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

In addition.Abstract The U. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. Department of Labor.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.000 billion annually. 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.033. . this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.S. and healthcare professions. 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. predicts that by 2010. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. education. there will be approximately 10. 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. The purpose of this cross-sectional.

. who laid the cornerstone of my being. 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 . . iii .

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

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

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

Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Comparison of Low. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .Table 19.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.

1999. Hitt. Department of Labor. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Ireland & Hitt. Gioia. 1999). 1998). Department of Labor. higher group performance levels (Keller. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. & Olivo. 2005).033. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 2000. attract. 1997. Herman. 1997. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Specifically. 1 . and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Drucker. 1995). Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass.CHAPTER 1. companies must compete to find. 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. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. 2003. 1990). The U. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman.373 billion (Herman. education.S. 1988). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. develop. and retain the best talent.

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

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

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. if a relationship is found to exist. 2. 3. 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. 4 . 4.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition. 12 . 2006. 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. Goleman. and dissertations. 1995. 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. Bass & Avolio. 1988). higher group performance (Keller. 22 articles were relevant to this study. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1985. 1995). 1999). to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. books. Specifically. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. along with several books and dissertations. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. In total. 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. 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.gender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52). Judge & Piccolo. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. Hopkins & Geroy.g. However. 2003. behavior. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . the integrative theory of leadership research. 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.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. 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. Sanders. 2003. in Bass’s view. 1989). He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. “cognitive. Furthermore. 76). behavioral. 2004. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. Yukl. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. unlike Burns.. p. 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. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. and situational/contingency variables. In addition. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees.

Leithwood & Jantzi. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. 1985. 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. 22 . Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 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. 2000). Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. weaknesses. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. focusing on a common purpose. 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. 1990. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. 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. Bennis. However. and comparative advantages.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. the organization’s strengths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. e. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. c.b. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. Idealized Influence (Behaviors): living your ideals Inspirational Motivation: inspiring others Intellectual Stimulation: stimulating others Individualized Consideration: coaching and development Transactional Leadership: Transactional leaders display behaviors associated with the following measured leadership scale scores: a. b. c.94. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. 2004). Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3.74 to . d. b. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. 34 . 2. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . 2004b) reported. noted. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. (2004a. 2002). 1986. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. 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. 2000). In this view. For example. it a learnable skill.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. though an inherent capacity. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. 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. Massey. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. 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. Indeed. the academic and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz & Higgs. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. Mayer et al. 1986. Massey). In contrast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

managerial and nonmanagerial employees.avoidance coping. 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. 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. Specifically. 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. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. As noted previously. leadership styles. 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. but not male. The study used self and other ratings of EI. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. 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. and success. 57 .

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

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

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

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

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

Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. and values. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. 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. 2004): 1. principles. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. 5. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . 3. 4. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. mentoring and growth opportunities. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.96. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). with a strong sense of purpose. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 2. and display a sense of power and confidence.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. 2004) and was based on data from 2. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group.81 to . respected and trusted. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations.53 to .85.

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

2002). 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.. respectively. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. 2002). and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Independence. Assertiveness. 65 . similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Bar-On. and Interpersonal Relationship.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. Flexibility. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 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). to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. were reported as . (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. 2002). (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. to obtain a Total EQ.85 (n = 44) and . (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing.States and Canada. Social Responsibility. Version 12.75 (n = 27. and Self-Actualization. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. Emotional Self-Awareness. 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. and their associated subcomponents. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. MHS Inc. and Problem Solving.

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

” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. the MLQ assessment. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. individual data were not made available. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. 2. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. 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. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). 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 . Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.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).

4. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . 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. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.3. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.

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

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

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

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. 160). 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. p. p. 2005. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. the nature and strength of that association. as well as to control for the effects of gender. and. In addition. 72 . age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. if so.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. 170).

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

74 . 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. 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. and if so. 3. HA3: There will be 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.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. the nature and strength of that association. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

72). 75 . components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. p. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. Errors in scoring/data entry. 65). and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. p. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. 94). Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables.Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses.. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field. 2005. or scaled variables. as appropriate.g. If necessary. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. outliers. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. missing and out-of. p. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. 2005.

1 39.7 7.9 6.6 76 .9 3.8 2.7 29.1 22.4 19.6 16.4 3.Table 1.2 55.5 45.7 20.5 5.2 5.5 4.7 5.7 10.2 12.4 24.8 3.7 5.8 1.1 25.8 5.1 10.3 8.2 2. 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 60.9 12.0 11.1 11.

25 85.000 17 10. 77 .9 65. 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 32.70.9 1. American Indian.9 10.9 12.3 12.7 Current income Less than $40.5 __________________________________________________________ Note. N = 158.8 Between $70–100.7 31.7 16.20).4 8.1 32.Table 1.000 55 34.8 More than $150. maximum age 67. Minimum age 24. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.1 9.6 Between $100–150.9 2.5 4.2 10. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.8 Between $40–70. East Asian.3 20.7 34.5 1.7 2.000 23 14.000 15 9.0 2. **Includes Pacific Islander. SD = 8.000 44 27. Arabic or other.

Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. or mean of 3.6%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 135) male (60.2%.7%. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.1%.4%. Notably. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.6%. n = 72). n = 78).Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. In terms of supervision responsibilities. Most respondents earned from $40. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.95 years of college education. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. for-profit organization. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. n = 106). from between 3–6 to more than 16.000–$100. 78 . n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). 25.000 per annum (49. and a median of 5. However. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.32 subordinates. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. n = 103).4%. n = 121) in a private. The sample of the population in this study has an average. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). Addressing racial diversity.15 direct reports.

00). Stress Management.49). For the income this is going to be most apparent.97 (SD = 13. with a nearly identical median of 48. 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. Total EQi Score.86 (SD = 13.900 and the median was $54.730. the mean income was $68. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. 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.77 years. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Interpersonal. 107.65 years. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 79 .The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. As far as income. Summed TLS Score. The mean age of the subjects is 48. and General Mood Components.02 (SD = 13. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58.02 (SD = 13. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.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 2.05). EQi component scores were. 105.49 (SD = 14. 102.01). 103.41). Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. 105. in descending order. Adaptability.63 (SD = 12. Intrapersonal.

67 13.70 13.66 101.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.05 14.44 13.49 103.85 12.86 106.28 103.74 13. N = 157.21 105. 80 .19 13.41 12.04 12.Table 2.02 102.64 107.61 105. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.73 12.02 105.63 103.46 102.60 14.41 106.86 12.54 103.45 13.00 12.93 13.31 103.63 103.66 14.49 13.01 13.61 102. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.97 13.17 104.36 Total EQi Score 105. 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 107.62 13.52 103.

53).63 0.26 (SD = 0.59). 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.S. 3.08 3.16 (SD = 0. 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed).18 (SD = 0.35 (SD = 0.04 (SD = 0.52). Individualized Consideration.58).58 0.59).95 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed).99 (SD = 0.59 0.57 0.35 3. Individualized Consideration. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. TLS component scores were.13 (SD = 0. 3.08 (SD = 0.59).26 3.57). 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 3.18 SD 0. 3.13 3.63). and Intellectual Stimulation.57). 81 .09 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).96 (SD = 0. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).59). 2. 2.57 0. Inspirational Motivation. Mind Garden. which are as follows.09 (SD = 0. 3.59 Note.52. Intellectual Stimulation. 3. N = 157. in descending order. Idealized Influence (Behavior). Inspirational Motivation.Table 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. 2. 2004).

95 2. TLS Component Scores: U.57 0.99 3.35 SD 0. Skew represents the even-ness.. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).09 3.02 2.58 0.53 0. of a distribution (i. **N = 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.59 0.13 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.55 0. 2001).e. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. or scaled variables.52 M 3.375.08 3.59 0.S.63 0.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.26 3.18 3. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.59 0.04 2. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.Table 4. Group Norms vs.16 SD 0. Norm group** M 3.52 0.59 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. or symmetry.96 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.

67.24. (d) Adaptability = .83. respectively. 2001).40.78. (c) Stress Management = . (b) Interpersonal = . Intellectual Stimulation = –. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. and (c) 9.63. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.66. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .18.80. and not individual MLQ items. and (e) General Mood = . and Individualized Consideration = –1. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.61.49. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. (b) 6. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . (a) MLQ 5 = 2.64.85. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . (b) MLQ 23 = –2. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.83. Inspirational Motivation = –.16. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.67.06. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . 83 .09.73.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary.0. 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. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. but normally distributed.70.76.0. with skew > +/–2.

and IC = Individualized Consideration.44* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.35* .19 a .29* . 84 . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. The significance level was set at (α = .52* . *p < .48* .05). Table 5. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Stress Management 4.33* .46* IM . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). IS = Intellectual Stimulation.37* IIB .32* IC . Adaptability 5.41* .43* Note.30* .40* .44* .28* . General Mood IIA . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).37* . Pearson’s r was obtained. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. a p < .23* . N = 158.05.25* . To address the first research question.37* .40* . Intrapersonal 2. IM = Inspirational Motivation.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. Interpersonal 3.37* .31* .01. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.36* .59* IS .

05). which was still significant at p < . p < .20 and . p < . (b) Happiness (r = .45. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. With one exception. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.50. Inspirational Motivation (r = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . using the same Procedure Correlations. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. (c) Self-Actualization (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). EQi component scores also increased. at r = . Results are shown in Table 6. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. 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.001) and Inspirational Motivation.05. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.001).23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .16. Most of the correlations ranged between . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.23 or higher. p < .59. All correlations were in the positive direction. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .51.001).19. 85 .05). with (α = . p < .

28* .25* .13 (ns) .29* .51* IS .32* .40* .31* .05 (ns = nonsignificant. IM = Inspirational Motivation. All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.34* .03 (ns) .39* IM .36* . Assertiveness 4.50* . 86 . p ≥ .24* .43* .16 (ns) . Problem Solving 14.28* .26* . Happiness IIA . Empathy 7.44* .11 (ns) .37* .30* . Self-Actualization 6.36* .30* .35* .37* . Independence 5.36* .39* .40* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.36* Note. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).43* .38* . Flexibility 13. N = 157.33* .33* .25* IC .21* .40* .05).33* .33* .37* . *p < . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).44* .31* IIB .37* .33* .38* .01. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1. ap < .30* . Reality Testing 12.59* . Optimism 15.38* .15 (ns) . and IC = Individualized Consideration.45* .23* . Self-Regard 2.15 (ns) . Self-Awareness 3.40* .46* .37* .Table 6.17 a . Impulse Control 11.16 a .19 a .37* .45* .24* .23* .32* .12 (ns) . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.35* .24* .33* . Social Responsibility 8.32* . Stress Tolerance 10.24* .26* .34* .43* .27* .31* .48* .

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

Therefore. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .72. p < . p < . p < .01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. However.82. 88 . since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . 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.64. this intercorrelation is to be expected. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.71.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . p < . based on the . Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.90.01).01).(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.

55* .54* .37* . Social Responsibility 8.36* .40* .32* .00 .00 .61* .00 1.50* .52* .24* . Empathy 89 7.36* 9.52* .42* .00 1.36* .66* .26* . Problem Solving 12.51* . Flexibility 11.16* .51* .50* .62* .42* .50* .15* .32* Subcomponent 1.37* .50* .45* 1.00 .50* 1.39* . Self-Actualization 6.58* .33* .60* .15* .00 .60* .52* .38* .59* .55* . Self-Regard 2.60* .40* .58* .42* .71* . Self Awareness 3.43* .23* . Interpersonal Relationship .32* .47* .55* .50* .53* .53* 1.26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .37* .51* 1.20* .42* .00 .39* . Stress Tolerance 13.33* .38* .Table 7.53* 15 .25* .25* .55* .41* .00 1. Impulse Control .56* .74* .30* . Reality Testing 10. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.40* .27* .00 .39* .43* . Independence 5.51* .43* 1.61* .47* 1.60* .28* .23* .66* .61* .82* . Assertiveness 4.72* .43* .50* .61* .42* .00 .56* .32* .42* .00 1.47* .41* .00 1.35* .00 1.55* .40* .60* .49* .47* .59* .65* .40* .64* .43* .41* .

01.Table 7.64* 1. 90 . Optimism 15.00 Subcomponent 14.05. N = 157.00 15 . *p < . bns = nonsignificant. a p < . Happiness Note. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.

61* .54* . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.Table 8. Results are shown in Table 9. *p < .64* 1.62* . Individualized Consideration Note. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Intellectual Stimulation 5. 1 1. General Mood and 91 . to a minimal extent. and.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.60* .00 5 .00 2 . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.55* .019).287). The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Overall. N = 157. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Stress Management at Step 3. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.57* 1.59* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.00 4 .58* 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 3 . 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. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Inspirational Motivation 4.015). Stress Management at Step 3.72* 1. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. Results are shown in Table 9.01.

nor Adaptability.000 .07 .000 .301 at Step 2.66** . the EQi Intrapersonal.24 .008 .301 at Steps 3 and 4.32 .316 –0. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.87 .034 4.66 3. Table 9. entered at Step 4.000 . *p < .01.033 –.019 Note.287 .Interpersonal components. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. 92 .V.073 –. entered at Step 3.25 . In summary.069 2. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.85 .05. F change R2change .162 . R2 = . R2 = .728 –0. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).04* 62. Neither Stress Management. **p < .25 2. R2 = . R2 = .04 . 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. N = 157.287 at Step 1.015 . † TLS Summed = D.320 at Step 5.

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

97 0.Table 12.21 14. Males scored a mean of 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.05. *p < .75 12.44 2. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. bn = 62.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.67 2. 96 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. *p < . Table 13. a difference which was significant at p < .05.50 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.48 104.16 0. bn = 62.05.

77.08. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. SD = 14. Interestingly.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.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. respectively. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). SD = 14. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. females: M = 106. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Descriptive statistics. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.64. These data are presented in Table 14. 97 .

80 14.67 103.76 106.93 13.57 13.80 102.92 13.Table 14.72 101.53 12.84 11.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.27 11.56 102.70 13. 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 104.43 11.63 13.89 103.75 13. **n = 62.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.78 13. Empathy (4 vs.16 103.34 102.18 14.09 109.50 109.40 14.24 104.92 102.34 12.19 12.68 14.74 11. Social Responsibility 98 .77 102.48 13. 13).07 14.23 13.33 105.37 12.14 15.47 104.64 109.97 15.26 103.41 11.17 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.74 15.28 (14) 100.37 105.62 103.01 103.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.99 107.61 104. Self-Actualization (9 vs. As a group. *n = 95.21 105. 11).08 11.06 102.50 12.80 106. N = 157.37 14.55 13.

**p < . 15). Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. 12).07 14.26 Females SD 13. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. among others. Females. 15).99 M 99.97 109. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.39 109.67 SD 11. n = 95.01 102.57 12. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Males. *p < .86 11. 10). They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.11 107. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. 13).18 14. Self-Regard (8 vs. and Flexibility (6 vs.21 105. Table 15.07* 3.74 t 2.(5 vs.80 11. n = 62.74 15.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.01. 12). As a group. a Marginally significant. Assertiveness.80 102.91a 2. Males scored a mean of 7.36** 1.05. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. Independent-samples t test. (2 vs.01. a difference which was significant at p < .42* Note. p = . They also scored higher on the 99 .05. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 10).

this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Further. As a follow-up. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Specifically. To summarize. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. They also scored 4. 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. Regression analyses.08). of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females.41) subcomponents. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.05. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. were important predictors of TLS in females. but did not predict TLS for males. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . or combination. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. all of which were significant at p < .17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. and independence (R2 change =.11) than did females (M = 105.13). males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.

R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .01.000 .011 Note.04 2.81 1.85 .73 .263 at Step 4.000 .190 .41 .24 14.606 .05 .08 .19 .18 .378 at Step 3.088 –.261 at Step 1..63** .001 .010 . N = 157.002 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales). 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.167 1. R2 (adj) = .55 –.001 . 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.67 –1.755 .255 at Step 2. Table 16.379 at Step 4.73 1.022 .097 .302 .176 at Step 1. **p < . F change R2change .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .669 3. R2 (adj) = .e.21 –.269 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. It was thus decided that using 101 .098 12.12 2. R2 (adj) = .268 7.45 .253 at Step 2.02 .248 at Step 3.989 34.99** . R2 (adj) = .131 .

e. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. the three highest TLS component scores). and exactly one half of females (50. Categorical variables. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. 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. To do this. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.7%.. categorical variables (low. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. The highest percentages of males (53. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.0%.e..and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females.7%.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. More than one half of males (53.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 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. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed). n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Finally.

2 56. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.7 53. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.3 52.8 43.7 51.6%.5 40.5 53. *n = 95.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. N = 157.1 50.4 54. The highest percentage of females (59. The highest percentage of males (52.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. the highest percentage of females (54.6 49. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.3 46. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Table 17. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.4 50. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.4 50. Comparison of Low.7 53.(Behavior).0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.8%.7 47.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.3 48.5 46.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).3 46.7%. **n = 62.5 59. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .1 45.

Once this subsample was selected. Table 18.00 9.51 111.76 110. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .04 16. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.83 111.91).28 11.15 10. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.98 111.68 12.11 113.45 112.14 11.50 114.00 112.11 11.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15. First. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.29 SD 14.09 10.24 111. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.75 10.66 114. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.92 111. Secondly.85 12.30 10.66 11.55 114.88 11.75 9.12 110.64 112. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.

23 106.86 105.17 9.13 107.56 SD 10.20 9.Table 18.22 13.13 111.55 11.15 108.15 104.22 108.50 11.55 12.25 104.51 7.07 14.18 109.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .84 11.03 7.50 11.92 105.71 106.40 12.21 11.68 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 104.50 107.44 9.26 112.28 110.64 9.55 12.39 M 110.23 108.41 8.39 9.28 107.28 108.51 107.90 103.36 13.62 107.73 9.12 10.38 14.42 109.53 109.

90 12.41 10.96 105.86 12.03 102.79 105. (b) Assertiveness.75 104.78 103.00 103.89 11.68 106.12 10.56 105. (c) Independence.77 101.06 12.63 12.66 104.50 105.26 105.14 105.27 14. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .33 M 104.06 13. 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. 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 102.73 10.43 11.67 10.47 12.81 17.09 104.4 102.85 14.66 10.82 105.01 8.59 14.35 103.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.Table 18.57 104.20 11.42 9.65 103.50 SD 10.

05. (b) Independence. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Assertiveness.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19.across the five TLS components. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. Females scored a mean of 4. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. 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) Social Responsibility. (c) Social Responsibility. Males scored 107 .05. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. 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. Independent subsamples t test. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . While males scored 5. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Males scored a mean of 5. (b) Happiness. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. In summary.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. 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. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (d) Problem Solving. however. (d) Empathy. a difference which was significant at p < .

Subsample N = 82. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).e.33 111. p = .80 SD 10. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.57 M 107.. 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.43 104. 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. To do this. Table 19. Males.94a –2.09 108.96 10.05 10.01* 2.43 t 1. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. n = 51.00 14.04* Note.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. n = 31.78 8. *p < .05.05.and high-scoring) 108 . a Marginally significant. Females.61 106.16 Females SD 13. Categorical variables. categorical variables (low. EQi. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. however. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.

the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. 109 . The highest percentages of males (61.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.6%. The highest percentage of females (61. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. Then.3%.0%. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentage of males (50. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. Once the subsample was selected. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.5%. followed by 59. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females.1%. However. n = 32). n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.97).5% (n = 35) of females did so. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. More than one half of males (53. Interestingly.

6 54.2 61.5 59.0 110 .3 52.0 47.9 44.2 45.9 43.0 52.5 46.1 55.2 41.6 46.1 54.7 54.4 45.5 43.8 42.2 51.4 53.0 54.2 50.7 47.8 49.1 56.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.1 55.9 44.2 56. Comparison of Low.0 45.8 54.8 45.5 45.5 40.Table 20. **n = 62.8 50.3 48.8 38.2 50.9 45. Female** High Low % 53.7 44.0 51.9 43.2 57.3 55.5 54.8 58.8 44.3 45.8 50.8 43.2 55.2 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 % 61.5 53.8 High % 38.5 53.7 51.2 55.5 56.8 38.2 61.1 56.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 = 95.5 46.0 48.

53 0.58 3.49 0.51 3.55 3. 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 3.54 0.55 3. Table 21.51 0.47 0.52 0.47 0.60 0.61 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.49 3. followed by the lowest mean.57 0.52 3.48 0.37 0.54 0.47 0.43 111 .The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.5 3.55 SD 0.52 3.49 3.37 3.55 3.47 3.49 0.48 3.

35 112 .38 3.42 0. 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 3.42 3.Table 21.39 0.39 0.55 3.36 3.51 3.35 3.22 3.41 3.40 0.45 0.34 0.36 0.37 3.37 0.45 3.44 0.44 3.37 0.40 0.49 0.46 3.37 3.37 0.6 M 3.43 SD 0.30 0.45 0.42 3.21 0.51 3.

58 0.43 0.5 0.24 3.24 SD 0.59 0.Table 21.61 0.2 3.2 3.22 3.45 113 .1 3.51 0.22 3.19 3.08 3.18 3.25 3.28 3.6 0.15 3.58 0. 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 0.21 3.52 0.24 3.53 M 3.14 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.2 3.

Table 21.55 0.08 SD 0.14 3.67 0.06 2. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .59 0. with the exceptions of Independence.13 3.68 0.02 3. Empathy.58 0.05 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 3.6 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.63 0.21 3.95 3.49 0. Optimism and Happiness.63 0.16 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.11 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.62 0.57 Descriptive statistics.11 3.

Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure.04* M 111.05. n = 33. *p < . n = 54. Independent subsamples t test. 115 . Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.57 M 106. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Females.05. a Marginally significant. 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. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Females SD 10. a difference which was significant at p < .16 SD 14.43 t 2. Idealized Influence (Behavior).80 Males scored 0.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Table 22. 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.Motivation. p = . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.05. In summary. Males. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.

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

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

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

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

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

Palmer. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Kobe et al. 2001).59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Further. 1998. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .. Burgess.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 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 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.23) to moderate (r = .. 2003. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al.. Thus. Walls. Mandell & Pherwani. 2004. 2000. 2001. & Stough. 2002)..21) to moderate (r 121 . the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 2004. 2003). In addition.23 or higher. Law et al.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Mandell & Pherwani. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Hay/McBer. Judge et al.

Thus. 1998.” 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. or temptation to act. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. 2002).= . 2003). 2000. 122 . Stress Tolerance. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. 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. For example. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . However.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Mandell & Pherwani. Impulse Control. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. Hay/McBer. As well. drive.03 to . is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component.16. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS.

defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. thinking and behavior to new situations. 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 TLS components. 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.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions.19 (p < . Thus. Males scored a mean of 4. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. BarOn.62 (p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Nevertheless. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Males scored a mean of 0.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. entails adjusting our feelings. 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.Reality Testing. 2002).

which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass.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. 2002. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. 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. skills and talents. with males scoring a higher mean of . As a result.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. try new approaches. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. 1990). 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.62 (p < . with males scoring a higher mean of 4.19 (p < .05) as well. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. and challenge their own beliefs and values. as well as those of the leader and the organization.” was rejected. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. 2007). by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 .

2000). and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts.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. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature.” 125 .18).05. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. 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. 1995. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. 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.17). Petrides & Furnham.10.41). While this current study supports previous research findings. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. all of which were significant at p < . which this current study used.

7%. are independent.18). the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. President of MHS. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. are better at handling stress. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3.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). the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. To do this. Steven Stein. and should not come as a great surprise. According to Dr.0%. ¶ 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. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. More than one half of males (53. “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. n = 31) scored above 126 .

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. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). 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.64. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. p < . In addition.33. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered.05). and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. p < .700 administrations of the EQi.28.” was rejected. Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. self-assuredness. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . Stress Tolerance. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. p < . inner strength. 2007). and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.05).the mean across all of the TLS components. Thus. and Social Responsibility. who analyzed the scores on over 7.

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

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

who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. in the present research. Butler. 2005.7 vs. 2000). women scored higher overall. unlike the present results. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 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.8 vs.58 vs. men scored a mean of 4.31). or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 63.. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS.21 vs. 2005.. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. unlike findings of previous research. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 1998. as well as higher on all five components than males. However. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.decoding (Byron.2). Van Rooy et al. 98.31) and TLS (65. Schutte et al. 92). 101. 130 .7) (p. 2005). No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 104.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. B. doi: 10..org/bar-on-model/essay. (1997). New York: The Free Press.130 Bass. 375–377. B. M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from ProQuest database. CA: Mind Garden. Bass.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. (2004). 4(3). J. 19–31. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. J.2. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual.php?i=25 Bar-On. & Avolio. J. Leadership Quarterly. International Journal of Public Administration. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae.net/tc3/TC019239. Bass. & Avolio.84. (2007).). (1993).. Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. CA: Mind Garden. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist.231. 18(Suppl.. Retrieved from http://205. 541–554.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. M. Menlo Park. doi: 10. B. (2006). R. R. (1995). 17(3/4). B.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. & Avolio. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.1037/0003-066X. M. M. B. & Avolio. M. New Braunfels. 130–139. B. M. & Handley.pdf Bar-On. B.Bar-On. Bass.52. Bass. 18(3). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. (1990). B. Psicothema. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). B.htm Bass. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). 17(1). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics. Leadership development: Transformational leadership.242/demo/intro/tformlead. (1999). 112–121. R. B. 143 . Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. B. J. B. M.. R. Redwood City. doi: 10. 13–25. J. Public Administration Quarterly. & Avolio. M. J. 52(2). (1985).uaemex. Retrieved from http://redalyc. & Avolio.html Bass. B. M. TX: Pro-Philes Press. (1993).. B. (1990). (1994). B. M. (1999).reuvenbaron.

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

Sex Roles... doi: 10. Tellegen. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. 57(4). J.Butcher. Dahlstrom.eiconsortium . doi: 10. (1989).htm Cannella. A. 2008. W. Fort Collins. (1998. Wearing.ccl. A. & Goleman. N. & Mann.00238 Cavallo. May). K. October). A short measure of transformational leadership. L. 565–76.57 .1111/0022-4537. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.eiconsortium. M.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. & Brienza. and subordinate perspectives. J.6. B. L. Georgia State University. Journal of Business and Psychology. Retrieved August 10. Retrieved from http://www. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. C. L. Byron.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. (2001). L. Doctoral dissertation.htm 145 .. (2000). 14(3).. (2003). (1989). (2002). A. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. (2005). & Kaemmer.1037/0022-3514.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. leader... 887–902. J. (1997). & Monroe. A. J. Butler.org/-report. 39(11/12). No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. G. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.eiconsortium . L.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. 725– 741. doi: 10. 213–237. doi: 10. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Gender and social influence. A. Journal of Management. (2008. Colorado State University. 389–405. 56(4).. (1998). Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). K. Graham. Retrieved from http://www.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. Doctoral dissertation. L. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. Retrieved from http://www. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. C.964 Carli. S. D. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Journal of Social Issues.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Retrieved from http//www. 23(3). doi: 10.. D. R. S.aspx Cherniss.

com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. M.. (1999). B. Retrieved August 31. from Answers. A. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Drucker. Dixon. 17–29..answers. B.233 Eagly. & Johnson. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. 735–744. A.. Public Personnel Management. (2002). J. Jolson. doi: 10. E. J. & Johnson. Achieving results through transformational leadership. Yammarino. Driskell. Miner. R.. D. Journal of Business Research.108. 5(2). doi: 10. New York: HarperCollins. Karau. Eagly. 55(6). E (1999). C. New York: Hill.1037/0033-2909. Eden. 341–372. Mayfield. 31(4). 523–530. Journal of Nursing Administration. 146 . Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. H. D. & Swerdlik.com Web site: http://www.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 233–256. 108(2). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.. & Higgs. E. J. Copeland.Chief executive officer.. & Salas. D. F.d. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2002). B. 45(4). Dulewicz. (1999). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. V. P. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. 135–159.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. (1994). doi: 10. 29(12). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. (1990). T. & Spangler. (n. S. Mountain View.. Gender and reactions to dominance. 17–21. 10(6). Academy of Management Journal. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 53–68.. H.. & Shamir.). A theory of leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly. K. W. A. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. (2002)... J. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. CA. J. L. Management challenges for the 21st century. D. M.. (2000). doi: 10. B. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 467–480. Avolio. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Dearborn. 2008. B. M... Dubinsky. 15(4).2. A. (1967). Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 15(2). (1995). F. J. J. Psychological Bulletin.

J. & Martell.). Z. New York: Basic Books. Working with emotional intelligence. 222–227. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. M. (1983). doi: 10. (1995). (1988).pdf Hay/McBer. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. (1998). (2004). 15(3). (2005).edu/login?url http://search. Block.. (1995). (2000). P. L..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. (2004). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. C. A.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. & Rawles. J. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). O.ebscohost. F. New York: Bantam. Virginia Commonwealth University.capella. B. (1995). 741–748. R. Frankel. London: Routledge. 17–25.org/?fa=main.apa. Gohm. Retrieved from http://www. Doctoral dissertation. (2001).. doi: 10. Saunders. O. Retrieved from http://www. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. & Bass. 10(3).695 Hay Group. 10(6). C.dfee. (2008). R. 237–252. L. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http://psycnet. E. (2003). D. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library. Social skills in interpersonal communication.. Psychological Inquiry.73.htm Hargie..haygroup. ECI fact card. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.com/login.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman.. J. H. W. Hater. CA: Sage. C. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. L. Gellis. Journal of Applied Psychology.Field. A. 73(4). Thousand Oaks. & Dickson. New York: Warner Business Books.4.1037/0021-9010.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. M.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Grubb. 25(1). Social Work Research. D.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http://www. Furnham. 695–702. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.gov.

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

Retrieved from http://ezproxy. R. Retrieved from http://basepath. Journal of Research and Technology Management.pdf Law.Judge. C. & Jantzi. P.3.483 Leithwood.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. D. 125(4). R. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.com/login. P. 542–552.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. Reiter-Palmon.542 Judge.89.com/cda/media/ 0. S. Colbert.. N. B. (2005). (2004). doi: 10. A.1037/0021-9010. 89(3). Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. Transformational leaders make a difference.. B. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. doi: 10. (1996).library. doi: 10. Salovey.. R.113 Lowe. 41–44. S. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.1037/0021-9010. 89(5). J.. & Piccolo. June). Emotion. Wong. K.5. K. & Rickers. R. & Ilies. 112–129. Noack.. 38(3).. B. doi: 10. doi: 10.wiley. M. (2004). Côté.. 38(2).. (1995). N. A. & Sivasubramaniam.. 20(2).1037/0021-9010. doi: 10.. (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 12(3).1037/15283542. T. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.89.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.1. 113–118. L. 385–425. Current Psychology. & Beers. & Song. 89(3). 615–626.755 Kaufhold.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. T. J.5. K. J.. Leadership Quarterly. E. G. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.. (2001).89. 483–496. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. A. (2000).1108/09578230010320064 Lopes..15304. L.capella. Z. 154–163. Education. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. R. & Posner. G. (2005). Kirkcaldy. European Psychologist. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. D. & Johnson. doi: 10. L. 173–180.3.edu/login?url=http://search. A.ebsco host. F. 755–768.. K.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 .. 7(3). P. M. doi: 10. Furnham. (2000. M.. Journal of Educational Administration. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Siefen.. (2004). S. 5(1)..00. A. Kroeck.

F. D. R. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). & White. C. & Pherwani.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . Salovey. M. G.. 61.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. (UMI No.capella. S. 15(3).1146/annurev. S. Retrieved from http://www.. D. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Caruso. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.. Mayer. J. R.edu/login?url=http://search. D. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence.15... The anthropology of emotions. D. Journal of Research in Personality. 253–296. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. doi: 10.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. Salovey. (2002).. (2004).. 9970564) Mandell.100186. R. P. doi: 10. 197–215. Mayer. 27(4). Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. J.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.). Sluytrer (Eds.. What is emotional intelligence? In P. G. 179–196.capella. (2003).capella. J. and implications. Carlsmith.edu/login?url=http://search. D. Psychological Inquiry. D.an. D. Journal of Business and Psychology.Lutz. P. Retrieved from http://www.com/login. J. P. About the MSCEIT. Emotional intelligence: Theory. J. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. (2002). 405–436. M. & Salovey. Ontario. 15(2). Salovey & D. D. (1986). Toronto. Roberts. M. Seven myths about emotional intelligence.ebscohost. Mathews. findings. Caruso. D. 267–298. (1999).library. 17(3). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.. B. & Chabot... & Caruso. New York: Basic Books. Psychological Inquiry. doi: 10.. D. & Salovey. D. 05B. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. (2000).library. (1997). J. Annual Review of Anthropology. 32(3). (1998).com/ login. American Sociological Review.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer.ebscohost. & Zeidner. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison.sciencedirect.library.com . (2004a). M. 387–404.002201 Malek. H. Intelligence.unh. 15(3). 67(1). R.. P. Dissertation Abstracts International. 71). K. 1–29. (2007). J.

iier. The International Journal of Conflict Management.com/login . L.au/iier14/perry. & Stacey. N.com Web site: http://www. 22(1). L.. (2004). C. (2001). M.library. Retrieved from http://www. Z. Salovey. Oatley. 27(5).. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. D..1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. CA: Academic Press. K. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. doi: 10.. Retrieved August 31. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 381–400.capella. Saklofske. Measurement and control of response bias. Inc. from Answers. 14(1). J. D. R. C. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. P. 15(3). Issues in Educational Research. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. 17–59).com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden.). R.. E. (1997). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. Wood. (2003). S.edu/login? url=http://search. L. D. & Stough.. MLQ international norms. L. A. Psychological Inquiry. Wrightsman (Eds. Psychological Inquiry. S. 15(3). 335–344. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.d. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. Shaver.Mayer. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. San Diego. Robinson. (n. & Fuller. Walls. & Caruso. 5–10. Jones. Retrieved from http://www.. N. M.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. Burgess. 216–238. J. In J. J.. Perry. H. doi: 10. Journal of Nursing Administration. & Carsky. (2002). 249–255. (2004b). D.04..html 151 . Journal of Individual Differences.022 Paulhus.. I. (1991). Parker.edu/login?url=http://search.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. Eastabrook. J. D. 24(6).. 100–106. (2005).library.org.ebscohost. doi: 10.capella. R.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. B.answers. (2004). 27–34.1016 /j.. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. 26(2). 29–43. P. M. 2008. B.ebscohost. & Taylor.. 13(4). R.2006. Ball.mind garden.paid. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses.). (2004).pdf Morrison. M.. R. & L.

& Furnham. Purkable. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Petrides. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Furnham.com/login. M. and team outcomes. K. Douglas.htm Rivera Cruz.capella. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. European Journal of Personality.4. B. K. C. Retrieved from http://www.. Supervision (6th ed. M. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation. K. 60(4). W. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis.. 119–125. M. 744–755. Prati. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. V. doi: 10. Emotional intelligence. V. R. R. Sex Roles. (2003b).60. 68(6). (2001). P. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent.. 42(5/6). R. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Emotional intelligence. 425–448. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. L.1016/j. J. 41–62. Plunkett (Ed.1002/per. Douglas.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Catholic University of America. R. T. M. (1990). A. 449–461. (2003a).1037/0022-3514. (2007). doi: 10. R. R.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 363–369. L.2007. R. leadership effectiveness. & McRae. Doctoral dissertation. In W. B.eiconsortium. Case Western Reserve University.. 15(6). Ammeter.leaqua.eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . doi: 10. & Buckley. C.. J. Ammeter.. P. L. Prati. A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. & Heinitz.. (2003).. V. R.library. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS..ebsco host. Ferris.416 Piedmont. 11(4). (1991). R. Leadership Quarterly.edu/login?url=http://search. A. (1992).01. (2004).htm Rosener. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. G.630 Plunkett. pp. & Buckley. A.). Harvard Business Review. 323–351). 18(2). T.. (2000). Leadership and management styles. Ways women lead... 121–133. L. 11(1). P. G. Costa. Retrieved from http://www. Ferris..003 152 .Petrides.

N. Zeidner. (1990).org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. W. Hall. J. Malouff. J.. G..3. (2001). E.ebscohost. D. J. Comment on Roberts. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.1.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. 243–248.unh.. (2000).capella. Schulte. Personality and Individual Differences. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. (1998). F. (1990). and socialization.).capella. 1(3). from Answers. E.com/login. Cognition.com. doi: 10.. Emotion. J.. J.). 74(3). Gender & Class.d. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Race.3..org/ Salovey.. Golden. D. J. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. L. 693–703. K. A.Rudman. D. (n.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http:// www. (2003). 21–31.. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.sciencedirect. & Mayer. M. B. and Matthews (2001). & Geroy.library.library. Schaie. emotions... (2001). Hunt. Doctoral dissertation. doi: 10. 629–645. Race. Hopkins. Our Lady of the Lake University. E. S.com Web site: http://www.629 Sala. 9(3). 9(4). J. Retrieved August 31. 25(2). Retrieved from http://www. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract].243 Schermerhorn. W.eiconsortium. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. J.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. P. 94– 110. & Bass. and Personality.74.pdf Sanders.. doi: 10. et al. (2002). M. 185–211. J. T. Cooper.answers. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Organizational behavior (7th ed. Journal of Management. New York: Wiley. M. J. Emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http:// www.com/topic/senior-management Smith. Retrieved from http://www. (2003).. 16(4). R. & Osborn. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.edu/login?url=http://search .htm Schutte. Imagination. (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Haggerty. C.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . 2008. J.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. 167–177.1037/1528-3542. L. Retrieved from ProQuest database. E.1037/0022-3514. 9(4)...

Tucker..023 154 . S. K.C. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. Douthitt.%20(1998) Snodgrass.A..% 20&%20McDaniel. S.capella. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). D. & Megerian.. (2000). U.. Dallas.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy.. J.Smith. Retrieved from ProQuest database. W. L.S.bls. J. Vandenberghe. 75(6). & Plemons. doi: 10. & McCarthy. (2000). & Viswesvaran.cgi Tabachnick.05. 367–390. (2008).ovid. B. & McDaniel. F.se/default.pdf U.paid.S. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. (1999). (2002). (1998. Retrieved from http://www. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.. Retrieved from http://www. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2005). Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Z. 2002.%20M. J. 49(1).. April). Ellis. C.aspx?search=Smith. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. doi: 10. TX.). MA: Allyn and Bacon. L.tx.. G. A. 331–338. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance.. 24(3).siop. Department of Labor. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. M.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. (2005). C.%20K. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. S. J. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.J. Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of Education for Business.. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from http://www.. Journal of Allied Health. L. Barone. 689–700. Group & Organization Management.kandidata. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.Needham Heights.org/Search. 37(1). R. C. E.. 37–43.2004. M.. J. A. 18–14. Alonso. L. J. (2001). Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. M.library.bls. Nursing Research. Census Bureau of Labor. & D’hoore.com. Bureau of Labor Statistics.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. 38(3). & Fidell. Sosik. Sojka.edu/spb/ovidweb. S . A. S. Wade.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.1016/j.

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

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 .

000.00 More than $150.000.000.00 Between $100.000.00 and $70.00 and $100.00 158 .00 Between $40.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 Between $70.000.000.000.00 and $150.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful