THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE by Michael A. Syndell LORI LA CIVITA, Ph.D.

, Faculty Mentor and Chair BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Committee Member JOSEPH DAMIANI, Ph.D., Committee Member Garvey House, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University August 2008

3320725 Copyright 2008 by Syndell, Michael A. All rights reserved

2008

3320725

 Michael A. Syndell, 2008

Abstract The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 20022012 employment projections, predicts that by 2010, there will be approximately 10,033,000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences, education, and healthcare professions, along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12,000 billion annually. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. The purpose of this cross-sectional, quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. In addition, this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.

Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . . . and to my Grandparents, who laid the cornerstone of my being.

iii

Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations, and your respected members who participated, for making this research possible. It is my strong belief that the results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in human resource development focused on workforce retention and growth of its human capital . . . thank you sincerely. With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . . and to my long time partner and good friend John Reardon who has supported me throughout the years helping to make living life a pleasure . . . you my friend have been a gift from God. To my original mentor, Dr. Joseph Damiani, who helped me start this journey, to Dr. Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. Lori La Civita, who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!), and to Dr. Bruce Gillies, the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. And to my family and friends who have . . . for the most part (smile!) . . . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . . I love you all!

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Nature of the Study Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical Orientation of the Study History of Leadership: An Overview Origins of Transformational Leadership Current State of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Defined Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) v iv viii 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 19 20 22 33

Gender and Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence Defining EI EI Controversies The Development of EI Characteristics of EI Gender and EI Race/Ethnicity and EI Measuring EI EI and Leadership Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Criticism of the LeadershipEI Connection EI, Leadership, and Gender Conclusion CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Variables Measures Procedures Research Questions Research Hypotheses vi

35 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 60 60 60 61 61 63 66 67 68

Data Collection and Storage Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Expected Findings Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Discussion of the Results Discussion of the Conclusions Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

69 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 116 116 116 119 120 129 136 138 140 142 156

vii

List of Tables Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. TLS Component Scores: U.S. Group Norms vs. Group Sample Table 5. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components viii 76 80 81 82 84 86 88 91 92 93 95 96 96 98 99 101 103 104

Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components

108 110 111 115

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem In todays global economy where outsourcing, downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace, companies must compete to find, attract, develop, and retain the best talent. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporations bottom line, it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 20022012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10,033,000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences, education, and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12.373 billion (Herman, Gioia, & Olivo, 2003; U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). Leadership research suggests that securing and retaining appropriate personnel will remain an issue and that transformational leadership may be key in developing a social architecture capable of generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21stcentury organizational challenges (Bass, 1997; Drucker, 1999; Herman, 1997; Hitt, 2000; Ireland & Hitt, 1999). Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass, 1988). Specifically, the enhancement of subordinates satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman, 1998), higher group performance levels (Keller, 1995), and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). 1

Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence, as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass, 1997; Goleman, 1998). Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian, 1999), conflict resolution styles (Malek, 2000), and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al., 1998). Furthermore, research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman, 1998; Goleman; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Ogilvie & Carsky, 2002; Sala, 2001). Therefore, more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken, given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U.S. and the need to effectively identify, select and retain such personnel.

Background of the Study A review of the literature suggests that leadership has been one of the domains to which Emotional Intelligence has been applied most frequently. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general, and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. 2

Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments, organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop, organize and utilize their employees capabilities. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship, if any, between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. In addition, this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style, while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized.

Rationale Existing research on whether, and the extent to which, EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman, 1998; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing, selection and management development. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing peoples attitudes, interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. 3

Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And, if a relationship is found to exist, what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?

Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. In addition, this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational.

Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman, 1998). Emotional Intelligence (EI). A form of intelligence that involves the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions that focuses on an array of emotional and social abilities, including the ability to be aware of, understand, and express oneself, the ability to be aware of, understand, and relate to others, the ability to deal with strong emotions, and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On, 2002). Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and Mood. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness, self-actualization, self-regard, independence and assertiveness. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy, social responsibility and interpersonal relations. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility, reality testing and problem solving. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance, and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On, 2002). Executive Management. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization, whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies, making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. In 5

carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis, typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives, each of which has specific functional responsibilities. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Information Officer, and the Director of Human Resources. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer, n.d.). Intellectual Capital (IC). The sum total of knowledge, expertise, and energy available within organizations members, whose contributions advance the organizations purpose, mission, and strategies (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2000). Leadership. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done, how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl, 2002). Leadership Style. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl, 2002). Middle Management. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks; are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management by monitoring the activities of subordinates and making tactical decisions on subordinates performance, which are generally shortterm ones, which may enhance organizational outputs; and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management, n.d.).

Multiple Intelligences. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas, including verbal, mathematical, musical, spatial, movement oriented, environmental, intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of ones own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods, intentions, and desires of others) spheres (Goleman, 1998). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership, three constructs of transactional leadership, one nontransactional leadership construct, and three outcome constructs. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior), (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed), (c) Inspirational Motivation, (d) Intellectual Stimulation, and (e) Individualized Consideration. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward, (b) Management-by-Exception (Active), and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire, and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader, (b) Individual, Group, and Organizational Effectiveness, and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Retention. The ability of an organizations leadership to proactively develop and maintain employee motivation to engage in their level of commitment and involvement towards their organization and its values (Schermerhorn et al., 2000). Senior Management. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills; have to be very aware of external factors such as markets, as they generally work as a team in conjunction with executive management in which strategic decisions are reviewed or drafted and implemented into organizational

operations that are generally of a long-term nature; and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management, n.d.). Social Intelligence. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman, 1998). Social Skills. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence), listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate), inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership), nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds), work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration, cooperation), and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman, 1998). Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). The ability to get people to want to change, to improve, and to be led, which involves motivating individual/organizational change, and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence, (b) Inspirational Motivation, (c) Intellectual Stimulation, and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass, 1997).

Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study; (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate; (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ, EQi, and the Demographic Questionnaire; (d) participants

will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability; and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. The generalizability of this studys findings may be affected by the following factors. First, a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. That is, the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time, interest or motivation to respond, while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so, thus skewing the pattern of responses. Secondly, this study relies on participants self-report data. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions, participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. Since data will be collected at one time point, results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel, health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. Finally, since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area, the results might not be applicable to employees of industries located in other parts of the United States or to those in other countries developing and marketing goods and services.

Nature of the Study A cross-sectional, nonexperimental research design based on data obtained from self-report questionnaires will be used to investigate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. Univariate statistical techniques, such as correlational analyses, and multivariate procedures, such as linear regression will 9

be used. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. The dependent, or outcome, variable, Transformational Leadership, will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study, including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments, selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage, statistical analysis, and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results, and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications.

10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine (a) whether a significant predictive relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS), (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs, and (c) whether there are any significant differences in EI attributes that are gender-specific in the relationship between mens and womens use of EI and TLS. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI, transformational leadership style (TLS), and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS, as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study, followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership, EI, their relationship, and a synthesis of research findings. A summary concludes the chapter. The literature review was conducted using Capella Universitys library of electronic databases, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global, Dissertations and Theses: Full Text, and psychology journals. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership, using numerous multiple key word searches, including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence; (b) leadership, Emotional Intelligence, and gender; (c) Transformational Leadership Style, EQi, and gender; (d) gender attributes and leadership style; and (e) gender and EQI, and Transformational Leadership Style and

11

gender, to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles, books, and dissertations. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. In total, along with several books and dissertations, 22 articles were relevant to this study.

Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988), higher group performance (Keller, 1995), and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass, 1990) compared to other leadership styles. In addition, researchers in this area of leadership research have proposed that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence because they are elements considered critical to inspiring organizational/employee adaptation/retention. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On, 2006; Goleman, 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995, 1999). Specifically, this studys theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. 12

History of Leadership: An Overview Multiple leadership theories are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory that seeks to explain leadership in terms of leader and follower traits and behavior theories found to manifest from situational/contingent leadership studies. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass, 1990). Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes, or traits, of leaders such as personality, motives, values, and skills (Yukl, 2002). The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. However, these studies failed to create a list of traits that would guarantee leadership success as different studies found different traits associated with leaders that became too long to be of practical significance (Yukl). These early leadership theories were content theories, focusing on what an effective leader is, not on how to effectively lead. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical, social, and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged, energetic, tall, and handsome. Social background traits include being educated at the right schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Social characteristics include being charismatic, charming, tactful, popular, cooperative, and diplomatic. Personality traits include being self-confident, adaptable, assertive, and emotionally stable. Task-related 13

characteristics include being driven to excel, accepting of responsibility, having initiative, and being results-oriented. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive, desire to lead, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job-relevant knowledge) yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and education. No two leaders are alike. Furthermore, no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. Thus, traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the situation as the determinant of leadership abilities, leading to the concept of situational leadership. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. Yukl (1989, 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leaders authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed by the leaders unit, the characteristics of the followers, the type of organization, and the nature of the external environment. Research conducted under the situational approach can be generally categorized into one of two subcategories: (a) an attempt to discover the extent to which the leadership processes are the same or unique across different types of organizations, levels of management, and cultures; or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2002).

14

The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. As a result, the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or emotional traits. Two of the most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. Studies conducted at the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan identified two leadership styles and two types of leader behaviors (two-factor theory). The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles, considerate and initiating structure. The University of Michigan study classified leaders behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl, 2002). The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies, college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared. Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, 15

involves planning, organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates accomplishments, and providing for subordinates welfare. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations, an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Unfortunately, empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness was inconclusive as the behavior approach emphasized only behaviors disregarding other variables such as situational elements. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. As a result, leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. The Contingency/Situational Approach (1960s and 1970s) Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedlers contingency theory and Hersey

16

and Blanchards situational leadership theory (Yukl, 2002). Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967, Fiedlers contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. It is called contingency because it suggests that a leaders effectiveness depends on how well the leaders style fits the context. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers, contingency theory emphasizes that a leaders style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler offers two leadership styles, those that are motivated by task, and those that are motivated by relationship. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal, whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors, leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence, loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. Together, these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations, 17

defined tasks, and strong leader position power. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations, unstructured tasks, and weak leader position power. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable, while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). Fiedlers contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl, 2002). An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have, leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Furthermore, the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leaders choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. Four leadership styles (S1, S2, S3, and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1, D2, D3, and D4). Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18

and directivity (S2). Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support, low-directive style (S3). Finally, employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable, such as trait, behavior, influence processes, and situational variables (Yukl, 2002).

Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership, Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways, either transactional or transformational. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with ones position within the organization. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks, work standards, and outcomes. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern, being supportive, recognizing followers accomplishments, and providing for their welfare. Specifically, Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance, and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19

organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. Followers are motivated by the leaders promises, praise, and reward. Or they are corrected by negative feedback, reproof, threats, or disciplinary actions. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. In contingent rewarding behavior, leaders either make assignments or they may consult with followers about what is to be done in exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception, they monitor follower performance and correct followers mistakes. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception, they wait passively for followers mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. In contrast, Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations, and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation, and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. Transformational leadership contains four components, charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985, 1990, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985, 1990), who built on Burnss (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass, 20

1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e.g., the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). The transactional leader may clarify the task structure with the right way to do things in a way that maintains dependence on the leader for preferred problem solutions. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem, endowing the subordinates sovereignty in problem solving. However, unlike Burns, Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership, while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum, maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees, thus bringing into his theoretical framework, the integrative theory of leadership research. Furthermore, in Basss view, the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sanders, Hopkins & Geroy, 2003; Yukl, 1989). In addition, Bass expands the theoretical concept of Burns by stressing the importance of including more than one type of leadership variable in research involving leaders and leadership when he stated, cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them (1990, p. 52). He further stated that leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux (p. 76). This statement would suggest that Bass embraced the integrative approach to leadership as it is broader in scope by simultaneously taking into consideration leader traits, behavior, and situational/contingency variables, as these multiple leadership theories

21

previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. Another departure Bass takes from Burnss concept of Transformational Leadership style is his assertion that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of attending to positive moral values and brings up leaders such as Adolf Hitler and others of similar character. However, using a less drastic example of Basss example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs, focusing on a common purpose, addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization, and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).

Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization, the organizations strengths, weaknesses, and comparative advantages, and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. This is done by appealing to followers potential motives that seek to satisfy higher needs and engages the full person in order to draw a true consensus in aligning individual and organizational interests. Followers accept leadership decisions as the best under the circumstances even if it means some individual members interests may have to be sacrificed to meet common objectives. 22

Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others, while at the same time winning their respect, confidence, loyalty, and willing cooperation (Plunkett, 1992). It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1993). Over time, consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership, transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson), in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. Transformational leadership. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon, 1999). As well as accomplishing tasks through others, transformational leaders inspire the confidence, respect, cooperation, and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur, Vandenberghe, & Dhoore, 2000). The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors, idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on difficult issues, present their most important values, and emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and the ethical consequences of decisions. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23

(Bass & Avolio, 2004). Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future, challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically and with enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs, stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things, and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals, consider their individual needs, abilities and aspirations, listen attentively, further their development, and advise and coach. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon, 1999). Dixons case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. The first strategy described is the leaders ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. Second, the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff, followed by action planning. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision, expert resources, meticulousness, will-do attitude, awareness of internal and external customer needs, and creativity (Dixon). Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The authors suggested that the MLQ could help to reduce the cost of manager selection and increase the chances of selecting appropriate top managers able to make followers aware of the importance and value of desired organizational outcomes because it focuses on the perception of subordinates. Further, Cannella and Monroe 24

proposed that charisma may be less important to the decision making process and more important in terms of its effect on subordinates because having a charismatic relationship with subordinates enables the leader to implement decisions with less resistance (Canella & Monroe). Transactional leadership. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors, contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), and management-by-exception (passive). Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance, clarify expectations, exchange promises and resources, arrange mutually satisfactory agreements, negotiate for resources, exchange assistance for effort, and provide commendations for successful follower performance. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur, and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. Management-by-Exception (passive) leaders are leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious and wait to take action until mistakes are brought to their attention. Laissez-faire leadership. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor, laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility, are absent when needed, fail to follow up requests for assistance, and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. Although they may not be close by, laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy, conferences, reports, and 25

productivity records. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves, it does have its place under the right circumstances. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. In addition, management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett, 1992). Measuring Transformational LeadershipMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire Over the past 2 decades the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-Form 5X (MLQ) has emerged as the primary means of quantitatively assessing leadership styles in scores of research studies involving military, educational, health care, and commercial organizations, and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass & Avolio, 2004; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bryant, 2003; Gellis, 2001; Snodgrass, Douthitt, Ellis, Wade, & Plemons, 2008). A research study by Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey, using the MLQ-360 assessment, proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i.e., subordinates reported about their managers, and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. The 26

MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception, leader/unit perception, organizational perception, and job satisfaction, along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals, demonstrated high statistical correlations that were significant in supporting the theory that transformational leadership does have positive effects on the financial bottom-line and that leadership can be measured with statistical accuracy when being able to establish appropriate benchmarks. Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. First, the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. Second, the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Third, the sample size must have been reported. Fourth, a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. Fifth, the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Results of this analysis support the positive correlation of transformational leadership with work unit effectiveness as results demonstrated a strong positive correlation between all components of transformational leadership in both objective and subjective measures of performance. The results of a study by Morrison, Jones, and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment, and its effect on job satisfaction, using a sample of 275 nurses, suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27

behaviors has a greater degree of significance on job satisfaction than other types of leadership (i.e., transactional, laissez-faire leadership). Research by Judge and Bono (2000), based on 14 samples of leaders (N = 169) from over 200 organizations, investigated the relationship between personality and transformational leadership using the MLQ and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and certain personality variables including extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership that generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs, reinforcing the evidence that transformational leadership does result in more satisfied and motivated subordinates as well as organizational effectiveness. Another study by Gellis (2001) was designed to evaluate a model that delineates two types of leadership processes, transformational and transactional leadership, within social work practice as measured by the MLQ, using a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The objectives were to determine the degree to which social work managers were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and to identify which leader behaviors were best able to predict social work leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and extra effort by hospital social workers. Results indicated that all five transformational factors and one transactional factor, contingent reward, were significantly correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. In a research study by Viator (2001) on leadership, commitment, and job performance, data were obtained through a mail survey with 416 usable responses 28

obtained. Participants who primarily worked in the functional area of information system assurance and business consulting perceived that their supervisors demonstrated higher levels of transformational leadership, compared to participants from two other service areas (financial auditing and tax services). Transformational leadership was directly and positively associated with role clarity, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and indirectly associated with job performance, across all three functional areas. In a longitudinal, randomized field experiment, Dvir, Ede, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) tested the impact of transformational leadership, enhanced by training, on follower development and performance. Experimental group leaders received transformational leadership training, and control group leaders, eclectic leadership training. The sample included 54 military leaders, their 90 direct followers, and 724 indirect followers. Results indicated the leaders in the experimental group (transformational leadership training) had a more positive impact on direct followers development and on indirect followers performance than did the leaders in the control group (eclectic leadership training). Conducting a meta-analysis, Antonakis et al. (2003) reanalyzed data generated by previous studies that had used the MLQ (Form 5X) in different conditions by controlling sample homogeneity, using both published and unpublished sources creating two independent studies examining the validity of the measurement model and factor structure of Bass and Avolios MLQ. The first study used a largely homogenous business samples consisting of 2,279 pooled male and 1,089 pooled female raters who evaluated same-gender leaders supporting the nine-factor leadership model proposed by Bass and 29

Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariantsuggesting that the same constructs were validly measured in the male and female groups. The second study used factor-level data of 18 independently gathered samples of 6,525 raters clustered into prototypically homogenous contexts, used gender as a contextual factor along with examining two contextual factors, environmental risk and leader level, in testing the nine-factor model and found it was stable (i.e., fully invariant) within homogenous contexts. Results of these two studies indicated strong and consistent evidence that supports conclusions about the validity and reliability of the MLQ. Because large independently gathered samples were used, the generalizability has been enhanced. A study by Bass et al. (2003) examining the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership using the MLQ 5X, used a total of 72 U.S. Army platoons, each made up of three rifle squads and a heavy weapons squad, participating in the joint readiness training exercise, in order to rate unit potency, cohesion, and performance. The core leadership in a platoon rests with the platoon sergeant (a noncommissioned officer) and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Because the average number of light infantry combat soldiers in a platoon (all men) is typically around 30, the total number of participants rating the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants was 1,340 and 1,335, respectively. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. Ozaralli (2003) investigated transformational leadership in relation to empowerment and team effectiveness. As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational leadership style of superiors is proposed to be related to the strength of 30

subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. They also evaluated their teams effectiveness in terms of innovativeness, communication and team performance. Findings suggest that transformational leadership contributes to the prediction of subordinates self-reported empowerment and that the more a teams members experience team empowerment, the more effective the team will be. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles, book chapters, dissertations, and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma, charismatic leadership, and vision. Similarly, studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. In total, 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles, 18 dissertations, and 1 unpublished data set). These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership, and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Several studies (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Carless, 1998; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences, transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31

effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services, automotive parts, food, textile and clothing, financial services, pulp and paper, home appliances, chemical, pharmaceutical, computer services, electrical equipment, and electronics industries). The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership. A survey study by Zhu, Chew, and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore, administered a total of 1,050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL), human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM), and organizational outcomes, including subjective assessment of organizational performance, absenteeism, and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two instruments, the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. These 32

employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i.e., supervisor) who led one of the companys 45 branches. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g., satisfaction) as well as objective (e.g., profit) performance indicators were assessed in which results indicated that transformational as well as charismatic leadership augmented the impact of transactional leadership on subjective performance and that transformational leadership had an impact on profit, over and above transactional leadership.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and nonleadership. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. The latest version of the MLQ, Form 5X, has been used in more than 200 research programs, doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. Leadership types, as measured on the MLQ, are defined as follows: 1. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect, trust, and faith 33

b. c. d. e. 2.

Idealized Influence (Behaviors): living your ideals Inspirational Motivation: inspiring others Intellectual Stimulation: stimulating others Individualized Consideration: coaching and development

Transactional Leadership: Transactional leaders display behaviors associated with the following measured leadership scale scores: a. b. c. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive)

3.

Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating, how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization, and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. b. c. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction

The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .94. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high, exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

34

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and nonleadership. (The researcher only used the self-rating form, where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style.) The MLQ has individual subtests, which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. Transformational leadership has five individual scales, with four questions for each scale, which could lead to a possible total score of 20. Transactional leadership has three scales, which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Gender and Leadership Style Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found no statistically significant differences between the leadership scores of men and women managers as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1995). These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men, a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). However, it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design, as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carlesss (1998) work. Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1995), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL; Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000). Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35

managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders use of transformational leadership, superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors, such as participatory decision making, praising individual and team contributions, and attention to individual needs. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers, who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy, do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager selfassessment in that there were no differences between men and women managers regarding the more masculine or task-oriented leadership behaviors such as innovative thinking and visionary leadership. However, results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style, as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e.g., involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. The finding that superiors also rate women managers as higher in the more feminine transformational leadership behaviors similarly implies that superiors may employ gender-based role expectations in evaluating female managers. On the other hand, it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men, which is what

36

accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater, since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women, it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates, results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. On the other hand, Carless reasoned, male superiors may have had lower expectations of women managers and therefore were being more lenient in their ratings of women managers than they were in rating male managers.

Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu, 2003). Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer, EI refers to an ability to understand the meaning of emotions and their relationships and to think and engage in problem solving on the basis of emotions. It is also the ability to understand and govern ones emotions, and to read and direct them in other people. However, this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. Indeed, numerous definitions, some of which are contradictory, exist, and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004a).

37

Defining EI Mayer and Saloveys discussion (as cited in Tucker, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy, 2000), argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others, to distinguish among them, and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. Weisingers (1998) definition of EI, which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey, sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings, or making ones emotions work to the individuals advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. These two definitions, like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000), view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct, but interrelated, mental processes: 1. 2. 3. Recognizing the nature of the emotions and the ability to detect them in others Controlling emotions in others and oneself Using emotions for the attainment of specific ends.

From these characteristics, the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness, (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by, or repressed within others, (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions, and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 2004a; Tucker et al., 2000; Vitello-Cicciu, 2003).

38

Although this is a clear definition, controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions, none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. These issues are explored next.

EI Controversies Mathews, Roberts, and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term, emotional intelligence, is problematic. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct, popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody, 2004; Gohm, 2004; Mayer et al., 2004a, 2004b). Mathews et al. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. For this reason, they hold that EI escapes definition. In particular, Mathews et al. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition, which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand, and the multiple social science fields on the other. Thus, they claimed, EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies, culminating in the formation, not of empirically validated, conceptually coherent, and psychologically based definitions of EI, but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent, cohesive, and empirically valid definitions. 39

Reflecting on Mathews et al.s (2004) argument, Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. Oatley, based on Mandlers argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions, concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable, immaterial, and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. Oatley (2004) noted that Van Brakel listed 22 different definitions for the concept as a way of showing the inherent difficulties involved in the task of defining emotions. However, others (Gohm, 2004; Mayer et al., 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain, arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. Rather, in these writers view, emotion is a scientifically valid, physiologically evidenced, and measurable construct. The denial of emotions, in Gohms view, is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing.

The Development of EI The idea of EI as an innate and/or learnable ability arose from the field of anthropology and has been hypothesized to have developed with progressive evolution of human society from the primitive to the more complex (Massey, 2002). During the 6 million years of human evolution, Massey argued, the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group, and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. In this view, the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40

economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. The need to maintain group cohesion and to implement social structure and governance created evolutionary pressures that motivated the development of the emotive center of the brain. The result of this was the development of a more refined ability to read others and to use that ability for governance and organizational purposes (Lutz & White, 1986; Massey). While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White, 1986; Massey, 2002), its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Indeed, the academic and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). In this view, interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers.

Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. (2004a, 2004b) reported, there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities, but they do not expand or increase them. In contrast, Mayer et al. noted, the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that, though an inherent capacity, it a learnable skill. For example, Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. They advocate an approach to stress reduction and avoidance of psychological burnout that includes learning to read EI levels in others and developing their own EI capacities so 41

they could manage and direct their emotional reactions and energies as well as those of others. In so doing, Kaufhold and Johnson argue individuals in high-stress occupations would be able to maintain a productive and psychologically healthy work environment. Tucker et al. (2000) provided a similar idea, contending that research has shown that EI consists of a learnable set of emotional and cognitive skills. According to their theory, the ability to comprehend emotions in oneself and in others, and to manage and harness emotions in ways that help attain ones goals, is learnable. That is, individuals can be trained in the reading and management of emotions and, more importantly, can be taught to manage others through a cognitive approach to relationships and tasks that is sensitive to emotions (Tucker et al.). However, such theoretical assumptions have not yet been supported with empirical evidence, though some educational institutions, presupposing both the validity of the theory and the learnability of EI, have integrated EI learning and skill development into their curricula (Kaufhold & Johnson, 2005; Tucker et al.).

Gender and EI Evidence supporting gender differences in EI is mixed. Early studies found that women were more socially skillful than men (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1995) and that they scored higher on existing EI tests (Mayer et al., 1999; Schutte et al., 1998). Mandell and Pherwani (2003) also found that women managers were more skilled in managing the emotions of themselves and others. Petrides and Furnham (2000) studied the self-estimated and actual EI levels in 260 participants, equally divided between male and female, in order to examine whether gender functions as a significant independent 42

variable as it relates to EI levels. The EI measure they used was the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al.). Petrides and Furnham questioned whether the empirically proven female tendency towards self-effacement and the male preference for self-enhancement, repeatedly upheld in self-estimated IQ levels, held true for EI as well. Results showed that it did, with male self-estimations of EI levels higher than female estimations. Further analysis of whether self-estimated EI levels corresponded to actual levels showed that the mens and womens self-estimations were equivocal. Petrides and Furnhams results did not show a significant gender difference in total measured EI. However, they did show a significant difference on the social skills factor, with women scoring higher than men. This result was in the opposite direction from the difference in self-estimated EI, in which mens self-estimates were higher than womens. In other words, the process of self-estimation is biased, though, as Petrides and Furnham suggested, the nature and source of this bias is not clear (Petrides & Furnham). However, Petrides and Furnham (2000) noted some limitations of the study, one of which was that the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al., 1998) has certain problems and the four factors we have derived have not been sufficiently validated (Petrides & Furnham, p. 453). They stated that with regard to measured trait EI, the results of their research were inconclusive and it needs to be replicated with a better measure of EI. In a study of parents estimates of their own and their childrens multiple intelligences, Kirkcaldy, Noack, Furnham, and Siefen (2007) found that mothers gave lower self-estimates than fathers of their own mathematical (logical) and spatial intelligence. Both parents rated their sons as having higher intrapersonal intelligence than 43

daughters. Intrapersonal intelligence is an individuals ability to assess ones own moods, feelings, mental states, and to use this information adaptively. It is one of Gardners (1983) personal intelligences, the other being interpersonal intelligence, and is similar to the concept of EI. Burton, Hafetz, and Henninger (2007) conducted a study of gender differences in relational and physical aggression using the Bar-On EQi as the measure of EI. They found that women scored higher on the Bar-On Interpersonal overall factor. This included higher scores for women for the components Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship subscales than men. Rivera Cruz (2004) examined gender-based differences in EI in two contexts, work and home. Her study was based on the theory that gender role dynamics influence the ways in which men and women display EI behavior, and that the extent and characteristics of that difference is driven primarily by cultural factors. Results of the study showed there was a difference in EI behavior between the two contexts of work and the personal, with increases when gender is included as a factor. Specifically, women showed significant differences in 7 of the 21 competencies of the EI framework used in the study, and men showed differences in 6 of these competencies. Moreover, women were found to display higher levels of EI competencies at home, than men did at work. These results support the theory that gender role dynamics and cultural characteristics influence the way women and men behave. Further correlation analysis found that differences in womens behavior were associated with Hofstedes (1997) masculinity/femininity dimension of culture and Boyatzis, Murphy, and Wheelers

44

(2000) theory of human values. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in womens behavior across contexts.

Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated, few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a persons sense of identity. In a study by J. E. Smith (2002), African American participants scored lower on interpersonal, intrapersonal, and total EQi than Caucasian participants. In contrast, Van Rooy, Alonso, and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians, with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians, but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Results of these studies, although inconsistent, imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization, possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. E. Smith), and are in accord with the cultural differences found to be associated with womens differential display of EI across contexts noted by Rivera Cruz (2004).

Measuring EI Schutte et al. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests, many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. Schutte et al. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. These are the test of EI 45

competencies, known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI; Boyatzis, 2007), the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Carlsmith, & Chabot, 1998) which focuses on ability, and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI; Bar-On, 2002) test, which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al.). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI, as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals, collected from superiors, colleagues, and peers. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool, the ECI measures a set of specific emotional intelligence indicators that together estimate an individuals capacity for integration in group work settings and ability to manage and direct others through the reading and harnessing of expressed or suppressed emotions (Goleman). The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability, self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills. According to Goleman, the most important are the second and third competencies, the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. However, according to the publisher, the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. In addition, it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group, 2008). For these reasons, this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT, currently in its second revised version, measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes, Salovey, Ct, & Beers, 2005). These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others, the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process, the ability to 46

understand the meaning of different types of emotions, and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al.). MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 3045 minutes to complete. It yields 15 main scores, Total EI score, two Area scores, four Branch scores, and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al., 2002). The test has excellent reliability (r = .93), and the subscales have good to excellent reliability, with rs ranging from .79.91 (Mayer, 2007). Mayer et al. (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content, discriminant, and convergent validity as well. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales, however, it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes, which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. Consequently, this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory; Bar-On, 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker, Saklofske, Wood, Eastabrook, & Taylor, 2005). As noted by Parker et al., other measurement instruments, and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT, provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. That definition is sufficiently narrow in focus to avoid including too many variables but is broad enough to assess important factors identified as significant in influencing or exposing EI (Parker et al.; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score, based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. The five composite 47

scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Specifically, these are [1.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive, understand and accept oneself [b.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand ones emotions [c.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express ones emotions and oneself [d.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize ones potential [2.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b.] Social Responsibility: To identify with ones social group and cooperate with others [c.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate ones feelings and thinking with external reality [b.] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust ones feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself, others and life in general. (Bar-On, 2006, p. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001), Parker et al. (2005), and Watkin (2000), Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the

48

import of each set and subset in it. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into, and understanding of, the nature of EI and its development over time. However, research has also indicated that, like many self-report inventories, the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good, or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb, 2003). Grubbs research examined the fakability of two self-report measures, Bar-Ons (2002) EQi:S and K. C. Smith and McDaniels (1998) Work Problems Survey, a situational judgment test. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions, honest and faking good. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked, and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items, with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. Moreover, general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individuals ability to fake the noncognitive measures.

EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies, the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential, and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Kobe, Reiter-Palmon & Rickers, 2001; Law, Wong & Song, 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). Referred to by earlier scholars as social intelligence, and by contemporary ones as emotional intelligence, EI has been identified as an important 49

ingredient of leadership. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable, others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al.). There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Kobe et al., 2001; Judge et al., 2004; Law et al., 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al.). Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girlsto act wisely in human relations (Thorndike, as cited in Kobe et al., 2001, p. 155). It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. From the sociological perspective, the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges, relationships, and mutual benefits. As a social phenomenon, leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al.; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies, including the ability to indirectly impose ones will on others, or to motivate others to adopt ones path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). According to Mandell and Pherwani, leading others takes place via the communication of the leaders enthusiasm and moods to others while persuading them that the enthusiasm they express for a policy or a project is spontaneously self-generated and not imposed upon them. In addition, social intelligence further embraces the ability 50

to inspire the support, loyalty, trust, and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Thus, social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership, it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. Kobe et al. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur, and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. Rather, they argue, EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. This is an important distinction. As Law et al. (2004) argued, EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self, along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. However, as further contended by Law and colleagues, EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character.

Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. According to Judge et al. (2004), leaders are created by followers, which imply that followers perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence, stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Judge 51

et al.; Kobe et al., 2001; Law et al., 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). The theory of the EILeadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. In other words, individuals who have the intelligence to understand their emotions are also able to manage their emotions for the purposes of task completion and gaining the empathy and support of others (that is, they have emotional intelligence). Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient, cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough; Dearborn, 2002). The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others, can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience, and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2003) argue that the dynamics of leader and subordinate relationships support the claim that successful leaders are able to transfer their emotions to others. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates, such as support, enthusiasm, and optimism, arouse similar feelings in team members. On the other hand, leaders who display negative emotions, such as anger and pessimism, prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates, thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). In short, the leaders expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates, so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates.

52

Criticism of the LeadershipEI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. According to Antonakis (2003), there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. However, Antonakiss criticism is only partially valid. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e.g., Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003a, 2003b), there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. For example, Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolios (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style, the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence, and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont, Costa, & McRae, 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. However, as Prati et al. and others (Dearborn, 2002) argued, the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI, leadership style, and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) was used to measure EI. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x; Bass & Avolio, 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers leadership style and effectiveness. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53

of a leaders leadership style and that individuals EI or between and a leaders perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. Another criticism of the EIleadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. However, as Prati et al. (2003a) point out, this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. Indeed, the self-reported character of the evidence is pertinent to the phenomenon of emotional and social intelligence in that self-reports indicate the respondents level of emotional awareness and thereby reveal the respondents EI capacities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Judge et al., 2004; Kobe et al., 2001; Law et al., 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). Burbach (2004) examined the effect of EI as a predictor of full-range leadership style as well as the moderating effects of leaders cognitive styles and internal vs. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship, with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI, transformational leadership, and outcomes of leadership from leaders perceptions. Specifically, the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence. Leader internal direction of self-concept added significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI and transformational management by exception and laissez-faire leadership from leaders perceptions. That is, internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI, whereas external self-concept was associated with 54

management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders perceptions. Regarding raters perceptions, results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes, with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership, contingent reward leadership, and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. Specifically, leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership, contingent reward leadership, and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions.

EI, Leadership, and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks, 2003), coping (Purkable, 2003), subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron, 2003), and manager success (Hopkins, 2005), with mixed results. These are reviewed as follows. Brooks (2003) examined whether a sample of 57 effective managers in one financial organization scored higher in EI than managers with lower performance ratings and compared EI levels and demographic characteristics of the sample. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. Using performance ratings and demographic data, Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. Position, title, gender, and management tenure 55

were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. Comparisons of the selfversus total others ratingsshowed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions, Emotional Self-Control, Influence, Inspirational Leadership, and SelfConfidence. In each of these areas, EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level, and whether men and women executives differed in EI, leadership practices, and coping mechanisms. In addition to the MSCEIT, measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. Specifically, total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores, leadership practices, and coping mechanisms. MSCEIT subscore 4, regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth, had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others, as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. This suggests that the greater an executives ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions, the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56

avoidance coping. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. As noted previously, one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female, but not male, managerial and nonmanagerial employees. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. Hopkins (2005) conducted research on the EI competencies and styles underlying successful leadership by examining the competencies and leadership styles of 105 successful women and men leaders in one financial services institution. The study used self and other ratings of EI, leadership styles, and success. Results showed a strong pattern of significant differences between men and women leaders such that gender influences not only the idea of successful leadership for men and women but also produces distinctly different routes to success for male and female leaders. Specifically, Hopkins found that the intersection of gender roles and organizational roles influenced the leadership behaviors and styles of both women and men in leadership positions.

57

Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies, demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon womens success. On the other hand, successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies, but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent, individual achievement-oriented behaviors. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different, with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e.g., an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. Women leaders, on the other hand, must behave more androgynously, showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e.g., pacesetting and coaching leadership styles), to be successful.

Conclusion This review of the literature on leadership research indicates that the Transformational Leadership Style has results in greater manager effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction than other leadership styles. In addition, there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass, 1997; Goleman, 1998; Hater & Bass, 1988), as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Judge et al., 2004; Kobe et al., 2001; Law et al., 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Schutte et al., 1998). However, results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless, 1998). 58

A review of the literature on leadership research suggests that leadership has been one of the domains to which Emotional Intelligence has been applied most frequently. However, research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman, 1998; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). Further, as with transformational leadership style, research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al., 1999; Mandell & Pherwani; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Schutte et al., 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al., 2007). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that social context (i.e., personal or business) may interact with gender role and cultural expectations to influence the ways in which men and women managers exhibit EI behavior (Rivera Cruz, 2004). The latter findings are supported by J. E. Smiths (2002) and Van Rooy et al.s (2005) studies, which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups, findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. To summarize, there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. Thus, the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows, Does EI predict transformational leadership style, and (a) if so, are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents, and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question.

59

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative, nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999). Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation, and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship, if any, between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population, sample selection, data collection instruments and study variables, procedures used in addressing the research questions, data analysis, and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions.

Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration, using e-mail communications, the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp., an online business contact marketplace where marketers, recruiters, and sales professionals may purchase business contact information, and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60

formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions, phone, e-mail, and the use of U.S. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop, market, and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development, health care, advertising and marketing, financial services, legal services, food and beverage, nonprofit, and a host of other business and service providers, ranging in size from small to large, to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce.

Selection of Participants Selection of potential participants were personnel in leadership management positions within their respected professions identified by their organizational gatekeepers assigned to researcher according to professional titles to include Founder/Owner, Executives, Senior, and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision, using a sample of convenience of 150 participants.

Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ). The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership, three constructs of transactional leadership, one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2004). For the purpose of this research 61

study, only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. In brief, the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA), (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB), (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM), (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS), and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. Independent Variables Emotional Intelligence (EI) served as the independent or predictor variable in this study and were measured by the Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal, (b) Interpersonal, (c) Adaptability, (d) Stress Management, and (e) General Mood (Bar-On, 2002). These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age, the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age, as well as their ethnicity and income level. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females, it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs.

62

Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio, 2004): 1. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leaders ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him, this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group, act in ways that build others respect and trust of leadership, and display a sense of power and confidence. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leaders ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying, with a strong sense of purpose, the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). Leaders possessing these qualities are admired, respected and trusted. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics, principles, and values. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leaders ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organizations strategic goals. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems, and Individual Consideration: defined as a leaders ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching, mentoring and growth opportunities.

2.

3.

4.

5.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2004) and was based on data from 2,080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from .81 to .96. The testretest reliabilities ranged from .53 to .85. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63

coefficients for each leadership factor. The coefficients ranged from .73 to .94 (Bass & Avolio). The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational, transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio, 2004). However, for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used; therefore, all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). For example, participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0, once in a while = 1, sometimes = 2, fairly often = 3, or frequently, if not always = 4. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores, consisting of four items each, and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success, rather than performance or success itself, and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On, 2002). Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities, including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves, to understand and relate well with others, and to successfully cope with daily demands, challenges and pressures. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4,000 respondents from the United 64

States and Canada. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years, with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On, 2002). Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months, respectively, were reported as .85 (n = 44) and .75 (n = 27; Bar-On, 2002). The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components, and their associated subcomponents, to obtain a Total EQ. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) IntrapersonalSelf-Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, and Self-Actualization; (b) InterpersonalEmpathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship; (c) AdaptabilityReality Testing, Flexibility, and Problem Solving; (d) Stress ManagementStress Tolerance and Impulse Control; and (e) General MoodOptimism and Happiness. Items are measured on a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom/not true for me) to 5 (very often/often true of me). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On, 2002). Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems, MHS Inc., to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. MHS has developed and offers online assessment tools and Scoring Organizers in which researchers can generate scored MS Excel datasets that include only scores which can be imported into any spreadsheet or statistical software program. In this current study all survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 12.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. 65

Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender, age, race/ethnicity, education level, industry, title best describing the respondents current position, years held in current position, years employed by current organization, and number of direct reports under supervision. In this current study all online survey responses, using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site, were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis.

Procedures After securing formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to solicit potential participants for research and submitting it to Capellas Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection, researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research that introduced researcher, the purpose of research, the risk and benefits of participation, the criteria needed to be met for participation, the expected time of completion, additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general, and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site.

66

Consent was implied by participants who after reading the Waiver of Signed Consent (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy), click on the option Agree to Participate in Leadership Research, and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent, Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix), the MLQ assessment, and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on Do not wish to participate in leadership research located on the Waiver of Signed Consent, were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in Waiver of Signed Consent. Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only, individual data were not made available.

Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. 2. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67

3. 4.

Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?

Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

68

HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i.e., a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix], the MLQ, and the Bar-On EQi), were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation, which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. Once Capellas Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection, researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. All e-mail addresses submitted by gatekeepers were put into an Excel file with a 2 header row consisting of e-mail addresses and the other assigning a unique ID Code. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file, e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted, and pen/paper copies were shredded, leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file, which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. 69

This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site, which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well, and was used to launch e-mail campaigns using the Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research which had been designed and written as an html file using a hidden field assigning potential participants their Unique Numeric ID and Passwords, naked to the participants eye, and only captured these data after clicking on Agree to Participate in Leadership Research, which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to, and required, before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. In addition, after submitting consent, participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. All data collected were pooled for analysis, with no specific individuals scores being identified or revealed in any way. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA, 2006) ethical standards. Potential participants who opted to Decline participation, were automatically deleted from the WebSurveyor e-mail campaign file to prevent the intrusion of follow-up e-mail reminders and maintaining their privacy APA ethical standards as well (APA). Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis.

70

Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field, 2005, p. 72). When necessary, log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field, p. 65). Errors in scoring/data entry, outliers, missing and out-of- range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field, 2005, p. 94). Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables, and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables, as appropriate, using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbachs alpha (Field, p. 667). This was followed by univariate analyses, examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. Analyses examining group differences (e.g., gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed, along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field, 2005, p. 571). These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as, t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Finally, correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71

were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field, 2005, p. 170). Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable, as well as to control for the effects of gender, age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field, p. 160).

Expected Findings The results of this research was to indicate whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style, and, if so, the nature and strength of that association. In addition, it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style.

72

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. As previous research, while not substantial, suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well, could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses.

Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. 2. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was

73

H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 3. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS, and if so, the nature and strength of that association; and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS.

74

Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field, 2005, p. 72). If necessary, log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field, p. 65). Errors in scoring/data entry, outliers, missing and out-of- range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field, 2005, p. 94). Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous, or scaled variables, and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables, as appropriate, using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables, (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables, and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e.g., components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. Descriptive StatisticsDemographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1.

75

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables

__________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 13 years Between 46 years Between 710 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 13 years Between 46 years Between 710 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.1 39.2 55.7 20.9 12.7 10.8 3.8 5.1 10.8 2.5 5.7 5.1 25.9 3.2 2.5 4.4 3.8 1.9 6.3 8.2 5.7 5.1 11.4 24.1 22.2 12.7 29.7 7.0 11.4 19.6 16.5 45.6

76

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables (continued)

__________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Level of education High school and technical/trade school AA degree Bachelors degree Masters degree PhD Number of direct reports 36 79 1012 1315 16+ Race/Ethnicity** African American Asian Caucasian Latino *Age (N = 150) 2127 2834 3542 4350 5158 59+ 52 16 51 33 3 103 16 15 3 20 4 4 135 14 3 4 25 52 47 19 32.9 10.1 32.3 20.9 1.9 65.2 10.1 9.5 1.9 12.7 2.5 4.25 85.4 8.9 2.0 2.7 16.7 34.7 31.3 12.7

Current income Less than $40,000 44 27.8 Between $4070,000 55 34.8 Between $70100,000 23 14.6 Between $100150,000 17 10.8 More than $150,000 15 9.5 __________________________________________________________
Note. N = 158. Minimum age 24, maximum age 67. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.70, SD = 8.20). *Responses to other positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. **Includes Pacific Islander, East Asian, American Indian, Arabic or other.

77

Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.4%, n = 135) male (60.1%, n = 95) between the ages of 4358 (66%, n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.6%, n = 121) in a private, for-profit organization. Notably, 25.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.7%, n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.6%, n = 72). Most respondents earned from $40,000$100,000 per annum (49.4%, n = 78). Although the number of direct reports ranged widely, from between 36 to more than 16, the majority of respondents had between 36 direct reports (65.2%, n = 103). Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%, n = 106). The sample of the population in this study has an average, or mean of 3.95 years of college education, this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelors level of education. However, the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelors degree. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. The median level of education was a bachelors degree. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. In terms of supervision responsibilities, or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.32 subordinates. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 36 direct reports (subordinates), and a median of 5.15 direct reports. Addressing racial diversity, the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). 78

The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. The mean age of the subjects is 48.65 years, with a nearly identical median of 48.77 years. The mode of age is the 4350 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 4358. As far as income, the mean income was $68,900 and the median was $54,730. This figure has many problems specifically because the exact dollar amounts were not listed and an estimation of the group score is taken to calculate these values. For the income this is going to be most apparent, because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Descriptive StatisticsThe Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable, Total EQi Score. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.97 (SD = 13.49). EQi component scores were, in descending order, Intrapersonal, 107.02 (SD = 13.41), Adaptability, 105.86 (SD = 13.00), Stress Management, 105.02 (SD = 13.01), Interpersonal, 103.49 (SD = 14.05), and General Mood Components, 102.63 (SD = 12.85). Descriptive StatisticsThe Five TLS Components of the MLQ Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the five TLS components of the MLQ are displayed in Table 3. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable, Summed TLS Score. 79

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi
____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.02 102.41 106.64 107.54 103.31 103.49 103.46 102.28 103.21 105.02 105.52 103.61 105.86 106.17 104.63 103.61 102.63 103.66 101.93 13.41 12.45 13.49 13.19 13.66 14.05 14.73 12.60 14.62 13.01 13.86 12.67 13.00 12.44 13.74 13.04 12.85 12.70 13.36

Total EQi Score 105.97 13.4 ____________________________________________________

Note. N = 157.

This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.

80

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components

TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Mean TLS Score* M 3.09 3.13 3.26 3.08 3.35 3.18 SD 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.59

Note. N = 157. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).

Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.18 (SD = 0.59). TLS component scores were, in descending order, Individualized Consideration, 3.35 (SD = 0.57), Inspirational Motivation, 3.26 (SD = 0.57), Idealized Influence (Behavior), 3.13 (SD = 0.63), Idealized Influence (Attributed), 3.09 (SD = 0.59), and Intellectual Stimulation, 3.08 (SD = 0.58). Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.S. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4, which are as follows, Individualized Consideration, 3.16 (SD = 0.52), Inspirational Motivation, 3.04 (SD = 0.59), Idealized Influence (Behavior), 2.99 (SD = 0.59), Idealized Influence (Attributed), 2.95 (SD = 0.53), Intellectual Stimulation, 2.96 (SD = 0.52; Mind Garden, 2004).

81

Table 4. TLS Component Scores: U.S. Group Norms vs. Group Sample
Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration
*N = 157; **N = 3,375.

Norm group** M 3.02 2.95 2.99 3.04 2.96 3.16 SD 0.55 0.53 0.59 0.59 0.52 0.52

M 3.18 3.09 3.13 3.26 3.08 3.35

SD 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.57

Descriptive StatisticsSkew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous, or scaled variables, was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives, which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables, including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis, since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Skew represents the even-ness, or symmetry, of a distribution (i.e., a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). A skew statistics greater than +/2.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82

by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed, with skew > +/2.0, (a) MLQ 5 = 2.18, (b) MLQ 23 = 2.09, and (c) MLQ 35 = 2.49. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.40, (b) 6.06, and (c) 9.16, respectively. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered, the decision was made to keep them in their original form. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed, but normally distributed. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were, Idealized Influence-Attributed = .83, Idealized InfluenceBehavior = .61, Inspirational Motivation = .73, Intellectual Stimulation = .70, and Individualized Consideration = 1.24, all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.0. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow, and not individual MLQ items, log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbachs alpha () was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. Reliabilities () for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .83, (b) Interpersonal = .85, (c) Stress Management = .64, (d) Adaptability = .76, and (e) General Mood = .78. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .67, (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .66, (c) Inspirational Motivation = .80, (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .67, and (e) Individualized Consideration = .63.

83

Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi components predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses Icorrelations between the five EQi and five TLS components. To address the first research question, a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used, Pearsons r was obtained, representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. The significance level was set at ( = .05). Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components

TLS component EQ component 1. Intrapersonal 2. Interpersonal 3. Stress Management 4. Adaptability 5. General Mood IIA .40* .33* .19 a .23* .37* IIB .48* .40* .29* .41* .46* IM .52* .44* .37* .35* .59* IS .37* .25* .28* .30* .32* IC .44* .36* .31* .37* .43*

Note. N = 158. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed); IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior); IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; and IC = Individualized Consideration. *p < .01. a p < .05.

84

Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. With one exception, all of the Pearsons rs were .23 or higher, representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed, at r = .19, which was still significant at p < .05. All correlations were in the positive direction, meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased, EQi component scores also increased. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIacorrelations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components, using the same Procedure Correlations, with ( = .05). Results are shown in Table 6. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .59, p < .001), (b) Happiness (r = .51, p < .001), (c) Self-Actualization (r = .50, p < .001) and Inspirational Motivation. Most of the correlations ranged between .20 and .45. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components, Inspirational Motivation (r = .16, p < .05), which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.

85

Table 6. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents

TLS components EQi subcomponent 1. Self-Regard 2. Self-Awareness 3. Assertiveness 4. Independence 5. Self-Actualization 6. Empathy 7. Social Responsibility 8. Interpersonal Relationships 9. Stress Tolerance 10. Impulse Control 11. Reality Testing 12. Flexibility 13. Problem Solving 14. Optimism 15. Happiness IIA .37* .17 a .36* .33* .37* .28* .26* .32* .29* .03 (ns) .11 (ns) .19 a .28* .40* .31* IIB .45* .27* .36* .39* .43* .32* .38* .34* .37* .12 (ns) .30* .31* .40* .46* .39* IM .45* .24* .40* .44* .50* .37* .37* .40* .48* .16 a .26* .24* .35* .59* .51* IS .33* .15 (ns) .33* .32* .34* .25* .24* .21* .31* .16 (ns) .13 (ns) .23* .43* .33* .25* IC .43* .23* .36* .38* .35* .33* .30* .33* .37* .15 (ns) .24* .30* .38* .44* .36*

Note. N = 157. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed); IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior); IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; and IC = Individualized Consideration. *p < .01. ap < .05 (ns = nonsignificant; p .05).

All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant. 86

While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = .30, p < .001), (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = .26, p < .001), and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = .24, p < .001), no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. All correlations were in the positive direction, meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased, EQi component scores also increased. In summary, all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scoresthe exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable, the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. Inferential analyses IIbintercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis, a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable, which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. This is a potentially serious issue, since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. Examining intercorrelations among EQi subcomponents will aid in establishing whether any of them are so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned hierarchical regression analyses (Field, 2005, p. 170). A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearsons r greater than .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Correlations 87

(Pearsons r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .82, p < .01). Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component, this intercorrelation is to be expected. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .72, p < .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .71, p < .01). However, since no Pearsons r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .90, multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. Inferential analyses IIcintercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. The same analysis was conducted and Pearsons rs obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72, p < .01). None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .64. Therefore, based on the .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. Inferential analysis IIdmultiple regression. To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed.

88

Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents

1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .50* 1.00 .82* .66* .37* .40* .55* .47* .39* .43* .40* .15* .27* .26* .41* .52* .42* .24* .38* .53* .52* .25* .20* .42* .51* .42* .42* .41* .40* .49* .58* .56* .16* .50* .47* .32* .64* .55* .35* .39* .40* .60* .61* .50* .28* .32* .51* .60* .55* .65* .37* .33* .62* .59* .52* .41* .61* .37* .15* .25* .32* .36* .23* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .66* .51* .59* .50* .61* .50* .53* 15 .72* .43* .43* .42* .55* .39* .32*

Subcomponent

1. Self-Regard

2. Self Awareness

3. Assertiveness

4. Independence

5. Self-Actualization

6. Empathy

89

7. Social Responsibility

8. Interpersonal Relationship

.45*
1.00

.36*
.53* 1.00

.40*
.60* .43* 1.00

.43*
.60* .54* .51* 1.00

.23*
.50* .56* .38* .47* 1.00

.61*
.58* .50* .60* .74* .30*

.71*
.47* .42* .33* .55* .36*

9. Reality Testing

10. Flexibility

11. Problem Solving

12. Stress Tolerance

13. Impulse Control

Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.00 15 .64* 1.00

Subcomponent

14. Optimism

15. Happiness

Note. N = 157. a p < .05. bns = nonsignificant. *p < .01.

90

Table 8. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ

TLS components 1. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. Inspirational Motivation 4. Intellectual Stimulation 5. Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *p < .01.

1 1.00

2 .57* 1.00

3 .59* .72* 1.00

4 .54* .60* .58* 1.00

5 .55* .62* .61* .64* 1.00

The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1, followed by Interpersonal at Step 2, Stress Management at Step 3, Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Results are shown in Table 9. Inferential analysis IIdmultiple regression. To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1, followed by Interpersonal at Step 2, Stress Management at Step 3, Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Results are shown in Table 9. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .287), followed by General Mood (R2change = .019), and, to a minimal extent, the Interpersonal component (R2change = .015). Overall, about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal, General Mood and 91

Interpersonal components. Neither Stress Management, entered at Step 3, nor Adaptability, entered at Step 4, accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.

Table 9. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS

Variable Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange
Sig. F change

R2change

.32 .073 .033 .008 .25

2.66** .728 0.316 0.069 2.04*

62.66 3.24 .25 .034 4.162

.000 .07 .87 .85 .04

.287 .015 .000 .000 .019

Note. N = 157. R2 = .287 at Step 1; R2 = .301 at Step 2; R2 = .301 at Steps 3 and 4; R2 = .320 at Step 5. TLS Summed = D.V. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). *p < .05. **p < .01.

In summary, the EQi Intrapersonal, and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.

92

Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender

Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)

M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25

SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94

93

Males in the sample ranked highest on the Intrapersonal EQi component (M = 108.74, SD = 12.47), and they ranked lowest on the Interpersonal component (M = 102.71, SD = 14.53). The second-highest rankings for males were on both Stress Management and Adaptability. Females in the sample ranked highest on the Adaptability component (M = 105.08, SD = 12.08), and they ranked lowest on the General Mood component (M = 101.38, SD = 12.63). The second-highest ranking for females was on the Interpersonal component. As a group, females (2) ranked higher than males (4) on the EQi Interpersonal component. Females (1) also ranked higher than males (2) on the Adaptability component. Males ranked higher than females on the remaining three EQi components, Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and General Mood. Descripitive statistics (Means, SD) were then obtained for males and females on the five TLS components. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify those TLS components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are shown in Table 11. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the TLS Individualized Consideration component as seen in the rankings in Table 12, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 3.36, SD = 0.59; females: M = 3.31, SD = 0.53) compared to the remaining four components. Both males and females ranked second on the Inspirational Motivation component. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for males and the lowest-ranking for females was on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Males ranked lowest on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) component, while females, as previously noted, ranked lowest on Intellectual Stimulation. 94

Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender

Male* TLS component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(5) (3) (2) (4) (1) M 3.10 3.04 3.03 3.19 2.97 3.31 SD 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.53 Rank -(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)

M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36

SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59

As a group, females (3) ranked higher than males (5) on only one TLS component, Idealized Influence (Attributed). As a group, males ranked higher (3) than females (4) on Idealized Influence (Behavior) and on Intellectual Stimulation (4 vs. 5). Independent samples t tests. First, an independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components. This is the appropriate statistical test to use when comparing two independent (i.e., unrelated) groups such as male and female on one or more continuous (scaled) variables, such as the five EQi components. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 12. Males scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 95

Table 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components

__________________________________________________________

Malesa

Femalesb

EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.75 12.48 104.21 14.44 2.14 __________________________________________________________
a

n = 95. bn = 62. *p < .05.

An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ
__________________________________________________________________

Malesa

Femalesb

TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.16 0.50 2.97 0.67 2.01* __________________________________________________________________
a

n = 95. bn = 62. *p < .05.

Males scored a mean of 0.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. 96

Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents, (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents, (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females, and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender, scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 14. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.64, SD = 14.08; females: M = 106.77, SD = 14.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent, males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents, respectively.

97

Table 14. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender

_________________________________________________________________________ Male Female

EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104.09 109.64 109.50 109.17 103.34 102.72 101.06 102.99 107.62 103.76 106.33 105.89 103.47 104.43 11.80 14.08 11.84 11.53 12.97 15.55 13.37 14.19 12.93 13.50 12.63 13.92 13.57 13.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.80 106.77 102.21 105.01 103.24 104.61 104.16 103.56 102.26 103.37 105.92 102.67 103.80 102.48 13.07 14.68 14.74 15.18 14.78 13.41 11.14 15.40 14.74 11.37 12.23 13.34 12.27 11.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11)

Happiness 102.70 13.28 (14) 100.75 13.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________

Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

As a group, females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents, Self-Actualization (9 vs. 11), Empathy (4 vs. 13), Social Responsibility

98

(5 vs. 15), and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. 12). They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. 10). As a group, males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents, Self-Regard (8 vs. 15), Assertiveness, (2 vs. 13), Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 12), and Flexibility (6 vs. 10), among others. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). Independent-samples t test. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents
Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.97 109.39 109.11 107.67 SD 11.80 11.86 11.57 12.99 M 99.80 102.21 105.01 102.26 Females SD 13.07 14.74 15.18 14.74 t 2.07* 3.36** 1.91a 2.42*

Note. Males, n = 95; Females, n = 62. a Marginally significant, p = .05. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Males scored a mean of 7.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females, a difference which was significant at p < .01. They also scored higher on the 99

Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.41) subcomponents, all of which were significant at p < .05. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. To summarize, males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. They also scored 4.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.11) than did females (M = 105.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. Regression analyses. As a follow-up, regression analyses were performed separately for males and females using as the set of predictors the four EQi subcomponents on which significant gender differences had been identified. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one, or combination, of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females, and the only one that predicted TLS in males. Further, stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Both assertiveness (R2 change = .08), and independence (R2 change =.13), were important predictors of TLS in females, but did not predict TLS for males. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender, TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender, scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. Specifically, this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100

on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.e., who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analyses of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females
EQi Subcomponents Step 1 Self-Regard Malesb Femalesc Step 2 Assertiveness Males Females Step 3 Independence Males Females Step 4 Stress Tolerance Males Females Beta a ta Fchange
Sig. F change

R2change

.41 .12

2.99** .989

34.24 14.05

.000 .000

.269 .190

.02 .19

.167 1.45

.268 7.18

.606 .010

.002 .088

.73 .55

.669 3.63**

.098 12.85

.755 .001

.001 .131

.21 .73

1.67 1.04

2.81 1.08

.097 .302

.022 .011

Note. N = 157. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .261 at Step 1; R2 (adj) = .255 at Step 2; R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3; R2 (adj) = .263 at Step 4. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .176 at Step 1; R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2; R2 (adj) = .378 at Step 3; R2 (adj) = .379 at Step 4. **p < .01.

The 15 EQi subcomponents were chosen for the analysis rather than the five components because significant gender differences were found on four EQi subcomponents compared to only one of the components. It was thus decided that using

101

the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i.e., three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components, and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.e., the three highest TLS component scores). Finally, statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. Categorical variables. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the five TLS components. To do this, categorical variables (low- and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Descriptive data (N and %) for low- and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. More than one half of males (53.7%, n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components, and exactly one half of females (50.0%, n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. The highest percentages of males (53.7%, n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed), (b) Idealized Influence 102

(Behavior), and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. The highest percentage of males (52.6%, n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. The highest percentage of females (59.7%, n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component, the highest percentage of females (54.8%, n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.

Table 17. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components
Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total
Note. N = 157. *n = 95; **n = 62.

Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.4 54.8 43.5 40.3 48.4 50.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.1 45.2 56.5 59.7 51.1 50.0

n 44 44 50 47 44 44

% 46.3 46.3 52.6 49.5 46.3 46.3

n 51 51 45 48 51 51

% 53.7 53.7 47.4 50.5 53.7 53.7

The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). This subsample was used in all analyses that follow. The Select Cases option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103

mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.91). Once this subsample was selected, means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. First, the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Secondly, the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen, again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first, followed by the three lowest means for males and females.

Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components
TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.98 111.76 110.64 112.51 111.92 111.55 114.66 114.00 112.24 111.83 111.12 110.50 114.11 113.45 112.29 SD 14.11 11.14 11.28 11.68 12.88 11.09 10.75 9.15 10.66 11.04 16.00 9.85 12.30 10.75 10.93

Idealized Influence (Behavior)

Inspirational Motivation

Intellectual Stimulation

Individualized Consideration

104

Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued)
TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.25 104.92 105.90 103.86 105.23 106.15 104.71 106.13 107.17 9.84 11.21 11.38 14.12 10.22 13.55 12.20 9.40 12.26 112.42 109.53 109.28 110.51 107.28 107.23 108.50 107.62 107.13 111.22 108.28 108.39 9.64 9.03 7.50 11.44 9.55 12.07 14.36 13.68 10.73 9.41 8.55 11.39 M 110.18 109.15 108.56 SD 10.51 7.50 11.9

Inspirational Motivation

Intellectual Stimulation

Individualized Consideration

Idealized Influence (Behavior)

Inspirational Motivation

105

Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued)
TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Males 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Social Responsibility Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Social Responsibility Impulse Control Happiness Females 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Self-Regard Happiness Flexibility Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships 102.65 103.09 104.03 102.96 105.14 105.78 103.57 104.26 105.77 101.4 102.00 103.35 103.75 104.50 105.06 12.41 10.42 9.86 12.73 10.01 8.67 10.20 11.43 11.06 13.27 14.81 17.12 10.63 12.85 14.33 M 104.79 105.56 105.66 104.82 105.68 106.50 SD 10.47 12.59 14.66 10.90 12.89 11.81

Individualized Consideration

Idealized Influence (Behavior)

Inspirational Motivation

Intellectual Stimulation

Individualized Consideration

Descriptive statistics. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness, (b) Assertiveness, (c) Independence, and (d) Stress Tolerance 106

across the five TLS components. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness, (b) Independence, (c) Social Responsibility, (d) Empathy, and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control, (b) Social Responsibility, (c) Interpersonal Relationships, (d) Problem Solving, and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard, (b) Happiness, (c) Interpersonal Relationships, and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. Independent subsamples t test. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (TLS) males and females (n = 82) to determine whether their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly from one another. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. Females scored a mean of 4.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males, a difference which was significant at p < .05. Males scored a mean of 5.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance, however, which was also significant as shown in Table 19. While males scored 5.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent, this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. In summary, three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents, Assertiveness, Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. Males scored 107

significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.

Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents

Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.43 104.33 111.80 SD 10.96 10.05 10.57 M 107.09 108.61 106.16 Females SD 13.78 8.00 14.43 t 1.94a 2.01* 2.04*

Note. Subsample N = 82; Males, n = 51; Females, n = 31. a Marginally significant, p = .05. *p < .05.

Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender, EQi, and the 5 TLS Subcomponents Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1; however, the goal here was to identify significant gender differences in using TLS based on a subsample of males and females identified as high scorers on the 15 EQi subcomponents (i.e., who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). Categorical variables. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents. To do this, categorical variables (low- and high-scoring) 108

were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Descriptive data (N and %) for low- and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. More than one half of males (53.1%, n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. However, 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. The highest percentages of males (61.5%, n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Interestingly, 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.5% (n = 35) of females did so. The highest percentage of males (50.0%, n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. The highest percentage of females (61.3%, n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard, followed by 59.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.6%, n = 32). The second step was the same as that described in Part 1, obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.97). Once the subsample was selected, means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. Then, the lowest TLS component mean was chosen, again based on each EQi subcomponent.

109

Table 20. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents
Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total
*n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** High Low % 53.1 55.2 61.5 53.1 54.2 57.3 52.1 55.2 50.0 54.2 55.2 51.0 52.1 56.2 61.5 54.8 High % 38.7 44.3 48.4 45.2 41.9 43.5 46.8 43.5 43.5 40.3 45.2 45.2 50.0 51.6 46.8 45.0

n
45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43

% 46.9 44.8 38.5 46.9 45.8 42.7 47.9 44.8 50.0 45.8 44.8 49.0 47.9 43.8 38.5 45.2

n
51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52

n
24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28

n
38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34

% 61.3 55.7 51.6 54.8 58.1 56.5 53.2 56.5 56.5 59.7 54.8 54.8 50.0 48.4 53.2 55.0

110

The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first, followed by the lowest mean.

Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi
Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.52 3.5 3.51 3.47 3.58 3.49 3.52 3.61 3.55 3.37 3.55 3.48 3.49 3.55 3.55 SD 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.47 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.37 0.49 0.60 0.47 0.53 0.54 0.47 0.43

111

Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued)
Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.22 3.21 0.49 0.6 M 3.42 3.37 3.51 3.51 3.41 3.38 3.35 3.37 3.46 3.42 3.36 3.55 3.45 3.44 3.43 SD 0.44 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.45 0.40 0.39 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.30 0.35

112

Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued)
Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.1 3.15 3.18 3.14 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.53 M 3.25 3.22 3.24 3.2 3.22 3.28 3.2 3.08 3.2 3.19 3.21 3.24 3.24 SD 0.5 0.52 0.51 0.58 0.58 0.43 0.6 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.45

113

Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued)
Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3.11 3.13 3.14 3.05 3.11 3.06 2.95 3.21 3.16 3.02 3.08 SD 0.63 0.58 0.6 0.62 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.49 0.67 0.68 0.57

Descriptive statistics. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents, with the exceptions of Independence, Empathy, Optimism and Happiness, where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility, where they scored highest on Inspirational 114

Motivation. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Independent subsamples t test. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (EQi) males and females (N = 87) to determine whether their scores on the five TLS components differed significantly. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.

Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components

Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior)
Note. Males, n = 54; Females, n = 33. a Marginally significant, p = .05. *p < .05.

Females SD 10.57 M 106.16 SD 14.43 t 2.04*

M 111.80

Males scored 0.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. In summary, only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component, Idealized Influence (Behavior). Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. 115

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction In this final chapter, pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized, including research methodology, and findings of data analysis. These findings are discussed, as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed, followed by the researchers concluding thoughts.

Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS), as previous research investigating TLS and EI suggests that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Bass, 1997; Goleman, 1998). The literature regarding leadership research suggests that the Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles in terms of organizational effectiveness outcomes. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Goleman, 1998; Hater & Bass, 1988), as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek, 2000; Schutte et al., 1998; 116

Sosik & Megerian, 1999). However, research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). The secondary purpose of this study was designed to examine whether there are any significant gender-specific differences in the way men and women use their EI competencies that are reflected in their TLS. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U.S. workforce is growing in its diversity, with women currently representing 50.6% of the 48 million employees in management, professional, and related occupations (U.S Department of Labor, 2003). In fact, during the last 25 years womens employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while mens employment has declined in every age group over age 25. Over the next decade, 80% of the U.S. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men, with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelors degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. In 2001, 30% of women earned medical degrees, 47% law degrees, and 41% MBAs (Wolfe, 2007). However, in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries, the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. In 2007, women held 15.4% of corporate officer posts at the nations top 500 companies, down from 16.4% in 2005. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27.2% last year (Hymowitz, 2008). When asked to provide a ranking of factors, executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. The women 117

stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not heard by senior management. In addition, woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe, 2007). Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9.5 million people and generate $1.3 trillion in annual sales. In the overall U.S. businesses owned by women, nearly $2.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U.S. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules, the chance to pursue an opportunity, and the desire to escape from the glass ceiling that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe, 2007). Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. Not surprisingly, women are a crucial part of the talent equation. The Center for Creative Leaderships (2008) Sara King suggested that engaging and retaining senior women executives is not only critical to the competitiveness of individual organizations but also for entire industries. Identifying how gender differences in EI, if they exist, influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous, with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men, while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. As a result of this ambiguity, researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118

between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian, 2004; Perry, Ball, & Stacey, 2004; Schaie, 2001; Van Rooy et al., 2005). In addition to filling this research gap, the overall significance of identifying EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in the present research may be to facilitate the development of human resource planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing, selection, and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership.

Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative, nonexperimental, cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male, 62 female). Correlation and regression analysis were utilized to examine the relationship between components/subcomponents of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) construct as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores, with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing, all correlations were in the positive direction. As scores on the TLS components increased, EQi component scores also increased. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS, followed by General Mood and, to a minimal extent, Interpersonal. Taken together, these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. 119

When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components, a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents, males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents, Assertiveness, Self-Regard, and Stress Tolerance, and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified, Assertiveness, Stress Tolerance, and Social Responsibility. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found.

Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearsons r, representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120

independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearsons rs were .23 or higher, representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .23) to moderate (r = .59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Thus, rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS, as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. The significance of this research finding is that it lends itself in providing empirical support of previous research findings that identify a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs in which individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs were found to score high on the other as well (Goleman, 1998; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). In addition, this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Judge et al., 2004; Kobe et al., 2001; Law et al., 2004; Mandell & Pherwani; Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & Stough, 2001). Further, the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003), who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002). Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearsons r scores ranging from modest (r = .21) to moderate (r 121

= .51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing, which were insignificant with Pearsons rs ranging from .03 to .16. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable, demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Thus, rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. The significance of this research finding is that it further supports empirical studies that demonstrate there is a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs (Goleman, 1998; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). However, a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents, Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. Based on Bar-Ons description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On, 2002), it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. For example, Impulse Control, defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive, or temptation to act, is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. As well, Stress Tolerance, the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress, is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component, which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS.

122

Reality Testing, defined as the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists, is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component, which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability components two other subcomponents, Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings, thinking and behavior to new situations, entails adjusting our feelings, thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions; BarOn, 2002). This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar, unpredictable and dynamic circumstances, which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. Nevertheless, the fact that a large number of significant correlations were identified between subcomponents of the independent variables and the components of the dependent variable suggests a positive relationship between the two constructs. Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Males scored a mean of 4.62 (p < .05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Males scored a mean of 0.19 (p < .05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Thus, the third null hypothesis considered in this study: There will be no significant gender differences in the 123

relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS, was rejected. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant, with males scoring a higher mean of 4.62 (p < .05) and is consistent with BarOn and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) who found through their research that successful senior leaders have a significantly higher intrapersonal capacity and this attribute is generally found in male leaders. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses, strive toward maximizing development of our competencies, skills and talents, by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. Striving to actualize potential involves developing enjoyable and meaningful activities that can lead to effort and an enthusiastic commitment to long-term goals (Bar-On, 2002, 2007). Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant, with males scoring a higher mean of .19 (p < .05) as well. Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she orients followers to an awareness of problems and support followers to be creative and innovative, try new approaches, and challenge their own beliefs and values, as well as those of the leader and the organization, which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). As a result, the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124

On and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) suggesting their research has consistently found male leaders to have significantly higher intrapersonal capacity than do their female counterparts. While this current study supports previous research findings, with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts, numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence, which this current study used, suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles, 1995; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents, Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.18), Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.17), and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.41), all of which were significant at p < .05. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.10, thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

125

The research findings of this current study are consistent with Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2002) where research indicated men tend to be stronger in Intrapersonal capacity (Assertiveness subcomponent), are better at handling stress, are independent, and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. According to Dr. Steven Stein, President of MHS, the publisher of the EQi test used in this study, men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women (2002, 1). It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component, where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3, and should not come as a great surprise. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4, Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The researcher used a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership style in detecting significant gender differences in the relationships among gender, and mens and womens use of EQi. To do this, the Select Cases option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3.18). More than one half of males (53.7%, n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.0%, n = 31) scored above

126

the mean across all of the TLS components. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents, Stress Tolerance, Assertiveness, and Social Responsibility. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5.64, p < .05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.33, p < .05). Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.28, p < .05). Thus, the null hypotheses proposed for this study: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS, was rejected. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question, and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000), who analyzed the scores on over 7,700 administrations of the EQi, and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. In addition, Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered, and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men, whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On, 2007). The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regardthe conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security, inner strength, self-assuredness, self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127

of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others, the ability to work with and collaborate with groups, and, for the leader, involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance, defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. In essence, stress tolerance is the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress, and Assertiveness, defined as the ability to constructively express ones feelings and oneself in general. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy, and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. However, the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating, as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with, based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass, 1993). A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used.

128

Discussion of the Conclusions Predictive Relationship of the five EQi Components and TLS Results of this study provide evidence to support the idea that EI is positively related to TLS, as the association found between EI and TLS provides empirical support to previous research that theorized a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs, exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously, neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .287), followed by General Mood (R2change = .019), and, to a minimal degree, Interpersonal (R2 change = .015). When these three components were combined, they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. However, this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. In other words, although EI as measured by the EQi, particularly three of its major components, appears to be a strong predictor of TLS, it is not a sole predictor. For example, the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach, 2004), coping mechanisms (Purkable, 2003), and nonverbal emotional 129

decoding (Byron, 2003) may be related to leadership ability. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study, a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Golemans (1998) and Bar-Ons (2002) research, which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components, unlike findings of previous research, which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough, 2005; Butler, 2005; Schutte et al., 1998; Van Rooy et al., 2005), or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that, unlike the present results, women scored higher overall, as well as higher on all five components than males. However, similar to Butlers finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.7 vs. 101.7) (p. 92), in the present research, men scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108.8 vs. 104.2). The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003), who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.58 vs. 98.31) and TLS (65.21 vs. 63.31).

130

It is important to note, however, that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression, a somewhat different picture emerged. For example, Mandell and Pherwani, despite finding differences in mens and womens scores in both EQ and TLS, found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score, there was no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers (2003, p. 399). Likewise, in the present study, Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Further, Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females, but did not predict TLS for males. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the companys future, initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all, and does so with consideration for their welfare, both individually and collectively (Bass, 1990). Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts, whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131

oriented, as women tend to be more nurturing, caring, and sensitive. These characteristics are more aligned with transformational leadership and attribute this to the socialization process by which individuals learn to conform to cultural expectations in accordance with societal expectations about their gender role (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Carless, 1998; Carless et al., 2000; Eagly, Karau, Miner, & Johnson, 1994; Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Rosener, 1990). In a study by Bass et al. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders, women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components, but reported the closest difference was on intellectual stimulation and attributed it to men being better at intervening to correct followers mistakes (Bass et al.). This leadership behavior would be indicative of Basss subcomponent of the transactional component, management-by-exception (active), in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. The negative side of this leadership behavior would reflect an individual who may be overbearing in maintaining strict supervision of bureaucratic regimen with rewards and punishments. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burnss model of transformational and transactional leadership, the critical distinction he made was that, to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well, which is contingent on a given environmental demand. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings, beliefs, and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent, Assertiveness. 132

Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance, expressing disagreement, or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli, 1989, 2001; Copeland, Driskell, & Salas, 1995; Rudman, 1998). In addition, dominance lowers womens but not mens ability to influence others (Carli, 1989). Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. In addition, one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response, which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli, 1989, 2001). That is, male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women, whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli, 2001). In this current study self estimates were used in data collection in which Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested a common problem is that supervisors actually say and believe they are giving feedback to direct reports, yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. This level of disagreement between direct reports and leaders emphasizes the importance of the 360 assessment in data collection as it may provide a more statistically accurate profile of the subject group. Nevertheless, Bass et al. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead, the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher, as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified, implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. Generally, in 133

studies that report significant differences between females and males the effect sizes are very small and it is therefore argued that there is no practical differences between female and male leaders (Yammarino et al., 1997). Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents, Assertiveness, Self-Regard, and Stress Tolerance, and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. According to BarOn and Handley (1999), low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or, in the worst case, the fear of failure. Frankel (2004) identified female leaders possessing low self-regard may in fact have a fear of failure and self-doubt in attempting to meet expectations and obligations as a result of competing in a male dominated power structure. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks, when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Having low self-regard as previously discussed, could also attribute to lower scores, and their negative connotations in, Assertivenessthe ability to express feelings, beliefs and thoughts, to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy; Independencetheir degree of self-confidence, inner strength, as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them; and Stress Tolerance surrendering to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness which often leads to anxiety when this component of emotional-social intelligence is not functioning adequately (BarOn, 2002). In addition, significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134

Psychiatric Association, 1994). However, this is conjecture on the researchers part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On, who suggested that statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi, but the effects are small for the most part (2007, 1), as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between mens and womens overall EQ ability. Furthermore, there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males, but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity (Bar-On, 1). This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females, while not significant, in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured, while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents, Assertiveness, Social Responsibility, and Stress Tolerance. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance, and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. However, Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi, but the effects are small for the most part. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On, 1997), females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males, but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity, are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. 135

More specifically, the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions, demonstrate more empathy, relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. On the other hand, men appear to have better selfregard, are more self-reliant, cope better with stress, are more flexible, solve problems better, and are more optimistic than women. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. Mens deficiencies in interpersonal skills, when compared with women, could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women, and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). (Bar-On, 2007, 1) To summarize . . . the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males, while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former (Bar-On, 2007, 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between mens and womens component/subcomponent scores in EQi, no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified, implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies, both are equally transformational in leadership style, which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities, and an edge in which they differ (Goleman, 1998; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003).

Limitations The current study has several limitations. First, the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant). For purposes of this study, only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136

scores, more specifically transactional, further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al., 2000), Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary, rather than polar constructs, as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. The sample used in this study included a diverse cross section of participants from a wide range of industries and levels of management representing the current work force. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females, because, females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. However, the accuracy of individuals self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism, as an individuals selfreport of his/her own traits, attitudes, and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus, 1991). One of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response (SDR) in the case of men and women who may be affected by gender role expectations. That is, male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women, whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. Further, research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb, 2003). To overcome the limitations of self-report, researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors, 137

peers, and subordinates. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory, females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness, Conscientiousness, Developing Others, Service Orientation, and Communication. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors, and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. For reasons of practicality and access to participants, this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. It is possible that, had subordinates perceptions been included as variables, different results would have been obtained, as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza.

Recommendations for Future Research In the current study, self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures, future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment, as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment, where superiors, peers, and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. The significant difference between self-ratings and the ratings of others may provide a better indication as to whether or not participants perceptions of their leadership style is accurate, thereby reducing the potential for bias, and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. Alternatively, a measure 138

designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns, such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Because of this potential weakness in the research design it was decided to use a subsample (participants scoring above the TLS group mean) to increase the validity of findings. Future researchers, in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report, might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U.S. workforce. As a result, participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. Therefore, it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions, as well as the industries they represent. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. Concerning the narrowing of industries, as stated previously, the U.S. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10,033,000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force, with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences, education, and 139

healthcare professions (Herman et al., 2003). In view of this projection, future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need.

Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS), and (b) if so, if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS, and gender and EI while predicting TLS. Based on the results of this study, there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. This research also suggests that, despite some significant differences between mens and womens component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS, no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies, both are equally transformational in leadership style. Likewise, gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style, implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. The EQi Intrapersonal, and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Gender, Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. 140

In conclusion, this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing, selection, and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership.

141

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (2006). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf Antonakis, J. (2003). Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter and Buckley (2003). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 355361. doi: 10.1108/eb028980 Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261295. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 18 22. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Atkins, P., & Stough, C. (2005, April). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference, Atlanta, GA. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, H. P. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 2950). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Barchard, K. A., & Hakstian, A. R. (2004). The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 437462. doi: 10.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. 142

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 1325. Retrieved from http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.pdf Bar-On, R. (2007). Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Retrieved from http://www.reuvenbaron.org/bar-on-model/essay.php?i=25 Bar-On, R., & Handley, R. (1999). Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. New Braunfels, TX: Pro-Philes Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 1931. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass, B. M. (1993). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 4(3), 375377. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130139. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). Abstract retrieved from http://ericae.net/tc3/TC019239.htm Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112121. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3/4), 541554. doi: 10.1080/01900699408524907 Bass, B. M, & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Leadership development: Transformational leadership. Retrieved from http://205.231.84.242/demo/intro/tformlead.html Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. 143

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 534. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207 Bennis, W. (1990). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development, 27(5), 4446. doi: 10.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis, R. E. (2007). The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Retrieved from http://www.haygroup.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.pdf Boyatzis, R. E., Murphy, A., & Wheeler, J. (2000). Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. Psychological Reports, 86(1), 4764. Retrieved from http://ei.haygroup.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.pdf Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 234238. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library .capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks, J. K. (2003). Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, South Carolina State University. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J.htm Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 3244. doi: 10.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach, M. E. (2004). Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Retrieved from http:// www.eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m.htm Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burton, L. A., Hafetz, J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(1), 4150. doi: 10.2224/ sbp.2007.35.1.41 144

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butler, C. J. (2005). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Byron, K. L. (2003). Are better managers better at reading others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium .org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k.htm Cannella, A., & Monroe, M. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23(3), 213237. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300302 Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39(11/12), 887902. doi: 10.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389405. doi: 10.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 56576. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57 .6.964 Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725 741. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00238 Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2002). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. (2008, May). No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. Retrieved from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs.aspx Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (1998, October). Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). Retrieved from http//www.eiconsortium .org/-report.htm 145

Chief executive officer. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E (1999). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Mountain View, CA. Mayfield. Copeland, C. L., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1995). Gender and reactions to dominance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 5368. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Dearborn, K. (2002). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 523530. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Dixon, D. (1999). Achieving results through transformational leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration, 29(12), 1721. Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(2), 1729. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341372. doi: 10.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735744. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233256. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233 Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 135159. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov, D. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 467480. doi: 10.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: Hill. 146

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frankel, L. P. (2004). Nice girls dont get the corner office. New York: Warner Business Books. Furnham, A., & Rawles, R. (1995). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 741748. doi: 10.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), 1725. Gohm, C. L. (2004). Moving forward with emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 222227. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Grubb, W. L. (2003). Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w.htm Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, O. (1995). Social skills in interpersonal communication. London: Routledge. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695702. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695 Hay Group. (2008). ECI fact card. Retrieved from http://www.haygroup.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard.pdf Hay/McBer. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). Retrieved from http://www.dfee.gov.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 237252. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147

Herman, R. (1997). Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. HR Focus, 74(6), 15 16. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search .ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman, R. (1998). Youve got to change to retain. HR Focus, 75(9), S1S4. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman, R., Gioia, J., & Olivo, T. (2003). Impending crisis: Too many jobs, too few people. Winchester, VA: Oakhill Press. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hitt, M. A. (2000). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 618. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Hopkins, M. M. (2005). The impact of gender, emotional intelligence competencies, and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m.htm Hymowitz, C. (2008, February 25). On diversity, America isnt putting its money where its mouth is. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 .html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland, D. R., & Hitt, H. A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executives, 13(1), 4357. Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1993). Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751765. doi: I0.1037t/00219010.85.5.751 148

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542552. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542 Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 Kaufhold, J. A., & Johnson, L. R. (2005). The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Education, 125(4), 615626. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller, R. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Journal of Research and Technology Management, 38(3), 4144. Kirkcaldy, B., Noack, P., Furnham, A., & Siefen, G. (2007). Parents estimates of their own and their childrens multiple intelligences. European Psychologist, 12(3), 173180. doi: 10.1348/026151000165869 Kobe, L. M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Rickers, J. D. (2001). Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Current Psychology, 20(2), 154163. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2000, June). Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. Retrieved from http://basepath.wiley.com/cda/media/ 0,,15304,00.pdf Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483496. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112129. doi: 10.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Ct, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113118. doi: 10.1037/15283542.5.1.113 Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149

Lutz, C., & White, G. M. (1986). The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(2), 405436. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.002201 Malek, M. (2000). Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 05B. (UMI No. 9970564) Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 387404. doi: 10.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey, D. S. (2002). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. American Sociological Review, 67(1), 129. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Mathews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 179196. Retrieved from http://ez proxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer, J. D. (2007). About the MSCEIT. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer, J. D., Carlsmith, K. M., & Chabot, H. F. (1998). Describing the persons external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(3), 253296. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com .library.capella.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267298. doi: 10.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluytrer (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. 71). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004a). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197215. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site

150

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004b). A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 249255. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login .aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden, Inc. (2004). MLQ international norms. Retrieved from http://www.mind garden.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms.pdf Morrison, R. S., Jones, L., & Fuller, B. (1997). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 27(5), 2734. Oatley, K. (2004). Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 216238. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login? url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie, J. R., & Carsky, M. L. (2002). Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), 381400. doi: 10.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335344. doi: 10.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 510. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Parker, J. D. A., Saklofske, D. H., Wood, L. M., Eastabrook, J. M., & Taylor, R. N. (2005). Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(2), 100106. doi: 10.1016 /j.paid.2006.04.022 Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1759). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Perry, C., Ball, I., & Stacey, E. (2004). Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. Issues in Educational Research, 14(1), 2943. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/perry.html 151

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42(5/6), 449461. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425448. doi: 10.1002/per.416 Piedmont, R. L., Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1991). Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 744755. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.630 Plunkett, W. R. (1992). Leadership and management styles. In W. R. Plunkett (Ed.), Supervision (6th ed., pp. 323351). Boston: Allyn Bacon. Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003a). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 4162. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003b). The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 363369. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Purkable, T. L. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of America. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .htm Rivera Cruz, B. V. (2004). Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.htm Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119125. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121133. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003

152

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629645. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629 Sala, F. (2001). Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/ Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3), 185211. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints...EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence.pdf Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 2131. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Schaie, K. W. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. Comment on Roberts, Zeidner, and Matthews (2001). Emotion, 1(3), 243248. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.243 Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (2000). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York: Wiley. Schulte, M. J. (2003). Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University. Retrieved from http:// www.eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m.htm Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167177. Retrieved from http:// www.sciencedirect.com.library.capella.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693703. doi: 10.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/topic/senior-management Smith, J. E. (2002). Race, emotions, and socialization. Race, Gender & Class, 9(4), 94 110. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search .ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153

Smith, K. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998, April). Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/Search.aspx?search=Smith,%20K.C.,% 20&%20McDaniel,%20M.A.%20(1998) Snodgrass, J., Douthitt, S., Ellis, R. Wade, S., & Plemons, J. (2008). Occupational therapy practitioners perceptions of rehabilitation managers leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Journal of Allied Health, 37(1), 1814. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 367390. doi: 10.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein, S .J. (2002). The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.kandidata.se/default.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C., & Dhoore, W. (2000). Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Nursing Research, 49(1), 3743. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.library.capella.edu/spb/ovidweb.cgi Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tucker, M. L., Sojka, J. Z., Barone, F. J., & McCarthy, A. M. (2000). Training tomorrows leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. Journal of Education for Business, 75(6), 331338. Retrieved from ProQuest database. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Geographic profile of employment and unemployment, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full.pdf U.S. Census Bureau of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 689700. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.023

154

Viator, R. E. (2001). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 99125. Retrieved from http://ezproxy .library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu, J. M. (2003). Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Nursing Management, 34(10), 2832. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library .capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 8992. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/ login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger, L. A. (2003). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www .eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l.htm Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional intelligence at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wolfe, I. S. (2007). The perfect labor storm 2.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. Lancaster, PA: Poised for the Future Company. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975995. doi: 10.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 205222. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251289. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 3952. doi: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2004.06.001 155

APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.

What level of management do you currently hold in your organization?

Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner

Your Industry?

How long have you held your current position?

Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years

Total years employed by current organization?

Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years

156

Level of Education?
High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree PhD

Number of direct reports under your supervision?

3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More

Gender?
Male Female

Race / Ethnicity (optional)

Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander

157

Your Age?
21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over

Current income?
Less than $40,000.00 Between $40,000.00 and $70,000.00 Between $70,000.00 and $100,000.00 Between $100,000.00 and $150,000.00 More than $150,000.00

158