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
000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. . this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. The purpose of this cross-sectional.000 billion annually. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. and healthcare professions. predicts that by 2010. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. Department of Labor.S.033. 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. there will be approximately 10.Abstract The U. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. education. In addition.
.Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . iii . who laid the cornerstone of my being. and to my Grandparents. .
. . Bruce Gillies. for making this research possible. thank you sincerely. . . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . 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 . . . And to my family and friends who have . . . 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 . Lori La Civita. . . I love you all! iv . Joseph Damiani. and to Dr. . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . you my friend have been a gift from God. understood and supported my absence throughout this process . and your respected members who participated. .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . . With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . . who helped me start this journey. to Dr. Dr. for the most part (smile!) . . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . To my original mentor.
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
Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. TLS Component Scores: U. Comparison of Low. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Group Sample Table 5. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8.List of Tables Table 1. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Group Norms vs. 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 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7.S. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14.
Comparison of Low. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.Table 19. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.
1997. Department of Labor. 1 . companies must compete to find. 1990). and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Department of Labor.S. attract.373 billion (Herman. and retain the best talent.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. Ireland & Hitt. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. higher group performance levels (Keller. 2005). 2000. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 1998).S. education. The U. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Drucker. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1988). develop. 1997. Gioia. 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. Hitt. 1999. U. 1999).CHAPTER 1.033. 1995). Specifically. & Olivo. Herman. 2003. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).
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. 1997. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. Mandell & Pherwani. conflict resolution styles (Malek. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 2003. Caruso. & Salovey. 1998).S. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. 2003). 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. Goleman. 2001). 2 . and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. Goleman. 1998. 1999). 1999. Therefore. Sala. 1998). Ogilvie & Carsky. Furthermore. Mayer. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman.. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. 2002. 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. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. 2000). Hay/McBer. select and retain such personnel. and the need to effectively identify. 2000.
this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. 2000. Rationale Existing research on whether.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. Hay/McBer. and the extent to which. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. 1998. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. 3 . selection and management development. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. if any. Mandell & Pherwani. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. job profiling. 2003). recruitment interviewing. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. In addition. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship.
this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. 4. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. 2. In addition. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. 3. if a relationship is found to exist.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. 4 . The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.
and relate to others. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. self-regard. the ability to deal with strong emotions. Emotional Intelligence (EI). understand. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). Stress Management and Mood. including the ability to be aware of. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. In 5 . The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. 2002). 1998). 2002). whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. independence and assertiveness. Adaptability. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. Interpersonal.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). self-actualization. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. 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. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. the ability to be aware of. reality testing and problem solving. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. making major corporate decisions. Executive Management. and express oneself. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. understand. social responsibility and interpersonal relations.
Chief Marketing Officer. Chief Operating Officer. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. The sum total of knowledge. and strategies (Schermerhorn. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. expertise. 6 . whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. which may enhance organizational outputs. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. how it can be done effectively.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis.d. Chief Information Officer. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. Middle Management. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. n. mission. and the Director of Human Resources. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. 2002). Leadership. each of which has specific functional responsibilities.). 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.d. & Osborn. n. 2002). The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. Leadership Style. which are generally shortterm ones.). 2000). and energy available within organizations members. Hunt. Intellectual Capital (IC).
and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas.Multiple Intelligences. Senior Management. environmental. 1998). The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. intentions. and Organizational Effectiveness. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. (c) Inspirational Motivation. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. movement oriented. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. including verbal. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. and (e) Individualized Consideration. and three outcome constructs. 2004).. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. Retention. 2000). Group. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). spatial. The ability of an organizations leadership to proactively develop and maintain employee motivation to engage in their level of commitment and involvement towards their organization and its values (Schermerhorn et al. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). musical. (b) Individual. mathematical. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). three constructs of transactional leadership. 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 . one nontransactional leadership construct.
and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study.). (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. 1998). and the Demographic Questionnaire. n. which involves motivating individual/organizational change. EQi. to improve. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. (d) participants 8 .operations that are generally of a long-term nature.d. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). Social Skills. listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). cooperation). work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. The ability to get people to want to change. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. and to be led. Social Intelligence. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. 1997). and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). (b) Inspirational Motivation. 1998). Transformational Leadership Style (TLS).
this study relies on participants’ self-report data. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. 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. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. such as linear regression will 9 . while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. 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. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. That is. such as correlational analyses. Finally. interest or motivation to respond. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. Univariate statistical techniques. and multivariate procedures. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. First. thus skewing the pattern of responses. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. Since data will be collected at one time point.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. Secondly.
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. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. statistical analysis. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. Transformational Leadership. variable. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. 10 .be used. The dependent. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments.
and (e) gender and EQI. Academic Search Premier. and (c) whether there are any significant differences in EI attributes that are gender-specific in the relationship between men’s and women’s use of EI and TLS. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. A summary concludes the chapter. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. PsycARTICLES. transformational leadership style (TLS). (d) gender attributes and leadership style. using numerous multiple key word searches. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . EI. and gender. (b) leadership. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. Emotional Intelligence. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. and a synthesis of research findings. and gender. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. and psychology journals. Business Source Premier. their relationship.CHAPTER 2. 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). EQi. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. PsycINFO. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership.
1995. higher group performance (Keller. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. and dissertations. 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. books. Goleman. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 1995). and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 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. In addition. 1999).gender. 1988). 2006. Bass & Avolio. Specifically. 12 . 22 articles were relevant to this study. along with several books and dissertations. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. In total. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 1985. 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. 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.
Task-related 13 . 2002). and handsome. 1990). or traits. assertive. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. these studies failed to create a list of traits that would guarantee leadership success as different studies found different traits associated with leaders that became too long to be of practical significance (Yukl). and emotionally stable. energetic. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. These early leadership theories were content theories. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess.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. Social characteristics include being charismatic. tactful. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. social. and skills (Yukl. popular. tall. motives. charming. adaptable. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. of leaders such as personality. Personality traits include being self-confident. and diplomatic. However. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. values. cooperative. not on “how” to effectively lead.
leading to the concept of situational leadership. integrity. 2002). self-confidence. and being results-oriented. having initiative. no leader possesses all of the traits. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. No two leaders are alike. the type of organization. accepting of responsibility.characteristics include being driven to excel. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. Thus. 14 . desire to lead. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). and job-relevant knowledge) yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and education. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. and cultures. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Yukl (1989. intelligence. 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. the characteristics of the followers. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. Furthermore. and the nature of the external environment. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. levels of management.
consistently appeared. manufacturing companies. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. mental. Two factors. and student leaders. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). 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). Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. Initiating structure. 15 . 2002). the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. As a result. considerate and initiating structure. college administrators. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. or emotional traits.The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. termed consideration and initiating structure. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. 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.
Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. As a result.involves planning. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Like trait research. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. organizing. and coordinating the work of subordinates. and providing for subordinates welfare. an employee orientation and a production orientation. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. The Contingency/Situational Approach (1960s and 1970s) Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness was inconclusive as the behavior approach emphasized only behaviors disregarding other variables such as situational elements. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. Unfortunately. being supportive. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State.
Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. task structure. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. 1967).and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. Together. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. 2002). Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. and position power. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. those that are motivated by task. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. leader-member relations. 17 . Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. and those that are motivated by relationship.
An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. and weak leader position power. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. However. S3. D2. Furthermore. and D4). empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . 1993). unstructured tasks. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates.defined tasks. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. D3. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). S2. 2002). By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. and strong leader position power. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. Four leadership styles (S1. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable).
Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. recognizing followers accomplishments. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. being supportive. either transactional or transformational. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. and situational variables (Yukl. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. Specifically. and providing for their welfare. work standards. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. influence processes. low-directive style (S3). Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership.and directivity (S2). employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. and outcomes. 2002). Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. behavior. Finally. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. However. 1993). The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. Hersey & Blanchard. such as trait.
Or they are corrected by negative feedback. 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. 1990). and individualized consideration (Bass. threats. 1990. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. intellectual stimulation. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. or disciplinary actions. 1985. 20 . Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). praise. In contingent rewarding behavior. Bass & Avolio. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. 1997. reproof. Transformational leadership contains four components. and reward. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. 2004). When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. In contrast. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. inspirational motivation.
Judge & Piccolo. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . Hopkins & Geroy. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. Sanders. the integrative theory of leadership research. “cognitive. unlike Burns. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. and situational/contingency variables. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. in Bass’s view.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. behavior. behavioral. 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. 76). 2003. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. However. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. In addition. 1989). 2003.g. Furthermore.. 2004. 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. 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. Yukl. 52).
Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. weaknesses. the organization’s strengths. Bennis. focusing on a common purpose. 2000). addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. However. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. and comparative advantages.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. 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. 1985. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Another departure Bass takes from Burns’s concept of Transformational Leadership style is his assertion that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of attending to positive moral values and brings up leaders such as Adolf Hitler and others of similar character. Leithwood & Jantzi. 22 . 1990. 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. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives.
while at the same time winning their respect. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. take stands on difficult issues. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. and emphasize the importance of purpose. inspirational motivation. commitment. Vandenberghe. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. intellectual stimulation. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . & D’hoore. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. idealized influence (behavior). and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). Over time. present their most important values. 2000). respect. transformational. emphasize trust. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. and the ethical consequences of decisions. and individualized consideration. transformational leaders inspire the confidence. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. idealized influence (attributed). Transformational leadership. 1992). consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. loyalty. 1993). 1999). transactional. cooperation. confidence. 1993).
1999).(Bass & Avolio. Second. meticulousness. will-do attitude. traditions. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. Cannella and Monroe 24 . abilities and aspirations. 2004). expert resources. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. and creativity (Dixon). and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. 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 advise and coach. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. followed by action planning. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. challenge followers with high standards. listen attentively. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. and beliefs. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. 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. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. Further. awareness of internal and external customer needs. further their development. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons.
exchange promises and resources. Although they may not be close by. contingent reward. Laissez-faire leadership. exchange assistance for effort. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. conferences. and management-by-exception (passive). Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. laissez-faire. fail to follow up requests for assistance. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. Transactional leadership.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). 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. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. management-by-exception (active). The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. reports. are absent when needed. and 25 . clarify expectations. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. 1995). and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. negotiate for resources.
subordinates reported about their managers. 1992). A research study by Dubinsky. 2003. & Berson. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. Avolio.e. it does have its place under the right circumstances. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. 2003. Douthitt. and commercial organizations. Snodgrass. In addition. educational. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. Avolio.productivity records. Wade. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. The 26 .. 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. using the MLQ-360 assessment. & Sivasubramaniam. 2001. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. Bass. 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%. Bryant. & Plemons. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. Ellis. Gellis. Bass & Avolio. Jolson. 2003. Jung. Yammarino. 2004. health care. 2008).
the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. the sample size must have been reported. leader/unit perception. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. Jones. Second. organizational perception. using a sample of 275 nurses. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. 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. 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. and job satisfaction. 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. Fifth. First. Third. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . and its effect on job satisfaction. Kroeck.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. Fourth. Lowe. The results of a study by Morrison. Results of this analysis support the positive correlation of transformational leadership with work unit effectiveness as results demonstrated a strong positive correlation between all components of transformational leadership in both objective and subjective measures of performance.
behaviors has a greater degree of significance on job satisfaction than other types of leadership (i.e., transactional, laissez-faire leadership). Research by Judge and Bono (2000), based on 14 samples of leaders (N = 169) from over 200 organizations, investigated the relationship between personality and transformational leadership using the MLQ and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and certain personality variables including extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership that generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs, reinforcing the evidence that transformational leadership does result in more satisfied and motivated subordinates as well as organizational effectiveness. Another study by Gellis (2001) was designed to evaluate a model that delineates two types of leadership processes, transformational and transactional leadership, within social work practice as measured by the MLQ, using a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The objectives were to determine the degree to which social work managers were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and to identify which leader behaviors were best able to predict social work leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and extra effort by hospital social workers. Results indicated that all five transformational factors and one transactional factor, contingent reward, were significantly correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. In a research study by Viator (2001) on leadership, commitment, and job performance, data were obtained through a mail survey with 416 usable responses 28
obtained. Participants who primarily worked in the functional area of information system assurance and business consulting perceived that their supervisors demonstrated higher levels of transformational leadership, compared to participants from two other service areas (financial auditing and tax services). Transformational leadership was directly and positively associated with role clarity, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and indirectly associated with job performance, across all three functional areas. In a longitudinal, randomized field experiment, Dvir, Ede, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) tested the impact of transformational leadership, enhanced by training, on follower development and performance. Experimental group leaders received transformational leadership training, and control group leaders, eclectic leadership training. The sample included 54 military leaders, their 90 direct followers, and 724 indirect followers. Results indicated the leaders in the experimental group (transformational leadership training) had a more positive impact on direct followers’ development and on indirect followers’ performance than did the leaders in the control group (eclectic leadership training). Conducting a meta-analysis, Antonakis et al. (2003) reanalyzed data generated by previous studies that had used the MLQ (Form 5X) in different conditions by controlling sample homogeneity, using both published and unpublished sources creating two independent studies examining the validity of the measurement model and factor structure of Bass and Avolio’s MLQ. The first study used a largely homogenous business samples consisting of 2,279 pooled male and 1,089 pooled female raters who evaluated same-gender leaders supporting the nine-factor leadership model proposed by Bass and 29
Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariant—suggesting that the same constructs were validly measured in the male and female groups. The second study used factor-level data of 18 independently gathered samples of 6,525 raters clustered into prototypically homogenous contexts, used gender as a contextual factor along with examining two contextual factors, environmental risk and leader level, in testing the nine-factor model and found it was stable (i.e., fully invariant) within homogenous contexts. Results of these two studies indicated strong and consistent evidence that supports conclusions about the validity and reliability of the MLQ. Because large independently gathered samples were used, the generalizability has been enhanced. A study by Bass et al. (2003) examining the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership using the MLQ 5X, used a total of 72 U.S. Army platoons, each made up of three rifle squads and a heavy weapons squad, participating in the joint readiness training exercise, in order to rate unit potency, cohesion, and performance. The core leadership in a platoon rests with the platoon sergeant (a noncommissioned officer) and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Because the average number of light infantry combat soldiers in a platoon (all men) is typically around 30, the total number of participants rating the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants was 1,340 and 1,335, respectively. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. Ozaralli (2003) investigated transformational leadership in relation to empowerment and team effectiveness. As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational leadership style of superiors is proposed to be related to the strength of 30
transactional. and 1 unpublished data set). Dubinsky. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. dissertations. Comer. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . 1998. Carless. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. 1996. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. 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. & Atwater. & Jolson. charismatic leadership. and laissez-faire leadership. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. the more effective the team will be. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. communication and team performance. Similarly.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma. Yammarino. Bass. 1994. 18 dissertations. book chapters. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. In total. Avolio. and vision. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles.
absenteeism. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. automotive parts. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). home appliances. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. the convergent. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). Chew.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). and organizational outcomes. food. administered a total of 1. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. financial services. electrical equipment. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. and criterion validity of two instruments. chemical. More specifically. These 32 . The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership. transactional. textile and clothing. A survey study by Zhu. pharmaceutical.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. computer services. was explored. divergent. and electronics industries). pulp and paper.
2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. has been used in more than 200 research programs. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. With regard to criterion validity. Leadership types. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.. transactional leadership and nonleadership.g. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. Moreover. subjective (e. trust. are defined as follows: 1. Form 5X. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 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. over and above transactional leadership. as measured on the MLQ.. 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. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects.. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. and faith 33 .g.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i.e. The latest version of the MLQ.
how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. e. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior.b. d. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. c. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. c. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. 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. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3.94. b. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others.74 to . c. b. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. 34 . 2. 2004). Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. However. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. 1995). which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. 2004). with four questions for each scale. 1995). it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design.) The MLQ has individual subtests. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). (The researcher only used the self-rating form. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. Transactional leadership has three scales. 1990. Wearing. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . 2000). which could lead to a possible total score of 20. & Mann. Carless. 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. 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. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. Kouzes & Posner. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style.
praising individual and team contributions. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. On the other hand. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. 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.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization.. However. which is what 36 . and attention to individual needs.g. such as participatory decision making. The finding that superiors also rate women managers as higher in the more feminine transformational leadership behaviors similarly implies that superiors may employ gender-based role expectations in evaluating female managers. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy.
2003). & Caruso. On the other hand. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. 2004a).accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. and to read and direct them in other people. male superiors may have had lower expectations of women managers and therefore were being more lenient in their ratings of women managers than they were in rating male managers. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. exist. However. Carless reasoned. 37 . Salovey. some of which are contradictory. 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. numerous definitions. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. Indeed. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters.
Barone. but interrelated. Mayer & Salovey. 2000). mental processes: 1.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). or repressed within others. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. 2000. Tucker et al. 3. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. 2003). Vitello-Cicciu. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. These two definitions. 2004a. 1997. 38 . 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.. to distinguish among them. which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. Sojka. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. 2. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Mayer et al.. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. & McCarthy. From these characteristics. 2000.
popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. For this reason. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. Roberts. culminating in the formation. conceptually coherent. cohesive. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. Mathews et al. Mathews et al. EI Controversies Mathews. and psychologically based definitions of EI. Mayer et al. Thus. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. In particular. Gohm. 2004.Although this is a clear definition. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. 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. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. not of empirically validated. is problematic. 2004b).. they claimed. 39 . and the multiple social science fields on the other. emotional intelligence. and empirically valid definitions. These issues are explored next. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. 2004. they hold that EI escapes definition. 2004a.
However. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. During the 6 million years of human evolution. and measurable construct. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 .Reflecting on Mathews et al. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. 2002). concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. in these writers view. in Gohm’s view. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. Oatley. Massey argued. others (Gohm. emotion is a scientifically valid. 2004. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. Rather. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. Mayer et al.. In this view. immaterial. The denial of emotions.’s (2004) argument. 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. physiologically evidenced. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. 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.
economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 1986. the academic and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz & Higgs. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. For example. In this view. 2000). 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. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. In contrast. but they do not expand or increase them. it a learnable skill. Indeed. 2004b) reported. (2004a. The result of this was the development of a more refined ability to read others and to use that ability for governance and organizational purposes (Lutz & White. Massey. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. 2002). Massey). the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. though an inherent capacity. noted. 1986. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Mayer et al. 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 .
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
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). intrapersonal. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. In a study by J. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. These are the test of EI 45 . Results of these studies. Measuring EI Schutte et al. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. although inconsistent. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. Alonso. Van Rooy. E. Schutte et al. E. Smith).(2000) theory of human values. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. Smith (2002). In contrast. and total EQi than Caucasian participants.
measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. self-awareness. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. 2002) test.competencies. currently in its second revised version. 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. & Beers. collected from superiors. the ability to 46 . Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. 1998) which focuses on ability. colleagues. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. & Chabot. according to the publisher. Côté. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. social awareness. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. 2007). 2005). Mayer. In addition. For these reasons. Bar-On. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. Carlsmith. 2008). Boyatzis. and peers.). Salovey. self-management. the most important are the second and third competencies. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. However. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. 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). and social skills. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. According to Goleman.
discriminant.91 (Mayer.. other measurement instruments. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. four Branch scores. Petrides & Furnham. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. As noted by Parker et al. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. & Taylor. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. Mayer et al. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. two Area scores.understand the meaning of different types of emotions. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. 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. 2001). Bar-On. It yields 15 main scores. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. 2005). The test has excellent reliability (r = . Eastabrook.). (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. Saklofske. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT.. Consequently. 2002). provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies.93). The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments.. Wood. and convergent validity as well.79–. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. however. Total EI score. with r’s ranging from . 2007). The five composite 47 .
and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. adaptability. (2005). 2001).] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. Specifically. Parker et al.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d. others and life in general. these are [1.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. 2006. p. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 .] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5. (Bar-On.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4. and Watkin (2000).] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a. understand and accept oneself [b.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2.] Adaptability (change management) [a. stress management.
The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. honest and faking good. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. 2004. 2003). with more transparent and simple items being more fakable.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. C. 2001. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. & Ilies. like many self-report inventories. research has also indicated that. the nature of EI and its development over time. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2004.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. and understanding of. 2003. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. Kobe. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable.import of each set and subset in it. Colbert. a situational judgment test. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. Moreover. 2003). Judge. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. However. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. Wong & Song. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. Law.
ingredient of leadership. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani.). including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others.. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. and mutual benefits. relationships. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . as cited in Kobe et al. As a social phenomenon.. 2001. p. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. 2001. From the sociological perspective. 2003). Law et al. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. According to Mandell and Pherwani. leading others takes place via the communication of the leader’s enthusiasm and moods to others while persuading them that the enthusiasm they express for a policy or a project is spontaneously self-generated and not imposed upon them. 2003). Judge et al. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women.. In addition. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. 2003. 2003). others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al.). 155). Mandell & Pherwani. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. Mandell & Pherwani. 2004. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship.. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable.. Kobe et al. 2004.
According to Judge et al. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. loyalty. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. As Law et al. However. (2004) argued. as further contended by Law and colleagues. trust. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Kobe et al. This is an important distinction. Rather. (2004). Judge 51 . and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership.to inspire the support. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. Thus. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. leaders are created by followers. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. they argue. 2003.
Dearborn. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. Kobe et al. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. Law et al. they have emotional intelligence). cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. such as anger and pessimism. Mandell & Pherwani. 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. On the other hand. arouse similar feelings in team members. 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. and optimism. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough)... 2001. 2004. 2002). enthusiasm. In short. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). such as support.et al. leaders who display negative emotions. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. In other words. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. 52 .. 2003).
2002) was used to measure EI. as Prati et al. 2003b). 2002) argued. However. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 .g. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. Bass & Avolio.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. & McRae. and others (Dearborn. 2003a. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. Costa. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. For example. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. Prati. Ammeter. Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. & Buckley. However. According to Antonakis (2003). 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. Douglas. leadership style.. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI.. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Ferris.
2003.. Mandell & Pherwani. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. 2004. Law et al. (2003a) point out. 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. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. Judge et al.. transformational leadership. 2001. as Prati et al. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. Specifically. However. 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. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. the self-reported character of the evidence is pertinent to the phenomenon of emotional and social intelligence in that self-reports indicate the respondent’s level of emotional awareness and thereby reveal the respondent’s EI capacities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003).. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. 2004. That is. Indeed. Kobe et al.
with mixed results. Specifically. Leadership. 2003). coping (Purkable. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. Brooks (2003) examined whether a sample of 57 effective managers in one financial organization scored higher in EI than managers with lower performance ratings and compared EI levels and demographic characteristics of the sample. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. title. 2003). and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. Position. These are reviewed as follows. 2005). contingent reward leadership. and manager success (Hopkins. Regarding raters perceptions. and management tenure 55 . EI. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. 2003). Using performance ratings and demographic data. contingent reward leadership. and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership. gender.
In each of these areas. 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. and coping mechanisms. leadership practices. Influence. Emotional Self-Control. leadership practices. and coping mechanisms. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. MSCEIT subscore 4.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. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. Inspirational Leadership. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. In addition to the MSCEIT. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. and SelfConfidence. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Specifically. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores.
No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. 57 .avoidance coping. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. and success. Specifically. but not male. leadership styles. The study used self and other ratings of EI. 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. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. 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. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. Hopkins found that the intersection of gender roles and organizational roles influenced the leadership behaviors and styles of both women and men in leadership positions. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female. As noted previously.
Judge et al. 2003.. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. Women leaders. to be successful. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. must behave more androgynously. 2004. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. 1998). Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless.g.. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 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. 1998. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. Law et al.. Schutte et al. Kobe et al. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. 58 . Hater & Bass. On the other hand.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.g. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. In addition. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). 2001. 1988).. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003. 1997. 1998). on the other hand. 1990. However... Goleman. 2004.
. Moreover. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. The latter findings are supported by J. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al. 2003). 2000. 1999. To summarize. Schutte et al. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows.A review of the literature on leadership research suggests that leadership has been one of the domains to which Emotional Intelligence has been applied most frequently. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al.. Further. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998. Petrides & Furnham.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. Thus. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. Hay/McBer. as with transformational leadership style. 2004). personal or business) may interact with gender role and cultural expectations to influence the ways in which men and women managers exhibit EI behavior (Rivera Cruz. 59 . there is evidence to suggest that social context (i.’s (2005) studies. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 2007).. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. and (a) if so. E. Mandell & Pherwani. However. 2000. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups..
. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google.CHAPTER 3. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. sample selection. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. using e-mail communications. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). data analysis. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. recruiters. 1999). The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. data collection instruments and study variables. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. if any. procedures used in addressing the research questions. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration.
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). and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. nonprofit. 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. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. ranging in size from small to large.S. legal services. 2004). Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. market. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. phone. and the use of U. health care. and a host of other business and service providers. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. Senior. e-mail. For the purpose of this research 61 . advertising and marketing. Executives. food and beverage. financial services. three constructs of transactional leadership.
These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. (b) Interpersonal. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. Independent Variables Emotional Intelligence (EI) served as the independent or predictor variable in this study and were measured by the Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi).study. only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. (d) Stress Management. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). (c) Adaptability. In brief. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). 62 . Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. 2002). as well as their ethnicity and income level.
mentoring and growth opportunities. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . and display a sense of power and confidence. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . 5. 2. and values. 3. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations.85. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. 2004) and was based on data from 2. 2004): 1. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.96. principles. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors).Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. with a strong sense of purpose. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. 4.81 to . Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying.53 to . respected and trusted. Followers identify with and want to emulate them.
if not always). therefore. and to successfully cope with daily demands. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.coefficients for each leadership factor. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. challenges and pressures. However. or frequently. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. 2002). once in a while = 1.94 (Bass & Avolio). Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. if not always = 4. consisting of four items each. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities.000 respondents from the United 64 . For example. 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. fairly often = 3.73 to . All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. rather than performance or success itself. sometimes = 2. The coefficients ranged from . and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. 2004). to understand and relate well with others. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4.
to obtain a Total EQ. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. were reported as .85 (n = 44) and .. respectively. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. and Self-Actualization.States and Canada. Version 12. Assertiveness. Independence. Social Responsibility. and Problem Solving. 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. 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).75 (n = 27. Emotional Self-Awareness. 2002). with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Bar-On.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. 2002). Flexibility. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. and Interpersonal Relationship. and their associated subcomponents. 65 . MHS Inc. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. 2002). (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 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.
the purpose of research. and number of direct reports under supervision. education level. age. the expected time of completion. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. title best describing the respondent’s 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. 66 .Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. years held in current position. the risk and benefits of participation. race/ethnicity. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. industry. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. years employed by current organization. the criteria needed to be met for participation. 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. In this current study all online survey responses.
Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . the MLQ assessment. 2.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. individual data were not made available. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.Consent was implied by participants who after reading the “Waiver of Signed Consent” (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy).” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent.
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. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 4.3. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 68 . HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.
Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. 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. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.. the MLQ. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner.e. and pen/paper copies were shredded. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. 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. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. 69 . and the Bar-On EQi). e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access.
and was used to launch e-mail campaigns using the “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” which had been designed and written as an html file using a hidden field assigning potential participants their Unique Numeric ID and Passwords. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. 2006) ethical standards. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. and required. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. 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). 70 .This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. naked to the participants eye.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. after submitting consent. In addition. 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. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. All data collected were pooled for analysis.
p. outliers. missing and out-of. This was followed by univariate analyses.g.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 94). 571). Analyses examining group differences (e. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . 2005. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. Errors in scoring/data entry. p. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. 72).. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. 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. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. When necessary. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. 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. 667). and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. as appropriate. p. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). 65). Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. Finally. 2005. 2005. p.
2005. 170). the nature and strength of that association. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. p. and.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. 72 . Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. p. if so. 160). In addition. 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. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. as well as to control for the effects of gender.
2. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. while not substantial. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. 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. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. As previous research.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.
and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 3. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. the nature and strength of that association. 4. and if so. 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. 74 .
(b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. If necessary. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. p. 2005. 75 . and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e.. p. 65). Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. 72). and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. missing and out-of. as appropriate.g. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. p. 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. or scaled variables.Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 94). 2005. Errors in scoring/data entry. outliers.
5 5.1 25.1 11.2 5.1 22.8 5.6 76 .7 20.1 39.5 45.8 2.8 1.2 2.7 7.9 3.5 4.4 19.9 12.4 24.3 8.8 3.4 3.7 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 60.7 5.2 12.2 55.7 10.1 10.0 11.7 29.6 16.Table 1.9 6.
*Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. Arabic or other.7 2.8 More than $150.000 17 10.9 12.70.7 16.9 65.5 1.9 2. maximum age 67.7 34.5 4.3 12. American Indian.0 2. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.3 20.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.7 31.1 32.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. SD = 8.7 Current income Less than $40.1 9.6 Between $100–150.20).4 8.2 10. 77 . East Asian.25 85.000 44 27.000 23 14.9 1. N = 158.8 Between $70–100.9 10.000 15 9. **Includes Pacific Islander.000 55 34. Minimum age 24.8 Between $40–70.
32 subordinates. In terms of supervision responsibilities. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. n = 135) male (60.000 per annum (49. or mean of 3.4%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. The sample of the population in this study has an average. and a median of 5. Notably. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 72).Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.95 years of college education. n = 106). Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.1%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.2%.7%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. Addressing racial diversity. However.000–$100.15 direct reports. 78 . Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.6%. from between 3–6 to more than 16. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 121) in a private. for-profit organization.6%.4%. Most respondents earned from $40. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. n = 103). n = 78). 25.
Total EQi Score. The mean age of the subjects is 48. 103.900 and the median was $54.77 years. 105. Adaptability.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. Intrapersonal. As far as income. 107.85). 79 . Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.65 years.02 (SD = 13. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. the mean income was $68. 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. EQi component scores were.05).730. 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 2.97 (SD = 13.41). This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. in descending order. 102. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. Interpersonal. Summed TLS Score. Descriptive Statistics—The Five TLS Components of the MLQ Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the five TLS components of the MLQ are displayed in Table 3.63 (SD = 12. Stress Management.02 (SD = 13. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. 105.49 (SD = 14. with a nearly identical median of 48.00). For the income this is going to be most apparent. and General Mood Components.49).01). because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.
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 107.00 12.66 14.61 105.01 13.05 14.28 103.49 13.93 13.36 Total EQi Score 105.02 102.67 13.Table 2.86 106.61 102.04 12.70 13.64 107.66 101.60 14.41 106.86 12.49 103. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.54 103.74 13.62 13. 80 .44 13.85 12.41 12.46 102.17 104.52 103.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.97 13.21 105.63 103.02 105.19 13. N = 157.31 103.63 103.45 13.73 12. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.
59). 3.63 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior). which are as follows. Idealized Influence (Attributed). TLS component scores were. 3. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.63). 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. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). Individualized Consideration.59 Note. Inspirational Motivation.52.13 (SD = 0.96 (SD = 0.26 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.58). Mind Garden. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.59 0. Intellectual Stimulation.18 (SD = 0.57 0.08 3. Individualized Consideration.58 0.18 SD 0.57).57 0.59). Idealized Influence (Attributed). 3. 3.57).13 3. 3.Table 3.59). 2004).35 3.16 (SD = 0. 2. in descending order.53).35 (SD = 0.26 (SD = 0. 3.04 (SD = 0.95 (SD = 0.08 (SD = 0.S.99 (SD = 0. 2. N = 157.09 3. 3. and Intellectual Stimulation. 2.59). 81 . Idealized Influence (Behavior). Inspirational Motivation.52).09 (SD = 0.
TLS Component Scores: U. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.55 0.58 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. Group Norms vs. Norm group** M 3.59 0.08 3.53 0. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.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.52 0. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). or symmetry.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. **N = 3.95 2.e.99 3. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.09 3.96 3.375. 2001).Table 4. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. Skew represents the even-ness.S.18 3.26 3.02 2.59 0.13 3. of a distribution (i. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error..57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.59 0.52 M 3.63 0.57 0.59 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. or scaled variables. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .35 SD 0.04 2.
67.61. and (e) Individualized Consideration = .76.09. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.0. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. and not individual MLQ items. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .80.83. and Individualized Consideration = –1.64.24. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. (b) Interpersonal = . Intellectual Stimulation = –.83. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.220.127.116.11.16. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . (b) MLQ 23 = –2. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. respectively. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.40. (b) 6. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .18. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. and (e) General Mood = . Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .49. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. but normally distributed. 83 .06.70. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. (d) Adaptability = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.73. (c) Stress Management = .66. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. with skew > +/–2.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . Inspirational Motivation = –. 2001). and (c) 9.67.
IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). Stress Management 4. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. Adaptability 5.46* IM . The significance level was set at (α = . *p < . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.48* .59* IS . General Mood IIA .28* .52* .19 a . a p < . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. Pearson’s r was obtained.01.37* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.37* IIB . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). and IC = Individualized Consideration.05).36* .29* .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.25* . N = 158.44* .35* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.43* Note.40* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.37* . Intrapersonal 2.23* .40* .41* . To address the first research question. Table 5.44* .37* .33* . Interpersonal 3. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.32* IC .30* . 84 .05.31* .
05). Inspirational Motivation (r = . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. p < .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).05).50. 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.23 or higher. which was still significant at p < . With one exception. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. All correlations were in the positive direction.45.05.19. p < . at r = . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. 85 . (c) Self-Actualization (r = . Most of the correlations ranged between . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. p < . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . (b) Happiness (r = . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Results are shown in Table 6. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .001).16.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . EQi component scores also increased. with (α = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.59.001) and Inspirational Motivation.51.001). which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.20 and . p < . using the same Procedure Correlations.
43* .51* IS . Flexibility 13.37* . ap < . Self-Actualization 6.24* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). Independence 5.23* .31* .33* .11 (ns) .21* .29* .45* .05).12 (ns) .31* IIB . and IC = Individualized Consideration.37* .44* . 86 .43* .35* .23* .34* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.48* . Optimism 15.13 (ns) . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1. *p < .30* .31* .33* .19 a .40* .38* .39* .27* .24* .26* .15 (ns) .59* .32* . Reality Testing 12.Table 6.05 (ns = nonsignificant. Social Responsibility 8.36* Note. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). IS = Intellectual Stimulation.38* .17 a . Stress Tolerance 10.15 (ns) .33* .38* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.16 a .32* .33* .32* .25* .30* .03 (ns) . Empathy 7.33* . p ≥ .36* . Happiness IIA .26* .30* .40* .35* .33* . N = 157.46* .37* .45* . Self-Regard 2.40* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.34* .43* . Impulse Control 11.28* .01.40* .39* IM .37* .28* .24* .37* .36* .16 (ns) .44* . Self-Awareness 3. Problem Solving 14. Assertiveness 4.24* .50* .36* .25* IC .37* .
While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . p < . 2001). This is a potentially serious issue. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . EQi component scores also increased.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. In summary. p < . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Examining intercorrelations among EQi subcomponents will aid in establishing whether any of them are so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned hierarchical regression analyses (Field. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . 2005. p. All correlations were in the positive direction.30. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.26. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. which can occur when variables are too highly correlated.001).24. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . p < . 170). since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis.001). Correlations 87 . all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing.
01). Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.82. 88 . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.72. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. However. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. p < . based on the . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.64.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. 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. this intercorrelation is to be expected. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. p < . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8.01).01).71. p < . p < . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . Therefore.90. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .
51* 1.52* .28* .50* .24* .55* .66* .38* .61* .42* . Self-Actualization 6.23* .41* .47* .16* .32* .50* .25* .60* .00 .39* .42* .35* . Flexibility 11.61* .55* .40* .39* .43* .51* .53* 15 .26* .62* .41* .51* . Interpersonal Relationship .82* .72* . Social Responsibility 8.00 .55* .00 .40* .47* .00 1.50* 1.47* 1.60* .32* .61* .32* Subcomponent 1.50* . Impulse Control .25* . Assertiveness 4.00 .36* .52* .60* . Problem Solving 12.42* . Stress Tolerance 13.42* .47* . Self Awareness 3.51* .40* .00 1.00 .42* .56* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .56* .49* .37* .00 1.00 1.Table 7. Self-Regard 2.43* .43* .33* .39* .36* .37* .50* .00 .40* .59* .43* .60* .61* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.23* .65* .52* .20* .00 1.66* . Independence 5.58* .50* .54* .53* 1. Empathy 89 7.64* .71* .74* .38* .15* .15* .32* .42* .60* .43* 1.55* .33* .50* .27* .45* 1. Reality Testing 10.30* .40* .00 .58* .53* .59* .36* 9.37* .55* .00 1.41* .
*p < .00 Subcomponent 14. Optimism 15.05.Table 7. Happiness Note.00 15 . 90 .64* 1. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. a p < .01. bns = nonsignificant. N = 157.
the Interpersonal component (R2change = . followed by General Mood (R2change = .59* . 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. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Intellectual Stimulation 5.60* .72* 1.00 4 . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Inspirational Motivation 4. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Individualized Consideration Note. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.015). Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. General Mood and 91 .62* . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.00 5 . and. 1 1.Table 8.00 2 . N = 157.287). to a minimal extent.01.00 3 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.61* .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Results are shown in Table 9.54* . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.019). Overall.57* 1. Results are shown in Table 9. *p < . Stress Management at Step 3. Stress Management at Step 3.64* 1.55* . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.58* 1.
entered at Step 4.287 .85 .073 –. Table 9.24 . F change R2change .05. 92 . entered at Step 3. R2 = . nor Adaptability.04* 62. N = 157.019 Note.162 .07 .000 .728 –0. R2 = .033 –.069 2. R2 = . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).316 –0. In summary.320 at Step 5. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig. † TLS Summed = D.Interpersonal components.301 at Step 2.25 .32 . the EQi Intrapersonal. **p < .25 2.015 . R2 = .66 3. Neither Stress Management.01.034 4.000 .04 .287 at Step 1.008 .66** . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.87 .000 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.V. *p < .301 at Steps 3 and 4.
Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.
Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)
M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25
SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94
Males in the sample ranked highest on the Intrapersonal EQi component (M = 108.74, SD = 12.47), and they ranked lowest on the Interpersonal component (M = 102.71, SD = 14.53). The second-highest rankings for males were on both Stress Management and Adaptability. Females in the sample ranked highest on the Adaptability component (M = 105.08, SD = 12.08), and they ranked lowest on the General Mood component (M = 101.38, SD = 12.63). The second-highest ranking for females was on the Interpersonal component. As a group, females (2) ranked higher than males (4) on the EQi Interpersonal component. Females (1) also ranked higher than males (2) on the Adaptability component. Males ranked higher than females on the remaining three EQi components, Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and General Mood. Descripitive statistics (Means, SD) were then obtained for males and females on the five TLS components. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify those TLS components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are shown in Table 11. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the TLS Individualized Consideration component as seen in the rankings in Table 12, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 3.36, SD = 0.59; females: M = 3.31, SD = 0.53) compared to the remaining four components. Both males and females ranked second on the Inspirational Motivation component. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for males and the lowest-ranking for females was on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Males ranked lowest on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) component, while females, as previously noted, ranked lowest on Intellectual Stimulation. 94
Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* TLS component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.
Female** Rank -(5) (3) (2) (4) (1) M 3.10 3.04 3.03 3.19 2.97 3.31 SD 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.53 Rank -(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)
M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36
SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59
As a group, females (3) ranked higher than males (5) on only one TLS component, Idealized Influence (Attributed). As a group, males ranked higher (3) than females (4) on Idealized Influence (Behavior) and on Intellectual Stimulation (4 vs. 5). Independent samples t tests. First, an independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components. This is the appropriate statistical test to use when comparing two independent (i.e., unrelated) groups such as male and female on one or more continuous (scaled) variables, such as the five EQi components. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 12. Males scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 95
05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.67 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. *p < . 96 .01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.48 104. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Males scored a mean of 0.Table 12. *p < .05.21 14.50 2. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.97 0. bn = 62. a difference which was significant at p < .14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. bn = 62.16 0.05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. Table 13.44 2.75 12. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.
These data are presented in Table 14. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. SD = 14.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent.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. Interestingly. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. respectively.08.77. SD = 14. 97 .64. 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. Descriptive statistics. females: M = 106.
52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.14 15.75 13.74 15.72 101.17 103.37 105. *n = 95.92 13.78 13.19 12.74 11.77 102.33 105.23 13. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104. As a group.37 12.68 14.89 103.26 103.57 13.80 102.80 106.27 11.34 102.55 13.21 105.08 11. 11).Table 14.43 11.28 (14) 100.63 13.62 103.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. Social Responsibility 98 .06 102.53 12.16 103.93 13.41 11.50 12. 13). N = 157. **n = 62.34 12.48 13.64 109.70 13.67 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.09 109. Self-Actualization (9 vs.56 102.50 109.97 15.37 14.76 106.07 14.99 107.40 14.47 104.24 104.01 103. Empathy (4 vs.18 14.92 102.61 104.84 11.80 14.
80 102. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. (2 vs. a difference which was significant at p < . Table 15. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. 12). Stress Tolerance (4 vs.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. 12).01. Assertiveness. Females.21 105.36** 1. 10).07* 3.18 14. 15). Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). Males.74 t 2. 13).07 14. They also scored higher on the 99 . n = 95. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.42* Note. Independent-samples t test. *p < . Self-Regard (8 vs.97 109.67 SD 11.99 M 99. As a group. **p < . 15).11 107.05.39 109. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.05.80 11. p = .01. among others. and Flexibility (6 vs.57 12. n = 62.01 102. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.(5 vs. Males scored a mean of 7.91a 2.86 11. 10).74 15.26 Females SD 13. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. a Marginally significant.
were important predictors of TLS in females. Regression analyses. Further. but did not predict TLS for males.05. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.41) subcomponents.11) than did females (M = 105. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. and independence (R2 change =.08).01) although this difference was only marginally significant. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. and the only one that predicted TLS in males.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. They also scored 4. regression analyses were performed separately for males and females using as the set of predictors the four EQi subcomponents on which significant gender differences had been identified. To summarize. As a follow-up. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. all of which were significant at p < . stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females.13). No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. or combination. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Both assertiveness (R2 change = .10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Specifically. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.
67 –1.01.18 .000 .248 at Step 3.08 .131 .253 at Step 2. It was thus decided that using 101 .098 12.99** .022 ..010 .176 at Step 1.45 .167 1. R2 (adj) = .e.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.255 at Step 2.85 .02 .269 .24 14. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . **p < .001 .011 Note. cFor females: R2 (adj) = . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.001 .41 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).263 at Step 4.05 .378 at Step 3.755 . R2 (adj) = .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.002 .379 at Step 4.04 2.088 –.63** .81 1. R2 (adj) = . Table 16. R2 (adj) = .73 .268 7. R2 (adj) = .19 . F change R2change . R2 (adj) = .989 34.21 –.261 at Step 1.302 .669 3.097 .12 2.000 . 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.55 –.190 . N = 157.606 .
and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed). To do this. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components. categorical variables (low.. and exactly one half of females (50. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components.e. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Finally. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. More than one half of males (53. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. 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.0%. the three highest TLS component scores). (b) Idealized Influence 102 . Categorical variables.e.7%.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. The highest percentages of males (53.
n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. Table 17.4 50.4 50.6%. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . The highest percentage of females (59. N = 157. The highest percentage of males (52.5 59. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).7%.3 46.4 54.7 53.6 49.(Behavior). n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.7 47.2 56.3 52.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note.5 46.5 53. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.3 48. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48. the highest percentage of females (54.1 45.7 53. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow. Comparison of Low.5 40.3 46. **n = 62.1 50.8 43.8%.7 51. *n = 95.
means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .29 SD 14.88 11.85 12.68 12.92 111.75 9.09 10.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.83 111.51 111. First. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.00 9.50 114.45 112.14 11.11 11. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.15 10.11 113.04 16. Once this subsample was selected.75 10. Table 18.55 114.98 111.00 112.28 11.12 110. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.24 111. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.66 11.91). 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. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.64 112.30 10.76 110.66 114. Secondly. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.
15 104.07 14.28 107.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .18 109.50 11.51 107.17 9.40 12.44 9.22 13.84 11.12 10.42 109.68 10.86 105.38 14.64 9.41 8.90 103.13 107. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.55 12.92 105.Table 18.03 7.53 109.62 107.55 12.36 13.55 11.22 108.56 SD 10.39 9.23 106.50 107.26 112.51 7.23 108.15 108.73 9.13 111.71 106.28 110.28 108.20 9.39 M 110.50 11.25 104.21 11.
12 10.09 104.66 104.85 14.78 103. 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. (b) Assertiveness. 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 102.67 10.41 10.35 103. (c) Independence.50 105.4 102.77 101.59 14.01 8.65 103.63 12.89 11.73 10.50 SD 10.96 105.06 12.81 17.90 12.06 13.68 106.27 14.79 105.Table 18.75 104.43 11.42 9.26 105.47 12.20 11.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.86 12.14 105.66 10. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .82 105.56 105.33 M 104.57 104.03 102.00 103.
(c) Social Responsibility. Males scored a mean of 5. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. In summary. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. While males scored 5. (b) Independence.across the five TLS components. Females scored a mean of 4. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (b) Social Responsibility. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . 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.05. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. (b) Happiness. a difference which was significant at p < . 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.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males.05. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. however. (d) Problem Solving. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. (d) Empathy. Assertiveness. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. Independent subsamples t test. Males scored 107 .
a Marginally significant. EQi. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Table 19.33 111. *p < .01* 2. 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..04* Note.00 14.43 t 1. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).16 Females SD 13. Females. Categorical variables. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. 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. categorical variables (low.61 106. n = 51. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. p = .80 SD 10. Subsample N = 82.94a –2.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.43 104. however. n = 31. To do this.05.e.09 108.57 M 107.96 10. Males.78 8.and high-scoring) 108 .05.05 10.
n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.3%. 109 . More than one half of males (53. The highest percentage of males (50.6%. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. again based on each EQi subcomponent.1%. Interestingly. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. followed by 59.5%. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.5% (n = 35) of females did so.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. The highest percentage of females (61. Then.0%. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. The highest percentages of males (61. n = 32). The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. Once the subsample was selected.97). Descriptive data (N and %) for low. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. However.
0 110 .9 44.6 54.2 45.7 47.2 51.5 46.8 58.1 55.1 56.5 40.2 61.4 53.5 54.0 47.2 50. **n = 62.2 55.0 52.2 41.2 61.8 44.5 59.9 45.7 51.2 50.0 51.0 48.Table 20.9 43.8 54.8 43.9 44.0 45.2 55.8 42.2 56.8 38.4 45.9 43.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.3 55.2 57.5 53.7 44.3 45. Comparison of Low.8 High % 38.5 43.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.8 49.8 45. Female** High Low % 53.1 56.1 55.8 38.5 53.8 50.5 46.8 50.0 54.1 54.6 46.3 48.5 45.7 54.3 52.5 56.2 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.
55 SD 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.47 3.49 0.51 0.52 0.51 3.61 3.49 3.55 3.57 0. Table 21.55 3.43 111 .60 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.49 0.48 3.47 0.37 3.53 0.58 3.5 3. followed by the lowest mean.55 3.49 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.52 3.47 0.47 0.54 0.54 0.52 3.48 0.37 0.
Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.39 0.41 3.42 0.51 3.42 3.55 3.22 3.37 0.6 M 3.37 3.44 0.45 0.40 0.45 0.Table 21.44 3.35 3.49 0.38 3.42 3.37 3.36 3.30 0.37 0.46 3.36 0.40 0.21 0.39 0.51 3.45 3.43 SD 0.34 0.37 0.35 112 .
58 0.5 0.08 3.6 0.43 0.45 113 .61 0.2 3.53 0.57 0.2 3.28 3.57 0.24 SD 0.21 3.57 0.61 0.53 M 3.22 3.24 3.Table 21.25 3.1 3.19 3.51 0.2 3.52 0.18 3.51 0.59 0.58 0.22 3.24 3.15 3. 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 3.14 0.
13 3.Table 21.63 0.08 SD 0.16 3.11 3.11 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.58 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. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.63 0.95 3.6 0.49 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.02 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .55 0.14 3.67 0.06 2. Optimism and Happiness. Empathy.68 0.21 3. with the exceptions of Independence.62 0.57 Descriptive statistics.05 3.59 0.
Independent subsamples t test. p = .Motivation.43 t 2. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. *p < . Females SD 10. n = 54. Idealized Influence (Behavior). Males. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.80 Males scored 0. 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. In summary.05. 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.57 M 106. a difference which was significant at p < .16 SD 14.04* M 111. n = 33.05. Females. a Marginally significant.05. 115 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Table 22.
116 .. 1998. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. These findings are discussed. CONCLUSIONS. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed. 1988). The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). The literature regarding leadership research suggests that the Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles in terms of organizational effectiveness outcomes. 1990. and findings of data analysis. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. 1998). RESULTS. Goleman. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio.CHAPTER 5. 1998. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. including research methodology. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. 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. Schutte et al. 2000. 1997. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. Goleman. Hater & Bass.
In 2007. The women 117 . the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. with women currently representing 50. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. down from 16.6% of the 48 million employees in management. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. In 2001. 80% of the U. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 2003). fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. and related occupations (U. 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. However. 2008). 1999). 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. 2000. 2007). in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. workforce is growing in its diversity. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.Sosik & Megerian. professional. women held 15. Hay/McBer.2% last year (Hymowitz. Mandell & Pherwani.S Department of Labor. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27.S. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 47% law degrees. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. However.S. Over the next decade. In fact.4% in 2005. 30% of women earned medical degrees. 2003).
S.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U.3 trillion in annual sales. 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. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. 2007). 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. As a result of this ambiguity. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. if they exist. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. businesses owned by women. In the overall U. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.S. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. In addition. nearly $2.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management.5 million people and generate $1. 2007). while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. 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. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 .
selection. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. nonexperimental. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. 62 female). with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. the overall significance of identifying EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in the present research may be to facilitate the development of human resource planning. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. 119 . Taken together. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. & Stacey. 2005). Perry. job profiling. Interpersonal. followed by General Mood and. 2004. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores.. to a minimal extent. As scores on the TLS components increased.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. Van Rooy et al. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. Ball. all correlations were in the positive direction. 2001. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. recruitment interviewing. Schaie. In addition to filling this research gap. 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. 2004. EQi component scores also increased.
Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. Assertiveness. Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. and Stress Tolerance. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. and Social Responsibility. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. 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.
2000.. 2004. 2001. & Stough.. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . 2002).59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS.. Kobe et al. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. 2001). Burgess. In addition. 2003. 1998. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). Mandell & Pherwani. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Law et al. Judge et al.21) to moderate (r 121 . Palmer. Thus. Hay/McBer. 2004.23) to moderate (r = . Mandell & Pherwani.. Walls.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = . who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Further.23 or higher. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 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. 2003).
2003). which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from .” 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. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. Stress Tolerance. Hay/McBer. Impulse Control. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. As well. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 122 . demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Mandell & Pherwani.= . Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. 1998. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. drive. However.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. or temptation to act. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS.16. Based on Bar-On’s description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component.03 to . a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. 2000. 2002). For example. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. Thus.
which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. 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. thinking and behavior to new situations. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. 2002). unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. BarOn.62 (p < . Nevertheless. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Thus.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.Reality Testing. Males scored a mean of 4. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. Males scored a mean of 0. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 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. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. entails adjusting our feelings.19 (p < . This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.
1990). Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses.05) as well. As a result. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 .” was rejected. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. skills and talents.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 2007). 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.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. and challenge their own beliefs and values.62 (p < . as well as those of the leader and the organization. try new approaches.19 (p < . strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. 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. 2002. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. with males scoring a higher mean of . Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.
17).41). 1995. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. While this current study supports previous research findings. 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).” 125 . suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Petrides & Furnham. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. which this current study used.10.05.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. 2000). 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. all of which were significant at p < . Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents.
“men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. According to Dr. and should not come as a great surprise.0%. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. 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. More than one half of males (53. To do this.7%. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. n = 31) scored above 126 . “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.18).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). are better at handling stress. are independent. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. ¶ 1). the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. Steven Stein. President of MHS. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3.
and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). In addition. Thus.700 administrations of the EQi. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. the 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. 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. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. p < . Assertiveness.05). inner strength.33.28. who analyzed the scores on over 7.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. 2007). and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.” was rejected. and Social Responsibility.the mean across all of the TLS components. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. self-assuredness. p < .64. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On.05). p < . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Stress Tolerance. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 .
Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. and Assertiveness. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. and. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. 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. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. However. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. In essence. for the leader. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. 128 . and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. 1993).of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility.
exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. When these three components were combined. coping mechanisms (Purkable. 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. For example. and. Mandell & Pherwani. Interpersonal (R2 change = .287). although EI as measured by the EQi. to a minimal degree. and nonverbal emotional 129 . In other words. this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. followed by General Mood (R2change = .019). 2004). 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. 2003).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. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. particularly three of its major components. they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. However.015). 2003). appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. 2000. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. it is not a sole predictor.
2000). similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 63. in the present research. Van Rooy et al. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. Butler.2).. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. men scored a mean of 4..58 vs. unlike the present results. However.7) (p. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. Schutte et al. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 2005). 2005. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. 92). 98.21 vs. 2005. 1998.8 vs.31). Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 130 .decoding (Byron. women scored higher overall. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 101. 104. 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.7 vs. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). as well as higher on all five components than males.31) and TLS (65. unlike findings of previous research.
399). however. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. For example. The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts. p. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. but did not predict TLS for males. Further. Mandell and Pherwani. and does so with consideration for their welfare. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. both individually and collectively (Bass. a somewhat different picture emerged. in the present study. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score.It is important to note. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 . 1990). The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. Likewise. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.
as women tend to be more nurturing. Carless. caring. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. Eagly. and sensitive. which is contingent on a given environmental demand.. Block. & Martell. Assertiveness. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent.oriented. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. 1998. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. beliefs. Karau. 2000. 1990). and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. management-by-exception (active). Heilman. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. 1994. 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.). in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. 1994. the critical distinction he made was that. Carless et al. 1995. & Johnson. Miner. 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. 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. 132 . In a study by Bass et al. Rosener.
The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. In addition. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. 1989). or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 1989. Nevertheless. 2001). dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. in 133 . 1998). & Salas. 2001. expressing disagreement. That is. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. 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. 1995. Copeland. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 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. Generally. Driskell. Bass et al. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. In addition. 2001). the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. Rudman. 1989.
when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. beliefs and thoughts. 1997). Self-Regard. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. and Stress Tolerance. inner strength.. 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. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). 2002). to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 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. could also attribute to lower scores. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . and their negative connotations in. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. Assertiveness. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. in the worst case. 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. In addition. the fear of failure.
and Stress Tolerance. while not significant. there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. but the effects are small for the most part. 1997). while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. 135 . However. ¶ 1). as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. However. Assertiveness. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. ¶ 1). Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. Social Responsibility. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. Furthermore. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. 1994). Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.Psychiatric Association. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On.
More specifically. 2007. transactional. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. men appear to have better selfregard. On the other hand. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. 1994). which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. First. Limitations The current study has several limitations. cope better with stress. and passive/avoidant). ¶ 1) “To summarize . It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . 2007. For purposes of this study. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. . 2003). while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. when compared with women. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. demonstrate more empathy. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. are more self-reliant. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. . the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. solve problems better. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. (Bar-On. are more flexible. both are equally transformational in leadership style. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. 1998. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. and are more optimistic than women.
further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. 2003). 1991). Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. because. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. 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. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. However. more specifically transactional. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. The sample used in this study included a diverse cross section of participants from a wide range of industries and levels of management representing the current work force. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. 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. To overcome the limitations of self-report. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. Further. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al.scores. That is. 2000). 137 . rather than polar constructs.. attitudes.
Conscientiousness. thereby reducing the potential for bias. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. 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. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. It is possible that. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. Service Orientation. where superiors. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. Developing Others. and Communication. different results would have been obtained. a measure 138 . Alternatively. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. For reasons of practicality and access to participants.peers. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. peers. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. and subordinates. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza.
The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. & Kaemmer. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. Graham. Future researchers. the U. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded.S. Butcher. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Concerning the narrowing of industries.033. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. as stated previously. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Therefore. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. and 139 . as well as the industries they represent. 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. education. 1989). in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. workforce. Tellegen. Dahlstrom. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. As a result.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S.
despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS). future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style.healthcare professions (Herman et al. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. and (b) if so. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. 2003). The EQi Intrapersonal. Gender.. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. This research also suggests that. Likewise. In view of this projection. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. Based on the results of this study. 140 . no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. both are equally transformational in leadership style. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style.
recruitment interviewing. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. 141 . this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. job profiling.In conclusion. selection.
MA: Lexington Books. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). (2003).). In R. M.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. 142 . The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables..pdf Antonakis. 355–361. (2000). Lexington. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. American Psychological Association. K. Baliga. Atkins. B. doi: 10. (2003). M. & Bass. P. 79(1). Bar-On. (2006). Schriesheim (Eds. (1994). 14(3). J. (2004). Parker (Eds. (2002). Dachler.). A. Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. D.). Ammeter and Buckley (2003). Ferris. & Bass. 437–462. P. (2005. C. Ontario.. R. In J. Toronto. Leadership Quarterly. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. M. 64(3). 11(4). doi: 10. & Hakstian.. charisma and beyond. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. J. J. G. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. N. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. A. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. J.org/ethics/code2002. & Dasborough. 29–50). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. H.). B. (2003). Handbook of emotional intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Avolio. Retrieved from ProQuest database. R. (2004). 261–295.. B.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. R. H. Redwood City. 18– 22. Barchard. Hunt. Atlanta. CA: Mind Garden. B. doi: 10. J. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Journal of Education for Business. A.. & C. Washington. Douglas. DC: Author. (1988). & Stough. Transformational leadership.. Retrieved from http://www. Avolio.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. M. Avolio.. P.apa. N. April). & Sivasubramaniam. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. GA. Bar-On & J. A. B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.
& Avolio. B. (1995). Bass. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). B. M. 143 . & Avolio. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. J. R. Retrieved from http://www. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.52. Psicothema.htm Bass. J. 375–377.uaemex. CA: Mind Garden. M. (1993). M.242/demo/intro/tformlead. (1999). Bass. (1999). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual.html Bass. & Avolio. & Avolio. R. 112–121. 17(1). doi: 10.. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration. B. CA: Mind Garden. 52(2).2. 4(3). Retrieved from http://redalyc.84. & Avolio. (1997). B. (2007).231. & Avolio.pdf Bar-On. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. J. Organizational Dynamics.1037/0003-066X. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). M. (1985). 130–139. Bass. J. (1990). (2004). M. (1994). M. (1990). New Braunfels. M.php?i=25 Bar-On.130 Bass. Leadership Quarterly.Bar-On.net/tc3/TC019239. Bass. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. M. 17(3/4). 18(Suppl. B. TX: Pro-Philes Press. B.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. B. R... (2006). 18(3). J. J. New York: The Free Press. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual.). 541–554.reuvenbaron.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. B. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. (1993). Retrieved from http://205. doi: 10. B.. B. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Handley. M.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. Redwood City. B. Bass. B. Menlo Park. B. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.org/bar-on-model/essay. 13–25.. R. Public Administration Quarterly. B. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. doi: 10. B.. M. 19–31. B.
pdf Brody. Burton. Retrieved from http:// www. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]..com/login. (1996). Murphy. South Carolina State University. J. L. Bass.. (2003). J. 86(1). Avolio. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.eiconsortium. Doctoral dissertation.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. Retrieved from http://www. University of Nebraska.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 9(4). R. Social Behavior and Personality. 45(1).. Avolio. (2004).library . L. S.2.. Doctoral dissertation. New York: Harper & Row. 88(2). doi: 10.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. (1990). (2007). (1978). J. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. & Berson. E. 207–218. Lincoln. & Wheeler.pdf Boyatzis.htm Burns. J. 35(1). Applied Psychology: An International Review.2224/ sbp. N.haygroup.1. E. A. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. J. Psychological Inquiry.Bass.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. D. M. (2004). 27(5). K. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. I. Psychological Reports. (2003). B. B. E.ebscohost. Jung. W. & Henninger. 234–238.2007. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 41–50. B.88...1037/0021-9010. 32–44. B. M. doi: 10. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. R. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. Retrieved from http://www.41 144 . D.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not..35. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. (2007). doi: 10. & Atwater.edu/login?url=http://search. E.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. Retrieved from http://ei. M. Y.capella. (2000). 5–34. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. (2003).haygroup.207 Bennis. 44–46. 15(3). doi: 10. A. Hafetz. 47–64. M.htm Bryant. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).eiconsortium..
aspx Cherniss. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Business and Psychology. Byron. 14(3). N. L.. 39(11/12). 565–76. Gender and social influence. Tellegen.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Retrieved August 10. Dahlstrom. & Goleman. 2008. L. J. R. C. Doctoral dissertation. (1989). 725– 741. Retrieved from http://www.6. Retrieved from http//www. and subordinate perspectives. A short measure of transformational leadership. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi: 10. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. doi: 10. 389–405. A.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. A. K. W. Retrieved from http://www. L. doi: 10. leader.eiconsortium .htm 145 . (1998. J. 887–902. Graham. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.1111/0022-4537.htm Cannella. 213–237. Journal of Social Issues. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. S. D..org/ Center for Creative Leadership.. (2005). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.Butcher. Retrieved from http://www. (1989). Butler. doi: 10.57 . (2002). D.. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). (2000).org/-report. L.. & Brienza. October).964 Carli. Colorado State University. & Mann. 23(3). A. May).. Journal of Management. G. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. K. doi: 10. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. S.. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership.. C. (2001). & Kaemmer. Georgia State University.eiconsortium . Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract].1037/0022-3514. L. J. Sex Roles. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.ccl. M. 56(4). (1998).org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. A.00238 Cavallo. A. 57(4). J. & Monroe. B. (1997). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. (2003). (2008.eiconsortium. Wearing. L. Fort Collins..
. A. (2002).1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 146 . Journal of Business Research. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Dearborn. D. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. F. 2008... Retrieved August 31. Dixon. Jolson. Academy of Management Journal. J. L. H. Miner. Public Personnel Management.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. (1990). 15(2). Eagly. (1995). K.. from Answers. Mountain View. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.. 108(2).. W. E.. J. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. (1999). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. & Salas. (2002). C.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. M. 17–29. Drucker. A. J. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. 15(4).108. (n. 135–159. 29(12).2. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. doi: 10. S. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. A. J...answers. F. Avolio. T. 233–256. doi: 10. E (1999). New York: HarperCollins. J. D. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Karau. (1994).1037/0033-2909. H.). New York: Hill. D.Chief executive officer. A. & Higgs. 31(4). CA. 523–530. J. doi: 10. B. 467–480. doi: 10. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. & Johnson. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. B. E.233 Eagly. 10(6)... B. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 341–372. (2000). B. (1999). M. & Johnson. Dubinsky. Mayfield. D. 735–744.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. J. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. 45(4). Achieving results through transformational leadership. P.. & Spangler. & Shamir. Gender and reactions to dominance. V. Leadership Quarterly.. (1967). M. Yammarino. Journal of Nursing Administration.. 5(2).com Web site: http://www.d. 53–68. Copeland. B. 17–21. & Swerdlik. R. Management challenges for the 21st century. Dulewicz. (1995). 55(6). Eden. Driskell.
org/?fa=main. Grubb. 237–252. doi: 10.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. J. 222–227.com/login. Journal of Applied Psychology. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. 10(6).htm Hargie. (1988). ECI fact card. D. & Dickson. (2000). W. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. J.ebscohost. E. C. (2004). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http://www. L. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). O. J. Retrieved from http://www. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. New York: Bantam.. Frankel. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence.library. 695–702. Retrieved from http://www.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Social skills in interpersonal communication. & Rawles. Gellis. 25(1). Doctoral dissertation. Hater. C. Furnham.. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. Working with emotional intelligence. London: Routledge. & Martell. (1995). (2001). F. Retrieved from http://psycnet.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner.4.73.Field. New York: Basic Books. 15(3)..org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. (1995). (2004).apa. Psychological Inquiry.dfee. L.).edu/login?url http://search. CA: Sage. O.gov. B. Social Work Research. 73(4). L. Block. M. New York: Warner Business Books. doi: 10. Thousand Oaks. (1998). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. 10(3). 17–25. A.. & Bass..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.pdf Hay/McBer.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. (1995). R. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. R. M.1037/0021-9010.695 Hay Group. Z..eiconsortium. H. P. C. 741–748. (2008). Saunders.capella.haygroup. (2005). Gohm. (2003). D. Virginia Commonwealth University. A. (1983).
ebscohost. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. emotional intelligence competencies.edu/login?url=http://search. Gioia. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. (1977). H. (1993). H. (2003). & Hitt.library.htm Hymowitz. P. C. (1993).. 43–57. (1998).. T.capella. & Blanchard. Englewood Cliffs.capella. Winchester. 13(1). Wall Street Journal.. Hersey. & Blanchard. On diversity. M.eiconsortium. Ivancevich. (2000). M.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. D.com/login. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Bono. doi: I0. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. J. You’ve got to change to retain.. (1997). T. T.5. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. 6–18. London: McGraw Hill. Academy of Management Executives.ebscohost. & Matteson.wsj. doi: 10. S1–S4. (1999). A. R. too few people. 28(3). VA: Oakhill Press. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. Retrieved from http://online. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. M. (2008. E.Herman. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.com/ login. 85(5).751 148 . R. R. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. The impact of gender. G. Hitt. Organizational Dynamics. 75(9).org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. 74(6)..aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman.85. Hersey. (2000).). HR Focus.library. K. R. Retrieved from http://www. H. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1037t/00219010. (1997). 751–765. K. A. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Boston: Irwin. A.. M. & Olivo.). M.edu/login?url=http://search . NJ: Prentice Hall. Case Western Reserve University. Doctoral dissertation.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . February 25).1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede.). Hopkins. Journal of Applied Psychology. 15– 16. Judge. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. HR Focus. (2005). P.. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. J.
& Jantzi. & Rickers.edu/login?url=http://search.. B... R. M. S. A..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller..542 Judge. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.Judge.1037/15283542. K. & Siefen. S. (2004). K. T.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. doi: 10. 615–626. D. & Sivasubramaniam. Côté. J. Colbert. doi: 10. 38(2).. Salovey. Z. B.. 542–552. G. Journal of Educational Administration.5. P. J. (2004).. (2005). & Johnson.1. F. P.15304. L. Journal of Applied Psychology.1037/0021-9010. N. R. & Beers.. Emotion. (2001). Leadership Quarterly.755 Kaufhold.1037/0021-9010. A. Furnham. Reiter-Palmon.5. P. R.483 Leithwood. S. 20(2). (2004). & Posner. 154–163.. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. & Piccolo. (2007). Current Psychology. 125(4). R.pdf Law. A. 38(3).1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 89(5). Education.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. 5(1).89.. N.. A. doi: 10. doi: 10. E. 173–180.113 Lowe. L. doi: 10.ebsco host. 483–496. Kirkcaldy. European Psychologist. T.library. 41–44. (2005). 113–118. 385–425.89. Transformational leaders make a difference. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.wiley.. (1996). 112–129. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2000). Noack.3. L. A. June). M. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. 89(3). 7(3). Kroeck. (1995).. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Wong. R. K. G. Retrieved from http://basepath.. & Ilies.com/cda/media/ 0. 12(3). Journal of Research and Technology Management.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. (2000.3.89.. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. M.00. K. J. B..capella. D. C.com/login. & Song. 755–768. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. doi: 10. J.. 89(3). doi: 10.
A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. B. D. Salovey.15. Journal of Research in Personality. M. Salovey. Journal of Business and Psychology. & Salovey. P.com/ login. Intelligence. 387–404. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.an. H. Caruso. & Zeidner. Mathews. & Salovey. D. J. (2002). G.edu/login?url=http://search. doi: 10.. F.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 .library. Annual Review of Anthropology. J.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. D.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. D. 67(1). M. C. Mayer. Roberts. Mayer. (UMI No. 71). and implications. (2007). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. M. P. P. About the MSCEIT. D. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. (2002).library.Lutz. Ontario. What is emotional intelligence? In P. (2004a). 253–296. Psychological Inquiry. Psychological Inquiry. 267–298. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. D. G. Toronto. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).com/login. D. D. R. 405–436..edu/login?url=http://search. 17(3). (2000). Carlsmith. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. S. & Caruso. Retrieved from http://www.library. 15(3). R. D.002201 Malek. J.ebscohost. & Chabot. & Caruso.sciencedirect. (1999).. D.. Retrieved from http://www.. (2003). S.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey.. 197–215. The anthropology of emotions. R. (1998). 61. (1986).. Salovey & D. 15(3). 1–29.capella.. J. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. & Pherwani.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space.. 32(3). 15(2). 05B. findings. J.capella.. J. Sluytrer (Eds.ebscohost. Emotional intelligence: Theory. D.. 9970564) Mandell. P.capella. (2004).100186. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Dissertation Abstracts International.1146/annurev. (1997).com . New York: Basic Books. K. doi: 10.). doi: 10. & White.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.. R. 27(4). M. 179–196.unh. American Sociological Review.
(1991).capella.. Oatley. doi: 10. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. N. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 29–43.. Walls.mind garden. Wrightsman (Eds. CA: Academic Press.. E. M. 26(2). Ball.answers.d. Psychological Inquiry. In J. & Fuller. 13(4).ebscohost. L. L. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence..org. (2004). Salovey.iier.ebscohost. L. P. D. Journal of Nursing Administration.au/iier14/perry. D.1016 /j. & Carsky.2006. D. Parker.edu/login? url=http://search. J. P. Retrieved from http://www. Wood.edu/login?url=http://search.pdf Morrison. & Stacey. Saklofske. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Shaver. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.04. J. 17–59). & Caruso. MLQ international norms. 15(3). The International Journal of Conflict Management.capella. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. San Diego. Retrieved August 31. doi: 10.Mayer. H.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management... C.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. & Stough. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood.. R..com/login . R. Jones..1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. R. M.. 27(5). (2004). 216–238.022 Paulhus. Z. (2004).com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. Retrieved from http://www.). S..). Burgess. Perry. J. (2002). (2004b). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.html 151 . M. 27–34. 381–400. Robinson. D.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. 24(6). (1997). (n. D. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Issues in Educational Research. B. 22(1).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Eastabrook. Retrieved from ProQuest database. L. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Measurement and control of response bias. (2003).com Web site: http://www.library.paid. C. 249–255. from Answers. 335–344. R. M.. N. doi: 10. 5–10. J. & L. S. 14(1). A. (2005). Inc. 15(3). & Taylor...com/login. R. 100–106. Journal of Individual Differences. B. Psychological Inquiry. I.library. 2008. K. (2001). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses.
Leadership and management styles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. In W. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Doctoral dissertation. V. G. leadership effectiveness. Purkable.630 Plunkett.003 152 .eiconsortium. Ferris. pp. J. R. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 119–125. Harvard Business Review. Emotional intelligence. Leadership Quarterly. K.. (2004). 363–369. L. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. (2007).1037/0022-3514.. Retrieved from http://www. (2000).. A. (2003). Douglas. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. M. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.1016/j. (2003b). (2001).org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 42(5/6). 425–448. M. R. Ferris. Plunkett (Ed. L. V. Sex Roles.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. A. Retrieved from http://www. B. & Furnham. & McRae. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. (1990). Douglas.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . (1992).416 Piedmont. P.leaqua.library. C. Case Western Reserve University. European Journal of Personality. R.. doi: 10. K.htm Rosener. Emotional intelligence. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model.. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. Ammeter. Petrides. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R.ebsco host. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. R.60. L. C. (2003a). P. Ways women lead.. T.01. P. 744–755. 60(4)..). V. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. doi: 10. 449–461. Boston: Allyn Bacon.htm Rivera Cruz.edu/login?url=http://search. W. B. T.. (1991). 18(2). Ammeter. A. & Furnham... J.. & Buckley. and team outcomes. R.eiconsortium. Costa. & Heinitz. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 15(6).2007.com/login. Doctoral dissertation.capella. M. A.4.Petrides. 323–351). M. 11(1). L. 121–133. K. 68(6). Catholic University of America. & Buckley. Prati... Prati. 41–62.1002/per. G. Supervision (6th ed. doi: 10. R. 11(4).
com/login. Retrieved August 31.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .. N. (2001). Malouff. 9(4). emotions. 693–703.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. J. 2008.). T. Hall. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. (1990).1037/0022-3514. 629–645.unh. Schulte... B. Organizational behavior (7th ed. L.74.Rudman.. Zeidner. J.. 167–177. Retrieved from http:// www.. from Answers. & Geroy. doi: 10. Race. & Bass. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. 21–31. C.629 Sala. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. M. J.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. D. and socialization. & Osborn. et al. Retrieved from http:// www. Comment on Roberts. J. J. W. Emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. E. S. Doctoral dissertation. 185–211. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.d. E.3. E. G.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. J. Retrieved from http://www. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics.eiconsortium.3.. (2001). Schaie. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. 1(3). 94– 110...org/ Salovey. Gender & Class. L. Haggerty. Race. K.library. 243–248.pdf Sanders.sciencedirect.. Cognition.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. 9(4). (1990). F.htm Schutte.capella. Hopkins. 16(4). J. M. (1998).com/topic/senior-management Smith. Hunt. J. Imagination. Emotion. and Personality. & Mayer. M. W.). Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. (2003). P.edu/login?url=http://search . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R. Personality and Individual Differences. 74(3). 9(3). New York: Wiley. D. J.243 Schermerhorn.eiconsortium. 25(2). J.1037/1528-3542.ebscohost. (2003). Cooper. A. Journal of Management. Our Lady of the Lake University.. (2000). (1998). (n. J. Golden.answers..com. doi: 10.com Web site: http://www.. and Matthews (2001).capella. (2002).. E.1.library. D. doi: 10. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Retrieved from http://www. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. & Fidell.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. A.paid. R.Smith. J. (2005)... MA: Allyn and Bacon. A. Wade. J.ovid.kandidata. Personality and Individual Differences. 75(6). C.. 18–14. L. C. 689–700. April).S. W. Department of Labor.com. J. S.% 20&%20McDaniel. (1999).%20M. Journal of Allied Health. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership.. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.. 2002. (2000). L. J. 331–338. 49(1).Needham Heights. Tucker... (2003). S.library. 24(3).). S. Alonso. (2002).. M. S. Sojka. & Plemons. B.capella. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. C. & Viswesvaran. & Megerian.%20(1998) Snodgrass.1016/j. K... 37–43. M. TX.tx. Vandenberghe.%20K.. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. Retrieved from http://www.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.bls. L.023 154 .S. Nursing Research. Group & Organization Management. (1998. Bureau of Labor Statistics. S . Dallas. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. Retrieved from http://www... Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2005). M. U.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. A.05. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. doi: 10. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. D. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. L. & D’hoore. Retrieved from ProQuest database.bls. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.. 37(1).aspx?search=Smith. Barone.pdf U. Ellis. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data.2004. 38(3).edu/spb/ovidweb.A. Douthitt. Journal of Education for Business.siop. J. (2000). J. & McDaniel. E.org/Search. doi: 10. Sosik. 367–390.C. Census Bureau of Labor. F. G.cgi Tabachnick. (2001). & McCarthy. Z.J.se/default. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Retrieved from http://www.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy.
251–289. leaqua. B. NJ: Prentice Hall. Yammarino.com/login. Yukl. (2003). H. J. doi: 10.Viator. Wolfe. Retrieved from http://www . Lancaster. 28–32. Zhu. Comer.. S.. I. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 40(1). & Jolson. Developing emotional intelligence. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.edu/ login?url=http://search. 89–92.htm Weisinger.capella. W. doi: 10. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. Emotional intelligence at work.eiconsortium. doi: 10. H.. (2005).edu/login?url=http://search.. 205–222. (2007).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. (1997). Nursing Management. & Bass. 34(10). Doctoral dissertation. F. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective..1016/j. (2002). 16(1).1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. The perfect labor storm 2. L.2004. & Spangler. M.edu/login?url=http://search. B. Journal of Information Systems. 15(2). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. A.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Upper Saddle River.). I.library. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. A.ebscohost. W.06.com/login. K. G. G. M. (2001). Retrieved from ProQuest database. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. E. 975–995.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. J. (1990). D. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. 99–125. (2000). Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Human Relations. J.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl.001 155 .aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Journal of Management. (1998).ebscohost. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting.library. (1989). University of Minnesota. 8(2). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library . CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . F. Dubinsky. Academy of Management Journal. J. (2003). M.capella.ebscohost. 15(2). The Leadership Quarterly.com/login. Chew. C. 43(10). 39–52. A. R. L.capella.
What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 . DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.APPENDIX.
Level of Education? High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s Degree PhD Number of direct reports under your supervision? 3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More Gender? Male Female Race / Ethnicity (optional) Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander 157 .
00 and $70.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.00 Between $70.00 More than $150.000.000.00 and $150.000.000.000.00 Between $100.000.00 Between $40.00 158 .00 and $100.
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.