的领导力发展计划应考虑包括有关 EI 的课程。因此，学校领导需要在与情绪和学校领导相关的问题上有能力。本文的结论是建议职前和在职学校校长的领导力发展计划应考虑包括有关 EI 的课程。