This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, 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
© Michael A. Syndell, 2008
Abstract The U. The purpose of this cross-sectional. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. .033. 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.000 billion annually. and healthcare professions. education. In addition. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. predicts that by 2010. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. 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. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style.S. Department of Labor. there will be approximately 10.
Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . . . and to my Grandparents. who laid the cornerstone of my being. iii .
. To my original mentor. for making this research possible. . And to my family and friends who have . . Lori La Civita.Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. you my friend have been a gift from God. to Dr. Dr. . . 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 . for the most part (smile!) . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. . . and to Dr. to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . and your respected members who participated. . . I love you all! iv . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . Joseph Damiani. . With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . who helped me start this journey. 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 . . . Bruce Gillies. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. . thank you sincerely. .
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
Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. TLS Component Scores: U. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. 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 . 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. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Group Norms vs. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Comparison of Low. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11.List of Tables Table 1.S.
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. Comparison of Low.Table 19. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .
U.033. and retain the best talent. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1 . INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. 1988).S. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 1999. Ireland & Hitt. The U. 1999). Hitt. Specifically. education. 1990). & Olivo. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).373 billion (Herman. Department of Labor. Herman. 1997. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1998). 1997. companies must compete to find. 2003. Department of Labor. develop.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. higher group performance levels (Keller. attract. 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.CHAPTER 1. Drucker. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 1995). and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 2000. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass.S. 2005). Gioia.
conflict resolution styles (Malek. Therefore.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. 1999). research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS.S. and the need to effectively identify. 2001). Mandell & Pherwani. 1998). and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. Caruso. Mayer. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. 2002. Ogilvie & Carsky. 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. 1998). 2000. & Salovey. Goleman.. 1999. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 1998. Hay/McBer. Goleman. Sala. 2000. Furthermore. Mandell & Pherwani. 2 . 2003. 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. 2000). as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. select and retain such personnel. 2003). 1997.
In addition. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. job profiling. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. 3 . Rationale Existing research on whether. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. Hay/McBer. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 2003). 1998. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. 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. if any. 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. recruitment interviewing. selection and management development. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style.
In addition. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. 2. 4 . 3. if a relationship is found to exist. 4. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 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. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1.
2002). Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. and relate to others. understand. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. Stress Management and Mood. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. Interpersonal. self-actualization. Executive Management. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. the ability to deal with strong emotions. and express oneself. reality testing and problem solving. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). In 5 . The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. 2002). independence and assertiveness. Adaptability. social responsibility and interpersonal relations. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. understand. 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. 1998). whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. Emotional Intelligence (EI). including the ability to be aware of. self-regard. making major corporate decisions. the ability to be aware of.
and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. mission. Leadership. and strategies (Schermerhorn. and the Director of Human Resources. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. Intellectual Capital (IC). The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer.). whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. 6 . The sum total of knowledge. n. expertise. & Osborn.d. each of which has specific functional responsibilities.). which are generally shortterm ones. and energy available within organizations members. Middle Management. 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. how it can be done effectively. Leadership Style. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. 2002).d. Chief Marketing Officer.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. Hunt. 2000). 2002). Chief Operating Officer. Chief Information Officer. n. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. which may enhance organizational outputs.
and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). intentions. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward.Multiple Intelligences. 2004). and (e) Individualized Consideration. musical. 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 .. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. environmental. (c) Inspirational Motivation. including verbal. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. Group. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). 1998). and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. and three outcome constructs. Senior Management. (b) Individual. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. and Organizational Effectiveness. movement oriented. 2000). have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). spatial. three constructs of transactional leadership. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. mathematical. 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. one nontransactional leadership construct. Retention.
and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. (d) participants 8 . EQi. which involves motivating individual/organizational change. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study.). 1997). and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). and the Demographic Questionnaire. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. 1998). Social Skills. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). (b) Inspirational Motivation. cooperation). n. The ability to get people to want to change. 1998). to improve.operations that are generally of a long-term nature.d. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. and to be led. nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. Social Intelligence. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass.
and multivariate procedures. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. Since data will be collected at one time point. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. such as linear regression will 9 . 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. the results might not be applicable to employees of industries located in other parts of the United States or to those in other countries developing and marketing goods and services. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. Univariate statistical techniques. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. Secondly. interest or motivation to respond. First. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. thus skewing the pattern of responses. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. Finally. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. That is. such as correlational analyses.
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 . including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi.be used. statistical analysis. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. Transformational Leadership. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. variable. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. or outcome. The dependent. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study.
EI. 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 Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . their relationship. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. PsycARTICLES. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. PsycINFO. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. using numerous multiple key word searches. Emotional Intelligence. A summary concludes the chapter. and (e) gender and EQI. and gender. Academic Search Premier. 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. Business Source Premier. transformational leadership style (TLS). EQi. and psychology journals. and a synthesis of research findings. (b) leadership. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship.CHAPTER 2. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. and gender. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS.
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. 1985. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 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. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 2006.gender. 1995). Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 1999). Bass & Avolio. 12 . 1988). 22 articles were relevant to this study. higher group performance (Keller. Goleman. In addition. along with several books and dissertations. and dissertations. 1995. Specifically. 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. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 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. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. In total. books.
or traits. 2002). 1990). Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. cooperative. charming. popular. tall. Social characteristics include being charismatic. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged.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. 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). adaptable. tactful. energetic. Personality traits include being self-confident. of leaders such as personality. motives. These early leadership theories were content theories. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. assertive. and handsome. social. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. values. not on “how” to effectively lead. However. and emotionally stable. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. and diplomatic. Task-related 13 . Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. and skills (Yukl.
Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Furthermore. integrity. 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. Thus.characteristics include being driven to excel. having initiative. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. the characteristics of the followers. 14 . the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. no leader possesses all of the traits. and the nature of the external environment. and being results-oriented. 2002). levels of management. Yukl (1989. 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. No two leaders are alike. the type of organization. self-confidence. desire to lead. intelligence. accepting of responsibility. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. leading to the concept of situational leadership. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). 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) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. and cultures.
The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. 15 . Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. considerate and initiating structure. 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). 2002). the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. and student leaders. As a result. consistently appeared. or emotional traits. termed consideration and initiating structure. manufacturing companies. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. 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. Initiating structure. college administrators. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. mental. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. Two factors. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role.
and providing for subordinates welfare. As a result. 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. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. 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. Unfortunately. and coordinating the work of subordinates. an employee orientation and a production orientation. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. Like trait research. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. being supportive. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. organizing. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s.involves planning. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness.
It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. task structure. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. 17 . contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. 1967). 2002). Fiedler offers two leadership styles. leader-member relations. Together. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. and those that are motivated by relationship. and position power. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. those that are motivated by task. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead.
Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. 1993). Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. Furthermore. S3. D3. Four leadership styles (S1. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. and strong leader position power. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. and weak leader position power. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. unstructured tasks.defined tasks. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). and D4). leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. 2002). S2. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. However. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. D2. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable).
Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. being supportive. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. work standards. 1993). 2002). and providing for their welfare. Specifically. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. recognizing followers accomplishments. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. such as trait. and situational variables (Yukl. either transactional or transformational. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization.and directivity (S2). Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. Hersey & Blanchard. influence processes. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. low-directive style (S3). and outcomes. However. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Finally. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. behavior.
organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. threats. reproof. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. inspirational motivation. 1985. 1990. 1997. and individualized consideration (Bass. 1990). 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. 2004). In contingent rewarding behavior. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. praise. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. In contrast. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. or disciplinary actions. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). intellectual stimulation. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. Bass & Avolio. Or they are corrected by negative feedback. and reward. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. Transformational leadership contains four components. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. 20 . who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass.
as these multiple leadership theories 21 . 52). 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. unlike Burns. Sanders. However. in Bass’s view. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. the integrative theory of leadership research.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e.g. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. 2003. Judge & Piccolo. In addition. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. p. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. Yukl. 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 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. 2003.. behavioral. Hopkins & Geroy. Furthermore. “cognitive. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. 1989). behavior. 2004. 76). and situational/contingency variables. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving.
and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. 1990. 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. weaknesses. Bennis. 2000). Leithwood & Jantzi. the organization’s strengths. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 1985.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. and comparative advantages. However. focusing on a common purpose. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. 22 . 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. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. 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.
Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. Over time. 1993). The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. and emphasize the importance of purpose. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . transformational. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. and the ethical consequences of decisions. 2000). & D’hoore. cooperation. 1992). intellectual stimulation. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. 1993). in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. commitment. idealized influence (behavior). 1999). present their most important values. idealized influence (attributed). emphasize trust. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. transformational leaders inspire the confidence. transactional. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. and individualized consideration. respect. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). while at the same time winning their respect. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. take stands on difficult issues. loyalty. Transformational leadership. Vandenberghe. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. inspirational motivation. confidence.
Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. further their development. consider their individual needs. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. 2004). Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. listen attentively. Further. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. abilities and aspirations. traditions. Cannella and Monroe 24 . talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. 1999). stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. followed by action planning. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. and creativity (Dixon). Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. expert resources. meticulousness. challenge followers with high standards. will-do attitude. Second. 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. and beliefs.(Bass & Avolio. and advise and coach. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.
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). negotiate for resources. management-by-exception (active). Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. reports. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. and 25 . exchange assistance for effort. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. Laissez-faire leadership. 1995). Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. contingent reward. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. are absent when needed. laissez-faire. Transactional leadership. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. fail to follow up requests for assistance. 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 resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. exchange promises and resources. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. clarify expectations. and management-by-exception (passive). conferences. Although they may not be close by.
2004. Jolson. 2001.e. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. 2003. Bass. using the MLQ-360 assessment. Bryant. In addition. 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.. A research study by Dubinsky. Jung. 1992). and commercial organizations. 2003. Ellis. & Sivasubramaniam. Douthitt. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. Wade. Yammarino. Gellis. health care. it does have its place under the right circumstances. Bass & Avolio. 2008). Avolio. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. 2003.productivity records. & Berson. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. educational. The 26 . Snodgrass. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. & Plemons. Avolio. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. subordinates reported about their managers. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves.
and job satisfaction.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. Fifth. Third. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. Lowe. using a sample of 275 nurses. Jones. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Kroeck. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. 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. Second. organizational perception. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. the sample size must have been reported. leader/unit perception. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. The results of a study by Morrison. 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. 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. First. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Fourth. and its effect on job satisfaction.
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
Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. and 1 unpublished data set). studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. and vision. dissertations. Comer. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. 1996. communication and team performance. Avolio. Carless. & Jolson. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Yammarino. Dubinsky.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. and laissez-faire leadership. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. In total. & Atwater. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. charismatic leadership. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . transactional. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. 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. 18 dissertations. Similarly. 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. the more effective the team will be. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. Bass. 1998. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. book chapters. 1994.
Chew. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. food. administered a total of 1. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). including subjective assessment of organizational performance. and criterion validity of two instruments. electrical equipment. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. automotive parts. A survey study by Zhu.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). 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. computer services. pulp and paper. and electronics industries). home appliances. transactional. and organizational outcomes. chemical. divergent. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. These 32 . was explored. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. the convergent. textile and clothing. pharmaceutical. absenteeism. More specifically.
. trust. With regard to criterion validity. are defined as follows: 1. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. has been used in more than 200 research programs. 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.. Leadership types. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Moreover. Form 5X.e. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches.g. and faith 33 . subjective (e. The latest version of the MLQ.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio.g.. as measured on the MLQ. over and above transactional leadership. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.
2004). Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. c. e. c.b. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others.74 to . 34 . exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. c. b. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. b. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. 2.94. d. Idealized Influence (Behaviors): living your ideals Inspirational Motivation: inspiring others Intellectual Stimulation: stimulating others Individualized Consideration: coaching and development Transactional Leadership: Transactional leaders display behaviors associated with the following measured leadership scale scores: a. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a.
it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. Wearing. 1990. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. & Mann.) The MLQ has individual subtests. Carless. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Kouzes & Posner. 1995). which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. with four questions for each scale. 2004).The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 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. 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. Transactional leadership has three scales. However. 1995). where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. 2000). (The researcher only used the self-rating form. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. Bass & Avolio.
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.. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. and attention to individual needs. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. On the other hand.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. 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. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. such as participatory decision making.g. praising individual and team contributions. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. However. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. which is what 36 .
some of which are contradictory. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. 2004a).accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). Indeed. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. Carless reasoned. and to read and direct them in other people. 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. Salovey. & Caruso. EI refers to an ability to understand the meaning of emotions and their relationships and to think and engage in problem solving on the basis of emotions. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. However. 2003). exist. numerous definitions. 37 . since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. On the other hand.
2000. 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. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). 2000. mental processes: 1.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. or repressed within others. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. From these characteristics. 38 . argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. 3. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. These two definitions. Mayer & Salovey. Mayer et al. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. 2004a. to distinguish among them. 2000). Sojka. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Vitello-Cicciu. Barone. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. & McCarthy. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. Tucker et al. 2003). which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. but interrelated. 2. 1997.. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions..
Roberts. they claimed. and psychologically based definitions of EI. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. emotional intelligence. For this reason. and empirically valid definitions. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. Mathews et al. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. These issues are explored next. not of empirically validated. they hold that EI escapes definition. cohesive. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. Mayer et al. 2004b). but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. is problematic. conceptually coherent.Although this is a clear definition. Gohm. In particular. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. Mathews et al. 2004.. Thus. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. 39 . 2004a. (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. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. EI Controversies Mathews. culminating in the formation. 2004. and the multiple social science fields on the other. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions.
in these writers view. immaterial. 2002). based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. physiologically evidenced. The denial of emotions.Reflecting on Mathews et al. emotion is a scientifically valid. Rather. Oatley (2004) noted that Van Brakel listed 22 different definitions for the concept as a way of showing the inherent difficulties involved in the task of defining emotions. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. During the 6 million years of human evolution. Massey argued. 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. and measurable construct. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions..’s (2004) argument. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. However. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. In this view. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. in Gohm’s view. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. Mayer et al. others (Gohm. 2004. Oatley.
there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. For example. it a learnable skill. 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). Massey. Indeed. 1986. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. Mayer et al. 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. 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 . interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. 2004b) reported. In contrast. noted. (2004a. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. 1986. 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. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 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. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. 2000). 2002). though an inherent capacity. In this view.
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
possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. Van Rooy. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. 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). although inconsistent. Smith). These are the test of EI 45 . Results of these studies. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Measuring EI Schutte et al. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. In contrast. In a study by J. Schutte et al. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. E.(2000) theory of human values. Smith (2002). Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. intrapersonal. Alonso. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. E. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics.
the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. currently in its second revised version. 1998) which focuses on ability. 2007). Côté. and peers. 2002) test. the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. For these reasons. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. In addition. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. the most important are the second and third competencies.). Boyatzis. Bar-On. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. 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). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. according to the publisher. self-awareness. and social skills. Salovey. Mayer. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. collected from superiors. & Chabot. colleagues. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. 2005). However. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. self-management. According to Goleman. Carlsmith. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. social awareness. 2008). & Beers. the ability to 46 . Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool.competencies.
. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. The five composite 47 . it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes.91 (Mayer. two Area scores. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. and convergent validity as well. Eastabrook. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. As noted by Parker et al. 2005).understand the meaning of different types of emotions. 2001). The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. other measurement instruments. Consequently. Bar-On. 2002).). The test has excellent reliability (r = . however. Petrides & Furnham.. Total EI score.79–. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. four Branch scores. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. & Taylor. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. Wood. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker.. Mayer et al.93). (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. with r’s ranging from . and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. discriminant. Saklofske. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. It yields 15 main scores. 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. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. 2007).
(Bar-On. Parker et al. stress management. p.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5. and Watkin (2000).] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4. Specifically.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed. 2006. adaptability.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a. others and life in general.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. (2005).] Happiness: To feel content with oneself. understand and accept oneself [b. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001). these are [1.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 .] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. 2001).scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal.] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.
Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. However. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. Moreover. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential.import of each set and subset in it. like many self-report inventories. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. 2003. Kobe. honest and faking good. 2004. Wong & Song. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. Judge. Law. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. a situational judgment test. Colbert. C. research has also indicated that. the nature of EI and its development over time.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. and understanding of. 2004. Mandell & Pherwani. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. 2001. 2003). Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. 2003). & Ilies.
In addition. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. 2003). It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. 2004... According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2001. Mandell & Pherwani.. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. relationships. Law et al.). 2004. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. p. 2003). As a social phenomenon. 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.ingredient of leadership. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. 2003. Judge et al. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. From the sociological perspective. Kobe et al. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. 2001. Mandell & Pherwani. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . 155).). others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al.. and mutual benefits. as cited in Kobe et al.. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. 2003). While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable.
stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. Thus. Rather. (2004) argued. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. they argue. (2004). Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. as further contended by Law and colleagues. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Judge 51 . EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. As Law et al. Kobe et al. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. 2003. trust. loyalty. leaders are created by followers. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. However. This is an important distinction. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities.to inspire the support. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. According to Judge 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... In short. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. and optimism. Mandell & Pherwani. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. 2001. such as anger and pessimism. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. 52 . leaders who display negative emotions. In other words. such as support. 2002). arouse similar feelings in team members. they have emotional intelligence). 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. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. 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.. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. enthusiasm. Law et al. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. Kobe et al. Dearborn. On the other hand.et al. 2003). 2004. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough).
2002) was used to measure EI.. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. as Prati et al. Douglas. However. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. Costa.. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . Ferris. and others (Dearborn. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. 2003b). 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. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. 2003a. 2002) argued.g. Prati.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. For example. According to Antonakis (2003). Ammeter. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. & McRae. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. leadership style. However. Bass & Avolio. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. & Buckley. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence.
. 2003. Indeed. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. Specifically. 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. Law et al. (2003a) point out. However. 2004. transformational leadership. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. 2001. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. Mandell & Pherwani. Judge et al. 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.. Kobe et al. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. 2004. 2003). That is. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 .. 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. as Prati et al. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence.
and manager success (Hopkins. gender. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. These are reviewed as follows. 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. with mixed results. 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. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. contingent reward leadership. 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. Using performance ratings and demographic data. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. EI. Leadership. 2005). subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. coping (Purkable. Regarding raters perceptions. 2003). Specifically. and management tenure 55 . Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. title. 2003).management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. Position. 2003). contingent reward leadership.
and whether men and women executives differed in EI. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. 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. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. Influence. In addition to the MSCEIT. MSCEIT subscore 4. In each of these areas. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. Inspirational Leadership. and SelfConfidence. leadership practices. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. and coping mechanisms. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 .were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. Emotional Self-Control. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. leadership practices. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. and coping mechanisms. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. Specifically. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge.
No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. 57 . managerial and nonmanagerial employees. As noted previously.avoidance coping. but not male. 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. leadership styles. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. 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. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. The study used self and other ratings of EI. Specifically. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. 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. 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. and success.
Schutte et al. to be successful. Kobe et al. 1997. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 1988). as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies. 1990. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. In addition. 2003. 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.g.. Goleman. 58 .. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998). must behave more androgynously. Women leaders. 1998). However. On the other hand. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles).g. 2004.. 2003. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different.... showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. on the other hand. Hater & Bass. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. 2004. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. Law et al. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. Judge et al. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. 2001. 1998.
the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. 2007). Petrides & Furnham. Mandell & Pherwani. To summarize.e. 1998.. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. Further. Schutte et al.’s (2005) studies.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. and (a) if so. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. 2004). Mandell & Pherwani. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. E. The latter findings are supported by J. as with transformational leadership style. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. 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. 59 . 2000. However. 2000. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups. 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. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. 2003). Thus.. Hay/McBer. 1999. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al.. Moreover.
the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. data analysis. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. procedures used in addressing the research questions. sample selection. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group.CHAPTER 3. recruiters. 1999). an online business contact marketplace where marketers. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative.. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. using e-mail communications. data collection instruments and study variables. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). if any. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship.
formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. food and beverage. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. and a host of other business and service providers. nonprofit. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. three constructs of transactional leadership. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. health care. 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. market. legal services. For the purpose of this research 61 . 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). financial services. phone. and the use of U. 2004). and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. e-mail. advertising and marketing. Senior. ranging in size from small to large. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio.S. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. Executives. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership.
as well as their ethnicity and income level. 62 . (c) Adaptability. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. 2002). (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB).study. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). In brief. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. (b) Interpersonal. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. (d) Stress Management. and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. 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. Independent Variables Emotional Intelligence (EI) served as the independent or predictor variable in this study and were measured by the Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females.
2004): 1. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. with a strong sense of purpose. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. 5. respected and trusted. principles. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 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. mentoring and growth opportunities. 4. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). and values. 3. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership.81 to .080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. 2004) and was based on data from 2. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions.53 to . Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying.96. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . The testretest reliabilities ranged from . 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.85. 2. Followers identify with and want to emulate them.
sometimes = 2. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On.73 to . The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. if not always).coefficients for each leadership factor. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score.94 (Bass & Avolio).” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. if not always = 4. fairly often = 3. once in a while = 1. For example. and to successfully cope with daily demands. challenges and pressures. rather than performance or success itself. However. to understand and relate well with others. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. 2002). 2004). all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success.000 respondents from the United 64 . participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. The coefficients ranged from . The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. consisting of four items each. or frequently. therefore. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio.
Version 12. and their associated subcomponents. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. MHS Inc. Flexibility. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years.. 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). (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. Social Responsibility. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. and Self-Actualization. Emotional Self-Awareness. were reported as . 2002). 2002). 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. 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.85 (n = 44) and .75 (n = 27. Assertiveness. Independence. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. and Interpersonal Relationship. 65 . respectively. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Bar-On. 2002).States and Canada. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. to obtain a Total EQ. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. and Problem Solving. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing.
race/ethnicity. In this current study all online survey responses. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. the purpose of research. education level. the criteria needed to be met for participation. age. the risk and benefits of participation. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. 66 . and number of direct reports under supervision. the expected time of completion. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. 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. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. years employed by current organization. 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. years held in current position.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. title best describing the respondent’s current position. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. industry.
Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. 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 . the MLQ assessment.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent.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). 2.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. individual data were not made available. 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). Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.
H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.3. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will 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? 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.
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. the MLQ. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. All e-mail addresses submitted by gatekeepers were put into an Excel file with a 2 header row consisting of e-mail addresses and the other assigning a unique ID Code. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner. 69 . These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. and the Bar-On EQi). and pen/paper copies were shredded. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file.e. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation.
Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. after submitting consent. In addition. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. 70 . and required. 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). 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. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. 2006) ethical standards.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. naked to the participants eye. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. All data collected were pooled for analysis. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 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.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA.
Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field.. p. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. p. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable.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. as appropriate. 667). t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Finally. Analyses examining group differences (e. 72). 2005. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. outliers.g. 2005. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. p. p. missing and out-of. This was followed by univariate analyses. Errors in scoring/data entry.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . 2005. p. When necessary. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 571). 94). 65).
were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. 72 . 2005. In addition. and. 160). p. p. Expected Findings The results of this research was to indicate whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. 170). if so. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. as well as to control for the effects of gender. 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.
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. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. 2. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. As previous research. 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. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses.CHAPTER 4. while not substantial.
HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. and if so. the nature and strength of that association. 3. 74 .H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents 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. 4. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI 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.
Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 94). and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 72). If necessary. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field.. as appropriate. 75 . 65). p.g. 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. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. p. p. 2005. missing and out-of. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. Errors in scoring/data entry. outliers. or scaled variables. 2005.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. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field.
2 5.3 8.8 1.7 7.Table 1.7 20.4 3.8 3.2 2.1 10.8 2.1 25.4 24.9 12.5 5.0 11.7 5.5 45.1 39.7 10.2 55.7 29.1 11.2 12.8 5.6 76 .9 6.5 4.6 16.1 22.4 19. 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 3.7 5.
7 31. East Asian.8 More than $150.000 17 10.7 16. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.7 34.9 1.Table 1.1 9.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.5 4.4 8.8 Between $70–100.2 10.25 85.7 2.000 55 34.9 65. **Includes Pacific Islander.6 Between $100–150.000 15 9. maximum age 67.1 32. 77 . SD = 8.8 Between $40–70.9 12. Arabic or other. Minimum age 24.3 12. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.20). American Indian.9 10.7 Current income Less than $40.3 20. N = 158.9 2.5 1.70.000 23 14.000 44 27. 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 32.0 2.
n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.15 direct reports. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.2%. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.6%. n = 78).9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.1%. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 103). the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 106).000 per annum (49. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. for-profit organization. In terms of supervision responsibilities.7%.4%. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. from between 3–6 to more than 16. n = 121) in a private. The sample of the population in this study has an average.95 years of college education. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. or mean of 3.000–$100. Most respondents earned from $40. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.32 subordinates. and a median of 5. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). 25. 78 . Notably. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. n = 72). This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.4%. Addressing racial diversity. However.6%. n = 135) male (60.
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.86 (SD = 13.77 years. with a nearly identical median of 48. 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. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 105. Adaptability.63 (SD = 12.97 (SD = 13. 102. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Summed TLS Score.49).02 (SD = 13. Intrapersonal. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.41).730. 107. 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 3.00).85). The mean age of the subjects is 48. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. As far as income.05).02 (SD = 13. 103. Stress Management. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Interpersonal.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. For the income this is going to be most apparent. the mean income was $68.900 and the median was $54. 79 . Total EQi Score. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.65 years. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. EQi component scores were. 105.01). and General Mood Components.49 (SD = 14. in descending order.
17 104.70 13.61 105.86 12.46 102.04 12.97 13.45 13.85 12.93 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.63 103.62 13.36 Total EQi Score 105.74 13.02 102.73 12.00 12.28 103.49 13.66 14.Table 2.63 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.01 13.86 106.21 105. 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 107.44 13.67 13.31 103.02 105. 80 .41 106.49 103. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.19 13.41 12.54 103.61 102. N = 157.52 103.60 14.64 107.05 14.66 101.
N = 157.95 (SD = 0. 2.08 3.35 3.35 (SD = 0.18 (SD = 0.57). 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. 3.13 3.09 3.53). 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).57 0.99 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0. 2.58). 3.63). and Intellectual Stimulation.52). Inspirational Motivation. 3.13 (SD = 0. Individualized Consideration.04 (SD = 0.26 3.08 (SD = 0.Table 3. Mind Garden. 2004).57 0.57). Idealized Influence (Attributed). which are as follows. 2. TLS component scores were. 3.18 SD 0.58 0.59 0.63 0. Individualized Consideration.96 (SD = 0. Inspirational Motivation.59). Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. Idealized Influence (Behavior).59).26 (SD = 0.59).59). norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.59 Note. Intellectual Stimulation.52. 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).09 (SD = 0. 81 .S. 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. Idealized Influence (Attributed). in descending order.
53 0. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .13 3.99 3.58 0.16 SD 0.52 M 3.09 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.08 3.95 2. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.59 0. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.04 2.59 0.e. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.96 3. **N = 3. Norm group** M 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. of a distribution (i.59 0. or scaled variables. Group Norms vs.63 0.52 0.Table 4.57 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. Skew represents the even-ness..375. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. TLS Component Scores: U.18 3. 2001).S.55 0.59 0.26 3.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.35 SD 0. or symmetry.02 2.
respectively. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.83. with skew > +/–2. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.16. Intellectual Stimulation = –. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. Inspirational Motivation = –. (c) Stress Management = .80. (b) Interpersonal = .70. (b) MLQ 23 = –18.104.22.168.0. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . (c) Inspirational Motivation = . Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.67. (d) Adaptability = . and not individual MLQ items. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.40.61.06. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. and (e) General Mood = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.73. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .78.67.09. 83 . the decision was made to keep them in their original form.49. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.76. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. and Individualized Consideration = –22.214.171.124.24. 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. 2001). Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .64. but normally distributed. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. and (c) 9. (b) 6.
43* Note. Table 5. The significance level was set at (α = . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).44* .44* .36* . *p < .37* .05. Pearson’s r was obtained.37* .48* .23* .40* .19 a . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).52* .37* IIB .30* . Stress Management 4. Interpersonal 3.59* IS . Intrapersonal 2. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. General Mood IIA . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.40* . a p < .37* .01.05).35* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.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. IM = Inspirational Motivation.25* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. N = 158. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. and IC = Individualized Consideration. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. To address the first research question.28* .29* .46* IM . Adaptability 5.31* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.41* .32* IC .33* . 84 .
001).59.19. Inspirational Motivation (r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .05).59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). 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. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. p < . With one exception.16. Most of the correlations ranged between . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. (c) Self-Actualization (r = .23 or higher.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. at r = .45. p < .50. EQi component scores also increased.05). The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.05. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. all of the Pearson’s r’s were .20 and . p < . All correlations were in the positive direction. with (α = . using the same Procedure Correlations. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. 85 . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Results are shown in Table 6.001) and Inspirational Motivation. which was still significant at p < . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . (b) Happiness (r = .51.001). p < .
01.30* .39* IM .28* .31* IIB .40* . Independence 5.19 a . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).31* .16 a . *p < .27* .40* . Reality Testing 12. IM = Inspirational Motivation.30* .25* .23* .26* .51* IS .30* .38* .28* . Optimism 15.43* .33* .29* . Flexibility 13.03 (ns) .40* .35* .44* .31* .35* .12 (ns) .21* .33* . Stress Tolerance 10.16 (ns) .36* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.37* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant. Impulse Control 11. p ≥ .24* .24* .32* .36* . 86 .38* .37* . Problem Solving 14. Happiness IIA .37* . Self-Regard 2.43* .37* .36* .15 (ns) .45* .39* .34* .46* . Assertiveness 4.17 a . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).34* .23* .36* Note.Table 6.25* IC .33* .38* .37* .48* .32* . Empathy 7.59* . Social Responsibility 8.43* .37* .24* .05).50* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.33* .44* .13 (ns) . and IC = Individualized Consideration.45* .40* . Self-Awareness 3.33* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.32* .24* .33* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. N = 157. Self-Actualization 6.15 (ns) .11 (ns) .26* . ap < .
which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. This is a potentially serious issue. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. p < .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. 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. p < .001). Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . Correlations 87 . EQi component scores also increased. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret.001). p. 2005. p < . All correlations were in the positive direction. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . 170).26.24. In summary.30. 2001). A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .001).
The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . Therefore.01).90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). based on the . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. p < . p < .72.71. 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. p < .01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.90. However. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. p < . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .01). Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. 88 .82. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. this intercorrelation is to be expected.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.64. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.
20* . Problem Solving 12.40* .47* . Interpersonal Relationship .25* .32* Subcomponent 1. Independence 5.00 .60* .50* .00 .40* .74* .65* .47* .58* .59* .60* .23* .26* .30* .47* 1.55* .51* .00 1.39* .82* .61* . Stress Tolerance 13.52* .00 1.35* . Social Responsibility 8.43* .50* .62* .40* .36* 9.56* .60* .66* .39* .52* .50* 1.66* .43* .00 .00 1.37* . Flexibility 11.00 1.00 1.25* .52* .45* 1.61* .32* .00 .56* .41* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.72* .49* .42* .71* .59* .55* .36* .47* .61* .37* .42* .58* .41* .55* .53* 1.51* .50* .33* .64* .42* .54* .36* .61* .39* . Impulse Control .55* .37* .60* .42* .43* .32* .50* . Assertiveness 4. Empathy 89 7.00 1.27* .15* .50* .42* .40* .Table 7.00 .23* .53* .38* .40* .28* .60* .15* .51* .41* .24* .43* .00 .53* 15 .50* .43* 1.16* .32* . Self Awareness 3. Reality Testing 10.38* .51* 1. Self-Actualization 6.26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .42* . Self-Regard 2.33* .00 .55* .
bns = nonsignificant.01. Optimism 15.64* 1. 90 . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. *p < .05.00 15 . a p < .00 Subcomponent 14. Happiness Note.Table 7. N = 157.
followed by General Mood (R2change = .62* . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.60* .Table 8.015).55* . to a minimal extent. 1 1.61* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .00 4 .58* 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.59* . Overall. and. *p < . Inspirational Motivation 4. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. Results are shown in Table 9.00 3 . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.287).64* 1. Individualized Consideration Note.54* .00 5 .01. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.019). Results are shown in Table 9. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.72* 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Stress Management at Step 3. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . General Mood and 91 . N = 157. 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. Intellectual Stimulation 5.00 2 .57* 1. Stress Management at Step 3. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.
66** . entered at Step 4. R2 = .Interpersonal components.24 .015 .05. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.320 at Step 5. **p < .033 –.008 . nor Adaptability. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained. the EQi Intrapersonal. entered at Step 3.728 –0. *p < .04* 62. R2 = . 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. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. Neither Stress Management.V.019 Note.287 .162 .034 4.25 .287 at Step 1.66 3.04 . R2 = .01.85 .000 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). R2 = . N = 157.073 –.000 . Table 9. 92 .25 2.07 .301 at Steps 3 and 4.000 .87 .069 2. F change R2change .32 .301 at Step 2. In summary. † TLS Summed = D.316 –0.
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
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
05. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.75 12. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.97 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. bn = 62. bn = 62.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.Table 12. 96 . a difference which was significant at p < .16 0.48 104. *p < .21 14. Males scored a mean of 0. *p < . Table 13.44 2.05.50 2.67 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.
Interestingly. These data are presented in Table 14. females: M = 106.08. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. 97 . Descriptive statistics.64.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.77. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. SD = 14. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. SD = 14. 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). males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.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.
14 15. As a group. Social Responsibility 98 .74 15.92 13.28 (14) 100.89 103.37 14.34 12.70 13.01 103.76 106.50 109.74 11.47 104.56 102.84 11.09 109.55 13.61 104. **n = 62.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.92 102.63 13.67 103.Table 14. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104.77 102.80 102.18 14.08 11.72 101.06 102.50 12.80 106.40 14.78 13.48 13.27 11.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.23 13.34 102.07 14.19 12. 13).41 11.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.21 105.68 14.62 103. Empathy (4 vs.64 109.57 13. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.43 11.53 12.37 12. 11).17 103.99 107.37 105. *n = 95.33 105.75 13.93 13.24 104. N = 157.26 103.97 15.16 103.80 14. Self-Actualization (9 vs.
(5 vs.05. Males scored a mean of 7.01 102.36** 1.05. Self-Regard (8 vs. Males. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). (2 vs. 12). They also scored higher on the 99 .67 SD 11. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. 10). 15). They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.99 M 99. among others.91a 2.39 109.18 14. n = 62. **p < . Females. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. a difference which was significant at p < . n = 95. Independent-samples t test. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.01.01.80 11.11 107.57 12. 13).86 11.26 Females SD 13. As a group. a Marginally significant.80 102. *p < .97 109. and Flexibility (6 vs.07 14.07* 3. Table 15. p = . 15). 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.74 15. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.74 t 2.21 105. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. 12). Stress Tolerance (4 vs.42* Note. 10).
The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. 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. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. or combination. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. As a follow-up.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. To summarize.41) subcomponents. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. all of which were significant at p < . and independence (R2 change =. They also scored 4. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Regression analyses. Specifically.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. but did not predict TLS for males. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.11) than did females (M = 105.05.01) although this difference was only marginally significant.13).08). Both assertiveness (R2 change = . were important predictors of TLS in females. Further.
Table 16. **p < . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.098 12.268 7.176 at Step 1. 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.001 .097 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .08 .606 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .73 .01.261 at Step 1.167 1.45 .04 2.088 –.379 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .. It was thus decided that using 101 .18 .e.190 . N = 157.81 1.022 .755 .378 at Step 3.73 1.67 –1. 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. R2 (adj) = .85 .269 .21 –.001 .24 14.55 –.989 34. R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2. F change R2change . R2 (adj) = .63** .010 .19 .669 3. R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .131 .12 2.99** .002 .02 .05 .000 .000 .302 .41 .263 at Step 4.255 at Step 2.011 Note.
.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i.7%.0%.. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.e. Finally. categorical variables (low. the three highest TLS component scores). and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.7%. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Categorical variables. More than one half of males (53. 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. 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. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . and exactly one half of females (50. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. To do this. The highest percentages 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. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.e. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.
8 43.5 40.7 53.5 46.8%. Table 17. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.3 46.4 50.(Behavior).7%.1 50. The highest percentage of females (59.4 50.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. The highest percentage of males (52. *n = 95.1 45. Comparison of Low. the highest percentage of females (54.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. N = 157.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.7 51.2 56. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.3 48.6 49. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.5 53. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).4 54.7 53.7 47.5 59.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.3 52. **n = 62.3 46.6%.
11 113. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. First.91).88 11.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.83 111. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.64 112.68 12.66 114.00 112.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .15 10.00 9.55 114.24 111.51 111.29 SD 14. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.14 11.92 111.50 114.04 16.28 11. Table 18.45 112. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.30 10.75 9.12 110.75 10. Once this subsample was selected.09 10.76 110.66 11.85 12. 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 111.11 11. Secondly.98 111. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.
44 9.64 9.22 108.42 109.25 104.55 12. 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 104.90 103.23 106.39 9.36 13.86 105.18 109.07 14.51 107.13 111.55 11.Table 18.50 11.23 108.21 11.28 107.12 10.62 107.84 11.41 8.17 9.40 12.28 108.20 9.39 M 110.22 13.03 7.15 104.50 107.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .71 106.50 11.73 9.56 SD 10.51 7.26 112.53 109.68 10.13 107.92 105.28 110.15 108.38 14.55 12.
47 12.00 103.75 104.81 17.33 M 104.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.82 105.66 10. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.27 14.Table 18.73 10. (c) Independence.77 101.79 105.65 103.96 105.50 SD 10.4 102.85 14.06 12.78 103.14 105.68 106. (b) Assertiveness.03 102.09 104.06 13.63 12.43 11. 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 102.20 11.35 103.66 104.12 10.41 10.01 8.59 14.90 12.26 105.67 10.42 9.56 105.86 12. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .50 105.57 104.89 11.
Males scored a mean of 5. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. 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. Independent subsamples t test. (c) Social Responsibility. (b) Independence. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard.across the five TLS components. Assertiveness.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (b) Social Responsibility. (d) Empathy. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.05.05. (d) Problem Solving. 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. Females scored a mean of 4.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. In summary. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (b) Happiness. Males scored 107 . Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. however. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. a difference which was significant at p < . (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. While males scored 5. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .
a Marginally significant.94a –2.61 106.43 t 1. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).43 104. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.16 Females SD 13. Subsample N = 82. Categorical variables.05. however. 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.57 M 107. p = . To do this. EQi.33 111.78 8..04* Note.and high-scoring) 108 . Males.00 14.05 10. categorical variables (low. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.09 108. n = 51.01* 2. n = 31.80 SD 10. Females.96 10.05.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. *p < . Table 19. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.e. 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.
n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. Then. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.0%. followed by 59. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.5% (n = 35) of females did so.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.97). Descriptive data (N and %) for low. More than one half of males (53.5%. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen.3%.6%. The highest percentage of females (61. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest percentages of males (61. 109 .7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. The highest percentage of males (50. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Interestingly. Once the subsample was selected.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 32). 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.1%. However.
2 55.3 55.7 51.8 44.8 38.5 46.Table 20.9 43.8 50.7 44.8 54.8 58.3 48.5 43.2 57.8 50.6 46.0 52.9 45.2 55.2 50.2 51.8 43.5 53.8 45.5 45.8 38.1 54.8 49.4 45.4 53.0 45.0 48.2 61. Female** High Low % 53.8 42.6 54.9 44.8 High % 38.5 46.2 41.5 40.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46. **n = 62.1 55.3 45.0 47.0 54.7 47.1 56.9 43. Comparison of Low.9 44.1 55.0 51.0 110 .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 % 61.7 54.1 56.5 56.5 59.3 52.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.2 45.2 56.2 61.5 54.2 50.5 53.
55 3.52 3.52 3.55 3.48 0.49 3.51 3.47 0.51 0.58 3.37 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.61 3.57 0.54 0. followed by the lowest mean.47 0.49 3.54 0.55 SD 0.5 3.53 0.49 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.47 0.60 0.52 0. Table 21.55 3.49 0. 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 3.37 3.48 3.43 111 .47 3.
35 3.37 0.37 3.36 3.40 0.55 3.44 0.45 3.30 0.37 0.22 3.45 0.51 3.39 0.6 M 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.45 0.37 0.41 3.34 0.36 0.38 3.49 0.46 3.21 0.42 3.40 0.51 3.42 3.44 3.43 SD 0.37 3.35 112 .42 0.39 0.Table 21.
Table 21.08 3.51 0.51 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 3.2 3.1 3.24 3.53 M 3.61 0.52 0.19 3.45 113 .24 3.57 0.2 3.25 3.57 0.5 0.61 0.6 0.15 3.2 3.28 3.59 0.14 0.58 0.57 0.24 SD 0.18 3.58 0.22 3.21 3.53 0.43 0.22 3.
6 0.59 0.05 3. Empathy. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.14 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .Table 21. Optimism and Happiness. with the exceptions of Independence.13 3.67 0.16 3.63 0.02 3.06 2.11 3.08 SD 0.95 3.57 Descriptive statistics. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.68 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.21 3.62 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. 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 3.49 0.55 0.63 0.11 3.58 0.
n = 33. Independent subsamples t test.05. p = .57 M 106. Females. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.04* M 111.05. In summary. a difference which was significant at p < . 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. a Marginally significant.05.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Idealized Influence (Behavior).Motivation. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.43 t 2. *p < . 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.80 Males scored 0. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Table 22. Males. 115 .16 SD 14. n = 54. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Females SD 10.
as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. and findings of data analysis. including research methodology. Goleman. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. CONCLUSIONS. RESULTS. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. These findings are discussed. 1998. 1998. 1998). 1988). pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized.CHAPTER 5. 1990. 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. Goleman.. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. Hater & Bass. Schutte et al. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). 2000. 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. 1997. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. 116 .
down from 16. The women 117 . 2008). and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.2% last year (Hymowitz. 2007).Sosik & Megerian. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). with women currently representing 50. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college.S Department of Labor. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. In 2007.S. In 2001. In fact. 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. Hay/McBer. and related occupations (U. 30% of women earned medical degrees. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions.4% in 2005.S. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. However.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 2003). The secondary purpose of this study was designed to examine whether there are any significant gender-specific differences in the way men and women use their EI competencies that are reflected in their TLS. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 2000. Over the next decade.6% of the 48 million employees in management. women held 15. workforce is growing in its diversity. However. professional. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. 47% law degrees. 1999). 80% of the U.
Identifying how gender differences in EI.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U.5 million people and generate $1. the chance to pursue an opportunity. As a result of this ambiguity. 2007). In the overall U.3 trillion in annual sales. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. businesses owned by women. Not surprisingly. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. 2007). with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.S. nearly $2.S. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. if they exist. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . In addition.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. 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.
2004. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. 2004. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. Schaie. nonexperimental. EQi component scores also increased. As scores on the TLS components increased. to a minimal extent. 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.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. 2005). and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. In addition to filling this research gap. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS.. Interpersonal. 119 . Taken together. 2001. followed by General Mood and. all correlations were in the positive direction. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. 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). Van Rooy et al. 62 female). selection. & Stacey. Ball. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. recruitment interviewing. Perry. job profiling. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male.
Self-Regard. 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. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. and Stress Tolerance. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. and Social Responsibility. Stress Tolerance. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. Assertiveness. Assertiveness. Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. 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.
2002). In addition. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. 2003). representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . & Stough.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. 2003..23 or higher. Law et al. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003).. Burgess.21) to moderate (r 121 . Further.. 2001).. Kobe et al. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. 2004. Walls. 2004. 1998. Palmer. Mandell & Pherwani. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 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. Thus. Mandell & Pherwani. 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 = . Judge et al.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS.23) to moderate (r = . A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 2000. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Hay/McBer. 2001.
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. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. 122 . 1998.03 to . Thus.16. Stress Tolerance. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. For example.= . which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. 2002). is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. 2003). a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents.” 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. drive. Impulse Control. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . Hay/McBer. As well. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. or temptation to act. 2000. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. However. Mandell & Pherwani. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress.
thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. Males scored a mean of 0. 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. 2002). Thus. thinking and behavior to new situations. 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.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Nevertheless.Reality Testing. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances.62 (p < . the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . Males scored a mean of 4. BarOn. entails adjusting our feelings.19 (p < . defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.
62 (p < . and challenge their own beliefs and values. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. 1990). Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. with males scoring a higher mean of .05) as well. 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. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. 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. 2007). skills and talents. 2002. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. 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.” was rejected.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. as well as those of the leader and the organization. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. As a result. try new approaches. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.19 (p < .
Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.05. 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.18). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.On and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) suggesting their research has consistently found male leaders to have significantly higher intrapersonal capacity than do their female counterparts. While this current study supports previous research findings.17).10. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. 2000). which this current study used. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. 1995. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.41). all of which were significant at p < . The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature.” 125 . with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. Petrides & Furnham. 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.
are better at handling stress. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. 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. are independent. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias.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).0%. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. ¶ 1). To do this. Steven Stein.7%. n = 31) scored above 126 . and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women.18). More than one half of males (53. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. and should not come as a great surprise. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. According to Dr. President of MHS. “Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?” The researcher used a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership style in detecting significant gender differences in the relationships among gender.
and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). who analyzed the scores on over 7. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . inner strength. 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. self-assuredness. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance.the mean across all of the TLS components. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.33. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Thus.28. p < .05).05).05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. 2007). self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.64. the null hypotheses proposed for this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.” was rejected. Stress Tolerance. and Social Responsibility.700 administrations of the EQi. p < . The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. In addition. p < .
However. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. and. 128 . based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. 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 constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. and Assertiveness. stress tolerance is the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. for the leader. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. In essence. 1993). EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership.
Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .015).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. although EI as measured by the EQi. the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. In other words. and nonverbal emotional 129 . it is not a sole predictor. they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. However. 2003). When these three components were combined. 2000.019). 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. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. For example. particularly three of its major components. and. Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. Interpersonal (R2 change = . this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. to a minimal degree. 2003).287). 2004). Mandell & Pherwani. appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. coping mechanisms (Purkable. followed by General Mood (R2change = .
130 .2).decoding (Byron. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 104.7) (p. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham.58 vs. women scored higher overall.7 vs. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 92).31). Butler. 1998.31) and TLS (65. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. as well as higher on all five components than males. 101. 2005. However. 98. unlike findings of previous research. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. men scored a mean of 4. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 63. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 2005. in the present research. Van Rooy et al. 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. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 2000).8 vs. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2005).. Schutte et al. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. unlike the present results.21 vs.
Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. Likewise. Further. 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. in the present study. p. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. For example. Mandell and Pherwani. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. but did not predict TLS for males. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. 1990). Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. however. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. a somewhat different picture emerged. and does so with consideration for their welfare.It is important to note. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. 399). both individually and collectively (Bass. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 .
Eagly. Assertiveness. 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. & Johnson. Block. Heilman. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration.oriented. In a study by Bass et al. 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. Carless. 1994. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. as women tend to be more nurturing. Miner. and sensitive.. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. The negative side of this leadership behavior would reflect an individual who may be overbearing in maintaining strict supervision of bureaucratic regimen with rewards and punishments. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. Karau. 1995. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. 132 . 1994. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. caring. & Martell. beliefs. 1990). to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. Rosener. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. 1998.). (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. Carless et al. the critical distinction he made was that. management-by-exception (active). 2000.
In addition. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. Rudman. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. Bass et al. & Salas. 1998). one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. In addition. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. expressing disagreement. That is. 1989. 2001. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. 2001). 1989). 1995. Generally. 1989. 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. in 133 . implying both are equally transformational in leadership style.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. Nevertheless. 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. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. Copeland. 2001). dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. Driskell.
. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. Self-Regard. 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. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. and their negative connotations in. and Stress Tolerance. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. 2002). Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 1997). inner strength. in the worst case. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). beliefs and thoughts. could also attribute to lower scores. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Assertiveness. In addition. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 .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. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. 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. the fear of failure.
who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Assertiveness. while not significant. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. ¶ 1). Social Responsibility. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. 135 . females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. However. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.Psychiatric Association. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. Furthermore. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. but the effects are small for the most part. 1997). The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. and Stress Tolerance. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 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. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. However. 1994). are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. ¶ 1).
men appear to have better selfregard. demonstrate more empathy. . solve problems better. cope better with stress. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. For purposes of this study. (Bar-On. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. transactional. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . Limitations The current study has several limitations. Mandell & Pherwani. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men.More specifically. First. and passive/avoidant). while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. 2003). 1998. and are more optimistic than women. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. 2007. 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. which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. ¶ 1) “To summarize . ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. both are equally transformational in leadership style. 1994). implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. are more flexible. when compared with women. are more self-reliant. . no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. 2007. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman.
2003). Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. 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.scores. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al.. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. To overcome the limitations of self-report. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. That is. 2000). Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. rather than polar constructs. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. Further. However. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. more specifically transactional. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. One of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response (SDR) in the case of men and women who may be affected by gender role expectations. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. 1991). because. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. attitudes. 137 .
as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. thereby reducing the potential for bias. a measure 138 . as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. It is possible that. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. different results would have been obtained. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. peers. 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. Service Orientation. Developing Others. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. and Communication. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. where superiors. and subordinates. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Alternatively. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Conscientiousness. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study.peers.
Graham. the U. & Kaemmer. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures.S. as stated previously. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. Future researchers. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. as well as the industries they represent. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Because of this potential weakness in the research design it was decided to use a subsample (participants scoring above the TLS group mean) to increase the validity of findings. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. and 139 .S. As a result. workforce. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. 1989). Dahlstrom. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Butcher. Therefore. Tellegen. Concerning the narrowing of industries. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ.033. education. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U.
future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. 140 . no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified.. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. both are equally transformational in leadership style.healthcare professions (Herman et al. Based on the results of this study. 2003). and gender and EI while predicting TLS. 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). if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The EQi Intrapersonal. and (b) if so. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. Likewise. Gender. In view of this projection. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. This research also suggests that. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS.
selection. 141 . and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. job profiling. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning.In conclusion. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. recruitment interviewing.
1108/eb028980 Antonakis. J.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. Avolio. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Baliga. J. M. Dachler. A. (2003). & Bass. J. doi: 10. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. Schriesheim (Eds. Hunt. Lexington. 437–462. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. Atkins. & Dasborough. B. Retrieved from http://www. P. Transformational leadership. M. In J. (2000). Douglas. Barchard. K.).REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association.). Washington. B. J. J.). MA: Lexington Books. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. A. 79(1).. (2004)... CA: Mind Garden. B. Redwood City. Ferris. (2005. Handbook of emotional intelligence.. Atlanta. & Hakstian. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. (2002). C. P..1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy.. April). & C. 261–295. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. B. R. Ontario. & Bass. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1988). Parker (Eds. N. 18– 22. R. 14(3). In R. Journal of Education for Business. D. B. 142 . G. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). American Psychological Association. N. 355–361.org/ethics/code2002. Avolio.pdf Antonakis. A. GA. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. (2006). Educational and Psychological Measurement. (1994). (2003). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. (2003). DC: Author. & Stough.). & Sivasubramaniam. Bar-On. doi: 10. 29–50). Toronto. A.. H. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. M. P.apa. R. Avolio. M. doi: 10. Bar-On & J. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Leadership Quarterly. H. 64(3). charisma and beyond. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). 11(4). (2004).
(1990).1037/0003-066X.130 Bass. R.uaemex. M. & Avolio. Retrieved from http://www. (1999). R. (1990). TX: Pro-Philes Press.. B. 375–377.. doi: 10. & Avolio. Bass. CA: Mind Garden. B. J. & Avolio. J. Psicothema. B. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. J. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). B. R. B.231.. J.php?i=25 Bar-On. (1993). Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. M. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). B. (1985). (1997). Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness..org/bar-on-model/essay. B. New York: The Free Press. & Avolio.html Bass. International Journal of Public Administration. 143 . B. 18(Suppl. Menlo Park. (1995). 17(1). M. Organizational Dynamics. New Braunfels. Retrieved from http://redalyc. B. Redwood City. 13–25. 18(3). Bass. M. 17(3/4). B.Bar-On.52. B. B.). M. B. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. (1999).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly. J.htm Bass.2. M. Bass.242/demo/intro/tformlead. Bass. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual.reuvenbaron. & Avolio. 19–31. 541–554. & Handley.84. doi: 10. M. M.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. J. (2007). 112–121. 52(2). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Retrieved from http://205. B. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.pdf Bar-On.. CA: Mind Garden. & Avolio. 4(3). (2004).net/tc3/TC019239. R. M. M. (2006). Leadership development: Transformational leadership. B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Public Administration Quarterly. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Bass. (1993). (1994).1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. 130–139.
2224/ sbp.Bass. (2007). Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract].org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. E. 15(3).35. Leadership.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. R. & Berson. doi: 10. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Retrieved from http://www.2007. Murphy. L. Avolio. J.88. 88(2). Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.. E. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. doi: 10. (2004). & Henninger. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haygroup. M. (1978).eiconsortium. Applied Psychology: An International Review.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. (1990). Bass. doi: 10. Avolio. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. 45(1). 47–64. Retrieved from http://www.. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract].library .. B. K. (2004). J. I. J.. Retrieved from http://ei. Doctoral dissertation. 27(5). South Carolina State University. A. Retrieved from http:// www. J. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. B.capella. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. E.. (2003).com/login. L. Psychological Reports.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. S. Jung.eiconsortium. & Wheeler. D.1037/0021-9010..1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis.edu/login?url=http://search. J. Social Behavior and Personality.ebscohost. 86(1).htm Bryant. 41–50... 5–34. R. (2000). 32–44. E.pdf Boyatzis.2. D. Burton. 234–238. Y.haygroup.41 144 . Doctoral dissertation. M. (1996). Psychological Inquiry. 44–46. W. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. (2007). sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. 207–218. N. B. University of Nebraska. (2003).org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Lincoln. & Atwater. M.. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.1.207 Bennis. (2003). 9(4). 35(1). B.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. M.pdf Brody. New York: Harper & Row. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression.htm Burns. A. Hafetz. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.
Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract].org/ Center for Creative Leadership. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. 56(4). 57(4). 23(3). J. doi: 10. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. 14(3).eiconsortium .1111/0022-4537. Dahlstrom.eiconsortium . J.. and subordinate perspectives. doi: 10. (1998).. A.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. K. Doctoral dissertation. 725– 741. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. M. A. Journal of Management. & Monroe. Sex Roles.. (2000). leader. S. (1997). & Kaemmer.htm Cannella. A. Graham. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. doi: 10.htm 145 .. (2001). D. A.00238 Cavallo.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Journal of Social Issues. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. Retrieved August 10. Georgia State University. D. & Mann. K. N. Retrieved from http://www. Byron. L. (1998. October). (2003). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. (2008. C. 213–237.Butcher. (2005). L. L. L.1037/0022-3514. Retrieved from http//www. Retrieved from http://www.org/-report. doi: 10. A.964 Carli. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Fort Collins. W. Colorado State University. G. Gender and social influence. 565–76. B.. J...1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. Journal of Business and Psychology.aspx Cherniss. 39(11/12). Tellegen. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. (1989).org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Butler. & Brienza. L. Doctoral dissertation. S.6.57 . doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. Wearing. J.ccl. & Goleman. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). C. R. A short measure of transformational leadership.. May).. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. 389–405. (2002).eiconsortium. (1989). L. 2008. 887–902.
V. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Avolio. 15(2).. Psychological Bulletin. J. J. E (1999). 15(4). 2008. & Higgs. A. 735–744. Driskell. Karau. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. D.. 341–372. doi: 10. B. 53–68.. 467–480. & Spangler. doi: 10. Retrieved August 31. Management challenges for the 21st century.2. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. H. 17–21. New York: HarperCollins. (1990).answers.. A. D. A. Eagly.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. A. J. C. (n. & Johnson. Journal of Business Research.. Academy of Management Journal.233 Eagly. Leadership Quarterly. D. 17–29. 31(4). Gender and reactions to dominance. F. (1994). & Salas. New York: Hill. R..d. Journal of Nursing Administration. E. (1995). W. doi: 10. K. B. Mayfield.. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. J. 135–159.Chief executive officer.). (2002). Dubinsky. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. (1995). Drucker. B. (1999). (1999). B. Yammarino. M. Dixon. (2002). CA. Public Personnel Management. Dulewicz. 146 . J.. from Answers. Achieving results through transformational leadership. 10(6).108. B. Dearborn. Copeland. S... & Shamir. doi: 10. Mountain View. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. M. J. 45(4).1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. Retrieved from ProQuest database.1037/0033-2909. T. & Swerdlik. 5(2).. (1967). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. F.com Web site: http://www.. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. 108(2).1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. J. Journal of Managerial Psychology. L. H. 29(12). E. & Johnson. M. (2002). P. 55(6).. A theory of leadership effectiveness. (2000). Miner. Eden. 523–530. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. 233–256.. D. Jolson.
Retrieved from http://psycnet. Hater.pdf Hay/McBer. M. Social Work Research. & Martell. O.. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Frankel.. ECI fact card. New York: Bantam.ebscohost.). 17–25.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. Retrieved from http://www. (2004). C. Block.4. D. & Dickson.73. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.Field.library.. (1998). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.org/?fa=main. (2004).capella. R. 15(3).uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1995). Gohm.. A.edu/login?url http://search. J. Doctoral dissertation. F. R. (2005). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. (1995). C. (2008). London: Routledge.haygroup. Saunders. Thousand Oaks. E.695 Hay Group. M. 73(4).doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 .htm Hargie.eiconsortium. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. W. doi: 10. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 10(3). D. (2000). P.. L. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). CA: Sage. 222–227. Virginia Commonwealth University. (2003). (1988). (2001). Retrieved from http://www. Grubb. 10(6).1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. New York: Warner Business Books.. Social skills in interpersonal communication. (1995). doi: 10. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. 25(1). 237–252. B. H. 695–702. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Working with emotional intelligence. L. C. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. Z. Furnham. 741–748. (1983). J. Psychological Inquiry.1037/0021-9010.com/login. L. J. & Rawles. & Bass. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. A. O.gov. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.apa.dfee. Gellis.
M.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman.capella. T. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. 13(1). Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. Winchester. Hersey. T. Retrieved from http://www. (1997).org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. VA: Oakhill Press. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed.ebscohost. M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . Retrieved from http://ezproxy. G. J. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. T. 85(5).1037t/00219010. (1993). Hitt. J. P. 74(6). (2000). H. A. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.).library. Upper Saddle River. M. Boston: Irwin. HR Focus. E. & Blanchard. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.5. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Doctoral dissertation. (1993). Journal of Applied Psychology.com/ login. 43–57.Herman...85. R. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. NJ: Prentice Hall.). doi: 10. 75(9). On diversity. R. 15– 16. A. Ivancevich. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Hersey. 751–765. (2008. too few people. Gioia.library. A. The impact of gender. K. emotional intelligence competencies.edu/login?url=http://search . H. & Hitt. (1997). Englewood Cliffs. London: McGraw Hill. & Matteson.751 148 . 6–18. (2005). K. Retrieved from http://online.htm Hymowitz. & Bono. M. H. R.. (2003). 28(3)..wsj. S1–S4. (1977).aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman.. Organizational Dynamics. P. M.edu/login?url=http://search. doi: I0. HR Focus. J. February 25). (2000). NJ: Prentice Hall.capella.ebscohost. C.com/login. You’ve got to change to retain. (1999). Case Western Reserve University. Academy of Management Executives. Judge.eiconsortium. & Olivo. Hopkins. & Blanchard..1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. R. D.).. (1998). Wall Street Journal.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland.
K.. T. E. Retrieved from http://basepath. Journal of Applied Psychology..1.00. 125(4). 113–118. J. (2005). A. & Siefen. Z. A. A. Emotion. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.89. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . & Johnson. L. (2004).ebsco host. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. & Beers.1037/0021-9010. 41–44. Journal of Applied Psychology. Wong. S.1037/0021-9010.com/cda/media/ 0.15304. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 89(3).pdf Law.1037/15283542.Judge. 112–129. 12(3). G.. (2000).483 Leithwood.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. 38(3). Current Psychology. T. S. 89(5). doi: 10. 154–163. (2004).755 Kaufhold. R.. Noack. Leadership Quarterly.89. R. & Sivasubramaniam. Furnham.. 173–180. 483–496. doi: 10. K. & Song. 89(3).3. A... Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. 7(3). B.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. (1995). doi: 10.. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.wiley. 20(2). L. 5(1). D. N. & Jantzi. J. P. June). (1996). Journal of Applied Psychology. (2001). M. 38(2). Côté.. K.library. B. Salovey. Colbert. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.. J. & Ilies.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. R.113 Lowe. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. R. (2005). (2004).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. doi: 10. & Piccolo.capella.. D. K.. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.542 Judge.com/login.. R. Education.. B. M... The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. F. P. (2000. S. Journal of Research and Technology Management. Transformational leaders make a difference.. doi: 10.3.5. A. G.. J. European Psychologist. & Rickers. doi: 10. 615–626.edu/login?url=http://search. Kirkcaldy. L. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.5. Journal of Educational Administration. & Posner. 542–552. Kroeck. 385–425. P. Reiter-Palmon. M. 755–768. C. N. (2007).89..
. Ontario. & Caruso. 9970564) Mandell.15..1146/annurev. P. M. New York: Basic Books.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.library. D. J. D.. & Salovey. Toronto. American Sociological Review. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). 71).. P. 17(3). 32(3). Psychological Inquiry.library.. Carlsmith. J. Caruso. doi: 10. K. 67(1).100186.ebscohost. Journal of Business and Psychology. M. D. G.. 05B. H..).capella.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. D. D. (2003). D. & Pherwani.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. D. About the MSCEIT.edu/login?url=http://search. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. Mayer. 197–215. The anthropology of emotions. Dissertation Abstracts International. J. 27(4). & Caruso. G. Retrieved from http://www. (2004). Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. S. Annual Review of Anthropology. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.Lutz.edu/login?url=http://search. Mayer. 253–296. S. Journal of Research in Personality.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. Intelligence. M. Salovey. & Zeidner. 387–404.com . Retrieved from http://www.capella. D. and implications.capella. Psychological Inquiry. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 15(3).ebscohost. J.library. (2002). What is emotional intelligence? In P. 1–29. P. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. doi: 10. Salovey & D. Emotional intelligence: Theory.. 267–298. 61. & Chabot..com/login. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. P. (2004a). D.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 .sciencedirect.. D.unh. (1998).1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. M. D. R. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence.an. R. Roberts. (2000). J. (1999). (2007). (2002). J. 15(2).. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison.002201 Malek. (1986). 179–196. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. R.com/ login. (UMI No. Mathews. 405–436. Salovey. F... & White. Sluytrer (Eds. (1997). Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. B. R. C. 15(3). doi: 10. & Salovey. findings.
1108/01437730310494301 Palmer.org. R.. & Caruso. R.. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp..). L. L.Mayer. Journal of Nursing Administration. 27–34. doi: 10. & Fuller.html 151 . Eastabrook. S. Psychological Inquiry. Wood. from Answers. 381–400. (1991). Saklofske. C. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J.edu/login? url=http://search. S. C. CA: Academic Press. 249–255. Perry. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. B. 22(1).ebscohost.. Burgess. R.capella. 14(1). Retrieved August 31. Shaver.capella. Robinson.d. B. D. The International Journal of Conflict Management. (2003). 15(3). (1997). Ball.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. (2004).com/login . & Stough. Z. E. Inc..com/login. Parker. 27(5). & Carsky. 335–344.04. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://www. San Diego.. (2005).. I. MLQ international norms. D. (2004b).com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. In J. R. D. 100–106. M. 5–10. Salovey. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. 15(3).library. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. J.edu/login?url=http://search. N. P. L. & Taylor. (n. M.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. Measurement and control of response bias.com Web site: http://www. 13(4). Psychological Inquiry. (2004). A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. D.au/iier14/perry. 2008. L.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. D. R.. H. Wrightsman (Eds. 26(2). 29–43.ebscohost.mind garden. J. Walls.pdf Morrison. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.1016 /j..). & Stacey. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. Jones. Issues in Educational Research..paid. Journal of Individual Differences.iier.. K.2006. J. P. N.answers. 24(6). Oatley.. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. 216–238. doi: 10...library. (2004). A. (2002). doi: 10. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. M.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. 17–59).022 Paulhus. (2001). & L.
Retrieved from ProQuest database. C. Ferris. 425–448. G. (2003a). M.edu/login?url=http://search. (2004). C.003 152 . Ferris. R.. & Buckley.ebsco host. A. R. B.01. doi: 10. and team outcomes.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold.eiconsortium. W.60. T. Harvard Business Review.. K. 11(1)...htm Rivera Cruz. Sex Roles. P. 119–125. In W.. Doctoral dissertation. Ways women lead. R. A. Prati. Case Western Reserve University. A. Emotional intelligence. 449–461. V. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent..leaqua.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. 15(6). Douglas. Ammeter.. M. P.. Leadership and management styles. R. doi: 10. K. T. (1991).htm Rosener. (2003). Prati. (1992). Douglas.630 Plunkett. Costa. 363–369. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract].1002/per. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. B. leadership effectiveness. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. K.capella. Leadership Quarterly. & McRae.eiconsortium. Emotional intelligence.library. 68(6).2007.. Boston: Allyn Bacon. 42(5/6).. (2001). & Heinitz. M. R. Ammeter. & Furnham. A. Retrieved from http://www.1037/0022-3514. Purkable. R. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Buckley. V. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . 41–62. doi: 10. Supervision (6th ed.4. V. M. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. R. (2003b). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Catholic University of America. Petrides. L. 11(4). 744–755.com/login. R. 18(2). Retrieved from ProQuest database. L. (2000).416 Piedmont.. European Journal of Personality. R.1016/j. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. L.).. (2007). Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. P. G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Plunkett (Ed. (1990). leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract].. 60(4). Doctoral dissertation.Petrides. J. L. pp. 323–351). J. 121–133. & Furnham.
ebscohost.. Our Lady of the Lake University. 629–645.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. Haggerty. Hunt. 167–177. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Journal of Management. W.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. E.3.1037/0022-3514.. doi: 10. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.. (2002).. Cooper. et al. (1990). Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. Schulte. A. and socialization.unh. (2001).eiconsortium. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. (1998)... Hall. 25(2). Retrieved from http:// www. J.library.d. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Zeidner.. J. L.com/login.capella. B. Retrieved from http://www. Cognition. Emotional intelligence.capella. J. T..eiconsortium.answers. doi: 10. J. & Geroy. (2000). (2003). and Matthews (2001). M.74.com/topic/senior-management Smith. Comment on Roberts. Schaie. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. 9(4). Doctoral dissertation. 21–31.Rudman. J.1.sciencedirect. M. Hopkins. (2003). & Bass. D.629 Sala. G.htm Schutte. (2001). J... J. P. 1(3)..library. K. & Osborn. New York: Wiley. (n.. & Mayer. 243–248. emotions.). D.edu/login?url=http://search . Gender & Class. N. J.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . Emotion. 16(4). L. Race.3.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. Malouff. C. 9(4). (1990). Retrieved from http://www. 9(3). D.. 74(3). Imagination. 693–703.243 Schermerhorn.1037/1528-3542. from Answers. doi: 10. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. (1998).pdf Sanders. E. and Personality.. E. Personality and Individual Differences.org/ Salovey. F. R. J. 185–211. J. Retrieved August 31. Retrieved from http:// www. E. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. J. M.com. 2008.). Golden.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Organizational behavior (7th ed.com Web site: http://www. Race. W. 94– 110.
S . Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.aspx?search=Smith.%20(1998) Snodgrass. Wade. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. doi: 10. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. & Viswesvaran.kandidata. Department of Labor.. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. Retrieved from ProQuest database.se/default. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. J. S. M. (2002). Tucker. G.. L. 37–43. doi: 10. Retrieved from ProQuest database.1016/j. 37(1). (1998. L..org/Search... C.J. Journal of Education for Business.pdf U. 75(6). Census Bureau of Labor. 38(3).asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur.ovid. 331–338. A.05. J. & Megerian.S. E. 689–700. & McCarthy. F. Retrieved from http://www. Bureau of Labor Statistics. K.edu/spb/ovidweb.. L. C. 367–390. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data.). Sojka. (2005).A.C.%20M.capella.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. D. Z. Retrieved from http://www. Nursing Research. S. Alonso.bls.tx. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.. (2000). Ellis. MA: Allyn and Bacon.bls. Journal of Allied Health.Needham Heights. TX.. Sosik. Douthitt. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Group & Organization Management. 2002. (2008). U. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Retrieved from http://ovidsp. April).% 20&%20McDaniel.2004.. Retrieved from http://www.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. Retrieved from http://www. Dallas. & Plemons.. Vandenberghe.. J.com. M. (2001).Smith. (1999).S. (2000).siop. J. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. J. A. & McDaniel. W.cgi Tabachnick. Barone. B.paid.. S.023 154 . & Fidell.%20K. R. S. 18–14. (2005).library. A..gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. 49(1). & D’hoore. 24(3). C. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). M. L..
251–289. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.capella. (2001). Journal of Information Systems. (2005). leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. Academy of Management Journal. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. (1989). M.. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. The perfect labor storm 2.eiconsortium. 39–52.com/login.library. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . J. Dubinsky. E. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. I. Chew. 43(10). Retrieved from ProQuest database.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. 205–222. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 40(1). 28–32. Developing emotional intelligence. 975–995. J. A.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. F. Yukl. J.. G. Upper Saddle River. F.). NJ: Prentice Hall. G. (2002).ebscohost. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. & Spangler.edu/login?url=http://search. K. 15(2). S.. doi: 10. (2003). 16(1).htm Weisinger. Zhu. 8(2). J. PA: Poised for the Future Company. W.edu/login?url=http://search. Comer. L.2004.library . Lancaster. B. Wolfe.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. Human Relations. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2000). Journal of Management. L.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library. B. M. Emotional intelligence at work. Doctoral dissertation. H. leaqua. I. 15(2). Retrieved from http://www . (1997). R. (1998).ebscohost. M. C. Yammarino. The Leadership Quarterly.. & Jolson.001 155 ..ebscohost. 89–92. (2003). (2007).capella. doi: 10. & Bass.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu.capella.com/login.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. 34(10). A. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Nursing Management. University of Minnesota. 99–125.edu/ login?url=http://search. (1990). D..com/login. H. W.Viator.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin.06. A.1016/j.
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 .APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.
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 .
000.000.00 Between $40.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 and $70.00 158 .00 More than $150.000.00 Between $100.000.000.000.00 and $100.00 Between $70.00 and $150.000.000.