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
education.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.Abstract The U. predicts that by 2010.000 billion annually. In addition. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study.033. Department of Labor. and healthcare professions. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. The purpose of this cross-sectional. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. there will be approximately 10. .
iii . who laid the cornerstone of my being. . . and to my Grandparents.Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life .
. . Dr. . And to my family and friends who have . . I love you all! iv . To my original mentor. Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. for making this research possible. . . Joseph Damiani. Lori La Civita. you my friend have been a gift from God. . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . Bruce Gillies. who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . and to Dr. who helped me start this journey. understood and supported my absence throughout this process . and your respected members who participated. . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . . . for the most part (smile!) . It is my strong belief that the results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in human resource development focused on workforce retention and growth of its human capital . . thank you sincerely. to Dr. With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . 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 .
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
Group Sample Table 5. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. 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 . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. Group Norms vs. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Comparison of Low.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18.List of Tables Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. TLS Component Scores: U. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8.S.
Table 19. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Comparison of Low.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.
education. Ireland & Hitt. 1995). 1999. Leadership research suggests that securing and retaining appropriate personnel will remain an issue and that transformational leadership may be key in developing a social architecture capable of generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21stcentury organizational challenges (Bass. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. develop. Specifically. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass.S. 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. Herman. and retain the best talent. attract. 1997. 1988). 1 . and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. higher group performance levels (Keller. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. U. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Hitt. 2003.033. Drucker.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. Department of Labor. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). 2000. Department of Labor.CHAPTER 1. 1997. Gioia. The U. 1990).373 billion (Herman. 1999). companies must compete to find. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 1998). & Olivo. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 2005). Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line.
2000. 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. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 2 . and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. conflict resolution styles (Malek. 1998. Sala.. 1999. Caruso. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998). 2002. 2000. and the need to effectively identify.S. 2000). and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. & Salovey. 1997. Ogilvie & Carsky. Furthermore. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. 1998). Hay/McBer.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. Goleman. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. 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. Goleman. 1999). as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. 2003). 2001). Mayer. 2003. select and retain such personnel. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. Therefore.
In addition. Rationale Existing research on whether. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. if any. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. Hay/McBer. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. selection and management development. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. 3 . 1998. Mandell & Pherwani. job profiling. recruitment interviewing. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. and the extent to which. 2000. 2003). organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop.
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. 3. 2.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. if a relationship is found to exist. 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. 4. In addition. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.
and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. self-regard. understand. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. 2002). 2002). reality testing and problem solving. the ability to be aware of. Emotional Intelligence (EI). independence and assertiveness. making major corporate decisions. 1998). and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). including the ability to be aware of. whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. and relate to others. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. 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. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. understand. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. self-actualization. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. social responsibility and interpersonal relations. Stress Management and Mood. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. the ability to deal with strong emotions. In 5 . and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). Interpersonal. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. and express oneself. Executive Management. Adaptability.
d.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis.). and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. expertise. The sum total of knowledge. and strategies (Schermerhorn. Leadership Style. and the Director of Human Resources. Leadership. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. Middle Management. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. 2002). The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. how it can be done effectively. 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. Chief Marketing Officer. each of which has specific functional responsibilities. 6 . Intellectual Capital (IC). 2000).). Hunt. mission. 2002). The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. n. Chief Information Officer.d. & Osborn. and energy available within organizations members. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. n. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. Chief Operating Officer. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. which may enhance organizational outputs. which are generally shortterm ones.
and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas.. 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 . 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. Retention. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. (b) Individual. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. (c) Inspirational Motivation. and (e) Individualized Consideration. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). environmental.Multiple Intelligences. one nontransactional leadership construct. musical. mathematical. and three outcome constructs. intentions. Senior Management. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). 2004). 1998). and Organizational Effectiveness. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. spatial. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. including verbal. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). Group. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. 2000). movement oriented. three constructs of transactional leadership.
and the Demographic Questionnaire. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). n. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. 1997). and to be led. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study. 1998).operations that are generally of a long-term nature. The ability to get people to want to change. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. Social Skills. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. (d) participants 8 . 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. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). which involves motivating individual/organizational change. (b) Inspirational Motivation. to improve. (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. EQi. Social Intelligence.). listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). 1998). nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds).d. cooperation).
Secondly. 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. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. Univariate statistical techniques. and multivariate procedures. such as linear regression will 9 . That is. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. such as correlational analyses. interest or motivation to respond. 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. First. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. Since data will be collected at one time point. Finally. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. thus skewing the pattern of responses.
This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. The dependent. statistical analysis. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. Transformational Leadership. 10 . Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. variable. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments.be used. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. or outcome.
and gender. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. Academic Search Premier. using numerous multiple key word searches. 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). (d) gender attributes and leadership style. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. and (e) gender and EQI. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. (b) leadership. A summary concludes the chapter. Business Source Premier. EQi. EI. PsycINFO. and gender. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. their relationship. 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. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. PsycARTICLES. transformational leadership style (TLS). and a synthesis of research findings. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text.CHAPTER 2. and psychology journals. (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. Emotional Intelligence. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 .
Bass & Avolio. 12 . higher group performance (Keller. 1985. along with several books and dissertations. Goleman. 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. 1995. 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. In addition. 2006. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. Specifically. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 1999). Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass. 1995). 1990) compared to other leadership styles. books.gender. 1988). Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. In total. and dissertations. 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. 22 articles were relevant to this study.
Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. assertive. 1990). and skills (Yukl. and diplomatic. popular.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. values. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. These early leadership theories were content theories. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. 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). However. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. Social characteristics include being charismatic. or traits. Personality traits include being self-confident. and emotionally stable. of leaders such as personality. motives. tall. and handsome. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. cooperative. tactful. energetic. Task-related 13 . 2002). adaptable. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. not on “how” to effectively lead. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. social. charming.
characteristics include being driven to excel. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. integrity. desire to lead. 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. and being results-oriented. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. Yukl (1989. the type of organization. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. No two leaders are alike. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. 14 . The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. levels of management. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). Thus. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. and the nature of the external environment. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. leading to the concept of situational leadership. having initiative. 2002). and job-relevant knowledge) yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and education. no leader possesses all of the traits. accepting of responsibility. self-confidence. and cultures. the characteristics of the followers. Furthermore. intelligence.
Two factors. manufacturing companies. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. termed consideration and initiating structure. mental. As a result. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. considerate and initiating structure.The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. Initiating structure. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. college administrators. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. Two of the most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. and student leaders. 15 . consistently appeared. 2002). Studies conducted at the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan identified two leadership styles and two types of leader behaviors (two-factor theory). The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). administering it to samples of individuals in the military. or emotional traits.
Like trait research. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Unfortunately. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. The Contingency/Situational Approach (1960s and 1970s) Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. organizing. and providing for subordinates welfare. As a result. and coordinating the work of subordinates.involves planning. being supportive. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. 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. 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. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. an employee orientation and a production orientation.
Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. and position power.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. and those that are motivated by relationship. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. those that are motivated by task. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Together. task structure. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. 2002). The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. 1967). Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. 17 . leader-member relations. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers.
The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. unstructured tasks. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . S2. Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. However. D3. Furthermore. 2002). Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. 1993). Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). S3. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. D2. and D4). and strong leader position power.defined tasks. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. and weak leader position power. An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. Four leadership styles (S1. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl.
recognizing followers accomplishments. and providing for their welfare. and situational variables (Yukl. being supportive. 2002). either transactional or transformational. 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. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. Finally. However. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. such as trait.and directivity (S2). He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. Hersey & Blanchard. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. work standards. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. behavior. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. and outcomes. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. Specifically. low-directive style (S3). Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. influence processes. 1993).
1997. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. In contrast. praise. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. intellectual stimulation. reproof. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. leaders either make assignments or they may consult with followers about what is to be done in exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. 1985. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. Transformational leadership contains four components. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). Or they are corrected by negative feedback. and individualized consideration (Bass. 20 . When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. threats. In contingent rewarding behavior. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. 1990).organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. 1990. inspirational motivation. Bass & Avolio. 2004). and reward. or disciplinary actions.
g. and situational/contingency variables. “cognitive. p. 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. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. 1989). while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. Hopkins & Geroy. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. This statement would suggest that Bass embraced the integrative approach to leadership as it is broader in scope by simultaneously taking into consideration leader traits.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. In addition. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . Judge & Piccolo. Yukl.. in Bass’s view. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. unlike Burns. 2003. the integrative theory of leadership research. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. 2004. 2003. However. behavioral. 76). The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. behavior. Sanders. Furthermore. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. 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. 52).
addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. 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. the organization’s strengths. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. 1985. and comparative advantages. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. However. Bennis. Another departure Bass takes from Burns’s concept of Transformational Leadership style is his assertion that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of attending to positive moral values and brings up leaders such as Adolf Hitler and others of similar character. 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. focusing on a common purpose. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 2000). and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. Leithwood & Jantzi.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. weaknesses. 22 .
transformational. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. 2000). idealized influence (behavior). Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. and individualized consideration. transactional. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. 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 . confidence. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. 1992). intellectual stimulation. commitment. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. Vandenberghe. cooperation. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. emphasize trust. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. and the ethical consequences of decisions. 1999). 1993). present their most important values. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. 1993). transformational leaders inspire the confidence. loyalty.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. take stands on difficult issues. idealized influence (attributed). and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). Over time. & D’hoore. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. respect. Transformational leadership. while at the same time winning their respect. inspirational motivation.
Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. and advise and coach. expert resources. meticulousness. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. Second. traditions. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. 2004). 1999). listen attentively. abilities and aspirations. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). consider their individual needs. challenge followers with high standards. and creativity (Dixon). further their development. followed by action planning.(Bass & Avolio. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. Further. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. will-do attitude. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. awareness of internal and external customer needs. 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. and beliefs. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. Cannella and Monroe 24 .
Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. 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. Although they may not be close by. 1995). Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. and management-by-exception (passive). The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. negotiate for resources. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. and 25 . are absent when needed. exchange promises and resources. laissez-faire. management-by-exception (active). and enforce rules to avoid mistakes.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). conferences. clarify expectations. fail to follow up requests for assistance. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. exchange assistance for effort. contingent reward. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. Transactional leadership. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. reports. Laissez-faire leadership.
A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. In addition. 2004. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance.e. 2003. Bass. 1992).. A research study by Dubinsky. & Plemons. Avolio. 2003. & Sivasubramaniam. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. 2008). using the MLQ-360 assessment. Avolio. & Berson. Bryant. 2001.productivity records. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. Jolson. Douthitt. and commercial organizations. Ellis. Snodgrass. The 26 . Gellis. 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. Yammarino. Jung. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. it does have its place under the right circumstances. educational. subordinates reported about their managers. 2003. health care. Bass & Avolio. Wade. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance.
the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. Second. Jones. leader/unit perception. Kroeck. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. the sample size must have been reported. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). First. 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. 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. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Third. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. organizational perception. 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. and its effect on job satisfaction. Lowe. Fourth. and job satisfaction. The results of a study by Morrison. 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.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. using a sample of 275 nurses. Fifth.
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
18 dissertations. Comer. In total. 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. charismatic leadership. 1998. transactional. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. Yammarino. the more effective the team will be.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. 1994. communication and team performance. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. Bass. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. & Jolson. 1996. book chapters. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. & Atwater. Carless. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma. and 1 unpublished data set). and laissez-faire leadership. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. dissertations. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. Dubinsky. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Avolio. and vision. Similarly. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures.
and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. food.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. the convergent. financial services. absenteeism. home appliances. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. pulp and paper. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). More specifically. electrical equipment. and electronics industries). and criterion validity of two instruments.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). Chew. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. A survey study by Zhu. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. and organizational outcomes. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. These 32 . A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. chemical. automotive parts. transactional. divergent. computer services. The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. was explored. textile and clothing. pharmaceutical. administered a total of 1.
. and faith 33 . Moreover. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. transactional leadership and nonleadership. over and above transactional leadership.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. The latest version of the MLQ. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. subjective (e... supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. are defined as follows: 1. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 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. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. has been used in more than 200 research programs. Form 5X. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. Leadership types. With regard to criterion validity. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect.e. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. trust. 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. as measured on the MLQ.g.g.
e. c. d.94. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. 34 . 2. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. c. b. 2004). exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. 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. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. b. c. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group.b. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .
Transactional leadership has three scales. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 .) The MLQ has individual subtests. Carless. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. 2000). 1995). where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. & Mann. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. 1995). Transformational leadership has five individual scales. Bass & Avolio. transactional leadership and nonleadership. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. 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. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. 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. with four questions for each scale. Kouzes & Posner. However. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 2004). 1990. Wearing. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI.
do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. and attention to individual needs. 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. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e.g. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men.. On the other hand. praising individual and team contributions. such as participatory decision making. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager selfassessment in that there were no differences between men and women managers regarding the more masculine or task-oriented leadership behaviors such as innovative thinking and visionary leadership. However. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. which is what 36 .
Carless reasoned. male superiors may have had lower expectations of women managers and therefore were being more lenient in their ratings of women managers than they were in rating male managers. 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. and to read and direct them in other people. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. some of which are contradictory. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. 37 . since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. Indeed.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). However. 2003). On the other hand. exist. numerous definitions. 2004a). & Caruso. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. Salovey.
argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. mental processes: 1. 1997. Mayer & Salovey. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. 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. Mayer et al. Sojka. These two definitions. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. 2000. & McCarthy. 2004a. or repressed within others.. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. 38 . which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. Barone. From these characteristics. Vitello-Cicciu. 2000). (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). to distinguish among them.. 2000. 2003). but interrelated. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. 2. 3. Tucker et al.
emotional intelligence. Mayer et al. Thus.. 2004. not of empirically validated. These issues are explored next. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. Gohm. and psychologically based definitions of EI. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. and the multiple social science fields on the other. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. cohesive.Although this is a clear definition. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. is problematic. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. 2004a. EI Controversies Mathews. Mathews et al. and empirically valid definitions. 39 . In particular. For this reason. conceptually coherent. they claimed. Roberts. 2004b). Mathews et al. they hold that EI escapes definition. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. 2004. culminating in the formation.
and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. In this view.’s (2004) argument. others (Gohm. The denial of emotions. The Development of EI The idea of EI as an innate and/or learnable ability arose from the field of anthropology and has been hypothesized to have developed with progressive evolution of human society from the primitive to the more complex (Massey. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. Oatley. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. and measurable construct. 2004. 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. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions.Reflecting on Mathews et al. However. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group.. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. emotion is a scientifically valid. in these writers view. physiologically evidenced. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . Massey argued. 2002). Mayer et al. Rather. During the 6 million years of human evolution. in Gohm’s view. immaterial.
but they do not expand or increase them. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. 1986. 2000). the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. (2004a. 2002). though an inherent capacity. 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 . its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Massey). noted. it a learnable skill. Characteristics of EI As 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. In this view. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers.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. Massey. Indeed. For example. 1986. In contrast. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. Mayer et al. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. 2004b) reported. 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.
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
few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. E. intrapersonal. although inconsistent. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Schutte et al. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. These are the test of EI 45 . Van Rooy.(2000) theory of human values. In contrast. In a study by J. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. Measuring EI Schutte et al. 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). many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. Smith). Alonso. Smith (2002). E. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. Results of these studies. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J.
For these reasons. However. the most important are the second and third competencies. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. and social skills.competencies. social awareness. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. Salovey. Mayer. self-awareness. and peers. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. In addition. According to Goleman. 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). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. Côté. & Chabot. collected from superiors. Boyatzis. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes.). which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. 2008). the ability to 46 . 2007). the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. self-management. Carlsmith. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. & Beers. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. 1998) which focuses on ability. colleagues. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. 2005). Bar-On. 2002) test. currently in its second revised version. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. according to the publisher.
and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. 2001). The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. 2002).. Petrides & Furnham. Saklofske. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales.). MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. and convergent validity as well. & Taylor.93). It yields 15 main scores. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. discriminant. four Branch scores. Mayer et al. other measurement instruments. That definition is sufficiently narrow in focus to avoid including too many variables but is broad enough to assess important factors identified as significant in influencing or exposing EI (Parker et al.79–. Consequently.understand the meaning of different types of emotions. The test has excellent reliability (r = . Bar-On. As noted by Parker et al. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. however. 2007). Eastabrook. 2005). two Area scores. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales.. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker.91 (Mayer. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. Wood. (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. with r’s ranging from . The five composite 47 . Total EI score..
adaptability.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. others and life in general.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c. (2005).] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 . As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a. understand and accept oneself [b. these are [1. 2006. p.] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. 2001). (Bar-On. and Watkin (2000).] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2. Specifically.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3. Parker et al. stress management.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed.] 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.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.
research has also indicated that. & Ilies. 2001. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. honest and faking good. Law. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. 2003). and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. like many self-report inventories.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. However. a situational judgment test. Judge. C. and understanding of. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. Kobe. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. 2004. Mandell & Pherwani. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. Colbert. Wong & Song. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. 2003).” EI has been identified as an important 49 . 2003. Moreover.import of each set and subset in it. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. 2004. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. the nature of EI and its development over time. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures.
Judge et al. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. Kobe et al.). and mutual benefits. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. 2001. as cited in Kobe et al. Mandell & Pherwani. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. 2003). 2004. relationships. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. Mandell & Pherwani..ingredient of leadership. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . According to Mandell and Pherwani... From the sociological perspective. 2004.). It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. As a social phenomenon. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. In addition. 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.. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. 2003). p. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. 2001. 2003). or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani.. 155). The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. 2003. Law et al.
along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. (2004). Rather. Thus. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. This is an important distinction. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. 2003. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. (2004) argued. According to Judge et al. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. leaders are created by followers. Judge 51 . as further contended by Law and colleagues. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Kobe et al. trust. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. However. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities.to inspire the support. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. As Law et al. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. loyalty. they argue.
Mandell & Pherwani. 2004. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. 52 . The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. Kobe et al. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. 2001. arouse similar feelings in team members. In other words. leaders who display negative emotions. such as support. 2002). and optimism. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Dearborn. such as anger and pessimism. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. In short. On the other hand. enthusiasm. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. they have emotional intelligence). prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates.. Law et al. individuals who have the intelligence to understand their emotions are also able to manage their emotions for the purposes of task completion and gaining the empathy and support of others (that is...et al. 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. 2003).
1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. Ferris. According to Antonakis (2003). 2002) argued. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. 2003b). & Buckley. However. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. 2003a. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Costa..g. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. 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. Ammeter. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. & McRae. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid.. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Douglas. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. leadership style. For example. However. 2002) was used to measure EI. Prati. and others (Dearborn. Bass & Avolio. as Prati et al.
Mandell & Pherwani. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship.. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. 2003. 2004. Leader internal direction of self-concept added significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI and transformational management by exception and laissez-faire leadership from leaders’ perceptions. 2001. 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. as Prati et al. transformational leadership. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. That is. Indeed. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. Law et al. However. (2003a) point out. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence.. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. 2003). Specifically.. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . Judge et al. Kobe et al. 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. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. 2004.
The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. Regarding raters perceptions. and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership. 2003). and management tenure 55 . 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. Leadership. coping (Purkable. contingent reward leadership. Specifically. 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. 2003). 2005). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. and manager success (Hopkins. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. gender. contingent reward leadership. Position.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. 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. 2003). with mixed results. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. EI. title. These are reviewed as follows.
leadership practices. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. leadership practices. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Inspirational Leadership. 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. Specifically. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Emotional Self-Control. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. and coping mechanisms. Influence. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. and SelfConfidence. In each of these areas. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. MSCEIT subscore 4. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. and coping mechanisms. In addition to the MSCEIT.
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. and success.avoidance coping. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. but not male. 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. 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. 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. Specifically. 57 . As noted previously. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. leadership styles. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Results showed a strong pattern of significant differences between men and women leaders such that gender influences not only the idea of successful leadership for men and women but also produces distinctly different routes to success for male and female leaders.
. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. Goleman. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success.. must behave more androgynously. Judge et al. 2004. Mandell & Pherwani. However. 1988). Kobe et al. 1998). to be successful.. 1997. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. 2001.g. Law et al.. On the other hand.. Hater & Bass. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. 2003. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). 1998). on the other hand. 58 . 1990. individual achievement-oriented behaviors.g.. In addition. 2004. 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. Schutte et al. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. Women leaders. 1998.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.
Does EI predict transformational leadership style.’s (2005) studies. and (a) if so. Petrides & Furnham. Hay/McBer.. Mandell & Pherwani.. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups. Moreover. Schutte et al. 2000. 2000. Thus. as with transformational leadership style. The latter findings are supported by J. 59 . 1998. E. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. 2004). Mandell & Pherwani. Further. 1999..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. 2003). 2007). However. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. 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.e. To summarize. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows..
The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. 1999). and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. data analysis. if any. sample selection. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS.. using e-mail communications. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . recruiters. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. data collection instruments and study variables. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. procedures used in addressing the research questions.CHAPTER 3.
Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research.S. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. and a host of other business and service providers. food and beverage. 2004). The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. three constructs of transactional leadership. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. Senior. 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). health care. ranging in size from small to large. nonprofit. advertising and marketing. and the use of U.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 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. financial services. e-mail. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. market. legal services. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. Executives. For the purpose of this research 61 . phone.
and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. (d) Stress Management. 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). (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). (b) Interpersonal. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. as well as their ethnicity and income level. only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). (c) Adaptability.study. 2002). it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. 62 . In brief.
2004): 1. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. and values.85. respected and trusted. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . 2. 3.96.53 to .Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. 2004) and was based on data from 2. and display a sense of power and confidence. 4. with a strong sense of purpose. 5. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . principles. mentoring and growth opportunities. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors).81 to . Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired.
or frequently. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. For example. once in a while = 1. rather than performance or success itself.94 (Bass & Avolio).73 to . fairly often = 3.000 respondents from the United 64 . The coefficients ranged from . participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. if not always = 4. if not always). all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. However. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4.coefficients for each leadership factor. challenges and pressures. and to successfully cope with daily demands. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. 2004). The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. consisting of four items each. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. sometimes = 2. therefore. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. to understand and relate well with others. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. 2002).
and their associated subcomponents. 2002).75 (n = 27. and Problem Solving.. Version 12. Independence.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. and Self-Actualization. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. Bar-On. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. were reported as . to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. and Interpersonal Relationship. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. 65 . 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. to obtain a Total EQ. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. Social Responsibility. 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). The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. MHS Inc. Flexibility. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. respectively. 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.States and Canada. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. Emotional Self-Awareness.85 (n = 44) and . similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Assertiveness. 2002). 2002).
and number of direct reports under supervision. the purpose of research. the expected time of completion. title best describing the respondent’s current position. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. race/ethnicity. 66 . education level. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. Procedures After securing formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to solicit potential participants for research and submitting it to Capella’s Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. age. years employed by current organization. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. industry. In this current study all online survey responses. the criteria needed to be met for participation. years held in current position. 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.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. the risk and benefits of participation.
individual data were not made available.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. 2.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. the MLQ assessment. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. 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 . click on the option “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. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).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).
H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.3. 4.
These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and 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.e. and the Bar-On EQi). 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.. 69 . which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. the MLQ. and pen/paper copies were shredded. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. 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. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i.
and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. and required. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. All data collected were pooled for analysis. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way.” 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. 70 .This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. 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. after submitting consent. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. naked to the participants eye. 2006) ethical standards. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. were automatically deleted from the WebSurveyor e-mail campaign file to prevent the intrusion of follow-up e-mail reminders and maintaining their privacy APA ethical standards as well (APA). 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. Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. In addition. before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality.
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.g. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. 571). p. p. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. 2005.. 2005. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). 94). p. p. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. 65). When necessary. 72). missing and out-of. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Finally. 667). gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. 2005. This was followed by univariate analyses. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. as appropriate. outliers. Analyses examining group differences (e. Errors in scoring/data entry. p.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.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 .
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.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. the nature and strength of that association. 160). age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. In addition. and. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. 170). p. if so. p. 72 . 2005. as well as to control for the effects of gender. Expected Findings The results of this research was to indicate whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style.
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.CHAPTER 4. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. while not substantial. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. 2. As previous research. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. 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.
and if so. 74 . HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents 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? 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. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. 3. 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.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. the nature and strength of that association. 4. HA4: There will be 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.
Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 65). components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 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. missing and out-of. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. p. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e.. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. or scaled variables.g. as appropriate. 2005. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. p. 2005. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. p. outliers. 75 . 94). If necessary.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. 72). Errors in scoring/data entry.
0 11.1 39.7 20.1 22.6 76 .9 3.2 5.8 5.8 3.7 10.7 29.8 2.1 10.2 55.8 1.2 2.4 19.Table 1.2 12.5 4.5 45.4 3.1 11.4 24.7 7.7 5.6 16.5 5. 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 60.1 25.9 12.7 5.3 8.9 6.
1 32. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.8 Between $70–100.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.5 4.000 17 10.000 23 14.9 2.000 44 27. Minimum age 24.8 More than $150.9 12. **Includes Pacific Islander. maximum age 67.7 Current income Less than $40.2 10. SD = 8.25 85.9 65.1 9.000 55 34.3 12.7 2. Arabic or other.70.5 1. American Indian.7 16.8 Between $40–70.20).3 20.9 1.Table 1. 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 2.7 31.6 Between $100–150. East Asian. N = 158. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.9 10. 77 .4 8.7 34.000 15 9.
n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. In terms of supervision responsibilities. Most respondents earned from $40.32 subordinates. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 72).9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. or mean of 3.7%.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. 78 .95 years of college education. n = 106).6%. However. for-profit organization. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.000 per annum (49.4%.2%. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.15 direct reports. from between 3–6 to more than 16. n = 103). or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. n = 135) male (60. Addressing racial diversity. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.4%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. The sample of the population in this study has an average. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. 25. n = 78). n = 121) in a private.000–$100.1%. Notably. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.6%. and a median of 5.
00). EQi component scores were.41).The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 105. 102. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.63 (SD = 12. 79 . Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. Adaptability.05). For the income this is going to be most apparent. The mean age of the subjects is 48. Intrapersonal. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. with a nearly identical median of 48. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.97 (SD = 13.02 (SD = 13.01). Interpersonal. the mean income was $68.730. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 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. Stress Management.49).49 (SD = 14.02 (SD = 13. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. in descending order. and General Mood Components.900 and the median was $54. 107. 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. 105. As far as income. Summed TLS Score. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.65 years. 103. Total EQi Score.85). Descriptive Statistics—The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2.
60 14.49 103.21 105.01 13.54 103.52 103.61 105.45 13.86 12.05 14.17 104. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.02 105.97 13.49 13.66 101.04 12.85 12.46 102.02 102. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.62 13.36 Total EQi Score 105.61 102.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.64 107.86 106.41 12.00 12.93 13.70 13.66 14.67 13.19 13.73 12.74 13.44 13.63 103.63 103.41 106. 80 .Table 2.31 103.28 103. N = 157. 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.
Intellectual Stimulation. Idealized Influence (Behavior).95 (SD = 0.04 (SD = 0.09 (SD = 0. Mind Garden.09 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Mean TLS Score* M 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. Inspirational Motivation. which are as follows. TLS component scores were.59). 3.S.57 0.08 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 3.96 (SD = 0.58).18 (SD = 0.52).16 (SD = 0.59).Table 3.26 (SD = 0. 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.13 3. 3.59 0. 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed).59 Note.99 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3. in descending order.53). N = 157.59). 3.63 0.13 (SD = 0. 2.58 0.57). 81 .18 SD 0. 2. Inspirational Motivation. Individualized Consideration. 2.59).35 (SD = 0.52.57 0. Individualized Consideration.08 (SD = 0.35 3.57).63). and Intellectual Stimulation. 2004).26 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.
Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.S.35 SD 0. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.02 2.18 3.57 0.13 3.52 0. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). or scaled variables.Table 4..95 2. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. or symmetry.16 SD 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.55 0.63 0.53 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. of a distribution (i. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .59 0.96 3.59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. Skew represents the even-ness.04 2. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.59 0. Group Norms vs.26 3.52 M 3. Norm group** M 3.08 3.375.59 0. 2001).09 3. TLS Component Scores: U.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.99 3.e. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.58 0. **N = 3.
and not individual MLQ items.67. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.06.83.78.63. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.18.09. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . (c) Stress Management = . and (e) Individualized Consideration = . Intellectual Stimulation = –.76. 2001).16. (b) 6. and (e) General Mood = .83.64. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.0.66.73. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.70.85.80. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. (b) Interpersonal = . Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . and Individualized Consideration = –1. respectively. (b) MLQ 23 = –2.0. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. (d) Adaptability = . with skew > +/–2. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and (c) 9. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.24.49. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . but normally distributed. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. 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.67. 83 .61.40. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . Inspirational Motivation = –.
Interpersonal 3. Stress Management 4. To address the first research question.32* IC . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.35* .46* IM .40* .19 a .28* .01. Pearson’s r was obtained. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.40* . Table 5.43* Note. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).41* .23* .48* .44* .05. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). a p < . N = 158. *p < .44* .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. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.25* .52* .37* .30* .36* .37* IIB .33* .59* IS .29* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.37* . Intrapersonal 2. General Mood IIA . The significance level was set at (α = . Adaptability 5. IM = Inspirational Motivation. 84 . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.37* .31* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. and IC = Individualized Consideration.05).
23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .001). The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. which was still significant at p < . with (α = . Results are shown in Table 6. p < .05). All correlations were in the positive direction. p < . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .51.001). With one exception. all of the Pearson’s r’s were .Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. Most of the correlations ranged between . (c) Self-Actualization (r = . 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.50. 85 .05.001) and Inspirational Motivation. at r = .45. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.59.19. using the same Procedure Correlations. Inspirational Motivation (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. EQi component scores also increased. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . p < . (b) Happiness (r = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.20 and .16. p < . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).05).23 or higher.
29* .59* . Problem Solving 14.17 a .44* . Social Responsibility 8.30* .24* .37* . Empathy 7.36* . N = 157.34* .32* .39* IM .43* . Stress Tolerance 10.Table 6. Interpersonal Relationships 9.24* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.38* .15 (ns) .33* .30* .28* .46* .25* .05).03 (ns) .37* .51* IS .16 a .31* . Happiness IIA .37* .37* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.32* .34* .44* .33* . Assertiveness 4.36* Note.15 (ns) . Flexibility 13. Self-Awareness 3.39* .25* IC .30* .13 (ns) .40* . p ≥ . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).24* . Self-Regard 2.27* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.50* .11 (ns) .31* IIB . Reality Testing 12.35* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.38* .36* .38* .19 a . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).26* . 86 . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.43* .16 (ns) .35* .23* .33* . Optimism 15.26* .33* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.21* .24* .37* .31* .33* .45* .40* .33* .40* . *p < .48* .45* . Impulse Control 11.43* .32* .36* .28* .12 (ns) .37* . Self-Actualization 6.23* . Independence 5. ap < .40* .01.
no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . p < . This is a potentially serious issue. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing.30. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . EQi component scores also increased. In summary. 2005. p < . p < . p.24. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. 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. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. 170). Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.26. 2001). (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = .001). which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. All correlations were in the positive direction. Correlations 87 .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.001). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis.
Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .82. p < . 88 . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . However. this intercorrelation is to be expected. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. based on the .64. p < .01). None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . p < .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed.01).72.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.90. Therefore. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.01). Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. p < .71.
58* . Impulse Control .37* .59* .50* .39* .23* .56* .50* .61* .61* .27* .55* .50* 1.55* .42* . Flexibility 11.36* .38* .66* .50* .00 1.42* .60* .47* .51* .41* .64* .33* .28* .45* 1.36* .40* .26* .72* .53* 15 .42* .00 . Empathy 89 7.00 . Self-Actualization 6.23* .49* .66* .51* .47* .59* .61* . Self Awareness 3. Problem Solving 12.00 1.39* .53* .32* .00 1.51* . Independence 5.35* .82* .42* .00 .43* .43* . Reality Testing 10.52* .42* .20* .15* .32* .43* 1.58* .43* .51* 1.41* .25* .53* 1.37* .39* .Table 7.60* .40* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .60* .43* .74* .00 1. Self-Regard 2. Interpersonal Relationship .00 1.36* 9.41* .00 .50* .61* .38* .60* .00 .00 .65* . Stress Tolerance 13.55* .54* .30* .55* . Social Responsibility 8.33* .47* .52* .47* 1.37* .32* Subcomponent 1.55* .25* .60* .15* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1. Assertiveness 4.62* .42* .00 .00 1.50* .16* .40* .71* .56* .32* .50* .40* .40* .24* .52* .
90 .05.00 15 . Happiness Note.Table 7.00 Subcomponent 14.64* 1.01. *p < . Optimism 15. bns = nonsignificant. N = 157. a p < . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.
287).00 3 . *p < . General Mood and 91 . 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.72* 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . to a minimal extent. Stress Management at Step 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.00 2 .62* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.59* .54* .60* . Intellectual Stimulation 5. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.019).01. N = 157. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.64* 1. Inspirational Motivation 4.58* 1.00 5 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Results are shown in Table 9. followed by General Mood (R2change = . and. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 4 . Individualized Consideration Note. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Overall.Table 8.015). Results are shown in Table 9.61* . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. 1 1.57* 1.55* . Stress Management at Step 3.
accounted for any significant increase in variance explained. R2 = . R2 = .287 at Step 1.033 –.87 .015 .287 .05. R2 = .66 3.316 –0.32 .301 at Steps 3 and 4. F change R2change .162 .034 4.66** .V. Neither Stress Management.25 .85 .000 .000 .04* 62.069 2.25 2. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.Interpersonal components. nor Adaptability. † TLS Summed = D. **p < . Table 9. 92 .04 .07 .019 Note.01. 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.24 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. *p < .320 at Step 5. In summary. entered at Step 3.000 . N = 157.008 .073 –.728 –0. the EQi Intrapersonal. R2 = . entered at Step 4.301 at Step 2. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).
Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.
Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)
M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25
SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94
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
50 2.44 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.75 12. *p < .05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.21 14.Table 12.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.16 0. Males scored a mean of 0. *p < .97 0.05.48 104. 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. Table 13. bn = 62. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. a difference which was significant at p < . 96 .67 2.05. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. bn = 62.
respectively.08. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS.64. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. Descriptive statistics. females: M = 106. 97 . SD = 14. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.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. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Interestingly. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. These data are presented in Table 14.77. SD = 14.
74 15.89 103. **n = 62.56 102.97 15.75 13. Empathy (4 vs.06 102.64 109.37 14. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.50 12.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99. As a group.19 12.23 13.76 106.40 14.67 103.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.17 103.33 105.80 102.62 103.34 12.18 14.78 13.93 13.09 109.Table 14.41 11.01 103.57 13. Social Responsibility 98 .74 11.43 11.48 13.37 105. 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. Self-Actualization (9 vs.99 107. 11).80 14.14 15. *n = 95.34 102.92 102.16 103.68 14.63 13.50 109.72 101.07 14. N = 157.21 105.70 13.26 103.61 104.53 12.27 11.08 11.47 104.80 106.55 13.84 11.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.28 (14) 100.92 13.37 12.24 104. 13).
p = .36** 1.80 11. 15).18 14. and Flexibility (6 vs. Independent-samples t test. n = 95.11 107. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.01.26 Females SD 13.01 102.97 109. 12).74 t 2. n = 62.39 109.74 15. 10). Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.01. a Marginally significant. Males scored a mean of 7. *p < . Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. 10). Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).99 M 99.86 11. **p < . As a group.(5 vs. Assertiveness.57 12. Stress Tolerance (4 vs.42* Note. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.07 14. among others.91a 2.05.21 105. Table 15. 15). Females. They also scored higher on the 99 .05.67 SD 11. Males.07* 3.80 102. 12). Self-Regard (8 vs. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. (2 vs. 13). a difference which was significant at p < . and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.
05.13). 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. They also scored 4. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.11) than did females (M = 105. Regression analyses. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . and independence (R2 change =. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. As a follow-up. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females.08).Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. all of which were significant at p < .41) subcomponents. To summarize. Further. were important predictors of TLS in females. or combination. Specifically. but did not predict TLS for males. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 .
263 at Step 4.022 .269 .755 . R2 (adj) = .18 .261 at Step 1.378 at Step 3. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).67 –1.41 .08 .098 12. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .255 at Step 2.167 1.05 .606 .81 1.21 –.04 2.19 .001 .99** .010 .24 14.268 7.85 . F change R2change .190 .669 3.248 at Step 3.302 .989 34.131 .45 .02 . R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .000 . R2 (adj) = .011 Note. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2. **p < . R2 (adj) = .55 –.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.01..63** . 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.73 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.002 .379 at Step 4.001 . Table 16. N = 157.73 . R2 (adj) = .097 .088 –.12 2.e.176 at Step 1. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.000 . It was thus decided that using 101 .
Categorical variables.. Finally. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.7%.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. The highest percentages of males (53.e. three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).e. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.0%.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. categorical variables (low.7%. To do this. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. 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. More than one half of males (53. and exactly one half of females (50..the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. the three highest TLS component scores). Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.
7 47.5 40. **n = 62. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.3 46.5 46. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.7 53. The highest percentage of females (59.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.4 50.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). The highest percentage of males (52.7%.7 51.5 59. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.8%. Comparison of Low.(Behavior). n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.1 45.2 56.3 48. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48. Table 17.7 53.4 50.1 50. N = 157. the highest percentage of females (54.3 52.4 54. *n = 95.6%.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.3 46.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.6 49.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.5 53.8 43.
24 111.12 110.76 110.83 111.98 111.28 11. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.85 12.29 SD 14. First.45 112.50 114. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.75 9. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.88 11. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.68 12. Once this subsample was selected. Table 18. Secondly.66 114.75 10.11 11.30 10.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .66 11. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.92 111.51 111. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.15 10.00 112.64 112.09 10.91). 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 111.04 16.11 113.00 9.14 11.55 114. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.
51 107.25 104.13 107.13 111.20 9.17 9.12 10.73 9.92 105.51 7.15 108.15 104.22 13.23 106.38 14.86 105.03 7.84 11.Table 18.28 110.26 112. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.50 11.50 107.40 12.22 108.62 107.55 12.50 11.44 9.23 108.64 9.53 109.55 11.28 107.41 8.21 11.18 109.28 108.39 9.71 106.42 109.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .56 SD 10.07 14.39 M 110.36 13.90 103.55 12.68 10.
50 105.82 105.79 105.12 10.67 10. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .78 103.66 10.68 106.96 105. 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.42 9.86 12.57 104.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.81 17.63 12.35 103.09 104.06 12.03 102.Table 18.20 11.90 12.73 10. (c) Independence.66 104.89 11.77 101.4 102.41 10.14 105.47 12.75 104.85 14.65 103.00 103.33 M 104.26 105. (b) Assertiveness.50 SD 10.43 11.56 105.59 14.01 8.06 13. 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 102.27 14.
and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. however.05. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (TLS) males and females (n = 82) to determine whether their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly from one another. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. (b) Happiness.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. a difference which was significant at p < .across the five TLS components. Males scored a mean of 5. (b) Social Responsibility. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Females scored a mean of 4. (b) Independence. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. While males scored 5. (c) Social Responsibility. (d) Problem Solving. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. Independent subsamples t test. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control. Males scored 107 . Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. (d) Empathy.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.05. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . In summary. Assertiveness.
Categorical variables.78 8.01* 2. a Marginally significant.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.04* Note.57 M 107.e.43 104. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).33 111.16 Females SD 13.94a –2.09 108. To do this. *p < . 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. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. 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.80 SD 10.05.05 10. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.61 106.00 14. Males.and high-scoring) 108 .43 t 1. Table 19. n = 51. categorical variables (low. EQi. p = . Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Subsample N = 82. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112..96 10. Females.05. n = 31.
Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 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. Once the subsample was selected.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.3%. Interestingly.6%. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.0%. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. 109 . More than one half of males (53. However. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen.1%. Then. The highest percentages of males (61. The highest percentage of females (61. followed by 59.5%. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.97). The highest percentage of males (50. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. n = 32). The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.5% (n = 35) of females did so. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.
5 46.2 61.7 44.2 57.2 41.4 45.3 48.7 47.5 46.3 45.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 = 95.0 54.2 56.1 56.2 51.3 55.8 49.8 54.6 46. **n = 62. Female** High Low % 53.8 High % 38.2 55.2 50.0 52.0 51.2 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 % 61.2 55.2 61.5 40.Table 20.9 43.5 54.9 45.0 45.7 51.2 50.5 56.0 110 .6 54.5 45.8 42.0 47.9 44.7 54.5 43.9 44.8 45.8 50.0 48.4 53.1 55.1 54.2 45.5 59.1 55.8 38.5 53.9 43.1 56.8 43.8 58.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.8 50.8 44. Comparison of Low.8 38.3 52.5 53.
58 3.51 0.52 3.47 0.55 3.53 0.61 3.51 3.48 0.5 3. Table 21.49 0.47 3.55 SD 0.52 0.52 3.43 111 .60 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.48 3.49 0. followed by the lowest mean.49 3.55 3.47 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 3.47 0.49 3.55 3.54 0.37 0.54 0.57 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.37 3.
40 0.36 3.45 0.39 0.40 0.37 3.36 0.49 0.45 3.45 0.37 0.38 3.51 3.42 0.35 112 .43 SD 0.Table 21.6 M 3.42 3.22 3.37 3.21 0.37 0.34 0.39 0.55 3.41 3.35 3.46 3.44 3.30 0.51 3.37 0.42 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 3.44 0.
61 0.58 0.1 3.21 3.57 0.5 0.59 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 3.24 3.2 3.57 0.22 3.53 M 3.24 3.51 0.Table 21.52 0.58 0.2 3.53 0.45 113 .61 0.08 3.24 SD 0.15 3.57 0.43 0.22 3.6 0.14 0.28 3.25 3.2 3.19 3.18 3.51 0.
59 0.49 0.67 0.02 3.11 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.95 3.63 0.62 0. 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 3.16 3.63 0.11 3.Table 21. with the exceptions of Independence. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.05 3.13 3. Optimism and Happiness.57 Descriptive statistics. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. Empathy.55 0.06 2.08 SD 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .68 0.58 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.14 3.21 3.6 0.
22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. In summary. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.04* M 111. Females SD 10. Females. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. 115 . Table 22. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. n = 54.05. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. 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. Independent subsamples t test. Idealized Influence (Behavior).80 Males scored 0.Motivation. *p < . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. 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 difference which was significant at p < . a Marginally significant.43 t 2. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.57 M 106.16 SD 14. n = 33.05.05. Males.
including research methodology. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. Hater & Bass. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts.CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS. 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. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. 116 . as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. These findings are discussed. and findings of data analysis. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. 1998). Goleman. Schutte et al. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed. 1988). as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. 1998. 2000. 1998. The literature regarding leadership research suggests that the Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles in terms of organizational effectiveness outcomes.. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). RESULTS. Goleman. 1990.
6% of the 48 million employees in management. 1999). down from 16. In 2007.Sosik & Megerian. In 2001. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 47% law degrees. and related occupations (U. The women 117 . workforce is growing in its diversity. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. professional. 2003). However. 2000. women held 15. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. When asked to provide a ranking of factors.S. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. 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.4% in 2005. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. Over the next decade. 80% of the U. 2007). Hay/McBer. In fact. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 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.S. 30% of women earned medical degrees. Mandell & Pherwani.S Department of Labor. However.2% last year (Hymowitz. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. 2008). 2003). with women currently representing 50. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.
2007). nearly $2. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. businesses owned by women.S. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. Identifying how gender differences in EI. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. In addition. 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. In the overall U. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. if they exist. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.5 million people and generate $1. As a result of this ambiguity.S.3 trillion in annual sales. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . 2007). the chance to pursue an opportunity. Not surprisingly. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management.
All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. 2004. EQi component scores also increased. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. 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. 2001. job profiling. to a minimal extent. Ball. & Stacey. nonexperimental. followed by General Mood and. Perry. As scores on the TLS components increased. 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). The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. recruitment interviewing. Schaie.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. Taken together. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. In addition to filling this research gap. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed.. Van Rooy et al. 2005). 62 female). selection. 2004. Interpersonal. 119 . with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. all correlations were in the positive direction.
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. Self-Regard. and Stress Tolerance. Stress Tolerance. 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. Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. Assertiveness. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. and Social Responsibility. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 .
Mandell & Pherwani. In addition. 2001. Burgess.21) to moderate (r 121 . Further. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Thus.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . & Stough. Law et al.23 or higher. 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. 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 present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003).. 2000. 2004. Hay/McBer. 2002). 2004.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. 2003). 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Palmer. Kobe et al. Mandell & Pherwani.. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .. 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 = . 2003..23) to moderate (r = . Walls. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Judge et al. 2001).” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 1998.
is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. 122 . 2000. 2002). 1998. or temptation to act. Thus.16. 2003). As well. Mandell & Pherwani. Stress Tolerance. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. Impulse Control. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do 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. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. For example. Hay/McBer.” 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. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. drive. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. However. 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.03 to . a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing.= .
This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. Nevertheless. the fact that a large number of significant correlations were identified between subcomponents of the independent variables and the components of the dependent variable suggests a positive relationship between the two constructs.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. 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. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . 2002). thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. thinking and behavior to new situations. Males scored a mean of 0.62 (p < .19 (p < .05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. BarOn. Males scored a mean of 4. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. entails adjusting our feelings. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Thus.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component.Reality Testing. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists.
Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. as well as those of the leader and the organization. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner.” was rejected.62 (p < . try new approaches. 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.19 (p < . strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. As a result. skills and talents. 2002. 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. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . and challenge their own beliefs and values. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. with males scoring a higher mean of . 2007). 1990).05) as well.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. with males scoring a higher mean of 4.05) 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.
17).” 125 .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. which this current study used.05.10. While this current study supports previous research findings.41). Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.18). Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 2000). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. Petrides & Furnham. 1995. 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. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. all of which were significant at p < . thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.
n = 31) scored above 126 . are independent. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. are better at handling stress. More than one half of males (53. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.18). Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. Steven Stein.0%. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study.7%. To do this. and should not come as a great surprise. President of MHS. 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. ¶ 1). “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. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. 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.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).
Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. Assertiveness. 2007). These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted.28.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. Stress Tolerance. p < . 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.64. inner strength.the mean across all of the TLS components. who analyzed the scores on over 7.700 administrations of the EQi. 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.33. In addition. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. p < . and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. p < . and Social Responsibility. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). self-assuredness. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question.05). Thus.” was rejected. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.05).
as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. 128 . A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. In essence. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. 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. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. and. and Assertiveness. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. However. for the leader. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. 1993). based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance.
it is not a sole predictor. 2004).287). For example. although EI as measured by the EQi. followed by General Mood (R2change = . particularly three of its major components. Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. Interpersonal (R2 change = . 2003). to a minimal degree. 2003).015). neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. and nonverbal emotional 129 . However. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS.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. 2000. coping mechanisms (Purkable. and. appears to be a strong predictor of TLS.019). this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. as the association found between EI and TLS provides empirical support to previous research that theorized a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs. In other words. Mandell & Pherwani. When these three components were combined. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs.
unlike findings of previous research. men scored a mean of 4.7) (p. Schutte et al. Butler. 130 . 1998.8 vs. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 2005.21 vs. unlike the present results.decoding (Byron. 63. 104.31) and TLS (65..7 vs. 98. 2005). which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 2005. 92).62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. Van Rooy et al. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). women scored higher overall. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. 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. However.58 vs. 101. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.31).2). 2003) may be related to leadership ability. in the present research. 2000). as well as higher on all five components than males.
both individually and collectively (Bass. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. For example.It is important to note. 399). in the present study. Mandell and Pherwani. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. Likewise. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 . In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. and does so with consideration for their welfare. however. a somewhat different picture emerged. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Further. but did not predict TLS for males. p. 1990). The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future.
). Carless et al. & Martell. 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. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. 1994. Carless. 132 . The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership.oriented. 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. as women tend to be more nurturing.. 1995. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. the critical distinction he made was that. caring. Assertiveness. 1990). Miner. 1994. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. Karau. These characteristics are more aligned with transformational leadership and attribute this to the socialization process by which individuals learn to conform to cultural expectations in accordance with societal expectations about their gender role (Bass & Avolio. In a study by Bass et al. beliefs. Rosener. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. Block. 1998. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. management-by-exception (active). Heilman. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. 2000. and sensitive. & Johnson. Eagly. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component.
Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. 1989. & Salas. 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. Copeland. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. 1995. 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. Rudman. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. Bass et al. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. In addition. 2001. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 2001). In addition. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. 2001). 1989). one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. 1989. Generally. Driskell. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. That is. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. expressing disagreement. in 133 . 1998). Nevertheless.
Having low self-regard as previously discussed. beliefs and thoughts. 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. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. and Stress Tolerance. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . 1997). in the worst case. inner strength. Self-Regard. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Frankel (2004) identified female leaders possessing low self-regard may in fact have a fear of failure and self-doubt in attempting to meet expectations and obligations as a result of competing in a male dominated power structure.. In addition. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. could also attribute to lower scores. Assertiveness. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or.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. the fear of failure. 2002). and their negative connotations in. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks.
However. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. 1994). while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. ¶ 1). Assertiveness. However. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. while not significant. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. 135 . Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. Social Responsibility. and Stress Tolerance. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. ¶ 1). there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. but the effects are small for the most part.Psychiatric Association. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. 1997). Furthermore. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation.
and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. demonstrate more empathy. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. ¶ 1) “To summarize . while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. solve problems better. men appear to have better selfregard. and are more optimistic than women. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. (Bar-On. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. both are equally transformational in leadership style. cope better with stress. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . 2007. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. First. For purposes of this study. Limitations The current study has several limitations. 1998. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women.More specifically. . which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. . 1994). are more self-reliant. transactional. when compared with women. and passive/avoidant). no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. 2003). 2007. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. On the other hand. Mandell & Pherwani. are more flexible.
the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. more specifically transactional. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. To overcome the limitations of self-report. Further.. However. The sample used in this study included a diverse cross section of participants from a wide range of industries and levels of management representing the current work force. rather than polar constructs. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. 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.scores. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. because. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. That is. 1991). 2000). attitudes. 2003). 137 .
this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. Conscientiousness. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. It is possible that. and subordinates. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. 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. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. Alternatively. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. peers.peers. different results would have been obtained. where superiors. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. and Communication. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. Service Orientation. Developing Others. a measure 138 . Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. thereby reducing the potential for bias.
The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. 1989). Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. Dahlstrom. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ.S. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. as well as the industries they represent.S. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. the U. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. Tellegen.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. Therefore. as stated previously. Concerning the narrowing of industries. & Kaemmer.033. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. education. and 139 . The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Future researchers. Butcher. As a result. workforce. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Graham. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. 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.
This research also suggests that. Based on the results of this study. In view of this projection.. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. The EQi Intrapersonal. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. both are equally transformational in leadership style. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. Gender. and (b) if so. Likewise. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. 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. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. 140 . 2003).healthcare professions (Herman et al. 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).
selection. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. job profiling. 141 . This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning.In conclusion. recruitment interviewing. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS.
& C. K.. (2005. doi: 10..pdf Antonakis. & Dasborough. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. (2004). J. M.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. Leadership Quarterly. Atlanta. GA. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. A. & Hakstian.. R. P. Schriesheim (Eds. M. H. Washington. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 18– 22. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Toronto. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. Hunt. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). doi: 10. G.. R. A. J. 79(1). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. J. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. Avolio. C. Ontario. A. 64(3). DC: Author. (1994).. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. (1988). Dachler. Avolio. B. Ferris.apa. P. In R. 261–295. P. & Sivasubramaniam.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association.). Redwood City. & Bass. Avolio. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). Journal of Education for Business. CA: Mind Garden. Lexington. M. American Psychological Association. N. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Atkins. In J. (2006). (2003). April). Handbook of emotional intelligence. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Barchard.org/ethics/code2002. Bar-On & J. (2003). D. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 142 . M. J.). Bar-On. B. & Bass. 355–361. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. B. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. MA: Lexington Books. J. Douglas.). (2002). B. R.). Baliga. (2004). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. N.. doi: 10. Parker (Eds. 437–462. H..1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. (2003). 29–50). charisma and beyond. 14(3). A. 11(4). B. Transformational leadership. Retrieved from http://www. & Stough.
2. (1993). 143 . Retrieved from http://205.52. (1985). (2006). R. M.242/demo/intro/tformlead. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. M. M. J. doi: 10.org/bar-on-model/essay. 375–377. R.net/tc3/TC019239. (2004).. B. B. B. B. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Bass. M. M. New York: The Free Press. TX: Pro-Philes Press. & Avolio. Organizational Dynamics. B. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. R.php?i=25 Bar-On. B. Leadership Quarterly.). B.html Bass. R. New Braunfels. J. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Psicothema.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Retrieved from http://redalyc. 52(2).htm Bass..1037/0003-066X. J. 19–31. (1999). Retrieved from ProQuest database.. 541–554. J. Bass. M.reuvenbaron. Bass. B. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI).uaemex. M. & Avolio. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online).. 17(1). B. 18(3). (1995). 17(3/4). Bass. CA: Mind Garden.84.. B. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. 112–121.Bar-On. & Avolio. J. (2007). Redwood City. 13–25. International Journal of Public Administration. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. CA: Mind Garden. Retrieved from http://www. (1990). J. (1990). M. (1997). B. B. Bass. Public Administration Quarterly..pdf Bar-On. & Avolio. 18(Suppl. & Avolio. M.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Menlo Park.130 Bass. M. & Handley.231. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. (1993). doi: 10. B. doi: 10. B. (1999). (1994). 4(3). B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. 130–139. B. & Avolio.
& Henninger. Psychological Reports.Bass. B. Bass. 47–64. M. L. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. L. & Berson. 45(1). Avolio.1037/0021-9010. Leadership.. doi: 10. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http://www. R. (2003).. (1978). Y.41 144 .1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. & Atwater.207 Bennis. Retrieved from http:// www.haygroup.2007. 207–218.. Avolio. doi: 10.eiconsortium. New York: Harper & Row.capella. Psychological Inquiry. (2007). M. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.edu/login?url=http://search. (2000). J. doi: 10.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. (2007).eiconsortium.ebscohost. E. Lincoln. 35(1). Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.35. Jung. (2003). sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge.pdf Boyatzis. University of Nebraska. W.pdf Brody.88. (1996). E. Retrieved from http://www. D. B. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. M. 44–46. Retrieved from http://ei.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. K.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. B.htm Bryant. (2004).1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. R. 5–34.1. Burton. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.2224/ sbp. Journal of Applied Psychology. S. 234–238. South Carolina State University. 27(5). (2004). J.. I. J. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2003). 41–50. doi: 10. B.2. 15(3).library .haygroup. A. & Wheeler. D. Hafetz. J.. E. M.htm Burns. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.com/login. 9(4). J. (1990). N.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Murphy. A. 32–44.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. J. 86(1). 88(2). Doctoral dissertation. E. Doctoral dissertation....
May). A. doi: 10. Journal of Management. L. Retrieved from http://www. (1998. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Journal of Social Issues.eiconsortium. (2005). Dahlstrom.57 . J. Wearing. Fort Collins. 213–237. 39(11/12). A. Sex Roles.. (1989).org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. doi: 10.org/-report. G.1111/0022-4537. J. leader.Butcher. Gender and social influence. (2000). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. & Monroe. Doctoral dissertation. doi: 10. Retrieved from http//www. Gender differences in interaction style and influence.. Doctoral dissertation.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. J. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k.ccl..htm Cannella. 23(3). Byron. and subordinate perspectives.1037/0022-3514. (1998). Georgia State University. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. (2002).. W. A. (1997). & Mann. (2001). October). K. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations)...00238 Cavallo.964 Carli. Butler. doi: 10. 2008. 56(4). N. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. A.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless.6. B. Retrieved August 10. R. Tellegen. & Kaemmer. (2008. L.aspx Cherniss. Colorado State University. 57(4). 565–76. L. Retrieved from http://www. 14(3). A short measure of transformational leadership.eiconsortium . No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. A.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. K. D. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.. doi: 10. J. (1989). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. & Brienza. Journal of Business and Psychology.htm 145 . S. S.. Graham. L. D. 389–405. 887–902. 725– 741. Retrieved from http://www. C. C. L. M. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. & Goleman..1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. (2003).eiconsortium .
(2002). 2008. Public Personnel Management. 233–256.. Copeland.. 523–530. 5(2). doi: 10. A. Journal of Nursing Administration.. 341–372. Yammarino. J. from Answers. (1995). 146 . 53–68. Retrieved August 31. 15(4). Psychological Bulletin. F. CA. (2000).com Web site: http://www. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. Mayfield. 17–29.. 135–159. New York: HarperCollins.1037/0033-2909. (1994). D. 17–21. & Higgs. & Spangler.. T. E (1999).. Journal of Business Research. Dearborn. Leadership Quarterly. Jolson. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. & Johnson. A. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.2. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. 55(6). Eden. H. 735–744. 45(4). Retrieved from PsycINFO database. D. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. E. P..233 Eagly. Driskell.. D. doi: 10. Dulewicz.. Miner. 31(4). Dubinsky. M. 10(6). Gender and reactions to dominance. B. & Swerdlik. B. (2002). F. Academy of Management Journal. doi: 10. J. 29(12). A. S. & Shamir. C. R.108. J. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. L. (1995). Mountain View. doi: 10. B. A. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 108(2).. K.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. (n.d. E. (1999). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Karau. B. 467–480.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Eagly. & Johnson.. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. (2002).com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. Journal of Managerial Psychology.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. Dixon. Avolio. D. M. New York: Hill. A theory of leadership effectiveness. (1967)..Chief executive officer. H. Drucker. V. & Salas. J. W. Achieving results through transformational leadership. J. 15(2).). B. J. (1990). J. (1999). M.answers. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Management challenges for the 21st century. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management..
H.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.). J. O. M. & Dickson. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. 222–227. Gohm. (1995). (2008). Z.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. L. Social skills in interpersonal communication. & Rawles. doi: 10. (1995). Furnham.pdf Hay/McBer.com/login. 15(3). 10(6). Retrieved from http://www. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.4. Retrieved from http://psycnet.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard.1037/0021-9010. (2004). J. C. M. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (1988). Grubb. C. Thousand Oaks. New York: Bantam.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. R. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (2003). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. D...library.695 Hay Group. E. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). C. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.ebscohost.capella.eiconsortium. Psychological Inquiry.. W. Hater. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. L. A. Block. ECI fact card. O.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . P. J. & Martell. Gellis. 237–252.org/?fa=main.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. & Bass. CA: Sage. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. Journal of Applied Psychology. D.. B. Working with emotional intelligence. R. 25(1).73. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.Field.gov. 695–702.. Frankel. 741–748. (2004). (2000). (2005).dfee. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. London: Routledge. (2001). (1995).haygroup. F. Social Work Research.apa. A. Retrieved from http://www. 10(3). doi: 10. 17–25.htm Hargie. Saunders. L.edu/login?url http://search. (1983). New York: Warner Business Books. Retrieved from http://www.. 73(4). Virginia Commonwealth University. Doctoral dissertation. (1998).
Winchester. D. 43–57. R.. & Matteson.Herman.library.. doi: I0. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. (2008.edu/login?url=http://search . K. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.edu/login?url=http://search. Upper Saddle River. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. (2000). (1993). (2003). Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. 15– 16. 6–18. (1993).library. Hersey. NJ: Prentice Hall. R. Hersey. The impact of gender.com/login. H.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . Case Western Reserve University. 13(1).capella. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.). 74(6). (1999). America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. H. H.).85. doi: 10. VA: Oakhill Press. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. (1998).. 751–765. M. 28(3). T. Boston: Irwin. NJ: Prentice Hall. G. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.). HR Focus. (2000).1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. Englewood Cliffs. J.. February 25). On diversity. & Olivo.. Organizational Dynamics. Judge.ebscohost. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.. & Hitt. HR Focus. emotional intelligence competencies.wsj. 75(9). Hitt.ebscohost. Ivancevich. & Blanchard. S1–S4. J. London: McGraw Hill. M.com/ login. C. (1997).aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. Retrieved from http://online. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.751 148 . Gioia. M. T. Retrieved from http://www. K. Academy of Management Executives. M. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. & Blanchard. too few people. P. T. 85(5). & Bono. (2005). Hopkins. Doctoral dissertation.htm Hymowitz. E. Wall Street Journal.5. A. A. M.1037t/00219010.capella. A. You’ve got to change to retain. P. R. (1997)..aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. (1977).eiconsortium.
(2000). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.. 615–626. N. 89(3). B. 5(1). Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. & Jantzi. 483–496. T. R. 125(4). L. 173–180. (2000. 41–44. B. Transformational leaders make a difference. 89(3).. (2004).. 7(3).capella. M.. F. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. doi: 10. K. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. G. 385–425.1037/15283542. C. J.1037/0021-9010. A... 154–163. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. Emotion. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Sivasubramaniam. J..1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. & Posner. Côté.00. 89(5).5. Kirkcaldy.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host. G. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. A. L.542 Judge. S. (2005). 112–129. Furnham. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.113 Lowe. K. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. doi: 10.com/login. & Johnson. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.Judge. S. Salovey. doi: 10. M. & Beers. A. Current Psychology. 542–552. & Rickers. doi: 10. (1996). R. Colbert.89.5. Journal of Applied Psychology. P..com/cda/media/ 0.1037/0021-9010. Journal of Research and Technology Management.library. K. doi: 10. J. 20(2).. (2004). & Piccolo. P. 38(2). & Siefen. Z. K.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. (2004).15304. J.. D.. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. 12(3). Retrieved from http://basepath. P. Kroeck. E. A. Noack. doi: 10. R. (2005).. & Ilies. (2001). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies..1. Reiter-Palmon..3.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 .. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. (2007). European Psychologist.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. S.wiley. N.483 Leithwood.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. & Song. June). 755–768. B. D. 38(3). L.1037/0021-9010. Education.89.. Wong... 113–118. T..89. Journal of Educational Administration. Leadership Quarterly. R.pdf Law.3.755 Kaufhold. (1995). doi: 10. doi: 10. A.
1–29. Psychological Inquiry. 253–296. F. 15(3). D. P. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). 387–404. G. (UMI No. P. What is emotional intelligence? In P. G.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. J... 267–298. D. doi: 10. and implications.. S. 9970564) Mandell. The anthropology of emotions.com/login. B. C. J.an. D. M.edu/login?url=http://search. D. Journal of Business and Psychology. & Caruso. 27(4). R. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. D. doi: 10. (2002). 15(3).. R.ebscohost.). 32(3). S.15.1146/annurev. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. M. doi: 10. Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Lutz.library.. Salovey & D. D. (2004a). New York: Basic Books. K.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.002201 Malek. M. (2004). (2007). (1986). Retrieved from http://www. 197–215. 67(1). Toronto. (2002). D. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space.. Caruso. Dissertation Abstracts International. D. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. & White. About the MSCEIT.capella. (1997). P. Salovey. 71).com/ login.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.. 61. Sluytrer (Eds. & Salovey. Salovey. D. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 17(3). D. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison.unh.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey.library. Psychological Inquiry. (2000). Journal of Research in Personality.ebscohost. J. J. P. & Salovey. D. (2003). Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. 179–196. Intelligence.. Carlsmith. (1998). 15(2).edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer..library. R.. Annual Review of Anthropology. M.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 .sciencedirect. & Caruso. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. J. Mayer. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.100186. & Zeidner. R. J. Mayer. H. 05B. findings. (1999). Emotional intelligence: Theory. & Chabot. American Sociological Review..com . Retrieved from http://www.capella.capella.edu/login?url=http://search. Ontario. Mathews... Roberts. 405–436. & Pherwani.
M.com/login . M. A. (2004).capella. 13(4). (2004).Mayer. 2008. & Carsky. Retrieved from http://www. doi: 10. Psychological Inquiry. C.library.library. doi: 10. D. 15(3).com Web site: http://www. Walls. Robinson. Z. E. S.). B.d. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. & Stough. R. 26(2).edu/login? url=http://search. P. M.org. (2004).com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms...pdf Morrison.1016 /j.edu/login?url=http://search. R. (2002). & L. Retrieved August 31.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. M. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. from Answers. 15(3). Measurement and control of response bias. N.html 151 . Salovey.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli.. The International Journal of Conflict Management.. (2003). 100–106. Jones. Wrightsman (Eds. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. R. 17–59). Parker.. 335–344.com/login. (2004b). L. Journal of Individual Differences. Perry.ebscohost..). Journal of Nursing Administration. & Caruso. doi: 10.au/iier14/perry. Oatley. In J. D.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. (2005). 27–34.. B. Burgess. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. 27(5). P.ebscohost.. N. Saklofske. Wood. C. & Taylor. (1997). J. S. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. J. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. I. H.. 5–10..answers. 24(6). J. MLQ international norms. 249–255.paid.iier.2006.022 Paulhus. Retrieved from ProQuest database. L. Issues in Educational Research.04.. San Diego. J. R. 29–43. 381–400. L. 216–238.capella.mind garden. Shaver. D. R.. 14(1).. Ball. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. & Fuller. (n. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. L. (2001). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Eastabrook. Psychological Inquiry. Inc. D. & Stacey. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. D. K. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. CA: Academic Press.. 22(1).
K.. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. Prati..2007. Sex Roles. P.Petrides. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. C. Retrieved from http://www.1002/per. Retrieved from ProQuest database. R.. 425–448. Petrides.eiconsortium. (2007). Leadership Quarterly. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. & Furnham. M. (1990).. pp. A.library. doi: 10. 449–461. R. Costa. A. T.leaqua. M. C.com/login. (2000). L. T. (2001). 11(1). R. R. and team outcomes. (2004). leadership effectiveness.4. (1992). doi: 10.. K. doi: 10. Case Western Reserve University. R.. Purkable.ebsco host.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. & McRae. 323–351). (2003b).. Ways women lead. K. 60(4). Douglas. V. A. W. 11(4). & Heinitz. B. Harvard Business Review. 15(6).capella. (2003a). International Journal of Organizational Analysis. (2003). R. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. & Buckley. P. V.01.60. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 42(5/6). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Catholic University of America..1037/0022-3514.). Leadership and management styles. 18(2).416 Piedmont. Ammeter. R... J. 121–133.htm Rivera Cruz. Doctoral dissertation. Emotional intelligence. (1991). 41–62. R. In W. R. M. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. P. G. Plunkett (Ed. 744–755. L. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model.htm Rosener. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. G. Supervision (6th ed. 119–125. L. L. Ferris. Retrieved from http://www. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Ferris. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 363–369. J. M. A. European Journal of Personality. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. & Furnham. B. Emotional intelligence.eiconsortium.edu/login?url=http://search.1016/j.630 Plunkett. Ammeter. Douglas. Prati.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t ..003 152 .org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. & Buckley. Doctoral dissertation.. 68(6). V.
. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. and Matthews (2001). 693–703. Schulte. New York: Wiley. Cognition. J.com Web site: http://www..EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence..pdf Sanders. R. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.htm Schutte.1037/0022-3514. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics.library. Retrieved from http:// www.eiconsortium. M.capella. from Answers.1037/1528-3542..edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. B. (2003). Schaie. doi: 10.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.ebscohost..aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Bass. 1(3). J. 167–177. Retrieved from http:// www.. Race.. Emotion.unh. G. 9(4). & Geroy. T. (2000). 16(4). Hunt. E. (1998). doi: 10. Doctoral dissertation. (2003). J.). (2002). E..629 Sala.. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Hall.com/topic/senior-management Smith. J. (1990). J. A.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. P. Malouff. doi: 10. Comment on Roberts. Cooper.74. Imagination. 9(3).com/login. J. Retrieved from http://www.d. D. J. Golden. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. E. D. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. & Mayer. Personality and Individual Differences.sciencedirect. D.library. Emotional intelligence. Our Lady of the Lake University. (1990). (n. W.capella. L. W.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Hopkins. K.Rudman. M. emotions. L. Organizational behavior (7th ed.3.answers. 2008.. 74(3). M. 185–211. 94– 110. F.243 Schermerhorn. Race. 243–248.com. Retrieved August 31.). J. and socialization. (1998). N. and Personality. 9(4). Zeidner. J.. C. 25(2). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. 21–31. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 629–645. Retrieved from http://www.org/ Salovey.. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.. E.eiconsortium.1. Journal of Management. Haggerty.edu/login?url=http://search .3. J.. (2001). et al. & Osborn. Gender & Class.
bls.. Retrieved from http://www. (2002). Vandenberghe. Department of Labor.kandidata. C. 37(1).edu/spb/ovidweb. S.. L. Barone.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. S.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.se/default. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. C. (1998. A. 2002. J. R. & McDaniel. (2005). 49(1).bls. 18–14.S. Retrieved from http://ovidsp. & Plemons. Retrieved from http://www. L.A. Sosik.%20K. Group & Organization Management. Nursing Research. J. 37–43.ovid. doi: 10. Wade. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M.org/Search. L. C. Retrieved from http://www. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.. Journal of Allied Health.. Tucker. Census Bureau of Labor.C. 689–700. Douthitt. April).gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. doi: 10. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates.. & McCarthy. U. A. & Viswesvaran.capella.). & D’hoore.. J. (2003). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership.. J. Retrieved from http://www. D. G. A. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data.023 154 . M.. S . Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.. & Megerian. Personality and Individual Differences. S.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur..%20(1998) Snodgrass. J. (2000). MA: Allyn and Bacon. 367–390. (1999). W. & Fidell. F.library.tx. (2005).cgi Tabachnick.2004. K.paid. (2001). Bureau of Labor Statistics..J. B. L. Sojka.Smith. E. 331–338. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. M. TX.siop. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. J. 75(6)... (2000). Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. S.Needham Heights.pdf U. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Z. Journal of Education for Business. 38(3).S. Ellis.%20M. Dallas. 24(3).aspx?search=Smith.05.% 20&%20McDaniel. Alonso. (2008).com.1016/j.
40(1). 39–52. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Yammarino. J.library. C. S. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.2004.htm Weisinger.. NJ: Prentice Hall. 89–92. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. The perfect labor storm 2.06. W. M. I. Yukl. doi: 10. Journal of Management.ebscohost.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin.com/login. doi: 10. 28–32. The Leadership Quarterly. E.. A. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. J.capella. 43(10).edu/login?url=http://search. Chew. Journal of Information Systems.. J.. Comer.com/login. Lancaster.eiconsortium. G.edu/login?url=http://search. Human Relations. & Spangler. Retrieved from http://www . & Bass. (2001). 251–289. D. (1990). (2003). B. B.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. I. Wolfe. H. G. (2003).capella. Zhu. Retrieved from http://ezproxy .1016/j. Dubinsky. doi: 10. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research.ebscohost.Viator. Developing emotional intelligence. 34(10).com/login. 15(2). leaqua. 205–222. (2005).1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. PA: Poised for the Future Company. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. Doctoral dissertation. K. L.library . (2007). R. 16(1). A. (1997). Nursing Management. W. (2000). 8(2). L.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. & Jolson. M. H.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. University of Minnesota.capella. (2002). 975–995. Retrieved from ProQuest database. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.ebscohost. Emotional intelligence at work. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. F. A. (1989). Academy of Management Journal.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.library. 15(2). 99–125..001 155 . M. Upper Saddle River. (1998). F.edu/ login?url=http://search. 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 .
000.00 158 .000.00 Between $40.00 Between $70.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.000.000.00 and $150.000.00 and $100.00 More than $150.00 Between $100.000.00 and $70.000.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.