Mediating Effect of Emotional Intelligence on The Relationships Between Academician Power Base and Student’s Performance in Higher Learning Institution

Mediating Effect of Emotional Intelligence on the Relationships between Academician Power Base and Student’s Performance in Higher Learning Institution

Noor Hafiza Mohammed^*, Yau’mee Hayati Mohamed Yusof, Suzila Mat Salleh, Siti Fatimah Mardiah Hamzah, Nur Hamiza Mohd Ghani

Faculty of Business and Management, University Teknologi MARA, Campus Dungun, Malaysia

^*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110218

Received: 15 November 2024; Accepted: 19 November 2024; Published: 20 December 2024

ABSTRACT

Academician leadership comprises balancing decision-making and power dynamics within higher learning institutions. Academicians must navigate between educational decision-making and managerial approaches to meet performance appraisal. This role has evolved to include strategic actions and accountability, often requiring professional managers without traditional academic backgrounds. In higher learning institutions, the academician can be a symbol of power to the students.  Academicians can use their power to instruct their students to accomplish their tasks to achieve their goals during their study in higher learning institution.  However, they must also be mindful of the potential negative effects of power, such as reduced empathy and increased selfishness, and strive to uphold virtues like empathy and generosity.  The main objective of this study was to identify the relationship between academician leadership power towards student performance and the mediating effect of emotional intelligence between academician leadership power and student performance.  The population for this study was 650 students from Diploma in Office Management and Technology, UiTM Cadangan Terengganu and the sample size was 70 students based on the G-Power.  The questionnaires have been distributed online by using a simple random sampling technique. The respondent for this study is diploma students in Office Management and Technology from semester 2 until semester five.  However, only 224 have completed and returned the questionnaires, and the data is analyzed using SPSS 28.0 and PLS 4.0.  There are five dimensions under the academician leadership power.  Seven hypotheses were constructed for this study where five were supported and two were rejected including the legitimate power.  Thus, emotional intelligence as a mediator between academician leadership power and student performance was supported the hypothesis.  It is suggested to future research to use the new variable of psychopathology of power with its dimension and the affect of this new leadership power to the student performance.

Keywords: Academician Leadership Power, Emotional Intelligence, Student Performance               

INTRODUCTION

In higher learning institutions, the use of power by the academician may result to the increasing or decrease of the student’s performance in study.  The assignment pressure, nervousness, and tension during study facing by student and their performance were related to the various factors of leadership power base [1]. The leadership power base may affect directly and damage the student’s performance.  On the other hand, the higher or lower use of the leadership power towards the students will straight away influence the student’s performance either in a positive or negative approach [1].

LITERATURE REVIEW

Student Performance

Student performance is a multifaceted construct influenced by various factors, including individual characteristics, educational practices, and environmental conditions. Understanding these factors is essential for developing effective strategies to enhance academic achievement. Several key determinants of student performance have been identified in recent research. These include study habits, motivation, socioeconomic status, and emotional intelligence [21]. Effective study habits, such as regular and structured study sessions, have been shown to significantly improve academic performance [22]. Motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, plays a crucial role in driving student engagement and achievement [20].

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a significant predictor of student performance. Students from higher SES backgrounds tend to have better academic outcomes due to access to resources, parental support, and educational opportunities [2]. Addressing socioeconomic disparities is essential for promoting equity in education and improving overall student performance. As discussed earlier, emotional intelligence is a critical factor influencing student performance. Students with high EI are better equipped to handle academic challenges, manage stress, and maintain positive relationships with peers and educators [6]. Interventions aimed at enhancing students’ EI have been shown to improve their academic outcomes and overall well-being [18].

Academician Leadership Power

Academician leadership power refers to the influence that educators exert over their students, which can significantly impact student performance. Various types of leadership power, including referent, reward, expert, coercive, and legitimate power, have been studied extensively in the context of educational settings.

Referent Power

Referent power is derived from the admiration and respect that students have for their educators. Leaders with high referent power can inspire and motivate students through personal connections rather than authority [23]. Recent studies have shown that referent power positively influences student engagement and performance by fostering a supportive and trusting learning environment [24].

H1a: Referent power positively related to the student performance.

Reward Power

Reward power involves the ability of educators to provide incentives for academic performance. Reward power can significantly enhance student motivation and performance [9]. Financial and non-financial rewards, such as praise and recognition, play a crucial role in sustaining student commitment and improving academic outcomes [5].

H1b: Reward power positively related to the student performance.

Expert Power

Expert power is based on the knowledge and skills that educators possess. Students are more likely to perform well when they perceive their educators as credible and knowledgeable [13]. Recent research highlights the importance of expert power in promoting a culture of academic excellence and fostering student confidence in their abilities [14].

H1c: Expert power positively related to the student performance.

Coercive Power

Coercive power involves the use of threats or punishment to influence student behavior. While it can be effective in certain situations, excessive use of coercive power can lead to negative outcomes, such as increased anxiety and reduced student performance [13].

H1d: Coercive power positively related to the student performance.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power is derived from the formal authority of educators. It involves the ability to make decisions and direct student activities within the scope of their role [16]. Research indicates that legitimate power, when used appropriately, can enhance student performance by providing clear guidelines and expectations [12].

H1e: Legitimate power positively related to the student performance.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions and the emotions of others. In the context of education, EI is crucial for both educators and students as it influences teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes. Emotional intelligence has been conceptualized in various ways, including ability models, trait models, and mixed models. The ability model, proposed by Mayer and Salovey [26], defines EI as the ability to perceive, integrate, understand, and manage emotions. Trait models, such as the one proposed by Petrides et al. [27], view EI as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions. Mixed models, combine emotional abilities with personality traits and social skills [15][28].

Emotional intelligence has been shown to positively influence student performance by enhancing their ability to cope with stress, build relationships, and stay motivated [6]. Studies have found that students with higher EI tend to have better academic outcomes, as they are more adept at managing their emotions and navigating social interactions [18]. Educators’ emotional intelligence is equally important, as it affects their ability to create a positive learning environment and respond to students’ emotional needs. Research indicates that educators with high EI are more effective in managing classroom dynamics, fostering student engagement, and promoting academic success [10]. Emotional intelligence training for educators has been shown to improve their teaching practices and student outcomes [17].

Academician Leadership Power, Student Performance and Emotional Intelligence

The literature review highlights the complex interplay between academician leadership power, emotional intelligence, and student performance. Recent research underscores the importance of various forms of leadership power in influencing student outcomes, with referent, reward, and expert power being particularly effective. Emotional intelligence, both in educators and students, plays a crucial role in enhancing academic performance by fostering a supportive and emotionally intelligent learning environment. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing effective educational strategies and interventions that promote student success.  Studies suggest that a balanced approach, combining coercive power with other forms of influence, is more effective in achieving positive educational outcomes [1]. To fulfill the objectives of this study, it was important to identify the relationship between academician leadership power towards student performance. Hence, the hypotheses were constructed to identify the relationship between academician leadership power and student performance mediated by emotional intelligence.

H1: Academician leadership power positively related to the student performance.

H2: Academician leadership power positively related to the student performance mediated by emotional intelligence.

Figure 1.  Conceptual Framework

This study was adapted from Rahim Leader Power Inventory [25].  The purpose of mediating variable is to test the relationship between academician leadership power and student performance in higher learning institutions.  Referent power, reward power, expert power, coercive power, legitimate power, emotional intelligence and student performance were the constructs for this study.  The five components of academician leadership power served as exogeneous variables.  In contrast, endogenous variables investigated in this study were emotional intelligence and student performance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study has been conducted to full-time students of Diploma in Office Management and Technology program in University Teknologi MARA Cadangan Terengganu.  The population for this study was 650, and the sample size required was 70 based on G-Power [29].  The survey was distributed online via google forms by using simple random technique.  244 completed surveys were received and exceeded the required sample size.  The data collected has been analyzed by using SPSS version 28.0 and PLS 4.0.  The survey instrument has been adapted from Rahim Leader Power Inventory [25] that includes five dimensions as Figure 1 and used five-point Likert scale.  Thus, emotional intelligence and student performance used the seven-Likert scale.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Profile of Respondents: Table 1 displays a summary of the characteristics of the total sample of customers or subscribers who participated in the study.

 Table 1: Demographic Background

According to Table 1, 194 respondents (86.6%) were female, and the rest were male.  Most of the respondents were from Semester 4, 107 respondents (47.8%) and the minority were from Semester 3, 32 respondents (14.3%).  110 respondents (44.6%) were from Terengganu, followed by Selangor, 97 respondents (43.3%) and the least were from Kuala Lumpur, 10 respondents (4.5%).  94 respondents (42.0%) current GPA was between 3.00 – 3.49 and the 94 respondents (41.1%) latest GPA was between 3.50 – 4.00.  In addition, 125 respondents (55.8%) were listed as dean list.  As a result, 218 respondents (97.3%) agreed that the lecturers contributed to their results.

Table 2: Demographic Background

Table 2 presents the dataset, named Student Performance (n=224), used to assess the reflective measurement model in Figure 1. The exogeneous variables data where referent power consists of four indicators, reward power consists of four indicators, expert power with five indicators, coercive power with five indicators, and legitimate power consist of four indicators.  In contrast, the endogenous variables data were emotional intelligence with five indicators and student performance with three indicators.

In addition, Table 2 presents the reliability and validity of the study.  The composite reliability (CR) values >0.70 indicated that these constructs have adequate level of internal consistency.  Thus, the average variance extracted (EVA) values has met the satisfactory level of AVE with >0.50.  The results showed that items in each construct explain more than 50% of the construct variance [7].  Item loading higher than 0.5 for indicator reliability is necessity [11].  However, the items loadings that had value <0.50 were deleted in this study.

Table 3: Discriminant Validity (HTMT)

Table 3 shows the discriminant validity of all entry variables have been established by using the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ration of correlation criterion [8].  The discriminant validity was determined in the measurement model when the correlative values correspond to the respective constructs that do not exceed the HTM 0.90 criterions threshold.

Table 4:  Path Coefficient and Hypothesis-Testing

The bootstrapping procedure has been applied to test the hypotheses for this study and generate results for each path relationship in Table 4.  Bootstrap sub-samples with 1,000-sample cases have been computed to allow the procedure estimating the model of each sub-sample [7].  For direct path relationship, four hypotheses were supported.  The path relationship between referent power and student performance was positively related, ß=0.02, p<0.001 at the 95% confidence level.  The path relationship between reward power and student performance was positively related, ß=0.01, p<0.001 at the 95% confidence level.  Legitimate power was rejected when the P-value is more than 0.05.  The path relationship between academician leadership power and student performance was rejected too.

Table 5.  Path Coefficient, Hypothesis-Testing Mediating

*Indirect Relationship

The indirect path relationship between academician leadership power and student performance mediated by emotional intelligence was positively related, ß=0.28, p<0.001 at the 95% confidence level.

Table 6.  Effect Size

Table 6 presents the coefficient of determination (R2) and the effect size (f2) of all the exogenous constructs on the endogenous construct. The value of R2 of 0.43 has suggested that the exogenous variables in this study have explained 43% of the variance in emotional intelligence as an indicator of substantial explanatory capacity, while R2 of 0.51 has indicated 51% of variance in student performance. In addition, the f2 effect size values have exhibited the importance of each exogenous construct to the endogenous construct. The value of 0.02 has a small effect size, 0.15 has a medium effect size, and 0.35 has a medium-to-large effect size [4]. The effect size of emotional intelligence on student performance (f2=0.64) is medium-to-large.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this study has fulfilled the research objectives of this study.  The five constructs are used to measure the academician leadership power in higher learning institutions. The expert power is the strongest factor influencing the student performance in higher learning institutions, followed by legitimate power, referent power, and coercive power.  However, the mediating effect of emotional intelligence has supported the indirect relationship between academician leadership power and student performance.  In contrast, the direct relationship between academician leadership power and student performance was rejected.  There are six direct relationships, and one indirect relationship has been measured in this study.  Furthermore, for future research, it is suggested to explore more academician leadership power theories and apply it.  Emotional intelligence was a great variable that can be added as the dimensions of academician leadership power.  Besides, the researchers plan to explore new variables that can be matched with the academician leadership power dimensions.   It is suggested to explore the psychopathology of power as a new variable of leadership power with its dimensions.  Hopefully, the new research can make a comparison of these leadership power theories that will influence the student performance in higher learning institute.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, N., et al. (2016). Leadership power bases and student performance. Journal of Educational   Leadership, 12(3), 45-60.
2. Baba, I. B., Okunade, O. A., Dada, E. G., & Ezeanya, U. C. (2024). Key factors influencing students’ academic performance. Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology, 11, 41.
3. Biddix, C. A. (2023). Generation Z Teacher Perceptions of Principal Power and Their Satisfaction with Supervision (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University Graduate School).
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillside.
5. Deeprose, D. (2014). The role of rewards in student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 123-145.
6. García-Martínez, I., et al. (2022). Emotional intelligence and academic performance: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1049431.
7. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
8. Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural equation modeling, 17(1), 82-109.
9. Ibrar, M., & Khan, M. (2015). Reward power and student performance. Journal of Educational Research, 18(4), 67-82.
10. Joseph, D., et al. (2022). The impact of educators’ emotional intelligence on teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 345-360.
11. Kimani, S.W., Kagira, E.K., & Kendi, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of business students’ perceptions of service quality offered in Kenyan Universities. International Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 98–112.
12. Le Roux, C. (2012). Legitimate power and student performance. Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 78-95.
13. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Power and leadership in educational settings. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 234-245.
14. Luthans, F. (2011). The role of expert power in academic settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(4), 411-426.
15. Mancini, G., et al. (2022). Emotional intelligence: Current research and future perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1049431.
16. McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2012). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge, global reality. McGraw-Hill.
17. O’Connor, P. J., et al. (2019). The measurement of emotional intelligence: A critical review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1116.
18. Pulido-Martos, M., et al. (2022). Emotional intelligence and student well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1049431.
19. Sarstedt, M., & Cheah, J. H. (2019). Partial least squares structural equation modeling using Smarts: a software review.
20. Squires, G., & Coates, J. (2019). Study habits and academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 22(1), 89-105.
21. Suleiman, I. B., et al. (2024). Key factors influencing students’ academic performance. Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology, 11, 41.
22. Traub, R., et al. (2019). Study hours and academic performance. Journal of College Student Development, 60(3), 345-360.
23. Uysal, A., et al. (2016). Referent power and student performance. Journal of Educational Leadership, 10(2), 123-135.
24. Zulfiqar, A., et al. (2021). Developing academic leaders: Evaluation of a leadership development intervention. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-15.
25. Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(4), 491-503.
26. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence.
27. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 29(2), 313-320.
28. AbiSamra, N. (2000). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic achievement in eleventh graders. Research in education, 4, 56-66.
29. Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 18.