Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No.

3, Spring 2003 (2003)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL

INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP STYLE:
A GENDER COMPARISON
Barbara Mandell
Springfield College

Shilpa Pherwani
IBIS Consulting Group, Inc.

ABSTRACT: This study examined the predictive relationship between emotional

intelligence and transformational leadership style. The researchers also wanted
to determine gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and transformational leadership style, as well as the gender differences in
the emotional intelligence scores and transformational leadership style of man-
agers. A significant predictive relationship (p < .05) was found between transfor-
mational leadership style and emotional intelligence. No significant interaction
(p > .05) was found between gender and emotional intelligence while predicting
transformational leadership style. A significant difference (p < .05) was found in
the emotional intelligence of scores of male and female managers. Lastly, no signif-
icant difference (p > .05) was found in the transformational leadership scores of
male and female managers.

KEY WORDS: emotional intelligence; leadership style, gender.

During the first half of the 20th century Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
tests were considered adequate measures of intelligence. Society linked
IQ scores to an individual’s potential for success in life (Wechsler, 1958).
Reviews of early leadership studies by Bass (1990a) and by Lord, De-
Vader, and Alliger (1986) found that intelligence did contribute to lead-
ership success. These studies focused on the traditional IQ concept of

Address correspondence to Barbara Mandell, Industrial/Organizational Psychology

Graduate Program, Springfield College, Locklin Hall, Alden Avenue, Springfield, MA
01109; bmandell@spfldcol.edu.

387

0889-3268/03/0300-0387/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

388 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

academic intelligence and consistently correlated positive perceptions of

leadership and leaders’ IQ scores.
Opponents of the IQ approach claimed an overemphasis on the role
of general academic intelligence in predicting leadership success. This
early approach has also been criticized because it did not consider situa-
tional factors in the assessment of leadership success (Riggio, Murphy &
Pirozzolo, 2002).
Current research has moved away from IQ scores as the only mea-
sure of intelligence. As early as 1920 Thorndike hypothesized that true
intelligence was composed of not only an academic component, but also
emotional and social components. In 1967 Guilford presented a view of
intelligence as a multifaceted construct composed of one hundred and
twenty different types of intelligence.
Shanley, Walker, and Foley (1971) hypothesized that social intelli-
gence was distinct from academic intelligence, but they found little em-
pirical evidence to support social intelligence as a separate construct.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) suggested social intelligence had been defined
too broadly. They investigated emotional intelligence, as a specific aspect
of social intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined emotional intelli-
gence as the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emo-
tions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide
one’s own thinking and actions” (p. 189). They suggested that emotional
intelligence would be easier to distinguish from academic intelligence.
While society has traditionally placed a great deal of weight on ac-
ademic intelligence, Bar-On (1997) argued that emotional and social in-
telligences were better predictors of success in life. The more recent
writings and research of Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999), Sternberg (1985),
Sternberg and Wagner (1986), and Wagner and Sternberg (1985) have
added support to the concept of multiple intelligences. Gardner has pro-
posed a model of at least 8 types of intelligence including spatial, musi-
cal, intrapersonal, interpersonal, bodily—kinesthetic, naturalistic, and
the traditional academic intelligence: linguistic and logical-mathemati-
cal. Sternberg’s theory (1985) identifies three types of mental abilities:
analytical intelligence, creative intelligence and practical intelligence.
Riggio, Murphy and Pirozzolo (2002) propose these multiple forms of in-
telligence are possessed by effective leaders and allow these leaders to
respond successfully to a range of situations.
Most recently the interest in leadership and intelligence has been
increased by the popular writings of Daniel Goleman (1995, 1998). Other
authors (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Feldman, 1999; Ryback, 1997; Weis-
inger, 1998) have contributed to the construct of emotional intelligence
and its importance in the workplace. Zaccaro (1996, 1999, 2001) empha-
sized the important role of social intelligence in organizational leader-
ship by developing a model of organizational leadership that identified
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 389

the various performance requirements leaders needed to address at as-

cending levels in the organization. Such skills as flexibility, conflict man-
agement, persuasion and social reasoning became more important as
leaders advanced in the hierarchy.
Two models of emotional intelligence have emerged. The ability
model, defines emotional intelligence as a set of abilities that involves
perceiving and reasoning abstractly with information that emerges from
feelings. This model has been supported by the research of Mayer, Ca-
ruso and Salovey (1999); Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990); Mayer and
Salovey (1993, 1997); and Salovey and Mayer (1990). The mixed model
defines emotional intelligence as an ability with social behaviors, traits
and competencies. This model has found support in the writings of Gole-
man (1995, 1998) and Bar-On (1997).
Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) proposed that emotional intelli-
gence should not be considered a unique human ability until there was
an appropriate instrument for the construct’s measurement. Mayer, Sa-
lovey and Caruso (1997) developed an ability based emotional intelli-
gence test. The early version, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence
Scale (MEIS) (1997) and the more recent version, the Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (1999) both measure four
ability areas of emotional intelligence: perception, facilitation of thought,
understanding, and management.
Reflecting the mixed model of emotional intelligence, Bar-On (1996)
developed an instrument to measure a more comprehensive concept of
emotional intelligence, which he labeled emotional quotient (EQ). Bar-
On (1997) defined emotional intelligence as “an array of non-cognitive
capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to suc-
ceed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). The
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) divides emotional intelli-
gence into five major components. Bar-On (1996) labeled the components
‘intrapersonal,’ ‘interpersonal,’ ‘adaptability,’ ‘stress management’ and
‘general mood.’ As emotional intelligence is a new construct, the MEIS,
the MSCEIT and the EQ-i are undergoing considerable validation stud-
ies, and early research has been promising (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovy,
1999 & Bar-On 1997). Bar-On reviews a substantial amount of valida-
tion research in the EQ-i manual (1997). Results indicate that the scales
have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analy-
ses also provide support for the inventory’s structure and the convergent
and discriminate validity of the EQ-I is generally supported. In a recent
study (Dada & Hart, 2000) the reliability and validity of the Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory was investigated with a sample of 243
university students. The results also provided support for the reliability
and validity of the EQ-i.
Bass (1997) examined the profiles of successful individuals, but
390 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

within the context of leadership style. In the past, leadership studies

focused on trait and situational approaches. Current developments in
leadership have focused on transformational and transactional ap-
proaches (Hackman, Hills, Furniss, & Peterson, 1992). Burns (1978) pro-
posed that leadership process occurs in one of two ways, either transac-
tional or transformational.
Bass and Avolio (1994) defined transformational leadership as lead-
ership that occurs when the leader stimulates the interest among col-
leagues and followers to view their work from a new perspective. The
transformational leader generates an awareness of the mission or vision
of the organization, and develops colleagues and followers to higher lev-
els of ability and potential. In addition, the transformational leader moti-
vates colleagues and followers to look beyond their own interests towards
interests that will benefit the group. Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed
that transformational leadership comprises four dimensions—the “Four
I’s.” The four dimensions were: Idealized Influence, Inspirational Moti-
vation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration.
In comparison to transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio
(1994) described transactional leadership occurring when the leader re-
wards or disciplines the follower with regards to performance. Burns
(1978) described transactional leaders as leaders that emphasize work
standards, assignments, and task-oriented goals. In addition, transac-
tional leaders tend to focus on task completion and employee compliance,
and these leaders rely quite heavily on organizational rewards and pun-
ishments to influence employee performance (Burns, 1978).
Bass (1997) suggested that transformational leaders (TF) achieved
higher levels of success in the workplace than transactional leaders (TA).
He noted that TF leaders were promoted more often and produced better
financial results that TA leaders (Bass, 1997). Bass (1997) also observed
that employees rated TF leaders more satisfying and effective than TA
leaders. Bar-On (1997) would attribute transformational leaders’ supe-
rior work performance to high EQ-i scores.
Several researchers have investigated the effects of transforma-
tional and transactional leadership. Hater and Bass (1988) found trans-
formational leadership, when compared to transactional leadership, pre-
dicted higher employee ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction. In
addition, Keller (1995) found that certain aspects of transformational
leadership predicted higher group performance. Also, Seltzer and Bass
(1990) found moderate correlations between transformational leadership
and leader effectiveness, subordinate extra effort, and satisfaction of the
subordinate with the leader. Lastly, top performing managers are seen
as more transformational in their leadership style than ordinary manag-
ers (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Researchers have focused their efforts on the behaviors and charac-
teristics of effective leaders. According to Goleman (1998c), most effec-
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 391

tive leaders are alike in they all have a high degree of emotional intelli-
gence. Goleman (1998c) claimed, “emotional intelligence is the sine qua
non of leadership. . . . Without it, a person can have the best training in
the world, an incisive analytic mind, and an endless supply of smart
ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader” (p. 93). Emotional Intelli-
gence plays an increasingly important role at the highest levels of the
company, where differences in technical skills are of negligible impor-
tance (Goleman, 1998c).
Bass (1990b) proposes that transformational leaders must possess
multiple types of intelligence and that social and emotional intelligence
are critical because these are important to the leader’s ability to inspire
employees and build relationships. Caruso, Mayer and Salovey (2002)
support Bass’ thesis. According to these authors emotional intelligence
underlies a leader’s relationship skills. They contend that organizations
should consider emotional intelligence in the selection and development
of leaders.
A review (Avolio & Bass, 1997) of organizational research studies
consistently found that transformational leaders as measured by the
Management Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) were more effective and
satisfying leaders than were transactional leaders. Transformational
leaders appear to be more behavioral and less emotional when dealing
with stress and conflict. They demonstrate internal locus of control, self-
confidence and self-acceptance. They appear to be better adjusted than
transactional leaders with a strong sense of responsibility and clear
goals. Focusing on a multiple model of intelligence, a review of studies
(Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Gibbons, 1986; Howell & Avolio, 1993;
Ross & Offerman, 1997; Southwick, 1998) that examined the relation-
ship between leadership style and emotional intelligence found evidence
of correlations between transformational leadership and traits of emo-
tional intelligence, less for social intelligence and least for cognitive in-
telligence.
Researchers in the past have also looked at the gender differences
for both transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence. Al-
though past research on leadership style differences between men and
women has been inconclusive, a review of research on leadership and
gender consistently demonstrates that women leaders are often nega-
tively evaluated in comparison to their male counterparts, especially
when they employ an autocratic leadership style (Eagly, Makhijani, &
Klonsky, 1992).
Research on gender differences in emotional intelligence has been
limited. Although Goleman (1995) considered males and females to have
their own personal profiles of strengths and weaknesses for emotional
intelligence capacities, studies conducted by Mayer, Caruso and Salovey
in 1999 and Mayer and Geher in 1996 indicate that women score higher
on measures of emotional intelligence than men.
392 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

METHOD

Based on the previous research in the areas of leadership and emo-

tional intelligence, the current investigation was designed to determine
the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transfor-
mational leadership style. The researchers also investigated any gender
differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and trans-
formational leadership style and the gender differences in the emotional
intelligence scores and transformational leadership style of male and fe-
male managers.
The researchers conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to deter-
mine if emotional intelligence is a predictor of transformational leadership
style. The analysis was also used to investigate the gender differences in
the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational lead-
ership style. To investigate the gender differences in the relationship,
the researchers used the hierarchical regression analysis to determine
the interaction between gender and emotional intelligence when predict-
ing transformational leadership style. Independent t-tests were performed
to determine gender differences in the emotional intelligence scores and
transformational leadership style of male and female managers.

Participants
The researchers sent a letter to the human resources representa-
tives of volunteering organizations explaining the design and purpose of
the study. A second letter was sent to exempt employees asking for their
participation in the research. The volunteer sample consisted of 32 male
and female managers or supervisors employed in mid-sized to large orga-
nizations in the northeastern section of the United States.

Measurement Instruments
The researchers used the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ, 5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) to determine the leadership
style of individuals. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i;
Bar-On, 1996) was used to obtain the emotional intelligence scores of lead-
ers. A demographic questionnaire was also administered to collect partic-
ipant personal data. The latest version of the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass &
Avolio, 1996) is available in two forms: the self rating form, where super-
visors rate themselves as leaders; and the rater form, where associates
rate their leaders. For the current study, the leaders responded to the
MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) self-rating form.
The MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) contains 45 items and
assesses five components of transformational leadership, three compo-
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 393

nents of transactional leadership, one non-transactional leadership compo-

nent, and three outcome components. The five components of transforma-
tional leadership are ‘Idealized Influence (Behavior),’ ‘Idealized Influence
(Attributed),’ ‘Inspirational Motivation,’ ‘Intellectual Stimulation,’ ‘Indi-
vidualized Consideration’ (Bass & Avolio, 1996).
The three components of transactional leadership are categorized
under constructive transactions or corrective transactions. The first cate-
gory is based on ‘Contingent Reward,’ and the second on ‘Management-
by-Exception (Active),’ and ‘Management-by-Exception (Passive)’ (Bass &
Avolio, 1996). The non-transactional component is ‘Laissez-Faire,’ and
the three outcome components are ‘Satisfaction with the Leader,’ ‘Indi-
vidual, Group, and Organizational Effectiveness,’ and ‘Extra Effort by
Associates’ (Bass & Avolio, 1996).
The MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) was scored by adding
all factors to get a transformational, transactional, and ‘Laissez-Faire’
score for each participant. For the purpose of this study, the researchers
used the transformational leadership scores only.
Bass and Avolio (1996) reported the alpha reliability coefficients for
the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) rater form scales for 2080
cases. The Spearman Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from .81 to
.96. The alpha reliabilities coefficients for the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass &
Avolio, 1996) self-rating form were slightly lower. The test-retest reli-
abilities ranged from .44 to .74 for the self-ratings and .53 to .85 for the
ratings by others.
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the con-
struct validity of the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996). The analy-
sis was based on data generated by raters who evaluated their leaders
within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those
organizations. Bass and Avolio (1996) also computed reliability coeffi-
cients for each leadership factor. The coefficients ranged from .73 to .94
(Bass & Avolio, 1996).
The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996), originally designed in 1980 by Bar-On,
was used to measure emotional intelligence. The instrument has 133
items that are categorized into five main components and 15 factorial
components. The five main components are ‘Intrapersonal,’ ‘Interper-
sonal,’ ‘Adaptability,’ ‘Stress Management,’ and ‘General Mood.’ Bar-On
(1996) described the first component, Intra-personal, as a scale that as-
sesses the inner self. Individuals who score high on this scale are consid-
ered to be in touch with their feelings, they feel good about themselves,
and they feel positive about the way things move in their lives (Bar-On,
1996). Bar-On (1996) identified the second component, Inter-personal, to
be characteristic of responsible and dependable individuals who have
good people skills. Individuals who score high on this scale understand,
interact and relate well with others (Bar-On, 1996). The third compo-
394 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

nent, Adaptability, is a sign of how well individuals are able to cope with
environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 1996). Bar-On (1996)
stated that the fourth component, Stress Management, reflects how peo-
ple handle stress. The fifth and final component, General Mood, is an
indicator of an individual’s ability to enjoy life (Bar-On, 1996).
For the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) high and low scores are identified by
how distant they are from the mean score of 100. Scores exceeding the
mean or falling below the mean by 1 SD (15 points) are considered to be
within the normal range. The average time to complete the test is 20–50
min.
Bar-On (1996) focused on two aspects of reliability, internal consis-
tency and test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability for the EQ-i
(Bar-On, 1996) after 1 month was .85, and .75 after 4 months.
The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) has been validated in many ways. As re-
ported by Bar-On (1996) completed validity studies include the following:
(a) correlation between the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and various personality
measures; (b) comparisons between successful and unsuccessful groups
in terms of their EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores; (c) comparison between ob-
tained EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores and what was theoretically expected
from particular groups; (d) comparison between EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996)
scores and coping styles; (e) comparison between EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996)
scores and job performance and job satisfaction; (f) comparison between
EQ-i scores and attributional styles; and (g) analysis of the sensitivity of
the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) to remedial interventions.
Bar-On (1996) reported that the correlation with personality mea-
sures was high enough to firmly support that the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996)
subscales are measuring the constructs that they were intended to mea-
sure. Discriminant validity was established by Bar-On (1996) by compar-
ing successful and unsuccessful groups in terms of their EQ-i (Bar-On,
1996) scores. The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) can differentiate among various
groups and can distinguish more successful respondents from less suc-
cessful ones in various areas.
Bar-On (1996) established criterion-group validity by comparing ob-
tained EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores with what was theoretically expected
for particular groups. Bar-On (1996) reported that the criterion validity
of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) was supported to the extent that the test
produced high scores in the appropriate areas for groups known to be
strong in those particular areas. Likewise, unsuccessful groups obtained
low scores.
Bar-On (1996) administered the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and the Coping
Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler & Parker, 1990) in an
attempt to gauge the convergent validity of EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996). Bar-On
(1996) reported that a number of EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scales and sub-
scales were significantly correlated with a measure of successful and effi-
cient coping with stressful situations.
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 395

Bar-On (1996) determined a high correlation between EQ-i (Bar-On,

1996) and satisfaction with work conditions and suggested a relationship
between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Bar-On (1996) per-
formed another study in South Africa on alcoholics in a substance abuse
center, to establish the predictive validity of the instrument. Bar-On
(1996) reported significant differences in emotional intelligence between
the onset of the treatment and its termination 3 weeks later. Bar-On
(1996) concluded that this particular program succeeded in improving
emotional skills as measured by the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and thus sup-
ported the instrument’s sensitivity to picking up changes in emotional
intelligence and demonstrated predictive validity. The validity studies
for this instrument are still in process.

Procedures
The researchers contacted executives or Human Resources manag-
ers of a varied sample of organizations. After receiving permission to test
employees within their companies, the researchers sent a request form
to Human Resources professionals explaining the design and purpose of
the study in greater detail. A letter was sent to the managerial employ-
ees soliciting their participation in the study. Before the participants
took the tests, the researchers explained the purpose of the study and
obtained their informed consent. If the participants wanted to receive a
copy of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) results, the researchers asked them to
provide their mailing address on the consent form. The researchers then
distributed the demographic form, the MLQ and the Bar-On and data
were collected.

Statistical Analyses
Hierarchical Regression analysis was conducted to examine the pre-
dictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership style. The analysis was also used to examine interaction of
gender with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational
leadership style. The analysis also helped the researchers identify gen-
der differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style. Emotional intelligence, gender and in-
teraction of gender and emotional intelligence were the predictor vari-
ables and transformational leadership style was the criterion variable
in the study. Independent t-tests were conducted to determine gender
differences in the emotional intelligence scores and leadership styles of
male and female managers. The REGRESSION procedure from the SPSS
for Windows Statistical Package was used to test the prediction models
(SPSS, 1999).
396 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

RESULTS

This research was designed to determine the predictive relationship

between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style.
The researchers also determined gender differences in the relationship
between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of
male and female managers. Lastly, we determined if gender differences
existed in the emotional intelligence scores, and transformational leader-
ship style of male and female leaders.
In the total investigation, 32 managers were tested of which 13 were
males and 19 females. The mean age of the participants was 39 years.
The leadership or supervisory experience of the participants ranged from
1 year to 40 years. 18 of the 32 participants had Masters level degree, 8
participants had a Bachelor’s degree and the rest had either a high
school diploma or an associate’s degree. The industrial settings of the
participants included business, medical, education, financial and high-
tech. 7 of the participants were team leaders, 1 was an organization pres-
ident, 3 were senior executives and the rest of the participants were at
different levels of management.
The mean of transformational leadership score for all participants
was 64.44, with a standard deviation of ±6.82. The mean of emotional
intelligence was 105.00, with a standard deviation of ±11.75. The trans-
formational leadership scores ranged from a low of 49 to a high of 75.
The emotional intelligence scores ranged from a low of 78 to a high of
123. The mean transformational leadership score of females was slightly
higher than the mean transformational leadership score of males (65.21
and 63.31 respectively). Similarly, the mean emotional intelligence score
for females was higher than the mean emotional intelligence score for
females (109.58 and 98.31 respectively). A summary of the descriptive
statistics for males and females is presented in Table 1.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the predic-
tive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership style. Emotional intelligence was used as the predictor vari-

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Emotional Intelligence and Transformational
Leadership Scores of Male and Female Managers

Males Females

Variable M SD n M SD n

Transformational
Leadership Style 63.31 7.89 13 65.21 6.08 19
Emotional Intelligence 98.31 8.30 13 109.58 11.72 19
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 397

able and transformational leadership as the criterion variable. A signifi-

cant (R = .499, R2 = .249, p < .05) linear relationship was found between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The results
of this procedure are presented in Table 2.
The hierarchical regression analysis was also used to examine the
interaction of gender with emotional intelligence while predicting trans-
formational leadership style. To test this, gender was added as a predic-
tor in step 2, the gender and emotional intelligence interaction was
added in step 3. The difference in the R2 values between step 2 and step
3 was −.002. The results suggested that there is no difference in the
relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational lead-
ership style of male and female managers. The results of this procedure
are presented in Table 2.
Independent groups t-tests were used to compare the mean totals of
transformational and emotional intelligence scores of male and female
managers. A significant (p < .05) difference was found in the emotional
intelligence scores of male and female managers. The mean total emo-
tional intelligence score of females was 109.56 and that of males was
98.31. No significant (p > .05) difference was found in the transforma-
tional leadership scores of male and female managers. The results of
these tests are presented in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

Based on the analyses, a significant relationship between transfor-

mational leadership style and emotional intelligence was found. The re-
gression analysis suggested that transformational leadership style of

Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Transformational Leadership Style (N = 32)

Variable B SE B β

Step 1
Emotional Intelligence .28 .09 .49
Step 2
Emotional Intelligence .32 .10 .56
Gender −1.76 2.49 −.12
Step 3
Emotional Intelligence .37 .18 .64
Gender .39 7.39 .02
Interaction −2.29 .07 −.21

Note. R2 = .249 for Step 1; R2 = .262 for Step 2 and R2 = .264 for Step 3.
398 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 3
Independent Groups t-Ratios Comparing Mean Transformational Leadership
Scores and Emotional Intelligence Scores for Males and Females

Mean SE
Variable Means n Diff. Diff. t p

Transformational
Leadership Style
Males 63.31 13 −1.90 2.19 −.771 >.05
Females 65.21 19
Emotional Intelligence
Males 98.31 13 −11.27 2.30 −2.98 <.05
Females 109.58 19

managers could be predicted from their emotional intelligence scores.

Past researchers have stressed the importance of emotional intelligence
for effective leadership (Goleman, 1998b; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Re-
search studies in leadership style have established transformational
leadership style as one of the most effective way of leading people
(Burns, 1978; Bass & Avolio, 1996; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Society to-
day is faced with many challenges that require exceptional leadership.
Today’s and tomorrow’s leaders will not only need to possess effective
managerial skills but also highly developed social and emotional skills.
IQ and technical skills are probably baseline requirements for executive
roles, but without emotional intelligence the best-trained manager won’t
make a great leader (Goleman, 1998b).
Several researchers (Cooper, 1997; Goleman, 1995) have expressed
the importance of emotional intelligence for leaders. Cooper (1997)
stated that one of the foremost challenges facing leaders and organiza-
tions is to learn and lead through emotional intelligence. According to
Goleman (1998c), leaders with high levels of emotional intelligence artic-
ulate and arouse enthusiasm for a shared vision. Shared vision is also a
common characteristic of transformational leaders (Burns, 1978). Gole-
man (1998b) also stated that the ability to convey emotions convincingly
is what separates a charismatic leader from an ordinary leader.
A transformational leader exhibits qualities including empathy, mo-
tivation, self-awareness, and self-confidence (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978;
Ross & Offerman, 1997). Goleman (1995) described all the above quali-
ties as subcomponents of emotional intelligence. Transformational lead-
ership style and emotional intelligence have several other characteristics
in common. Bass (1990) established trust to be a major component of
transformational leadership style. Transformational leaders are able to
gain respect and trust of their employees. Cooper (1997) classified trust
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 399

as the key characteristic of emotional intelligence. Cooper (1997) also

stated that trust is mandatory for the optimization of any system.
Another common characteristic between the two constructs is moti-
vation. Goleman (1995) considered motivation as one trait that virtually
all effective leaders possess. These leaders are driven to achieve beyond
expectations. Motivation is also a characteristic that defines transforma-
tional leaders. Bass (1990b) explained that transformational leaders use
motivation to communicate high expectation to their employees. Bass
(1990a) established that leadership is positively related to self-confi-
dence, conviction, self-control, ability to handle conflict and tolerance for
stress. Such characteristics are also an essential component of emotional
intelligence.
Previous research studies on transformational leadership and emo-
tional intelligence have shown that individuals that score high on either
of these constructs exhibit superior performance (Goleman, 1995; Keller,
1995). Transformational leaders seem to spread their own sense of confi-
dence and competence, and they inspire people to be more imaginative.
Goleman (1995) stated that all these characteristics of transformational
leaders are also essential characteristics of emotional intelligence.
The researchers found no significant interaction between gender and
emotional intelligence while predicting transformational leadership
style. As a result it can be suggested that there is no difference in the
relationship between transformational leadership style and emotional
intelligence for male and female managers. The results of the current
investigation imply that the interaction of gender and emotional intelli-
gence would have no effect while predicting transformational leadership
from emotional intelligence.
The researchers found a significant difference (p < .05) in the emo-
tional intelligence scores of male and female managers. The mean total
of emotional intelligence scores of females was higher than that for
males. The results suggested that females might be better at managing
their emotions and the emotions of others as compared to males. Other
researchers (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999; Mayer & Geher, 1996) have
found similar results with females scoring higher on measures of emo-
tional intelligence.
No gender differences were found for transformational leadership
scores of male and female managers. The results of the present study
imply that as far as leadership style goes males are as transformational
in their leadership style as females. Previous research on this subject
has revealed ambiguous findings. Some researchers have found females
to be more transformational than males (Carless, 1998). While other re-
searchers concluded that there were no differences between men and
women on these dimensions (Eagley & Johnson, 1990).
Several conclusions can be drawn from the current investigation.
400 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Both of the constructs, transformational leadership style and emotional

intelligence are based on relationships and are thus related to one an-
other. By examining the previous research studies, it can be established
that individuals who score high on either one of the two constructs have
several common attributes. The relationship between the two constructs
could have several positive implications for assessing and training peo-
ple to be effective leaders.
The application of the positive relationship between transforma-
tional leadership and emotional intelligence could benefit organizations
in several ways. Companies that hire and promote people to leadership
positions may find the positive relationship between transformational
leadership style and emotional intelligence useful. The results imply
that an individual who tested high on emotional intelligence would prob-
ably be a transformational leader. Knowledge of this relationship would
help organizations identify and train potential leaders. Previous re-
search in this field claims that organizations with transformational lead-
ers are not only better at handling change but are also more effective
and profitable (Bass, 1985). If emotional intelligence scores can predict
transformational leadership, organizations may find emotional intelli-
gence measures to be valuable tools in the hiring, promotion and devel-
opment of organizational leaders.
The results of this study also showed that there are gender differ-
ences in the emotional intelligence scores of male and female managers.
This result was in contradiction to Goleman’s (1998c) findings that for
the overall emotional intelligence score there are no differences for male
and female managers. If women score higher in emotional intelligence
than their male counterparts, and if emotional intelligence is considered
a most needed ability for effective leadership, especially useful as organi-
zations go through transformations, then women may possess a unique
and timely leadership quality. Since recent research (Martell & DeSmet,
2001) indicates that men’s and women’s leadership abilities are still as-
sessed differently, with the perceived likelihood of a number of key leader
behaviors deemed significantly lower for females, the results of the pres-
ent study may provide a more positive view for the potential of women
as leaders. As the construct of effective leadership changes it may be-
come more critical to encourage the mentoring and leadership develop-
ment of women, as well as interpersonal skills training for future male
leaders.
Although the results of the current study suggest that females have
higher emotional intelligence scores than males, it is possible that women
as compared to men scored high on certain components (for example,
empathy and social skills) and low on certain other components (for ex-
ample, motivation and self regulation).
Goleman (1998c) stated that for the bell curves of the two groups
there is an immense overlap, and an edge where they differ. That is,
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 401

while on an average women may be better than men at some emotional

skills, some men will still be better than most women, despite there be-
ing a statistically significant difference between the groups.
The current study may have been confounded by several limitations.
The MLQ leadership form (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) did not clas-
sify participants as either transformational or transactional. A partici-
pant could score high in either transformational or transactional or in
both the categories. The instrument gave three different scores for the
three leadership styles. The researchers only used the self-report trans-
formational scores to examine the relationship with emotional intelli-
gence. Future investigators may consider a different measure to examine
leadership style or the MLQ subordinate report measure may provide
additional valuable insights.
Another recommendation for future research is to examine a larger
and more similar sample of leaders. The sample for this study included
managers from different settings and different levels of the organization.
In the future, researchers may want to replicate the study with a larger
and more consistent sample.
Future, investigators may also want to use a larger sample to exam-
ine gender differences. By using a larger sample researchers may be able
to examine the different components of emotional intelligence and estab-
lish in which components females score higher than males. The research-
ers believe that in order to expand the current study, future research
could also examine the relationship between the components and sub-
components of transformational leadership style and emotional intelli-
gence. The study may also add valuable information if other variables
like cultural background, age, length of experience as manager, and type
of work setting are taken into account.
In summary, the researchers attempted to look at the relationship
between transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence.
We also examined if there were any gender differences in the relation-
ship between transformational leadership style and emotional intelli-
gence. Lastly, the researchers examined any gender differences in the
transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence of male and
female managers. Based on the results of the study, the researchers sug-
gested that there is a significant predictive relationship between trans-
formational leadership style and emotional intelligence. The researchers
also suggested that there are gender differences in the emotional intelli-
gence scores of male and female managers. We could not establish any
gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership style, as gender did not have a signifi-
cant interaction with emotional intelligence while predicting transforma-
tional leadership style. The results also suggested that there are no gen-
der differences for transformational leadership scores of male and female
managers.
402 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

REFERENCES

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’
and subordinates’ perceptions of military leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645–668.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1997). The full range of leadership development: Manual,
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence.
Toronto, ON: Multi Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, ON:
Multi Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997, August). Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measurement of emotional
and social intelligence. Paper presented at the 105th annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and mana-
gerial applications. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm tran-
scend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transfor-
mational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Transformational leadership development: Manual for
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination
of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
39, 887–897.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional
leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelli-
gences and leadership (pp. 55–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in workplace. Training & Develop-
ment, 51, 31–38.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York: Berkeley.
Dada, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of
the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality
And Individual Differences, 28, 797–812.
Davis, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.
Dodge, D., & L. Wong (eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the twenty-first-Cen-
tury Army and other top-performing organizations. Stamford, CT: Jai Press.
Eagley, A. H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Feldman, D. A. (1999). The handbook of emotionally intelligent leadership: Inspiring others
to achieve results. New York: Leadership Performance Solutions.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Intelligence and intelligences: Universal principles and individual dif-
ferences. Archives de Psychologie, 61, 169–172.
Gardner, H. (1999). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual,
and existential intelligences. In J. Kane (ed.), Education, information, and transforma-
tion (pp. 111–131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibbons, T. C. (1986). Revisiting: The question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of devel-
 BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI 403

opment of transformational leaders. Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Institute, Santa

Barbara, CA.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998a). Success secret: A high emotional IQ. Fortune, 293–295.
Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 1, 93–104.
Goleman, D. (1998c). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469–479.
Hackman, Z. M., Hills, M. J., Furniss, A. H., & Peterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gen-
der-role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 311–319.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4),
695–702.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leader-
ship, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated busi-
ness-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Keller, R. T. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Journal of Research &
Technology Management, 38, 41–44.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity gen-
eralization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.
Martell, R. F., & DeSmet, A. L. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs
about leadership abilities of male and female managers. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86, 1223–1231.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets standards
for traditional intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M.T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous
visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 54, 772–781.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion.
Intelligence, 22, 89–113.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence,
17(4), 433–442.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for ed-
ucators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). The Multifactor Emotional Intelligence
Scale (MEIS). Simsbury, CT: www.EmotionalIQ.com.
Norusis, M. J. (1999). SPSS for Windows: Base system user’s guide release 9.0. Chicago, IL:
SPSS.
Riggio, R. E., Murphy, S. E., & Pirozzolo, F. J. (Eds.). (2002). Multiple intelligences and
leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of person-
ality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 23(10), 1078–1086.
Ryback, D. (1997). Putting emotional intelligence to work: Successful leadership is more
than IQ. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition & Per-
sonality, 9(3), 185–211.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and con-
sideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693–703.
Shanley, L. A., Walker, R. E., & Foley, J. M. (1971). Social intelligence: A concept in search
of data. Psychological Reports, 29, 1123–1132.
Southwick, R. B. (1998). Antecedents of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge:
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of com-
petence in the everyday world. Cambridge: University Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235.
404 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wi-
ley & Sons.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real world pursuits: The
role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 436–458.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Balti-
more: Williams & Wilkins.
Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional Intelligence at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and theories of executive leadership: A conceptual / empirical
review and integration. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behav-
ioral and Social Sciences.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1999). Social Complexity and the competencies required for effective military
leadership. In J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership:
Transforming the twenty-first-Century Army and other top-performing organizations.
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analy-
sis of success. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.