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

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. education.S. The purpose of this cross-sectional. . this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style.033. predicts that by 2010. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. 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. 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 greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.Abstract The U.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.000 billion annually. and healthcare professions. In addition. Department of Labor. there will be approximately 10.

and to my Grandparents.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 . who laid the cornerstone of my being. . . iii .

And to my family and friends who have . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. for making this research possible. . . . and your respected members who participated. . To my original mentor. . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . 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 . . Joseph Damiani. I love you all! iv . . 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 Dr. Bruce Gillies. thank you sincerely. . understood and supported my absence throughout this process .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . . for the most part (smile!) . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . Lori La Civita. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . and to Dr. . . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. Dr. 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 . . who helped me start this journey.

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 Leadership–EI 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

Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. Group Norms vs. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. TLS Component Scores: U.S.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Group Sample Table 5.List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Low. 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 . Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7.

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 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Comparison of Low.Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21.

The U. Gioia. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Herman. 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. education. 1997. Ireland & Hitt. 1998). higher group performance levels (Keller. companies must compete to find. develop.S. 2005). 2003. Drucker. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 1990). Department of Labor. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Hitt. and retain the best talent.373 billion (Herman. 1997. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 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. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Department of Labor.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. 2000. 1988). 1999.033. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1 .S. Specifically. U.CHAPTER 1. attract. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). & Olivo. 1995).

1998. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 2001). 2002. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman.. 1999. Mayer. 2000. 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. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. Ogilvie & Carsky. Goleman. 2003. 1998). Caruso. & Salovey. 2 . select and retain such personnel. 2000). as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. Sala. 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. Furthermore.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. Therefore. Hay/McBer. Goleman. 1997. Mandell & Pherwani.S. conflict resolution styles (Malek. and the need to effectively identify. and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. 1998). This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. 1999). 2000.

while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. 2003). this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. Hay/McBer. 3 . between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. and the extent to which. if any. Mandell & Pherwani. selection and management development. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. In addition. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. 2000. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. Rationale Existing research on whether.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. recruitment interviewing. job profiling. 1998.

if a relationship is found to exist. 4 .Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 3. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. 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. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 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. 2. 4. 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.

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

carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis.). This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. which are generally shortterm ones. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. 2002). Intellectual Capital (IC). Chief Operating Officer. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks.d. Hunt. Middle Management. 2000). These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. how it can be done effectively. which may enhance organizational outputs. expertise. Chief Information Officer. mission.). Chief Marketing Officer. 6 .d. & Osborn. and energy available within organizations members. each of which has specific functional responsibilities. n. Leadership Style. 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. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. and strategies (Schermerhorn. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. The sum total of knowledge. n. 2002). Leadership. and the Director of Human Resources. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl.

Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. and (e) Individualized Consideration. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). environmental. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. and three outcome constructs. 2000). (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. Senior Management. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. 2004). spatial. musical..Multiple Intelligences. (c) Inspirational Motivation. 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. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Retention. as they generally work as a team in conjunction with executive management in which strategic decisions are reviewed or drafted and implemented into organizational 7 . Group. and Organizational Effectiveness. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. movement oriented. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. including verbal. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. intentions. mathematical. one nontransactional leadership construct. (b) Individual. three constructs of transactional leadership. 1998).

operations that are generally of a long-term nature. Social Intelligence. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. which involves motivating individual/organizational change. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). and the Demographic Questionnaire. (d) participants 8 . (b) Inspirational Motivation. The ability to get people to want to change. EQi. listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). to improve. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. cooperation). Social Skills. and to be led. 1998). and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman.).d. 1998). n. 1997).

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. and multivariate procedures. Finally. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. That is. such as linear regression will 9 . since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. 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. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. such as correlational analyses. Secondly. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. First. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. Univariate statistical techniques. thus skewing the pattern of responses. interest or motivation to respond. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. Since data will be collected at one time point.

10 . and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. 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 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. statistical analysis. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. or outcome. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. variable.be used. The dependent. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. Transformational Leadership. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs.

The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. their relationship. PsycARTICLES. using numerous multiple key word searches. and psychology journals. and (c) whether there are any significant differences in EI attributes that are gender-specific in the relationship between men’s and women’s use of EI and TLS. and (e) gender and EQI. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. Business Source Premier. (b) leadership. EI. transformational leadership style (TLS). (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 .CHAPTER 2. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. and gender. A summary concludes the chapter. Academic Search Premier. Emotional Intelligence. EQi. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. and a synthesis of research findings. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. 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). and gender. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. PsycINFO. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. (c) Transformational Leadership Style.

Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1988). The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On.gender. along with several books and dissertations. 22 articles were relevant to this study. 1995). books. Goleman. 1985. this study’s theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. In total. 2006. Specifically. 1995. higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. In addition. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. Bass & Avolio. 1999). 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. 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. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. and dissertations. 12 . 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.

and handsome. of leaders such as personality. Task-related 13 .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. cooperative. Social characteristics include being charismatic. values. energetic. and emotionally stable. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. and diplomatic. adaptable. However. tall. Personality traits include being self-confident. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. not on “how” to effectively lead. 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). and skills (Yukl. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. These early leadership theories were content theories. assertive. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. tactful. 2002). charming. motives. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. social. or traits. 1990). popular.

traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). no leader possesses all of the traits.characteristics include being driven to excel. the characteristics of the followers. 14 . the type of organization. having initiative. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. accepting of responsibility. self-confidence. 2002). The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. Yukl (1989. integrity. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. No two leaders are alike. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. and being results-oriented. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Furthermore. Thus. 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. desire to lead. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. levels of management. leading to the concept of situational leadership. 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. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. and the nature of the external environment. and cultures. intelligence.

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

leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. being supportive. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. and providing for subordinates welfare. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. and coordinating the work of subordinates. 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. 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. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . an employee orientation and a production orientation. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. Like trait research. organizing. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. Unfortunately. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. As a result.involves planning. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction.

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

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

and providing for their welfare. Hersey & Blanchard. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. influence processes. Specifically. work standards. 2002). such as trait. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. either transactional or transformational. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. Finally. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. low-directive style (S3). and situational variables (Yukl. Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. behavior.and directivity (S2). Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. 1993). However. being supportive. recognizing followers accomplishments. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. and outcomes.

2004). and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. Or they are corrected by negative feedback. or disciplinary actions. intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. In contingent rewarding behavior. 20 . Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. praise. and reward. In contrast. inspirational motivation. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). Transformational leadership contains four components. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. threats. 1985. reproof. Bass & Avolio. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. 1997. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. 1990). Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. 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.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. 1990. and individualized consideration (Bass.

Sanders. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. the integrative theory of leadership research. 2003. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. 52). 2004.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem.g. Furthermore. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. Hopkins & Geroy. 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. and situational/contingency variables. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. 2003. unlike Burns. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies).. Judge & Piccolo. 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. Yukl. in Bass’s view. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. p. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. 76). behavioral. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. 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. “cognitive. 1989). while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. In addition. However. behavior.

Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. focusing on a common purpose. weaknesses. 1990. Bennis. Another departure Bass takes from Burns’s 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. Leithwood & Jantzi. However. 1985. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. 2000). the organization’s strengths. 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 . 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. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. and comparative advantages.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron.

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

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

and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. exchange assistance for effort. exchange promises and resources. Although they may not be close by. and 25 .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). contingent reward. negotiate for resources. clarify expectations. reports. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. 1995). The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. Laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. management-by-exception (active). are absent when needed. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. 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. and management-by-exception (passive). and provide commendations for successful follower performance. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. Transactional leadership. fail to follow up requests for assistance. conferences. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors.

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

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. 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.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. using a sample of 275 nurses. the sample size must have been reported. Jones. 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. 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. The results of a study by Morrison. and its effect on job satisfaction. Fifth. leader/unit perception. organizational perception. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. First. and job satisfaction. Second. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Kroeck. Fourth. Third. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Lowe.

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 Avolio’s 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 invariant—suggesting 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

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

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

. over and above transactional leadership. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. as measured on the MLQ. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. With regard to criterion validity. and faith 33 . satisfaction) as well as objective (e. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. subjective (e.g. Moreover. trust. transactional leadership and nonleadership. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. are defined as follows: 1.e.g.. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. The latest version of the MLQ. Form 5X. 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. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. Leadership types.. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader. has been used in more than 200 research programs.

Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3.b. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. c.74 to . c. 2. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey.94. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. e. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. 34 . c. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. d. 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. 2004). exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. b. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a.

) The MLQ has individual subtests. 1995). 1990. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. However. 2004). as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. 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. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. 1995). These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. & Mann. Kouzes & Posner. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. Carless. 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. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. 2000).The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. with four questions for each scale. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Bass & Avolio. Wearing. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. Transactional leadership has three scales. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 .

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. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. and attention to individual needs. such as participatory decision making. On the other hand..managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. which is what 36 . Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. praising individual and team contributions.g. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. However. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. 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. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates.

and to read and direct them in other people. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. However. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. & Caruso. some of which are contradictory. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. 37 . 2004a). Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. On the other hand. numerous definitions. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. 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. exist. Indeed. 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. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. Salovey. 2003). Carless reasoned.

Mayer & Salovey. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). Tucker et al. 3. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. & McCarthy. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Mayer et al. but interrelated.. Barone. to distinguish among them. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey.. 2000. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. 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. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. Vitello-Cicciu. or repressed within others. 38 . 2004a. 2. From these characteristics. Sojka. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. mental processes: 1. 2000. 2000). These two definitions. 1997. 2003).

(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. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. they hold that EI escapes definition. and psychologically based definitions of EI. Mathews et al. emotional intelligence. 39 . Thus. is problematic. they claimed. Gohm. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. Mayer et al. and empirically valid definitions. conceptually coherent.. 2004. Mathews et al. 2004. These issues are explored next. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive.Although this is a clear definition. not of empirically validated. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. For this reason. 2004a. culminating in the formation. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. cohesive. 2004b). controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. EI Controversies Mathews. and the multiple social science fields on the other. Roberts. In particular. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies.

Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions..’s (2004) argument. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. in these writers view. Oatley. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. In this view. However. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. During the 6 million years of human evolution. 2004. in Gohm’s view. Rather. physiologically evidenced. others (Gohm. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. Mayer et al. 2002). the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . Massey argued. and measurable construct. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. The denial of emotions. immaterial. 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. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses.Reflecting on Mathews et al. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. 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. emotion is a scientifically valid. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define.

1986. 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. 2004b) reported. In this view. 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 . 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. 2002). 1986. (2004a. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. though an inherent capacity. but they do not expand or increase them. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. For example. In contrast. Massey). Mayer et al. 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. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. noted. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. 2000). Indeed. it a learnable skill. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Massey. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers.

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 one’s 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 men’s and women’s self-estimations were equivocal. Petrides and Furnham’s 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 men’s self-estimates were higher than women’s. 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 children’s 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 individual’s ability to assess one’s own moods, feelings, mental states, and to use this information adaptively. It is one of Gardner’s (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 women’s behavior were associated with Hofstede’s (1997) masculinity/femininity dimension of culture and Boyatzis, Murphy, and Wheeler’s

44

Van Rooy. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds.(2000) theory of human values. Smith (2002). Smith). Alonso. In contrast. although inconsistent. Results of these studies. intrapersonal. and are in accord with the cultural differences found to be associated with women’s differential display of EI across contexts noted by Rivera Cruz (2004). possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. In a study by J. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. These are the test of EI 45 . but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. E. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Measuring EI Schutte et al. Schutte et al. E.

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

provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. however.understand the meaning of different types of emotions. Bar-On.. two Area scores. Mayer et al.. discriminant. other measurement instruments. 2005). 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. Consequently.). Eastabrook.91 (Mayer. & Taylor. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. As noted by Parker et al. with r’s ranging from .79–. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. 2007). and convergent validity as well. Saklofske. Total EI score.93). four Branch scores. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. It yields 15 main scores. Wood. 2001). Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. Petrides & Furnham. 2002). which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. The five composite 47 .. The test has excellent reliability (r = . (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability.

] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. 2001). understand and accept oneself [b.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself. others and life in general.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. Specifically.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c. these are [1.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal. 2006.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4. stress management. Parker et al. p.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b. adaptability.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a. (2005).] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c. (Bar-On.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5. and Watkin (2000).] Adaptability (change management) [a. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 .

the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. honest and faking good. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. 2003). & Ilies. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. Law.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. Kobe. a situational judgment test. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. the nature of EI and its development over time. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. 2004. research has also indicated that. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked.import of each set and subset in it. and understanding of. 2004. However. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. Mandell & Pherwani. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. 2003). C. Judge. like many self-report inventories. 2001. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. Wong & Song. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. Colbert. Moreover. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . 2003. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers.

2004. In addition. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable.. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike.). 2004. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. and mutual benefits. 2001. relationships. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. Law et al.ingredient of leadership. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. Judge et al.. leading others takes place via the communication of the leader’s 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.. 2003). leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. From the sociological perspective. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. as cited in Kobe et al.). As a social phenomenon. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. p. According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2003). 2001. 2003). Mandell & Pherwani. Kobe et al. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. Mandell & Pherwani. 155).. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . 2003.

trust. (2004) argued. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. Judge 51 . Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. However. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. This is an important distinction. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). As Law et al. Kobe et al. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. (2004). Rather. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group.to inspire the support. loyalty. as further contended by Law and colleagues. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. According to Judge et al. they argue. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. Thus. leaders are created by followers. 2003.

Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.. 2002). Dearborn. 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. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions.. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. leaders who display negative emotions. they have emotional intelligence). such as support. 2001.et al. In other words.. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. Mandell & Pherwani. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. Law et al. In short. On the other hand. 2004. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. 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. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. and optimism. enthusiasm. arouse similar feelings in team members. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). 52 . 2003). such as anger and pessimism. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. Kobe et al. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough).

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

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

and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. with mixed results. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. gender. 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. coping (Purkable. and management tenure 55 . Position. and manager success (Hopkins. 2003). These are reviewed as follows. EI. Regarding raters perceptions. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. Using performance ratings and demographic data. 2003). title. 2005). No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. 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. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. contingent reward leadership. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. Specifically. contingent reward leadership. 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. 2003). results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI.

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

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. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. 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. and success. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. leadership styles. but not male. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. 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. As noted previously. 57 . The study used self and other ratings of EI. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. 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.avoidance coping.

1998).. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. 2004. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 1990..Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies. 1998. Law et al. Goleman. Schutte et al. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different.. 1997. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. 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. must behave more androgynously.. 2003. However. Women leaders. 1998). Mandell & Pherwani. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. Hater & Bass. Kobe et al. on the other hand. In addition..g. On the other hand. 2001. 58 . 2003. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.g.. Judge et al. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. to be successful. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. 1988). 2004.

. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al... findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups. 2003). E. Thus. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. Schutte et al. Hay/McBer. 2004). 2000. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question. Moreover. Mandell & Pherwani. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. as with transformational leadership style.e. 59 . 1999. Mandell & Pherwani. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. However. Petrides & Furnham. To summarize. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al.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. 1998. The latter findings are supported by J.’s (2005) studies. 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.. 2007). 2000. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. and (a) if so. Further.

nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. sample selection.CHAPTER 3. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. procedures used in addressing the research questions. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. data collection instruments and study variables. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). data analysis. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. using e-mail communications.. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. if any. 1999). recruiters. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information.

food and beverage.S. 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. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. health care. legal services. market. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. nonprofit. 2004). Executives. For the purpose of this research 61 . three constructs of transactional leadership. and a host of other business and service providers. e-mail. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. Senior. financial services. ranging in size from small to large.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. 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). phone. and the use of U. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. advertising and marketing.

it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). 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). Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. 2002). (b) Interpersonal. as well as their ethnicity and income level. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. In brief. The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC).study. (c) Adaptability. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. (d) Stress Management. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). 62 .

and display a sense of power and confidence.81 to . Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. and values. 4. mentoring and growth opportunities.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. principles.53 to . Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own.85. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. 2. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. 5. with a strong sense of purpose. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. 2004) and was based on data from 2.96. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . 2004): 1. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). respected and trusted. 3.

The coefficients ranged from . 2004). sometimes = 2. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. therefore. rather than performance or success itself.94 (Bass & Avolio). and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. and to successfully cope with daily demands. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. or frequently. 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. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. fairly often = 3. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. if not always = 4. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.73 to . Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. consisting of four items each. if not always). all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. to understand and relate well with others. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0.000 respondents from the United 64 .coefficients for each leadership factor. challenges and pressures. However. 2002). once in a while = 1. For example.

Bar-On. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. 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. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. and Interpersonal Relationship. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. MHS Inc. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. Independence.85 (n = 44) and .. to obtain a Total EQ. and Self-Actualization. Emotional Self-Awareness. Assertiveness. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. 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. were reported as . and Problem Solving. Social Responsibility. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components.States and Canada. Flexibility. respectively. and their associated subcomponents. Version 12. 2002). 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). and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months.75 (n = 27. 2002). 2002). 65 . Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

title best describing the respondent’s current position. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. years employed by current organization. industry.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. 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. 66 . the expected time of completion. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. 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 Capella’s Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. and number of direct reports under supervision. age. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. the risk and benefits of participation. In this current study all online survey responses. the criteria needed to be met for participation. years held in current position. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. the purpose of research. race/ethnicity. education level.

” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. 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 . 2.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only.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). Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 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. individual data were not made available. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. the MLQ assessment. 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.

HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not 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. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 4.3. 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. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

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. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access.e. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. 69 . and the Bar-On EQi). and pen/paper copies were shredded. 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. the MLQ.

This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. 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). Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. In addition. after submitting consent. 2006) ethical standards. 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 were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. naked to the participants eye. 70 . All data collected were pooled for analysis. before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. 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. and required.

p. 65). 2005. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. Finally. 571). outliers. missing and out-of. Errors in scoring/data entry. p.g. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). 667).range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. 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. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . p. Analyses examining group differences (e.. This was followed by univariate analyses.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. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. as appropriate. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. 94). 2005. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. 2005. 72). Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. When necessary. p. p. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables.

170). p. 72 . 160). age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. and.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. 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. as well as to control for the effects of gender. 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. 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. if so. p. 2005.

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. 2. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. 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. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. 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.CHAPTER 4. while not substantial. As previous research. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 .

Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) 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. 74 . 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. the nature and strength of that association. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. and if so. 3. 4. 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. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI 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.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.

and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 2005. 2005. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous.g. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. If necessary. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Errors in scoring/data entry. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. 72). 75 .range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. 65). 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. as appropriate. missing and out-of. or scaled variables. outliers. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1.. p.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. p. p. 94). components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.

7 10.1 10.3 8.8 3.8 2.0 11.7 7.6 16.5 5.4 19.9 3.2 12.6 76 .1 11.9 6.7 5.7 20.7 5.2 2.1 25.1 22.4 24.4 3.5 4.2 5.8 1.7 29.5 45.2 55. 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 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 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 60.8 5.9 12.Table 1.1 39.

0 2.000 17 10.7 16.7 2.Table 1. American Indian. Respondent mean age was (M = 48. 77 .9 10.000 44 27.6 Between $100–150.8 Between $70–100.25 85. maximum age 67.8 Between $40–70.7 34.7 31.3 12. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.7 Current income Less than $40.5 1.000 15 9. Arabic or other. Minimum age 24.1 9.5 4.9 1. **Includes Pacific Islander.9 12.9 65.1 32. SD = 8.2 10.000 23 14.8 More than $150. East Asian.70.20). Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables (continued) __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Level of education High school and technical/trade school AA degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree PhD Number of direct reports 3–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 16+ Race/Ethnicity** African American Asian Caucasian Latino *Age (N = 150) 21–27 28–34 35–42 43–50 51–58 59+ 52 16 51 33 3 103 16 15 3 20 4 4 135 14 3 4 25 52 47 19 32.4 8.9 2. N = 158.3 20.000 55 34.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.

n = 106). Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates).95 years of college education.7%.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.32 subordinates.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. The sample of the population in this study has an average. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). However.6%. Notably. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. n = 135) male (60.000 per annum (49. Addressing racial diversity.4%. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.6%. In terms of supervision responsibilities. n = 103). the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. n = 78).000–$100. or mean of 3. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.4%. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. 25. n = 72). and a median of 5. from between 3–6 to more than 16.15 direct reports. Most respondents earned from $40.2%. for-profit organization. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 121) in a private. 78 .1%. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.

Total EQi Score.63 (SD = 12.730.85). Descriptive Statistics—The 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. Interpersonal.49 (SD = 14.02 (SD = 13. Stress Management. and General Mood Components. 105. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. Intrapersonal. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58.77 years. the mean income was $68. The mean age of the subjects is 48. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.900 and the median was $54. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. 102. 105.02 (SD = 13. in descending order. Adaptability.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.01). with a nearly identical median of 48.65 years. 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.41).86 (SD = 13. 107.97 (SD = 13.05). Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.00). Summed TLS Score. Descriptive Statistics—The 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. 103. EQi component scores were. As far as income. For the income this is going to be most apparent. 79 . because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.49).

86 12. N = 157.54 103.60 14.49 103.21 105.61 102.74 13.63 103.31 103.67 13.41 106.00 12.41 12.19 13.01 13.64 107.63 103.49 13.02 102. 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 107.05 14.44 13.66 101.Table 2. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.46 102.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.04 12.61 105.93 13.85 12.70 13.86 106.97 13.62 13.45 13.02 105. 80 .73 12.17 104.66 14.28 103.36 Total EQi Score 105.52 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.

53).57).63). Individualized Consideration.59 Note. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Mind Garden. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). 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 3.96 (SD = 0. 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).95 (SD = 0.99 (SD = 0.59).58).04 (SD = 0.57).63 0. N = 157.09 (SD = 0.57 0. which are as follows.52. 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).09 3. 3. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.18 (SD = 0. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.S.52). 3.26 (SD = 0. Intellectual Stimulation.35 3. 3. and Intellectual Stimulation.59).13 3. 3.26 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.16 (SD = 0. Individualized Consideration.08 3. in descending order.57 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed).08 (SD = 0. Inspirational Motivation.13 (SD = 0. Inspirational Motivation. 81 .35 (SD = 0.59). 2.59).18 SD 0. 2004). 3. 2.59 0. 2.Table 3. TLS component scores were.58 0.

a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).26 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.02 2. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.375.95 2.09 3.52 M 3.18 3. Group Norms vs..52 0.35 SD 0.57 0. Norm group** M 3.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. of a distribution (i.59 0.S.96 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.59 0.59 0.16 SD 0.53 0.04 2. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.58 0.Table 4. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. TLS Component Scores: U.99 3. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.e. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.13 3.55 0.59 0. or symmetry. Skew represents the even-ness.63 0.08 3. **N = 3. or scaled variables. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. 2001).

but normally distributed.73. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. Intellectual Stimulation = –.67.78. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. (b) Interpersonal = . and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.0. respectively.06. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. Inspirational Motivation = –.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.63. with skew > +/–2. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.61. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .09.0. and (e) Individualized Consideration = .49.18.76. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .83. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary.16. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. and (e) General Mood = . This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. (c) Stress Management = . and not individual MLQ items. (b) 6.64.70. 83 .40. and (c) 9. (d) Adaptability = . Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. and Individualized Consideration = –1.83.67. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.85. the decision was made to keep them in their original form.24. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .80. 2001).66. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .

44* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.30* .31* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.41* . Table 5.32* IC .33* .37* .23* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.48* .35* .37* IIB . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.01. Pearson’s r was obtained.40* . Intrapersonal 2. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).43* Note. 84 .25* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi components predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses I—correlations between the five EQi and five TLS components. Stress Management 4.44* .05). The significance level was set at (α = .40* .59* IS . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.46* IM . Interpersonal 3.37* . To address the first research question.19 a . General Mood IIA .05.37* .28* .29* . a p < . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. IM = Inspirational Motivation.52* .36* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. Adaptability 5. *p < . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). N = 158.

59.05).05.19.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. Most of the correlations ranged between . All correlations were in the positive direction.51. 85 . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .20 and .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . EQi component scores also increased. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. p < .05). which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.001). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . p < . Results are shown in Table 6. (c) Self-Actualization (r = . Inspirational Motivation (r = .001). with (α = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. which was still significant at p < . using the same Procedure Correlations. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).001) and Inspirational Motivation. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. at r = . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. (b) Happiness (r = . With one exception.16. p < . Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components.45.23 or higher.50. p < .

Reality Testing 12.48* .05).23* .45* .37* .15 (ns) .26* .21* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.51* IS .35* .44* . Self-Actualization 6.33* . 86 .11 (ns) .01.38* .15 (ns) .33* . p ≥ . Stress Tolerance 10.46* .13 (ns) .24* . Happiness IIA . ap < . Flexibility 13.34* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.12 (ns) .37* .33* .37* .19 a .25* IC .16 (ns) .40* .31* IIB .50* .03 (ns) .33* .24* .28* .59* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.24* .43* . Social Responsibility 8.27* . Problem Solving 14.37* . Empathy 7.31* . Independence 5.32* .43* .39* IM .05 (ns = nonsignificant. Assertiveness 4.40* .28* .44* .37* .30* .40* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.38* .37* .43* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).36* .36* Note.24* .39* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.16 a . Self-Awareness 3.23* .33* .25* .30* .40* .26* .17 a . Self-Regard 2.31* .33* .36* .45* .32* .36* .32* . Optimism 15. N = 157. *p < .Table 6.30* .34* .35* .38* . Impulse Control 11.29* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.

26.001). p. EQi component scores also increased. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. 2001). A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . p < . This is a potentially serious issue.001). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. 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. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. Correlations 87 . (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . 170). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. All correlations were in the positive direction. In summary. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.24.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. 2005. p < . p < . no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents.001).30. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.

(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .01). p < . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .01). None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). 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. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.71.64. this intercorrelation is to be expected.01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.72. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. Therefore. However.90. 88 . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. p < . Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. based on the .82. p < . p < . since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .

41* . Reality Testing 10.50* 1.59* .00 1.00 .55* .37* .32* Subcomponent 1.62* . Social Responsibility 8.42* .50* .39* .60* .42* . Self-Regard 2.50* .42* .23* .49* .36* .56* . Assertiveness 4.23* .60* .16* .59* .50* .00 1.55* .37* .43* .32* .42* .24* .26* .53* 1.43* . Stress Tolerance 13.40* .40* . Independence 5.41* .00 .51* 1.51* .25* .00 1.00 1. Interpersonal Relationship .40* .66* .66* .43* .61* .52* .51* .65* .50* . Self-Actualization 6.15* . Problem Solving 12.32* .45* 1.26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .00 1.43* 1.00 .Table 7.36* .74* .47* 1.39* .71* .56* .00 .33* . Self Awareness 3.64* .32* .47* .00 .50* .53* 15 .38* .38* .42* .55* .53* .40* .82* .72* .33* .60* .43* .50* .47* .30* .20* .41* .52* .42* .25* .54* .61* .58* .55* .15* .39* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.51* . Impulse Control .61* .61* .55* .58* .47* .36* 9.60* .00 .52* .37* .28* .35* .40* . Empathy 89 7.60* . Flexibility 11.00 .00 1.27* .

Table 7.00 15 . 90 . Happiness Note. a p < .01. N = 157.00 Subcomponent 14. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.64* 1. *p < . Optimism 15.05. bns = nonsignificant.

61* . followed by General Mood (R2change = . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. Intellectual Stimulation 5. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.59* . Overall.287). to a minimal extent.62* . 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.015). followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Stress Management at Step 3. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Individualized Consideration Note. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .58* 1.Table 8.00 3 .57* 1.01. Stress Management at Step 3. and.54* . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .64* 1.00 2 .00 5 . N = 157. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. 1 1. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. Results are shown in Table 9. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.00 4 . General Mood and 91 . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. *p < .019).60* . Inspirational Motivation 4.55* . Results are shown in Table 9. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.72* 1.

000 .301 at Steps 3 and 4.069 2. F change R2change . Table 9.04* 62.25 .32 . In summary.07 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.85 . and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. 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.320 at Step 5.316 –0.87 . R2 = .66 3. † TLS Summed = D. R2 = .Interpersonal components. Neither Stress Management. nor Adaptability.008 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).034 4.019 Note. R2 = . 92 .073 –. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.728 –0.287 at Step 1.25 2.01.05.015 . *p < . N = 157. **p < . the EQi Intrapersonal. entered at Step 3.301 at Step 2.000 . R2 = .66** .000 . entered at Step 4.24 .V.162 .04 .033 –.287 .

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

No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.05.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. *p < .48 104.44 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.16 0. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.67 2. Table 13.05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.05.75 12.50 2. *p < .97 0. Males scored a mean of 0.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. 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. a difference which was significant at p < .Table 12. bn = 62.21 14. 96 . bn = 62. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.

scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. These data are presented in Table 14. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. respectively.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.64. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. females: M = 106. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. SD = 14.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. 97 . These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).77. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. Descriptive statistics. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents.08. Interestingly. SD = 14. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.

67 103. **n = 62.18 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 104.37 105.63 13.47 104.84 11.33 105.92 13.37 14.09 109.27 11. *n = 95.41 11.08 11.14 15.50 12. 11).52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.23 13.99 107.72 101.01 103.17 103.16 103. Social Responsibility 98 .55 13.77 102. Empathy (4 vs.21 105.48 13.74 11.07 14.37 12.92 102.57 13.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.97 15. 13).93 13.Table 14.19 12.53 12.61 104.70 13.50 109.40 14.62 103.89 103.68 14.80 102.06 102.76 106.56 102.34 102. As a group.78 13.80 14.24 104.34 12.80 106.74 15.43 11.75 13.28 (14) 100.26 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents. Self-Actualization (9 vs.64 109.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99. N = 157.

Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.18 14.99 M 99. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).74 t 2.01.11 107. 15). and Flexibility (6 vs.97 109.21 105. 12). Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.05. among others. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Stress Tolerance (4 vs.39 109. They also scored higher on the 99 . n = 95. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.80 11.74 15.36** 1. 15). p = . males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.57 12.80 102.05.01. 12). n = 62. (2 vs.07* 3. Assertiveness.07 14.26 Females SD 13. a difference which was significant at p < . *p < . As a group. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Females. 13). 10).18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.01 102.86 11. a Marginally significant. **p < . 10). Males scored a mean of 7.42* Note. Males.91a 2. Self-Regard (8 vs.67 SD 11. Independent-samples t test.(5 vs. Table 15.

11) than did females (M = 105. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. but did not predict TLS for males.13). and independence (R2 change =. They also scored 4.08). To summarize. or combination. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. 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. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.05. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. were important predictors of TLS in females. Further.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Regression analyses. all of which were significant at p < . Specifically. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 .41) subcomponents. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one.01) although this difference was only marginally significant.

**p < . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .05 .55 –.263 at Step 4.378 at Step 3. R2 (adj) = .12 2.02 .253 at Step 2.606 . 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.19 .261 at Step 1.669 3..81 1.097 . F change R2change .01. It was thus decided that using 101 .010 . Table 16. R2 (adj) = .989 34.45 .098 12.000 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).73 .e.24 14. R2 (adj) = .85 .176 at Step 1. R2 (adj) = .190 .379 at Step 4.73 1.001 .99** .268 7.011 Note.167 1. R2 (adj) = . N = 157.088 –.131 .67 –1.21 –.022 . 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. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3.18 .001 . R2 (adj) = .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.755 .08 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.04 2.63** .002 .302 .255 at Step 2.41 .000 .269 .

Finally. The highest percentages of males (53.e.7%. More than one half of males (53. categorical variables (low. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components..and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. 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. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. To do this. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. 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. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. the three highest TLS component scores). 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. Categorical variables..0%. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. and exactly one half of females (50. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.7%.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.

5 53.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.3 46.3 52.5 46.8 43.7 53. The highest percentage of males (52. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.4 50. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.8%.5 59. Comparison of Low.3 48. Table 17.2 56.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). The highest percentage of females (59. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . N = 157.5 40.7 47.4 50. the highest percentage of females (54.1 50. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. *n = 95. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.1 45.3 46.4 54.7%. **n = 62. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.7 53.6 49.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.(Behavior).0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.6%.7 51.

91).24 111.75 10.00 112.45 112.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .98 111.68 12. followed by the three lowest means for males and females. Secondly.88 11.66 11.55 114.85 12.04 16. 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 111.50 114.28 11.64 112.12 110. Table 18. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.00 9.76 110.14 11. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.83 111.15 10. First.66 114.11 11.92 111.51 111.11 113. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.75 9.30 10.29 SD 14. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15. Once this subsample was selected.09 10. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.

28 107.13 107.40 12.42 109.28 110.38 14.Table 18.41 8.03 7.55 12.39 M 110.53 109.92 105.50 107.12 10. 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 104.55 12.18 109.50 11.13 111.36 13.20 9.64 9.21 11.71 106.15 104.39 9.51 7.23 106.17 9.22 13.28 108.22 108.84 11.15 108.07 14.55 11.56 SD 10.73 9.44 9.50 11.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .86 105.51 107.23 108.68 10.62 107.25 104.26 112.90 103.

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 102.79 105.96 105.33 M 104.12 10.Table 18.50 SD 10.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.73 10.77 101.00 103.42 9. 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.27 14.90 12.06 12.35 103.86 12.43 11.4 102.01 8.78 103.66 10.82 105. (b) Assertiveness.14 105.06 13.81 17.85 14.41 10. (c) Independence. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .03 102.67 10.20 11.57 104.26 105.68 106.09 104.75 104.63 12.50 105.59 14.56 105.66 104.65 103.47 12.89 11.

however. Independent subsamples t test.05. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. (d) Empathy. In summary. 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) Happiness.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (c) Social Responsibility. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. 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. Males scored a mean of 5.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.05. a difference which was significant at p < . and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. Assertiveness. While males scored 5. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. (b) Social Responsibility. Males scored 107 . (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. 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. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance.across the five TLS components. Females scored a mean of 4. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. (b) Independence. (d) Problem Solving.

categorical variables (low. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. EQi. Categorical variables. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.78 8.01* 2.43 t 1.33 111.57 M 107. To do this.61 106. 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.05 10.43 104.and high-scoring) 108 . Table 19. *p < . n = 31.09 108.80 SD 10. Females. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. a Marginally significant.16 Females SD 13. 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.00 14. however. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). p = ..e.05.05. n = 51.04* Note.96 10.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.94a –2. Subsample N = 82. Males.

The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.97). Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Then.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. The highest percentages of males (61.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.0%. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. The highest percentage of females (61. n = 32). Once the subsample was selected. More than one half of males (53. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. again based on each EQi subcomponent. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.3%. The highest percentage of males (50. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Interestingly.5%. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. 109 . However. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. followed by 59. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.5% (n = 35) of females did so.6%.1%.

2 45.0 45.9 44.5 56.Table 20.2 61.1 55.7 44.7 47.5 40.1 56.8 38.3 52.1 55.8 50.9 44.9 43.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 = 95.2 61.8 45.8 High % 38.8 38.5 54.5 53.5 46.0 52.0 51.8 42.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46. Comparison of Low.2 41.4 45.2 50.2 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 % 61.0 54.5 45.3 55.3 45.8 43.4 53.9 45.5 43.6 46.5 59.5 46.0 48.8 44.2 51.1 54.2 56.9 43.2 57. Female** High Low % 53. **n = 62.2 55.0 110 .1 56.2 55.0 47.8 54.7 51.2 50.3 48.6 54.7 54.8 58.5 53.8 50.8 49.

49 3.58 3. Table 21.55 3.48 0.43 111 .49 3.53 0.51 3.51 0.61 3.52 0.55 SD 0.37 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.52 3.37 3.49 0.55 3.60 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.47 0.52 3. followed by the lowest mean.5 3.55 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first. 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 3.48 3.49 0.47 0.47 3.47 0.

39 0.55 3.30 0.51 3. 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 3.43 SD 0.37 3.44 0.45 0.37 0.39 0.Table 21.38 3.6 M 3.37 0.49 0.42 3.45 0.51 3.45 3.42 3.35 112 .40 0.42 0.37 3.37 0.44 3.40 0.46 3.22 3.36 0.21 0.35 3.41 3.34 0.36 3.

6 0.1 3.51 0.43 0.18 3.19 3.15 3.57 0.53 M 3.5 0.21 3.22 3.52 0.24 SD 0.28 3.59 0.14 0.61 0.24 3.24 3.58 0.53 0.45 113 .2 3.08 3.58 0.51 0.22 3.25 3.57 0.2 3.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 3.57 0.61 0.2 3.

where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation. 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 3.59 0.13 3.57 Descriptive statistics.11 3.21 3.62 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.55 0.11 3.63 0.68 0.95 3.Table 21.63 0.16 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .02 3.49 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.14 3.05 3.67 0. Empathy.08 SD 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.06 2.58 0. Optimism and Happiness. with the exceptions of Independence.6 0.

n = 54. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. p = . Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Females. Independent subsamples t test. a difference which was significant at p < .57 M 106. Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. 115 .04* M 111.05.Motivation.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.16 SD 14. a Marginally significant. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. In summary.05.80 Males scored 0. n = 33.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 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. Males.43 t 2. Females SD 10. *p < .

and findings of data analysis. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). 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. 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. 1990. Hater & Bass. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. 1997. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. 1988). Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed.CHAPTER 5.. 1998). Schutte et al. RESULTS. These findings are discussed. Goleman. 2000. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. including research methodology. 1998. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. CONCLUSIONS. Goleman. 116 . 1998.

6% of the 48 million employees in management. 47% law degrees. Hay/McBer.S. In 2007. However. 2003). fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. Mandell & Pherwani. 2008). However. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27.S. 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 Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. 80% of the U.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 30% of women earned medical degrees. The women 117 . and related occupations (U.4% in 2005. professional. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. In 2001. Over the next decade. 2003).S Department of Labor. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. 1999). in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men.2% last year (Hymowitz. 2007). executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. with women currently representing 50. women held 15. 2000. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. down from 16. during the last 25 years women’s employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while men’s employment has declined in every age group over age 25.Sosik & Megerian. workforce is growing in its diversity. In fact.

Identifying how gender differences in EI. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . In the overall U. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. if they exist. the chance to pursue an opportunity. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.3 trillion in annual sales. businesses owned by women.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. 2007).S. nearly $2. In addition. 2007). Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. As a result of this ambiguity. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. The Center for Creative Leadership’s (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.5 million people and generate $1. Not surprisingly.S. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men.

to a minimal extent. Ball. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. selection. 2004. In addition to filling this research gap. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. 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). with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. recruitment interviewing. nonexperimental. job profiling. EQi component scores also increased. 119 . 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. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. & Stacey. Schaie. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. all correlations were in the positive direction. 2004. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. 2005). Interpersonal. followed by General Mood and. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. Van Rooy et al. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. Perry. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. As scores on the TLS components increased.. Taken together. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. 2001.

males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. 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 Pearson’s r.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. and Stress Tolerance. Stress Tolerance. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. Self-Regard. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. and Social Responsibility. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Assertiveness. 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. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. Assertiveness. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents.

21) to moderate (r 121 . Burgess. 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. 2004. In addition. 1998..independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. Hay/McBer. 2004. 2001.23 or higher. Kobe et al. 2002).59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS..” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 2003). Judge et al. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. 2003. Walls. & Stough. Law et al.23) to moderate (r = . who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . 2001). 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. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Palmer.. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 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 Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = . the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). 2000. Further.. Mandell & Pherwani. Mandell & Pherwani.

which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. 1998.= . 2000.03 to .51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Thus. However. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. drive. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . 122 . Impulse Control. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Stress Tolerance. Hay/McBer. or temptation to act. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse.” 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. As well. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. Based on Bar-On’s description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS.16. 2002). For example.

Thus.19 (p < . which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. 2002). Males scored a mean of 0. 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. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. thinking and behavior to new situations. 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.62 (p < . the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. Males scored a mean of 4. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions.Reality Testing. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. entails adjusting our feelings. BarOn. Nevertheless.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component.

and challenge their own beliefs and values. 2002. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. with males scoring a higher mean of . try new approaches.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. with males scoring a higher mean of 4.62 (p < . Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.” was rejected.05) as well. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner.19 (p < . 1990). the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . skills and talents. 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. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. 2007). As a result.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. as well as those of the leader and the organization. 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. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass.

41). 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.18). Petrides & Furnham.10. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts.17).” 125 . which this current study used.05. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. While this current study supports previous research findings. 2000). numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. all of which were significant at p < . 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. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.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. 1995. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents.

18). To do this. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.7%. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. Steven Stein. and should not come as a great surprise. President of MHS. are independent.0%. More than one half of males (53. n = 31) scored above 126 . the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study.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). ¶ 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. According to Dr. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. are better at handling stress. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. “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.

700 administrations of the EQi.05). Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 .33. self-assuredness. 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-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. p < . Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. who analyzed the scores on over 7. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. 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. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.the mean across all of the TLS components.28. p < . In addition. 2007). The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness.64. p < . and Social Responsibility. Thus.05).05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.” was rejected. inner strength. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On.

Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. 128 . In essence. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. 1993). The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. However. 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. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. and Assertiveness. for the leader. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. and. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating.

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

Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 2000). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.21 vs. 2003) may be related to leadership ability.. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research. 1998.8 vs. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 2005.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. as well as higher on all five components than males. unlike the present results. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 2005. 104. men scored a mean of 4. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 130 .7) (p. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003).. 98.7 vs. 2005).58 vs. 63. unlike findings of previous research. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.decoding (Byron. 92).31).2). 101. However.31) and TLS (65. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. Van Rooy et al. Schutte et al. Butler. in the present research. women scored higher overall.

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

as women tend to be more nurturing. Eagly. 132 . 2000. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. management-by-exception (active). 1998. and sensitive.oriented. & Martell. 1990). which is contingent on a given environmental demand. 1995. & Johnson. 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. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. 1994. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. Carless. the critical distinction he made was that. Assertiveness. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. 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. Carless et al. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. 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. Miner.. caring.). and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. Karau. Block. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. Heilman. beliefs. In a study by Bass et al. 1994. Rosener.

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

as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. Assertiveness. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. 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. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. and Stress Tolerance. the fear of failure.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. in the worst case. Self-Regard. and their negative connotations in. could also attribute to lower scores. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. 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. inner strength. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks.. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. beliefs and thoughts. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . In addition. 1997). 2002).

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

the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. First.More specifically. and are more optimistic than women. ¶ 1) “To summarize . cope better with stress. 2007. transactional. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. 2003). could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. 1998. (Bar-On. both are equally transformational in leadership style. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. . On the other hand. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. and passive/avoidant). men appear to have better selfregard. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. For purposes of this study. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. Mandell & Pherwani. 1994). Limitations The current study has several limitations. when compared with women. solve problems better. are more flexible. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. . which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. 2007. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. demonstrate more empathy. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. are more self-reliant.

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

as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. It is possible that. 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. where superiors. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. different results would have been obtained. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness.peers. Alternatively. and subordinates. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. Conscientiousness. Service Orientation. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. thereby reducing the potential for bias. a measure 138 . Developing Others. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. peers. and Communication. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory.

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

Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 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). there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. and (b) if so. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. 2003). both are equally transformational in leadership style. 140 . The EQi Intrapersonal. Likewise. In view of this projection. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Gender.healthcare professions (Herman et al. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. This research also suggests that. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. Based on the results of this study.

job profiling. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. 141 . and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. recruitment interviewing. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. selection.In conclusion.

R. Toronto. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. (2005. & Stough. (2004). & Hakstian. Leadership Quarterly. C. N.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. MA: Lexington Books. Avolio. N. Atkins. American Psychological Association. D. (2003).org/ethics/code2002. Journal of Education for Business. & Bass. (2003)..). Lexington. DC: Author. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 14(3). doi: 10.). J. Avolio. (2003). 11(4). H. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati.). (1988). 437–462. & Dasborough. A.. P. (2006). G. Avolio. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. J. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). Barchard. J.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. B. 29–50). & C. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from ProQuest database.). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. Ontario. Atlanta. (2002). B. B. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. April). & Bass.. doi: 10. Ferris. Transformational leadership. A. 355–361. In J. B. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. M. H. Bar-On. Redwood City. Bar-On & J.. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Dachler.. R. GA. (2004). A.apa. 142 . B. M.pdf Antonakis. Schriesheim (Eds. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Hunt. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. Baliga. CA: Mind Garden. 261–295. J. (1994). Parker (Eds. M. In R. A. R. P. J. & Sivasubramaniam.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. 18– 22. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. Washington. (2000). 79(1). 64(3). charisma and beyond.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X.. P. Handbook of emotional intelligence. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). M. Douglas. K. doi: 10.

(1997). M. TX: Pro-Philes Press.84. B. Redwood City. (1990). CA: Mind Garden. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. 143 . M. & Avolio. B. 19–31.. Bass. M. Retrieved from http://redalyc..2.php?i=25 Bar-On. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI).. 112–121. 4(3). 17(3/4). & Avolio.52. International Journal of Public Administration. 17(1). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. (1995). B.pdf Bar-On. J. B. B. B.Bar-On. (1993). J. M.reuvenbaron. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). Retrieved from http://www. M. 375–377. (1999). B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist.html Bass. (1993). & Handley. (1994).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Leadership Quarterly. J. & Avolio. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Retrieved from http://205. M.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. M. M. J. B. R. 52(2). Public Administration Quarterly. B. New York: The Free Press..org/bar-on-model/essay. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Psicothema. (1999). 18(Suppl. & Avolio. B. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. Menlo Park. M. Bass. B. B. New Braunfels. R.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. Bass.. doi: 10.130 Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics. J. (2004).1037/0003-066X. J. (2006). B.uaemex. doi: 10. 13–25. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.htm Bass. B. B.). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. R. M. B. doi: 10.242/demo/intro/tformlead.231. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Bass. (1990). (2007). CA: Mind Garden. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. & Avolio. R. (1985). 541–554.net/tc3/TC019239. Bass. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. 130–139. 18(3). & Avolio.

D.2224/ sbp. Y. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. J. E.eiconsortium. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. K. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. (2000)..com/login. & Atwater. Retrieved from http://ei. South Carolina State University.haygroup. (1990). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.edu/login?url=http://search. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). B.. 207–218. (1978). M. 41–50. (1996).2007. 32–44. 47–64. Applied Psychology: An International Review.haygroup.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. 234–238. doi: 10. J.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m.pdf Boyatzis.. University of Nebraska. A. B... B.pdf Brody. R. L. Jung. 5–34. (2003).. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2007). 35(1). N. W. R. M.35.1. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. E.207 Bennis. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Lincoln. & Wheeler. J. 44–46. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. doi: 10. E..eiconsortium. 86(1). Doctoral dissertation.1037/0021-9010. (2007). 9(4).2. (2004).aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. New York: Harper & Row.capella. I. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. B.. M. D. 88(2). Bass.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. doi: 10. Doctoral dissertation. L. (2004). S.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.88. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Avolio. Retrieved from http://www.Bass. Leadership. 27(5).library . Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Retrieved from http://www.htm Burns. (2003). Hafetz. E. (2003). Psychological Inquiry. J. & Berson..41 144 . Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.htm Bryant. Burton. doi: 10. J. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. 15(3).com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. Psychological Reports. 45(1). Murphy. A. J. Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http:// www. & Henninger. Avolio.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. M.

Graham. D. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. 56(4).org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Sex Roles. & Brienza. (1989). S.00238 Cavallo. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Journal of Management. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. (1998).org/ Center for Creative Leadership. Doctoral dissertation. (2003). & Monroe. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). C. A.. Retrieved August 10. May). leader.eiconsortium . Retrieved from http://www. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. G. J.1111/0022-4537. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. doi: 10. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.ccl.. (2005). (1998. B. (2001). (2000).1177/014920639702300302 Carless. 565–76. Retrieved from http://www. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. & Mann. (1989). Byron. L.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. (2008. doi: 10. Colorado State University.eiconsortium. S. A short measure of transformational leadership.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. L. doi: 10. 39(11/12). 14(3). & Kaemmer.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs..aspx Cherniss. M. 725– 741. and subordinate perspectives.6. J.. L. (2002). D. Butler. A. Tellegen. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior.htm 145 . C. N. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. 57(4).eiconsortium . 389–405. R. doi: 10. A. Dahlstrom.964 Carli. A. Retrieved from http://www.. Gender and social influence. 23(3). 213–237. Doctoral dissertation. W. Fort Collins. Journal of Social Issues. Wearing. October). J. Journal of Business and Psychology.. K. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Retrieved from http//www. J. 2008. L.Butcher. A. 887–902.org/-report.htm Cannella. Georgia State University. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.. & Goleman. doi: 10.57 .. L.1037/0022-3514. K..

d. D. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. J. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. H. A.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. Management challenges for the 21st century. B.. Journal of Business Research. E. Mayfield.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. D. E. & Shamir. from Answers. B. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. New York: Hill. D. 5(2). & Swerdlik. (2002). C.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir.). S.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. doi: 10. J. (2002). Mountain View. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management.. F. Karau. 135–159.. M. Miner. CA. R. Dearborn.233 Eagly. H.Chief executive officer. A. doi: 10. & Salas. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. B. Dixon. Public Personnel Management. T..answers. Copeland. Gender and reactions to dominance. & Spangler.2. Academy of Management Journal. J. Dulewicz. 523–530. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. W. P. J. (2000).. Retrieved August 31. & Johnson. 15(2). Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 341–372. Drucker. 53–68. 2008. (1990). Eagly. doi: 10. 55(6). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development.com Web site: http://www... & Higgs.1037/0033-2909. Yammarino. (1995). 108(2). J. 17–21.. (1967).. B. Eden. A. Leadership Quarterly.. 17–29. E (1999). Avolio. K. Jolson. Driskell.. doi: 10. J. (1999). D. Dubinsky. (1994). F. B. L. 10(6).. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. 735–744. (1995). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Psychological Bulletin. Journal of Nursing Administration. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (2002). M. Achieving results through transformational leadership. A theory of leadership effectiveness. A. 31(4). New York: HarperCollins. 467–480. 45(4). 29(12). Journal of Managerial Psychology. & Johnson. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.. (1999). (n. 233–256. V. M.108. 15(4). 146 .

Saunders. C. D.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. Z.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. M. W.library. D.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Doctoral dissertation. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.apa. J.). Block.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman.eiconsortium. & Martell.dfee. (2001). (1998). Grubb. doi: 10. Social Work Research. 73(4). 695–702. 222–227. (1995).Field. 10(3). R.1037/0021-9010. 15(3). L.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. A.htm Hargie. 237–252. L. 25(1). F. Virginia Commonwealth University. B.gov. (2005). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. O.edu/login?url http://search. New York: Bantam. A. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. Frankel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. C. (1983). C. (2000). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. J. Journal of Applied Psychology.org/?fa=main. J.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman... M. Retrieved from http://www. (1995). Working with emotional intelligence. CA: Sage. & Dickson. & Rawles. Social skills in interpersonal communication. New York: Warner Business Books. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. O.com/login.73. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment).695 Hay Group.pdf Hay/McBer.4. E. Retrieved from http://psycnet. New York: Basic Books. (2008). 741–748. (2003). doi: 10. R. Retrieved from http://www. L. H. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. 17–25. Retrieved from http://www. (1995). P.haygroup. Furnham. Gellis. Thousand Oaks. Gohm. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. (2004). 10(6). Psychological Inquiry. & Bass. ECI fact card.ebscohost. Hater.. London: Routledge. (2004).. (1988)..capella.

Hopkins. 43–57.).edu/login?url=http://search . (2003).aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. Ivancevich. J. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . 28(3). 13(1). (1977).).wsj.library.. 751–765. Retrieved from http://www. J. Gioia. On diversity.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. M. P. & Bono. C. & Olivo. M. You’ve got to change to retain. 75(9). VA: Oakhill Press. E. S1–S4.eiconsortium.capella. A. (1993). (2005).5.. Academy of Management Executives. R.com/ login. (2000). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2000). T..85. too few people.ebscohost. Hersey. H. R. NJ: Prentice Hall. T. A. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. D. doi: I0. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.capella. (1999). J.1037t/00219010. A. doi: 10. 85(5).htm Hymowitz. Winchester. M. HR Focus.ebscohost. Organizational Dynamics. & Blanchard. Hitt.aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. London: McGraw Hill.751 148 . The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. (1997).library.. & Hitt. M. H.. Englewood Cliffs. Judge. (2008.Herman. NJ: Prentice Hall.com/login. Hersey. Upper Saddle River. (1993). The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. (1998).edu/login?url=http://search. The impact of gender.). HR Focus. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. Retrieved from http://online. Case Western Reserve University. 74(6).. Wall Street Journal. (1997). R. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. R.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. H. Doctoral dissertation. & Blanchard. M. G. K. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Journal of Applied Psychology. T.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland.. 6–18. P. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. emotional intelligence competencies. 15– 16. & Matteson. February 25). Boston: Irwin. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. K. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.

S. doi: 10. 173–180.pdf Law.. European Psychologist. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. 125(4).com/login.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. K. & Song. 89(3). A. T. F.1. 89(3). doi: 10. 385–425. 38(2). (2004). 12(3).1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 ..542 Judge. doi: 10. Furnham.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host. doi: 10. B. S. P. D. (2005). Leadership Quarterly. M.113 Lowe. 483–496.89. & Sivasubramaniam.. J. doi: 10. Transformational leaders make a difference.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller... (2007). 7(3). (2004). Journal of Research and Technology Management. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. B.. K. N. D.. R. (2000.. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. Education. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. 41–44. 113–118.755 Kaufhold. R.3. Current Psychology. A. & Jantzi.com/cda/media/ 0. & Ilies.library. P.... Z. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Educational Administration. G. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Beers. (1995). J.wiley. N.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 154–163. K.89.. Kroeck.483 Leithwood.Judge. (2001). & Rickers. Reiter-Palmon.15304. (2005). Journal of Applied Psychology. Colbert.00. A. T.. P. Kirkcaldy. B. J. A.. doi: 10.. 38(3). 542–552.3. & Siefen.5.1037/15283542. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. (2000).. Emotion. 5(1). E. (2004).capella. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. C. R. A.89. L. 615–626. G. Wong. K. R... J. M. 755–768. 89(5). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Retrieved from http://basepath. L.1037/0021-9010. Noack. doi: 10. June). Côté.. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. & Piccolo.1037/0021-9010. & Johnson. R. Salovey.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. 20(2).1037/0021-9010. L. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. S. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. & Posner.5. 112–129.

Mayer. D. Psychological Inquiry. D. 15(3). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. About the MSCEIT. R. Mayer.002201 Malek. Sluytrer (Eds. & Caruso. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Mathews.. G.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. 27(4).1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. 179–196. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. & Zeidner. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. 387–404.ebscohost.edu/login?url=http://search. (1998).unh.. (1986). Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2007).an. 253–296. D. 05B.library. R. Intelligence. C.capella. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Salovey. 405–436. Retrieved from http://www. P. Psychological Inquiry.library. & White..edu/login?url=http://search. Salovey. (2002).aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. F.1146/annurev. P. (2004a). M. D.. New York: Basic Books. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. R.sciencedirect. M.. 15(3). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. 15(2). Canada: Multi-Health Systems.ebscohost. Ontario.. 67(1).capella. J. doi: 10. D.capella. D. 17(3). Retrieved from http://www. Toronto. D.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer..com . 61. S. D. (2000). J. The anthropology of emotions.15.. & Pherwani. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. Retrieved from http://ez proxy.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 .com/login. (2004). American Sociological Review.library. J. G.. P. B.. 267–298. and implications. Journal of Business and Psychology.Lutz. J. (UMI No.com/ login. (1999). J.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.). 71). M. J. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Carlsmith. Salovey.. Emotional intelligence: Theory. R. H. D... doi: 10. & Caruso. J. (1997).100186. 9970564) Mandell. & Salovey. D. K. 197–215. Salovey & D. Journal of Research in Personality. P. Annual Review of Anthropology. Dissertation Abstracts International. S. Roberts. D. & Chabot. 32(3). M. (2003). (2002). Caruso. findings. doi: 10. 1–29.

& Carsky. Shaver. Issues in Educational Research. Psychological Inquiry.capella. from Answers. 2008.. Measurement and control of response bias. (n. Walls.. & Stough.ebscohost. R. San Diego. doi: 10. R.iier. J. L. Retrieved from http://www. P. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. M. & Stacey.022 Paulhus. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. (2004). S.... Psychological Inquiry.com Web site: http://www.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management.Mayer. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. N. 335–344. H. (1991).edu/login?url=http://search. R. (2004).04. 381–400. Robinson. & L... 24(6).). (2004b). N.. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. M.com/login. Parker. Oatley. R. Wood. D. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 13(4).. Journal of Individual Differences. (2003). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. L. B.org. Eastabrook. & Caruso. 27–34. J. doi: 10. 14(1). Salovey. L. 27(5).au/iier14/perry. E.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. 249–255. (2001). 15(3). A.1016 /j.. D. & Taylor. Retrieved from ProQuest database.pdf Morrison. 100–106. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. Perry. 26(2). L. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. MLQ international norms.paid. B. 22(1). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. D. Jones. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. 29–43. & Fuller.library. Ball.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. 17–59). Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. Retrieved August 31... K. (2005).. In J. 5–10. C. J.capella. The International Journal of Conflict Management. Burgess.library. Journal of Nursing Administration.).d. Inc. S. R. P. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence.2006.answers. CA: Academic Press.edu/login? url=http://search. D. J. (2002). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. M. 15(3). M. C.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer.com/login . Wrightsman (Eds. (1997).mind garden. I. (2004). Z. 216–238. D.ebscohost.. Saklofske.html 151 .

1002/per.. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. 425–448. C. B. (2004). M.library.2007. R. V.1016/j. A.. 11(4). Retrieved from http://www. Emotional intelligence. Leadership and management styles. Case Western Reserve University. (2003). & Buckley. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Ferris. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. (2000). L.Petrides.. Douglas. Purkable. & Buckley. Doctoral dissertation. T. Costa. V.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. (2007). and team outcomes. R. pp. doi: 10. J. 11(1). P. (2003a). R. Harvard Business Review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Doctoral dissertation. (1992).. K.. B. R. A. L.htm Rivera Cruz.ebsco host. M. L. 68(6). R.60. leadership effectiveness.4. Retrieved from ProQuest database.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . W. K. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.01.capella. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 42(5/6). European Journal of Personality. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. V. M. G... Boston: Allyn Bacon.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 41–62. Leadership Quarterly. Petrides. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. 15(6). K. 449–461.416 Piedmont.com/login. Ammeter. A.htm Rosener. (2003b). T. R. Ways women lead.. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.. 60(4). Plunkett (Ed.1037/0022-3514. 323–351). (2001). & Furnham.. Ammeter. A. R. & Heinitz. & McRae. Supervision (6th ed.edu/login?url=http://search.. Ferris. 18(2).). Prati.leaqua. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Douglas.003 152 . Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent.. 121–133. doi: 10. P.. Emotional intelligence. P. 363–369. Sex Roles. C.630 Plunkett. 119–125. G. Prati.. L. & Furnham. (1990). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Catholic University of America. 744–755. In W. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. doi: 10. R.eiconsortium. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. M.

Cooper. E. Emotional intelligence. Doctoral dissertation. (2003). et al.. B. Zeidner. and Personality. and Matthews (2001).EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. Hall. N. Malouff.. D. & Geroy. (2001).). F. 9(4). and socialization.com Web site: http://www. 2008.htm Schutte. C.answers.library.eiconsortium. R. J.edu/login?url=http://search ...capella. 243–248. doi: 10. 94– 110. 74(3).pdf Sanders. W.. E.com/login. J. Schaie. & Osborn. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost. E.1037/0022-3514. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. 185–211. P.). J. (2000). Hopkins. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.3. G.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Comment on Roberts. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. 9(4).... A.1037/1528-3542.629 Sala.1. E.. Race.. (2003). Retrieved from http://www. emotions.eiconsortium. (1990). L. J. M. T.. J.library. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 629–645. M. K. 167–177. J.3. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. (n. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. (1998). Cognition.74. Retrieved from http:// www.. & Mayer.com.capella. & Bass. (2001). Imagination.d. Journal of Management. Schulte. J. Golden. L. (2002). J.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . 693–703.243 Schermerhorn. W. M. Personality and Individual Differences. Emotion. Race. D.unh.sciencedirect. 25(2).org/ Salovey. (1990). J. Gender & Class. doi: 10. doi: 10. New York: Wiley. Our Lady of the Lake University. Hunt. Haggerty.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. from Answers. 1(3). Retrieved from http:// www. Retrieved August 31.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. J.. 9(3).Rudman. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. (1998).1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. 21–31. S. Organizational behavior (7th ed. 16(4). J.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. D. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.com/topic/senior-management Smith.

D. Group & Organization Management.%20K. Retrieved from http://www. J. Sosik. (2005). B. (2008). Sojka.%20M.bls.023 154 . Wade. 18–14. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.. 24(3). L. & Plemons. (1999). A. 75(6). J. April).J. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. 689–700. 37(1). Retrieved from http://ovidsp.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates.paid. 2002. E. Retrieved from ProQuest database.com. L. Dallas. S . MA: Allyn and Bacon. & Viswesvaran. (2002). C. M. Census Bureau of Labor. 367–390. (2001). Alonso.bls.Needham Heights. Retrieved from http://www. J. S. L. & McDaniel.tx. C.ovid. Ellis. L. & Megerian.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full..A. Personality and Individual Differences. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.%20(1998) Snodgrass. & Fidell.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. Barone.kandidata. Department of Labor. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. (2003). 38(3). & D’hoore.. (2005). Journal of Allied Health.05.. Retrieved from http://www. J. F. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. 49(1).. Douthitt. Tucker. (1998. TX. K.aspx?search=Smith. Vandenberghe.siop.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur.Smith. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. doi: 10.. & McCarthy.2004. G.. (2000).capella. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. R.. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. U. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership.C. J. Journal of Education for Business. J.. Retrieved from http://www. C. S. 37–43.org/Search.library.S. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance.pdf U.). A. M. Z. S. Retrieved from ProQuest database. A.. W. S. Nursing Research.. M. 331–338..% 20&%20McDaniel.se/default.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein..1016/j..cgi Tabachnick. doi: 10.edu/spb/ovidweb.

). Nursing Management.library . Zhu. & Jolson. K. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 205–222. (2001). W.. & Bass.Viator. H. A.ebscohost. 975–995. (2003). Dubinsky. J. L.capella. Developing emotional intelligence. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. F. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. D. B. 89–92. B. (2000).org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. I. Journal of Information Systems. (1989). Emotional intelligence at work.001 155 . J.com/login. W. Retrieved from ProQuest database. F. leaqua. (2002). G.capella. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 15(2). 39–52. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. (2003).capella. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.library.06. Doctoral dissertation. (2007). R. (2005). 8(2). Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl... doi: 10. 16(1).1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino.com/login.2004. (1998).com/login. Upper Saddle River. 43(10).. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www . Academy of Management Journal. doi: 10. Human Relations.ebscohost. Comer. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. 28–32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. University of Minnesota. M. J. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. H..aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. M. (1990). 34(10). & Spangler. E.. L. The Leadership Quarterly. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting.ebscohost. Yammarino. The perfect labor storm 2.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Wolfe.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.edu/ login?url=http://search.htm Weisinger.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. S. A. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. (1997). M.library. G. Journal of Management. C.1016/j. Yukl. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 15(2). 251–289.edu/login?url=http://search.edu/login?url=http://search. A. 40(1). Chew. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . I. 99–125. J. PA: Poised for the Future Company. NJ: Prentice Hall. Lancaster.eiconsortium.

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 . 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.APPENDIX.

Level of Education? High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s 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 .

00 Between $70.00 More than $150.00 Between $100.000.00 158 .000.000.00 and $100.00 and $150.00 Between $40.00 and $70.000.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.000.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful