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
033. Department of Labor. 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. there will be approximately 10.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. . predicts that by 2010.Abstract The U.000 billion annually. In addition. education. and healthcare professions.S. 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. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. The purpose of this cross-sectional.
. who laid the cornerstone of my being.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 . and to my Grandparents.
to Dr.Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. for the most part (smile!) . To my original mentor. . . . . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. . . . you my friend have been a gift from God. 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 . Dr. . Bruce Gillies. to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . . . And to my family and friends who have . for making this research possible. . . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. thank you sincerely. Lori La Civita. . . . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). It is my strong belief that the results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in human resource development focused on workforce retention and growth of its human capital . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . I love you all! iv . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . who helped me start this journey. . and your respected members who participated. . and to Dr. Joseph Damiani. With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity .
Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Nature of the Study Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical Orientation of the Study History of Leadership: An Overview Origins of Transformational Leadership Current State of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Defined Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) v iv viii 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 19 20 22 33
Gender and Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence Defining EI EI Controversies The Development of EI Characteristics of EI Gender and EI Race/Ethnicity and EI Measuring EI EI and Leadership Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection EI, Leadership, and Gender Conclusion CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Variables Measures Procedures Research Questions Research Hypotheses vi
35 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 60 60 60 61 61 63 66 67 68
Data Collection and Storage Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Expected Findings Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Discussion of the Results Discussion of the Conclusions Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
69 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 116 116 116 119 120 129 136 138 140 142 156
Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Comparison of Low. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Group Norms vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4.S. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2.List of Tables Table 1.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. TLS Component Scores: U. 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 . Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Group Sample Table 5. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7.
Table 19. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Comparison of Low.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .
INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. education. & Olivo. 1997. Specifically. develop. Gioia. Drucker. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). U.S. 1999.373 billion (Herman. Hitt. 2003. Ireland & Hitt. 1 . downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 1998). 1995). 1999). 2000.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.033. attract. The U. 1990). the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Department of Labor. 1988). Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass.CHAPTER 1.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. higher group performance levels (Keller. 1997. and retain the best talent. Herman. Department of Labor. 2005). companies must compete to find. Leadership research suggests that securing and retaining appropriate personnel will remain an issue and that transformational leadership may be key in developing a social architecture capable of generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21stcentury organizational challenges (Bass.
2003. 1997. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. 2 . and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. 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. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. Mandell & Pherwani. 2001). Therefore. & Salovey. Sala. Furthermore. 1998. 2000. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. Caruso. 2000). 1999. 2003). given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. 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. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 1998). 1998). Goleman.. Ogilvie & Carsky. 2002. Goleman.S. and the need to effectively identify. Hay/McBer. 1999). 2000. conflict resolution styles (Malek. Mandell & Pherwani. Mayer. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. select and retain such personnel.
recruitment interviewing. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. Rationale Existing research on whether. job profiling. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. selection and management development. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. 2003). 1998. In addition. and the extent to which. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. if any. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. Mandell & Pherwani. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. 3 . organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. Hay/McBer. 2000. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning.
what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. 2. 4 . if a relationship is found to exist. 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. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 3. 4. 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.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. In addition.
A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). the ability to deal with strong emotions. 2002). whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. Emotional Intelligence (EI). and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. self-regard. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. and express oneself. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. the ability to be aware of. and relate to others. Interpersonal. understand. 1998). independence and assertiveness. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. A form of intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions that focuses on an array of emotional and social abilities. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. making major corporate decisions. 2002). The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. Adaptability. including the ability to be aware of. reality testing and problem solving. Stress Management and Mood. self-actualization. understand. Executive Management. In 5 . The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. social responsibility and interpersonal relations. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On.
The sum total of knowledge. which are generally shortterm ones. 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. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. 2002). and the Director of Human Resources. Middle Management. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. mission. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. n. n. and energy available within organizations members. Chief Information Officer. Chief Marketing Officer.). Hunt. and strategies (Schermerhorn. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. how it can be done effectively. Intellectual Capital (IC). 2000). Chief Operating Officer. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. Leadership Style. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl.). which may enhance organizational outputs. Leadership. each of which has specific functional responsibilities. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. 2002). expertise. 6 . & Osborn.d. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer.d.
1998). Group. 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 . and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. and three outcome constructs. musical. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). one nontransactional leadership construct. spatial. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. movement oriented. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. and Organizational Effectiveness. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. mathematical. (c) Inspirational Motivation.. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. 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. 2000). (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio.Multiple Intelligences. 2004). The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). three constructs of transactional leadership. Senior Management. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. Retention. and (e) Individualized Consideration. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). (d) Intellectual Stimulation. environmental. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. intentions. including verbal. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. (b) Individual. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership.
(c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. 1998). Social Skills. to improve. which involves motivating individual/organizational change.d. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study. and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership).operations that are generally of a long-term nature. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). (b) Inspirational Motivation. The ability to get people to want to change. Social Intelligence. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). (d) participants 8 . cooperation). 1997). EQi. 1998). and to be led. (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. and the Demographic Questionnaire. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. n. listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate).). (c) Intellectual Stimulation.
Finally. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. First. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. 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. That is. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. interest or motivation to respond. and multivariate procedures. Univariate statistical techniques. 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. Since data will be collected at one time point. such as linear regression will 9 . 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. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. such as correlational analyses. thus skewing the pattern of responses. Secondly.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors.
The dependent. statistical analysis.be used. 10 . including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. or outcome. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. Transformational Leadership. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. variable.
and psychology journals. and gender. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. PsycINFO. using numerous multiple key word searches. A summary concludes the chapter. PsycARTICLES. their relationship. (b) leadership. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. and (e) gender and EQI. (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. and a synthesis of research findings. EI. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. transformational leadership style (TLS). Emotional Intelligence. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. Academic Search Premier. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. 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). The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global.CHAPTER 2. 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. EQi. and gender. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. Business Source Premier. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence.
and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. Bass & Avolio. 1988).gender. 12 . The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. along with several books and dissertations. In addition. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. higher group performance (Keller. In total. 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. books. 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. 1995). Goleman. and dissertations. 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. 1999). 22 articles were relevant to this study. 1995. 1985. 2006. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. Specifically.
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). of leaders such as personality. and skills (Yukl. tall. cooperative. 2002). Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. 1990). However. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. and handsome. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. motives. tactful. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. social. not on “how” to effectively lead. adaptable. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. assertive. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Personality traits include being self-confident. Task-related 13 . Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. values. charming. energetic. These early leadership theories were content theories. Social characteristics include being charismatic. and diplomatic. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. popular. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. and emotionally stable. or traits.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.
Thus. 14 . levels of management. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). and the nature of the external environment. No two leaders are alike. the characteristics of the followers. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. and cultures. no leader possesses all of the traits. the type of organization. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. 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. self-confidence. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. leading to the concept of situational leadership. 2002). intelligence.characteristics include being driven to excel. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. having initiative. and being results-oriented. integrity. Furthermore. Yukl (1989. accepting of responsibility. desire to lead. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. 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.
sometimes called task-oriented behavior. considerate and initiating structure. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). 2002). Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. mental. Initiating structure. As a result. and student leaders. termed consideration and initiating structure. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. college administrators. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. manufacturing companies. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. Two factors. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. consistently appeared. or emotional traits. Two of the most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles.The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. 15 . 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).
recognizing subordinates accomplishments. As a result. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. organizing. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . Like trait research. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates.involves planning. 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. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. being supportive. Unfortunately. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. and providing for subordinates welfare. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. and coordinating the work of subordinates. The Contingency/Situational Approach (1960s and 1970s) Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. an employee orientation and a production orientation. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction.
2002). 1967). The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. leader-member relations. task structure. those that are motivated by task. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. Together. and position power.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. 17 . Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. and those that are motivated by relationship.
The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. and weak leader position power. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. However. D3. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). 2002). By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. Furthermore. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard.defined tasks. 1993). Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. Four leadership styles (S1. unstructured tasks. D2. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. and strong leader position power. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. S3. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. and D4). the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. S2. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations.
recognizing followers accomplishments. Hersey & Blanchard. being supportive. However. 1993). employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. Finally. either transactional or transformational. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. influence processes. 2002). The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable.and directivity (S2). Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. low-directive style (S3). Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. such as trait. and outcomes. Specifically. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. and providing for their welfare. 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. behavior. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. work standards. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . and situational variables (Yukl. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership.
and reward. 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. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. and individualized consideration (Bass. or disciplinary actions. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. 20 . Or they are corrected by negative feedback. reproof. 1985. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. 1997. Transformational leadership contains four components.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. praise. 1990). and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. 1990. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. In contrast. intellectual stimulation. inspirational motivation. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. Bass & Avolio. In contingent rewarding behavior. threats. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. 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. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. 2004).
2004.g. Yukl. “cognitive. However. 76). Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. 52). Bass expands the theoretical concept of Burns by stressing the importance of including more than one type of leadership variable in research involving leaders and leadership when he stated.. p. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. the integrative theory of leadership research. and situational/contingency variables. Hopkins & Geroy. unlike Burns. 2003. In addition. behavioral. Judge & Piccolo. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. Sanders. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. Furthermore.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). 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. 1989). 2003. behavior. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. 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. in Bass’s view. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem.
22 . This is done by appealing to followers’ potential motives that seek to satisfy higher needs and engages the full person in order to draw a true consensus in aligning individual and organizational interests. and comparative advantages. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. Bennis. 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. weaknesses. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. 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. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. 1985. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. However. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Leithwood & Jantzi. 2000). the organization’s strengths. focusing on a common purpose. 1990.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs.
and the ethical consequences of decisions. 2000). Transformational leadership. emphasize trust. Over time. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. transactional. 1992). confidence.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. present their most important values. cooperation. 1993). 1999). Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. and individualized consideration. 1993). while at the same time winning their respect. commitment. take stands on difficult issues. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. respect. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. and emphasize the importance of purpose. idealized influence (attributed). Vandenberghe. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). transformational leaders inspire the confidence. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . loyalty. intellectual stimulation. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. inspirational motivation. transformational. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. idealized influence (behavior). consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. & D’hoore.
and beliefs. Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. will-do attitude. and advise and coach. traditions. challenge followers with high standards. Second. 1999). the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. abilities and aspirations. expert resources. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. listen attentively. further their development. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. consider their individual needs. Cannella and Monroe 24 . followed by action planning. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. and creativity (Dixon). meticulousness. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. awareness of internal and external customer needs. The authors suggested that the MLQ could help to reduce the cost of manager selection and increase the chances of selecting appropriate top managers able to make followers aware of the importance and value of desired organizational outcomes because it focuses on the perception of subordinates. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. 2004).(Bass & Avolio. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. Further. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff.
contingent reward. Although they may not be close by. fail to follow up requests for assistance. laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. 1995). arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. and management-by-exception (passive). exchange promises and resources. conferences. 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. Transactional leadership. and 25 . laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. clarify expectations. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. reports.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). The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. are absent when needed. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. management-by-exception (active). Laissez-faire leadership. negotiate for resources. exchange assistance for effort.
A research study by Dubinsky. Jung. Ellis. In addition. & Berson. Yammarino. 2003. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. health care. Snodgrass. Avolio. Measuring Transformational Leadership—Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Over the past 2 decades the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-Form 5X (MLQ) has emerged as the primary means of quantitatively assessing leadership styles in scores of research studies involving military. and commercial organizations. 2004. & Sivasubramaniam. The 26 . Gellis. Douthitt. Jolson. Wade. & Plemons. 2003. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%.productivity records. it does have its place under the right circumstances. subordinates reported about their managers. 2003. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves.e. 2001. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. Bass. Bryant. 1992). Bass & Avolio.. using the MLQ-360 assessment. educational. Avolio. 2008). The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers.
leader/unit perception.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Third. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. The results of a study by Morrison. Kroeck. the sample size must have been reported. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. Fourth. using a sample of 275 nurses. organizational perception. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. demonstrated high statistical correlations that were significant in supporting the theory that transformational leadership does have positive effects on the financial bottom-line and that leadership can be measured with statistical accuracy when being able to establish appropriate benchmarks. Second. Fifth. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. and its effect on job satisfaction. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. 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. Lowe. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Jones. First. and job satisfaction. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 .
behaviors has a greater degree of significance on job satisfaction than other types of leadership (i.e., transactional, laissez-faire leadership). Research by Judge and Bono (2000), based on 14 samples of leaders (N = 169) from over 200 organizations, investigated the relationship between personality and transformational leadership using the MLQ and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and certain personality variables including extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership that generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs, reinforcing the evidence that transformational leadership does result in more satisfied and motivated subordinates as well as organizational effectiveness. Another study by Gellis (2001) was designed to evaluate a model that delineates two types of leadership processes, transformational and transactional leadership, within social work practice as measured by the MLQ, using a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The objectives were to determine the degree to which social work managers were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and to identify which leader behaviors were best able to predict social work leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and extra effort by hospital social workers. Results indicated that all five transformational factors and one transactional factor, contingent reward, were significantly correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. In a research study by Viator (2001) on leadership, commitment, and job performance, data were obtained through a mail survey with 416 usable responses 28
obtained. Participants who primarily worked in the functional area of information system assurance and business consulting perceived that their supervisors demonstrated higher levels of transformational leadership, compared to participants from two other service areas (financial auditing and tax services). Transformational leadership was directly and positively associated with role clarity, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and indirectly associated with job performance, across all three functional areas. In a longitudinal, randomized field experiment, Dvir, Ede, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) tested the impact of transformational leadership, enhanced by training, on follower development and performance. Experimental group leaders received transformational leadership training, and control group leaders, eclectic leadership training. The sample included 54 military leaders, their 90 direct followers, and 724 indirect followers. Results indicated the leaders in the experimental group (transformational leadership training) had a more positive impact on direct followers’ development and on indirect followers’ performance than did the leaders in the control group (eclectic leadership training). Conducting a meta-analysis, Antonakis et al. (2003) reanalyzed data generated by previous studies that had used the MLQ (Form 5X) in different conditions by controlling sample homogeneity, using both published and unpublished sources creating two independent studies examining the validity of the measurement model and factor structure of Bass and Avolio’s MLQ. The first study used a largely homogenous business samples consisting of 2,279 pooled male and 1,089 pooled female raters who evaluated same-gender leaders supporting the nine-factor leadership model proposed by Bass and 29
Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariant—suggesting that the same constructs were validly measured in the male and female groups. The second study used factor-level data of 18 independently gathered samples of 6,525 raters clustered into prototypically homogenous contexts, used gender as a contextual factor along with examining two contextual factors, environmental risk and leader level, in testing the nine-factor model and found it was stable (i.e., fully invariant) within homogenous contexts. Results of these two studies indicated strong and consistent evidence that supports conclusions about the validity and reliability of the MLQ. Because large independently gathered samples were used, the generalizability has been enhanced. A study by Bass et al. (2003) examining the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership using the MLQ 5X, used a total of 72 U.S. Army platoons, each made up of three rifle squads and a heavy weapons squad, participating in the joint readiness training exercise, in order to rate unit potency, cohesion, and performance. The core leadership in a platoon rests with the platoon sergeant (a noncommissioned officer) and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Because the average number of light infantry combat soldiers in a platoon (all men) is typically around 30, the total number of participants rating the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants was 1,340 and 1,335, respectively. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. Ozaralli (2003) investigated transformational leadership in relation to empowerment and team effectiveness. As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational leadership style of superiors is proposed to be related to the strength of 30
18 dissertations. Comer. transactional. communication and team performance. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. 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. Avolio. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. book chapters. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. Similarly. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. and 1 unpublished data set). and laissez-faire leadership. In total. 1994. dissertations. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma. 1998. and vision. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. & Jolson. Dubinsky. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . & Atwater. Yammarino. 1996.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. 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. Bass. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. Carless. charismatic leadership. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered.
pharmaceutical. pulp and paper. was explored. transactional. administered a total of 1. These 32 . A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. home appliances. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. computer services. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. More specifically. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. and organizational outcomes. the convergent. A survey study by Zhu. and criterion validity of two instruments. divergent. automotive parts. and electronics industries). textile and clothing. financial services. Chew. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. electrical equipment. food. chemical. absenteeism.
employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. trust. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years.. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches. subjective (e.. Form 5X. The latest version of the MLQ.g. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. as measured on the MLQ. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect.g. has been used in more than 200 research programs. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and faith 33 . over and above transactional leadership. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Moreover. 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.e. With regard to criterion validity. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.. Leadership types. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. are defined as follows: 1.
74 to . 2004). Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. 2. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. 34 . e. c. d. b. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. 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. c. c. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. b.b.94. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .
These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men.) The MLQ has individual subtests. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Bass & Avolio. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . 2004). which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. with four questions for each scale. Kouzes & Posner. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. Carless. Transactional leadership has three scales. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. 2000). 1995). 1995). a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). 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. 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. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. Wearing. & Mann. However. 1990. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership.
praising individual and team contributions. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men.g. and attention to individual needs. However. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager selfassessment in that there were no differences between men and women managers regarding the more masculine or task-oriented leadership behaviors such as innovative thinking and visionary leadership. On the other hand. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style.. such as participatory decision making. The finding that superiors also rate women managers as higher in the more feminine transformational leadership behaviors similarly implies that superiors may employ gender-based role expectations in evaluating female managers. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. which is what 36 . The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers.
2003). exist. EI refers to an ability to understand the meaning of emotions and their relationships and to think and engage in problem solving on the basis of emotions. and to read and direct them in other people. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. male superiors may have had lower expectations of women managers and therefore were being more lenient in their ratings of women managers than they were in rating male managers. Salovey. & Caruso.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). However. On the other hand. some of which are contradictory. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. numerous definitions. 2004a). 37 . Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. 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. Carless reasoned. Indeed.
Tucker et al. or repressed within others. Mayer et al. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. Mayer & Salovey. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by.. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. 2003). or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. mental processes: 1. From these characteristics. These two definitions. Recognizing the nature of the emotions and the ability to detect them in others Controlling emotions in others and oneself Using emotions for the attainment of specific ends. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). 2000). but interrelated. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. & McCarthy. 1997. to distinguish among them. Barone.. 38 .Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. 2000. 2004a. 2. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Sojka. 3. 2000. Vitello-Cicciu.
noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. they hold that EI escapes definition. Mayer et al. culminating in the formation. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. 2004. and the multiple social science fields on the other. not of empirically validated. For this reason. Mathews et al. These issues are explored next. Roberts. 2004b). Thus. is problematic. In particular. conceptually coherent. they claimed. and psychologically based definitions of EI. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. 39 . but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. emotional intelligence. and empirically valid definitions. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. EI Controversies Mathews. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. 2004a. Mathews et al. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. Gohm. cohesive. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct.Although this is a clear definition. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. 2004..
and measurable construct. However. physiologically evidenced.. in these writers view. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing.Reflecting on Mathews et al. emotion is a scientifically valid. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. immaterial. The denial of emotions. Mayer et al. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. Massey argued. 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. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. 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. 2002). During the 6 million years of human evolution. in Gohm’s view. Oatley. 2004. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . In this view. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. Rather. others (Gohm.’s (2004) argument.
Mayer et al. 1986. but they do not expand or increase them. Indeed. (2004a. 2004b) reported. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. the academic and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz & Higgs. In this view. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. though an inherent capacity. 2002). In contrast. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. 2000). the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. it a learnable skill. 1986. noted. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Massey). interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. 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. 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. For example.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 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
(1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. In contrast. Alonso. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal.(2000) theory of human values. Schutte et al. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. E. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Results of these studies. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. In a study by J. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. intrapersonal. Measuring EI Schutte et al. These are the test of EI 45 . and total EQi than Caucasian participants. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. E. Van Rooy. Smith (2002). warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. and are in accord with the cultural differences found to be associated with women’s differential display of EI across contexts noted by Rivera Cruz (2004). Smith). although inconsistent.
Mayer. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. collected from superiors. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. & Chabot. and social skills. Carlsmith. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. 2005). and peers. For these reasons. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. social awareness. Côté. self-awareness. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. the ability to 46 . according to the publisher.). colleagues. 2007). 1998) which focuses on ability. According to Goleman. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. self-management. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. currently in its second revised version. Salovey. & Beers. In addition. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. However. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. 2002) test. Boyatzis. 2008). Bar-On. 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).competencies. the most important are the second and third competencies.
however. Eastabrook. Saklofske. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. four Branch scores. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. other measurement instruments.. & Taylor. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. Consequently. Total EI score. That definition is sufficiently narrow in focus to avoid including too many variables but is broad enough to assess important factors identified as significant in influencing or exposing EI (Parker et al. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. Wood.understand the meaning of different types of emotions.91 (Mayer. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. It yields 15 main scores. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. The five composite 47 .). Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. 2005).. discriminant. The test has excellent reliability (r = . (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. Bar-On. 2002). As noted by Parker et al.. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. Petrides & Furnham. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. two Area scores.79–. 2001). MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete.93). 2007). Mayer et al. and convergent validity as well. with r’s ranging from .
] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. Parker et al.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4. (2005).] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3. (Bar-On. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed. understand and accept oneself [b.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c. adaptability. these are [1. 2001). p.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2. stress management. others and life in general.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001). 2006. and Watkin (2000).] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 .] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. Specifically.
2003). Moreover. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. 2001.import of each set and subset in it. Judge. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. Colbert. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. & Ilies. 2003. honest and faking good. Kobe. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. the nature of EI and its development over time. like many self-report inventories. Mandell & Pherwani. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2004. 2004. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. a situational judgment test. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. and understanding of. 2003). Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. C. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . However. research has also indicated that. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. Law. Wong & Song. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers.
leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al.. Judge et al. as cited in Kobe et al.). This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al.ingredient of leadership. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women.. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. 155). According to Mandell and Pherwani. Mandell & Pherwani. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al.. Law et al. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. From the sociological perspective. Kobe et al.. 2001.). and mutual benefits.. 2004. In addition. 2003). 2003). boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. Mandell & Pherwani. 2004. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . 2003. relationships. p. 2001. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. 2003). 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. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. As a social phenomenon.
(2004). it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader.to inspire the support. This is an important distinction. (2004) argued. As Law et al. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. According to Judge et al. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. leaders are created by followers. Thus. 2003. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. loyalty. trust. Judge 51 . along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. they argue. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. Kobe et al. Rather. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. However. as further contended by Law and colleagues.
Dearborn.. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. 2002). and optimism. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. Mandell & Pherwani. On the other hand.. arouse similar feelings in team members. such as anger and pessimism. In other words. 2001. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 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. leaders who display negative emotions. such as support. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). 2004. they have emotional intelligence). individuals who have the intelligence to understand their emotions are also able to manage their emotions for the purposes of task completion and gaining the empathy and support of others (that is. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates.et al. Kobe et al. 2003). In short. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. enthusiasm. Law et al. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. 52 .. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough).
g. Ammeter. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. Costa. 2003b). For example. 2002) argued. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. & McRae. However. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Prati.. Douglas.. According to Antonakis (2003). Ferris. 2002) was used to measure EI. Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style. However. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. Bass & Avolio. 2003a. as Prati et al. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. leadership style. & Buckley. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. and others (Dearborn. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x.
Specifically. 2004. 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.. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. (2003a) point out. That is. 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. Indeed. 2003). as Prati et al. transformational leadership. 2004. Law et al. Mandell & Pherwani. 2001.. 2003. However. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 .of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. Judge et al. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one.. Kobe et al. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. 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. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence.
and manager success (Hopkins. 2005). 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. coping (Purkable. 2003). 2003). 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. Regarding raters perceptions. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. contingent reward leadership. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. EI. 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. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. Position. Leadership. and management tenure 55 . results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. These are reviewed as follows. with mixed results. contingent reward leadership. gender. 2003). and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. Using performance ratings and demographic data. title. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. Specifically. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks.
Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. MSCEIT subscore 4. leadership practices. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . In addition to the MSCEIT. and coping mechanisms. and SelfConfidence. Emotional Self-Control. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. Influence. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. and coping mechanisms. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. Specifically.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. 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. Inspirational Leadership. leadership practices. In each of these areas.
57 . leadership styles. The study used self and other ratings of EI. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. As noted previously. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. 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. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. 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. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. Specifically. Hopkins (2005) conducted research on the EI competencies and styles underlying successful leadership by examining the competencies and leadership styles of 105 successful women and men leaders in one financial services institution. and success. 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.avoidance coping. but not male.
. 58 . 1998).. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies.. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. must behave more androgynously. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson.. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. Hater & Bass. In addition. 1990. to be successful. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 2001. 2004. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). individual achievement-oriented behaviors. Judge et al. Schutte et al.. Law et al. However. Goleman. 1998). 1997.g. 1988). 2003. Mandell & Pherwani. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.g. Women leaders. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. 2003. Conclusion This review of the literature on leadership research indicates that the Transformational Leadership Style has results in greater manager effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction than other leadership styles. On the other hand. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass.. 1998. on the other hand. 2004. Kobe et al.
Hay/McBer. 2007). Mandell & Pherwani. 1998. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al. Mandell & Pherwani.. 2000. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI.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. Schutte et al. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. Moreover. However. 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. 2000. and (a) if so. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups.e.. 2003). 2004). 59 . 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. 1999. Further. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question... the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. Petrides & Furnham.’s (2005) studies. To summarize. as with transformational leadership style. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. E. Thus. The latter findings are supported by J. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i.
and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. using e-mail communications. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. sample selection.. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. if any. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. data analysis. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. procedures used in addressing the research questions. recruiters. data collection instruments and study variables.CHAPTER 3. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. 1999). an online business contact marketplace where marketers. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS).
Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. financial services.S. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. ranging in size from small to large. Senior. health care. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. food and beverage. 2004). one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and the use of U. nonprofit. advertising and marketing. For the purpose of this research 61 . 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.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. market. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. phone. legal services. 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 a host of other business and service providers. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. three constructs of transactional leadership. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. Executives. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. e-mail.
(b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). as well as their ethnicity and income level. The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. (d) Stress Management. In brief. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). (b) Interpersonal. 2002). (c) Adaptability.study. 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). it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. 62 .
2.53 to . this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. and values. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired.81 to . 2004): 1. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. 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. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. 4. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals.85. 2004) and was based on data from 2. 3. respected and trusted.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. 5. with a strong sense of purpose. mentoring and growth opportunities. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him.96. principles. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. and display a sense of power and confidence. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio.
therefore.coefficients for each leadership factor. 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 Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. sometimes = 2. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. fairly often = 3. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. However. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. The coefficients ranged from . and to successfully cope with daily demands. consisting of four items each. 2004).” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. challenges and pressures. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. 2002).000 respondents from the United 64 . and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. or frequently. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used.94 (Bass & Avolio).73 to . rather than performance or success itself. For example. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. once in a while = 1. to understand and relate well with others. if not always). if not always = 4.
In this current study all survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. respectively. were reported as .States and Canada. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Version 12. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. Social Responsibility. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. and their associated subcomponents. 2002). Independence. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. Bar-On. 65 . Assertiveness. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Flexibility. to obtain a Total EQ. 2002). and Problem Solving. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems.75 (n = 27. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. and Interpersonal Relationship. and Self-Actualization. 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. MHS Inc. Emotional Self-Awareness. 2002). Items are measured on a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom/not true for me) to 5 (very often/often true of me).85 (n = 44) and ..
industry. the expected time of completion. the purpose of research. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. title best describing the respondent’s current position. In this current study all online survey responses. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. years employed by current organization. age. and number of direct reports under supervision. the risk and benefits of participation. 66 . 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. race/ethnicity. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. years held in current position. education level. researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. the criteria needed to be met for participation.
Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. the MLQ assessment. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. individual data were not made available. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. 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 .” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. 2.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).
HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.3. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? 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. 68 . 4. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.
These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. 69 . Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. and pen/paper copies were shredded.. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. the MLQ. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. and the Bar-On EQi).e. 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. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. All e-mail addresses submitted by gatekeepers were put into an Excel file with a 2 header row consisting of e-mail addresses and the other assigning a unique ID Code. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection.
All data collected were pooled for analysis. were automatically deleted from the WebSurveyor e-mail campaign file to prevent the intrusion of follow-up e-mail reminders and maintaining their privacy APA ethical standards as well (APA). and was used to launch e-mail campaigns using the “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” which had been designed and written as an html file using a hidden field assigning potential participants their Unique Numeric ID and Passwords. In addition.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA. 70 . with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. naked to the participants eye. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. after submitting consent. and required. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 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. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. 2006) ethical standards.
gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. p. p. Analyses examining group differences (e. 571). 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.g. When necessary.. 2005. This was followed by univariate analyses. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. p. 65). 94). Errors in scoring/data entry. missing and out-of. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). as appropriate. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. p. outliers. 72). using SPSS Procedure Frequencies.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 667). Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 2005. 2005. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . Finally. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables.
age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. 170). In addition. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. 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. the nature and strength of that association. if so. and. 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. 72 . 2005. p. p. 160). as well as to control for the effects of gender.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field.
suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. 2. As previous research. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 .CHAPTER 4. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. while not substantial. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. 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.
the nature and strength of that association. 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. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in 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. 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 . HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. 3. and if so.
Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field. as appropriate.. 2005. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. or scaled variables. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. Errors in scoring/data entry. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. missing and out-of. 72).range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 75 . 94).Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. p. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. outliers. p. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. p. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 2005. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.g. If necessary. 65). Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables.
8 5.7 20.5 45.0 11.2 2.Table 1.3 8. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.9 6.1 22.9 12.8 3.4 3.7 7.4 24.7 29.7 5.2 5.8 2.9 3.7 5.5 4.4 19.1 39.1 25.1 10.2 55.2 12.1 11.5 5.6 76 .6 16.8 1.7 10.
9 12. East Asian.5 1.9 65.3 20.70.000 44 27. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.8 Between $70–100. N = 158.9 1.1 32.7 34.000 55 34.000 17 10.1 9. maximum age 67.0 2.000 23 14.Table 1. **Includes Pacific Islander.9 10.8 Between $40–70.6 Between $100–150.3 12. American Indian.8 More than $150.9 2.7 Current income Less than $40.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.7 2.25 85. 77 . 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 32.7 31.5 4. Arabic or other. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.20).2 10.4 8. SD = 8.000 15 9.7 16. Minimum age 24.
n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.4%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 135) male (60.4%. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education.6%.6%. n = 121) in a private. However.000–$100.000 per annum (49. n = 78). Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.2%. 78 . This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.32 subordinates. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. and a median of 5. 25. In terms of supervision responsibilities. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). Most respondents earned from $40. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. The sample of the population in this study has an average. n = 103).7%. Notably.15 direct reports. or mean of 3.95 years of college education. from between 3–6 to more than 16. 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.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. n = 72). n = 106). for-profit organization. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.1%. Addressing racial diversity.
Adaptability.41).01). Intrapersonal. in descending order.05). EQi component scores were. Stress Management.00).86 (SD = 13. 105.02 (SD = 13. 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 2.65 years. 103. 107. 105.02 (SD = 13. Total EQi Score. with a nearly identical median of 48. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. and General Mood Components.49). As far as income.85). This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.97 (SD = 13. For the income this is going to be most apparent. The mean age of the subjects is 48. Summed TLS Score.63 (SD = 12. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. the mean income was $68. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.49 (SD = 14.730.900 and the median was $54.77 years.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 79 . 102. 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. 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. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Interpersonal.
31 103.63 103.02 102.93 13.54 103.02 105.05 14.41 12.61 102.00 12.04 12.74 13.17 104. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.62 13.41 106.66 14.01 13.45 13. 80 .4 ____________________________________________________ Note.66 101.64 107. N = 157.46 102.36 Total EQi Score 105.28 103.Table 2.49 13.70 13.21 105.63 103.85 12.97 13.60 14.86 106.86 12.44 13.49 103. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.61 105.67 13.52 103.19 13. 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 107.73 12.
96 (SD = 0. 3.95 (SD = 0.26 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).99 (SD = 0.58). N = 157. Idealized Influence (Attributed).59).52).18 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.35 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior).13 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.Table 3. Mind Garden. 2. 2.57 0.59 0. Individualized Consideration.04 (SD = 0.57 0. Intellectual Stimulation.08 3. 3.59 Note. 2004). 3.26 (SD = 0.18 SD 0.53). Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. 2.16 (SD = 0. Inspirational Motivation.13 (SD = 0. Individualized Consideration.57). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).63).09 3. and Intellectual Stimulation. which are as follows. 3. 3.35 3. 3. 81 .59).59).59).S.52. Inspirational Motivation.57). Idealized Influence (Attributed).58 0.09 (SD = 0. 3.63 0. in descending order.08 (SD = 0. 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.
a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).58 0.59 0. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.95 2.35 SD 0.57 0.18 3.08 3.02 2.63 0.09 3. Skew represents the even-ness.55 0. or symmetry. of a distribution (i.Table 4.04 2.59 0.13 3.99 3. 2001).59 0..52 0. Norm group** M 3. **N = 3.S. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.26 3.52 M 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. or scaled variables.e. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.53 0.16 SD 0.375. TLS Component Scores: U.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Group Norms vs. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.96 3.
with skew > +/–2. Inspirational Motivation = –.18.09.67. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.06. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . 2001). (b) MLQ 23 = –2. (d) Adaptability = .49. and (c) 9. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. (b) 6.85. (c) Stress Management = .0. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. and not individual MLQ items. and Individualized Consideration = –1.40. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .24. and (e) General Mood = . Intellectual Stimulation = –.83. 83 . but normally distributed.67. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.78.76. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. the decision was made to keep them in their original form.73.16. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.184.108.40.206. (b) Interpersonal = .by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .83. respectively.63.61. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. 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. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.80. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.
35* .41* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.33* .05). IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).37* .36* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. a p < .40* .59* IS .23* .52* .46* IM . Stress Management 4.05.37* .40* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.32* IC .31* .01. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.48* . and IC = Individualized Consideration. To address the first research question. N = 158. 84 .25* .37* . Pearson’s r was obtained. IM = Inspirational Motivation.28* . Interpersonal 3. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.44* . The significance level was set at (α = . *p < . Intrapersonal 2.19 a . Adaptability 5. Table 5. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.37* IIB . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).30* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.29* .44* . General Mood IIA .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.43* Note.
85 . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .16.05). The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. (b) Happiness (r = . which was still significant at p < .19.50.001). EQi component scores also increased. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. with (α = .20 and .51. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . With one exception. p < .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .001). p < .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). using the same Procedure Correlations. p < . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. (c) Self-Actualization (r = . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Results are shown in Table 6.05).59. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. at r = . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .05.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. Inspirational Motivation (r = . All correlations were in the positive direction. 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. p < . Most of the correlations ranged between .45. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.001) and Inspirational Motivation.23 or higher.
43* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.25* IC .12 (ns) .34* .37* .05 (ns = nonsignificant. ap < .32* .51* IS .Table 6.38* .38* .33* .32* .30* .03 (ns) .40* .44* .31* .36* .45* .23* . Empathy 7. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1. N = 157.15 (ns) .32* . Flexibility 13.36* .28* .37* . Self-Actualization 6.13 (ns) .44* .25* .43* .37* .24* . Assertiveness 4.23* .30* . 86 .24* .36* Note.39* IM . Stress Tolerance 10.46* .16 a .19 a . Happiness IIA .24* .37* .05). Impulse Control 11. *p < .35* .45* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).33* .33* .38* .48* .59* .29* .39* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.33* . Self-Regard 2. and IC = Individualized Consideration. IS = Intellectual Stimulation. IM = Inspirational Motivation.26* . Reality Testing 12. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). Self-Awareness 3.34* .33* .40* .17 a .33* .24* .43* .16 (ns) . Optimism 15. p ≥ .31* IIB .37* . Problem Solving 14.30* .35* .27* .40* . Social Responsibility 8.21* .15 (ns) .37* .11 (ns) .01.31* .36* .40* .50* .26* . Independence 5.28* .
2005. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. 170).30.001).26.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell.24. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . p. p < . p < . In summary. All correlations were in the positive direction. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. EQi component scores also increased. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .001).While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. Correlations 87 . and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. Examining intercorrelations among EQi subcomponents will aid in establishing whether any of them are so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned hierarchical regression analyses (Field. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.001). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. 2001). p < . This is a potentially serious issue. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.
since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . 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 . 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. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.64.71.01). p < . The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.72. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Therefore. this intercorrelation is to be expected.82. 88 .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . p < . p < . based on the . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. However. p < . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.01). Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.90.
24* .64* .61* .66* .30* .32* .42* .54* .45* 1.36* 9.47* .61* .43* .74* .42* .26* .55* . Interpersonal Relationship .41* .58* .40* .49* .82* .42* . Assertiveness 4.00 .33* .50* 1.38* .42* . Reality Testing 10.28* .23* .00 .37* .Table 7.00 1.61* .00 1.59* .58* .00 1.40* . Impulse Control .15* .15* .16* .65* .53* 1.52* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1. Independence 5.00 .27* .25* .51* .39* .42* .52* .32* Subcomponent 1.00 1.55* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .50* .71* .38* .40* .47* .40* .47* .35* .41* .60* .41* .53* 15 .37* .55* .51* .40* .36* .00 .20* . Problem Solving 12.59* .43* .43* 1.00 1.00 .39* .00 1.32* .55* . Stress Tolerance 13.53* .50* .43* .00 .60* .50* .62* .56* .66* .51* .23* .25* .36* . Social Responsibility 8.60* .50* .50* . Self-Actualization 6.47* 1.43* .50* .61* .51* 1.72* .39* .60* .33* . Empathy 89 7. Flexibility 11.55* . Self-Regard 2.32* .37* . Self Awareness 3.56* .52* .60* .42* .00 .
00 Subcomponent 14. *p < . Happiness Note. a p < . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. N = 157. 90 .01.64* 1. bns = nonsignificant. Optimism 15.05.Table 7.00 15 .
the Interpersonal component (R2change = . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.64* 1. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.00 4 .62* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. N = 157. 1 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.00 3 . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.61* . Inspirational Motivation 4.57* 1.60* .Table 8. followed by General Mood (R2change = . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.72* 1. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.58* 1.015).54* . Stress Management at Step 3. Results are shown in Table 9.287). Intellectual Stimulation 5.55* .00 5 . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.01. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Results are shown in Table 9. 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. and.00 2 . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . to a minimal extent.019). General Mood and 91 . Overall. *p < .59* . Stress Management at Step 3. Individualized Consideration Note.
301 at Step 2.000 .85 .000 . *p < .V.87 . R2 = .07 . nor Adaptability.05.073 –.Interpersonal components. Neither Stress Management. R2 = .015 .04 . 92 .32 .25 .287 at Step 1.019 Note. In summary.069 2. entered at Step 4.04* 62. R2 = .008 .728 –0. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.033 –.301 at Steps 3 and 4.320 at Step 5. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.162 . Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig.24 . N = 157.01.316 –0. Table 9.66 3.000 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.66** . F change R2change . R2 = .25 2. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). entered at Step 3. † TLS Summed = D. **p < . the EQi Intrapersonal.287 .034 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
bn = 62.67 2. *p < . 96 . a difference which was significant at p < . bn = 62. Table 13.97 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3. *p < .05. Males scored a mean of 0.48 104.05.50 2.75 12.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.Table 12.44 2.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.16 0. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.21 14.
(b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents.77. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15.64.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. Descriptive statistics. 97 . These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). SD = 14. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS.08. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. These data are presented in Table 14. females: M = 106. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. respectively.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Interestingly. SD = 14.
09 109. 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 104.14 15.06 102.72 101.56 102.41 11.47 104.63 13.68 14.28 (14) 100.37 12. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.27 11.37 105. Empathy (4 vs.89 103.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.19 12.17 103.34 102.43 11.53 12.92 13.97 15.80 106.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.92 102.50 109.76 106.80 14.40 14.93 13.34 12.74 11.77 102.50 12.48 13. N = 157.74 15.57 13.21 105.18 14.Table 14.01 103.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.61 104.08 11. 13).24 104.75 13. *n = 95.64 109.80 102.23 13.70 13.84 11.37 14.67 103.62 103.55 13. Self-Actualization (9 vs.78 13.26 103. 11).99 107. **n = 62.07 14.33 105. Social Responsibility 98 .16 103. As a group.
a difference which was significant at p < . among others. p = . (2 vs.(5 vs. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. Stress Tolerance (4 vs.91a 2. 10).01. Females.11 107.01.39 109. Self-Regard (8 vs. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. n = 95. *p < .86 11. Table 15.67 SD 11.74 t 2. 15).26 Females SD 13. and Flexibility (6 vs. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). They also scored higher on the 99 .97 109.80 102. 15).21 105.18 14. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Independent-samples t test.80 11. a Marginally significant.57 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.42* Note.07* 3.74 15.99 M 99. n = 62. Males. 12). Males scored a mean of 7. 12).07 14.05. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.01 102. 10).05.36** 1. **p < . Assertiveness. 13). As a group. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.
stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one.05. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. were important predictors of TLS in females. Further. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.08). this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Regression analyses. all of which were significant at p < .11) than did females (M = 105. They also scored 4.41) subcomponents. As a follow-up. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. 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.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. and independence (R2 change =. To summarize. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . but did not predict TLS for males.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. Specifically.13).Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. or combination.
01. Table 16.99** .098 12. R2 (adj) = .85 .255 at Step 2. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . It was thus decided that using 101 . 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.55 –. N = 157. F change R2change .63** .022 .08 .12 2.001 . **p < .379 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .05 .011 Note. R2 (adj) = .e.263 at Step 4.81 1.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.302 .002 .000 .02 . 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.088 –.248 at Step 3. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .989 34.73 1.21 –.261 at Step 1.176 at Step 1.04 2.19 .73 .131 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.755 .669 3.097 .000 .190 .45 ..253 at Step 2.606 .268 7.167 1.18 . R2 (adj) = .378 at Step 3.24 14.67 –1. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).269 .41 .001 . R2 (adj) = .010 . R2 (adj) = .
categorical variables (low. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. and exactly one half of females (50.e. 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. the three highest TLS component scores). Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. To do this.e.0%. 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.7%. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. (b) Idealized Influence 102 ...and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.7%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Finally. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. More than one half of males (53. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. Categorical variables. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. The highest percentages of males (53.
0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.8 43.7%.1 45. The highest percentage of males (52.5 53.(Behavior). The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .3 48.3 46. The highest percentage of females (59.6%. the highest percentage of females (54. N = 157.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note.8%.1 50.5 59.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48. Table 17. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.3 52.7 53. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.2 56. *n = 95.5 40. **n = 62.4 54.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.4 50.5 46.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.4 50. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.7 53.7 51.6 49.7 47. Comparison of Low.3 46.
00 112. Table 18. First.00 9.30 10.66 11.28 11.11 113.55 114.50 114.09 10. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.04 16. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Secondly. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.85 12.66 114. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.92 111.15 10.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .76 110.45 112.64 112. Once this subsample was selected.24 111.98 111. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.29 SD 14.83 111.88 11.75 9.12 110.75 10.91). Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.14 11.11 11.68 12.51 111.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.
13 111.03 7.53 109.86 105.28 108.Table 18.90 103.73 9.51 107.55 12.26 112.07 14.51 7.20 9.38 14.68 10.44 9.22 13.40 12.23 108.28 110.50 11.56 SD 10.22 108.42 109.18 109.62 107.28 107.71 106.55 12.12 10.13 107.23 106.36 13.39 M 110.17 9.15 104.84 11.50 11.41 8.21 11.50 107.92 105.64 9.39 9.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .15 108.25 104. 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 11.
06 12.59 14.81 17.78 103.35 103.66 10.56 105.89 11.03 102.4 102.73 10.26 105.09 104. (c) Independence.50 SD 10.41 10.06 13.79 105.01 8.27 14.82 105.85 14.96 105.Table 18.75 104. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .12 10.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.20 11.43 11.86 12.90 12. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component 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 102.14 105.57 104.67 10.50 105. (b) Assertiveness.47 12.33 M 104.77 101.66 104.00 103. 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.65 103.42 9.68 106.63 12.
No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents.05. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components.across the five TLS components.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (b) Social Responsibility. Females scored a mean of 4.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent.05. Assertiveness. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. (b) Independence. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. (d) Empathy. however. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . Males scored a mean of 5. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. (d) Problem Solving. Independent subsamples t test. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (c) Social Responsibility. 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. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control. In summary. While males scored 5. a difference which was significant at p < . (b) Happiness. Males scored 107 .
Males.e. p = .16 Females SD 13. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). Subsample N = 82.01* 2. Categorical variables. EQi. 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.61 106. a Marginally significant.04* Note. Table 19.57 M 107.05.96 10.78 8.. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.33 111.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.43 t 1. however. categorical variables (low. *p < .00 14.05 10.94a –2.80 SD 10. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. n = 51. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.05. To do this. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.09 108.and high-scoring) 108 .43 104. Females. the goal here was to identify significant gender differences in using TLS based on a subsample of males and females identified as high scorers on the 15 EQi subcomponents (i. n = 31.
were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. The highest percentages of males (61. Then. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Once the subsample was selected.3%. The highest percentage of males (50.6%. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. More than one half of males (53. The highest percentage of females (61. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. n = 32).5% (n = 35) of females did so. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. However. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.1%. followed by 59. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Interestingly.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.5%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. 109 . means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.0%.97). Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.
**n = 62.0 51.Table 20.5 43.0 52.7 51.5 53.2 45.2 50.9 45.8 49.8 50.0 45.3 48.8 High % 38.4 53.8 54.2 55.2 56.1 55.8 58.3 55.8 43.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.9 43.1 56.8 44.3 52.2 55.9 44.2 51.9 44.5 46.0 110 .8 42.1 55.0 47.8 50.2 57.1 56.5 53.5 59.5 54.2 61.5 40.7 44.6 54. Comparison of Low. Female** High Low % 53.8 38.7 54.4 45.1 54.6 46.8 38.2 50.0 54.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 45.3 45.2 61.2 41.5 56.0 48.5 45.5 46.9 43.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.7 47.
51 0.37 3.49 0.52 0.52 3.48 0.49 3.47 3.37 0. Table 21.55 SD 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.58 3.54 0.55 3.49 3.57 0.47 0.51 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 3.47 0.55 3.43 111 .52 3.47 0.61 3.60 0.5 3. followed by the lowest mean.49 0.55 3.53 0.48 3.54 0.
38 3.22 3.44 0.6 M 3.46 3.45 0.51 3.35 112 .45 0.40 0.45 3.34 0.21 0.37 0.35 3.37 3.42 0.39 0.37 0.30 0.43 SD 0.40 0.42 3.37 3.55 3.37 0.49 0.41 3.36 0.Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.42 3.44 3.51 3.39 0.36 3.
51 0.45 113 .19 3.22 3.24 3.53 M 3.2 3.58 0.53 0.52 0.15 3.24 3.57 0.57 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.14 0.59 0.61 0.5 0.Table 21.22 3.2 3.58 0.57 0.18 3.21 3.43 0.51 0.28 3.24 SD 0.1 3.2 3.6 0.08 3.25 3.61 0.
55 0.68 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.57 Descriptive statistics. Optimism and Happiness.05 3.13 3.58 0. with the exceptions of Independence.59 0.21 3.49 0.Table 21.6 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.95 3.11 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.06 2.63 0.14 3. 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 3.67 0.62 0.08 SD 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.63 0.11 3.02 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 . Empathy.16 3.
Females.57 M 106. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. 115 .05. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Males. Idealized Influence (Behavior). p = . only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.05.05.Motivation.16 SD 14. Females SD 10.80 Males scored 0. a Marginally significant. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.43 t 2. 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.04* M 111. n = 33. *p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. n = 54. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Table 22. In summary. Independent subsamples t test. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. a difference which was significant at p < .
2000. 1988). as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. 1990. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. 1998). The literature regarding leadership research suggests that the Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles in terms of organizational effectiveness outcomes. and findings of data analysis. Goleman. RESULTS. 1998. Goleman. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. 1997. 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. 116 . as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. 1998.CHAPTER 5. These findings are discussed. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed.. Hater & Bass. CONCLUSIONS. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). including research methodology. Schutte et al. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts.
In 2001. The secondary purpose of this study was designed to examine whether there are any significant gender-specific differences in the way men and women use their EI competencies that are reflected in their TLS. The women 117 . The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing.S Department of Labor. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. 47% law degrees. 2007). When asked to provide a ranking of factors. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 1999). fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. professional. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. However. women held 15.4% in 2005. However.Sosik & Megerian. 2003). 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. 2008).6% of the 48 million employees in management. Hay/McBer. 80% of the U.2% last year (Hymowitz. 2003). Mandell & Pherwani. 2000. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. 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. with women currently representing 50.S. and related occupations (U.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 30% of women earned medical degrees. Over the next decade.S. down from 16. In 2007. In fact.
As a result of this ambiguity. nearly $2.S.S. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. Identifying how gender differences in EI. 2007). influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. 2007). while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . if they exist.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. Not surprisingly. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. In the overall U. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. businesses owned by women.3 trillion in annual sales. the chance to pursue an opportunity. The Center for Creative Leadership’s (2008) Sara King suggested that engaging and retaining senior women executives is not only critical to the competitiveness of individual organizations but also for entire industries. In addition. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous.5 million people and generate $1.
This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. 2004. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. Schaie. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. all correlations were in the positive direction.. Ball. EQi component scores also increased. Interpersonal. recruitment interviewing. 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. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. As scores on the TLS components increased. followed by General Mood and. 62 female). & Stacey. job profiling. In addition to filling this research gap. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. Perry. Taken together. Correlation and regression analysis were utilized to examine the relationship between components/subcomponents of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) construct as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. selection. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. Van Rooy et al. 119 . 2005). 2001. to a minimal extent. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. nonexperimental. 2004. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian.
Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. and Social Responsibility.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. Self-Regard. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. 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. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Assertiveness. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . 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. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. Stress Tolerance.
2004. 2003). Walls.21) to moderate (r 121 . 2000. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Mandell & Pherwani. & Stough. 2001. Mandell & Pherwani. Law et al. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. The significance of this research finding is that it lends itself in providing empirical support of previous research findings that identify a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs in which individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs were found to score high on the other as well (Goleman. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Palmer. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .23 or higher.23) to moderate (r = .. Further. Kobe et al. 2004. 1998. In addition. 2002). 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 = ... this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.. 2001).independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. Judge et al. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Hay/McBer. Burgess. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003).59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Thus.
Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. Hay/McBer. 2002). which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. drive. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse.16. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Impulse Control. However. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. 122 .= . 2003). For example. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS.” The significance of this research finding is that it further supports empirical studies that demonstrate there is a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs (Goleman. As well. or temptation to act. Stress Tolerance. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. Based on Bar-On’s description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On. Thus. 1998. 2000.03 to .51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Mandell & Pherwani. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component.
62 (p < .” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. 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. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. 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.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. Males scored a mean of 4. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. Nevertheless. BarOn. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. Thus. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Males scored a mean of 0. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents.19 (p < . the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 .Reality Testing. thinking and behavior to new situations. 2002). entails adjusting our feelings.
the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . skills and talents. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. try new approaches. and challenge their own beliefs and values. 2002.05) 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. 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 . 1990). Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant.05) as well. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. 2007). Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. As a result.62 (p < . as well as those of the leader and the organization.” was rejected. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass.19 (p < . 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. 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.
and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. 1995. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.17). 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.41).18). all of which were significant at p < . Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents.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.10.05. 2000). numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.” 125 . While this current study supports previous research findings. 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. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. Petrides & Furnham. which this current study used. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.
To do this. and men’s and women’s use of EQi.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). According to Dr. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. ¶ 1). are independent. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. are better at handling stress. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. “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). Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. 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.0%. President of MHS. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. Steven Stein. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. and should not come as a great surprise.7%. More than one half of males (53. n = 31) scored above 126 .
who analyzed the scores on over 7. In addition. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents.33.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.700 administrations of the EQi. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5.64. 2007).05).the mean across all of the TLS components.05). and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. p < . Assertiveness. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . and Social Responsibility. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).28. inner strength. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. 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. p < . Thus. Stress Tolerance. p < . self-assuredness. The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security.” was rejected. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.
as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. for the leader. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. 1993). Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. and Assertiveness. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. 128 . and.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. 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. However. In essence.
neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. although EI as measured by the EQi.019). they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. particularly three of its major components. and nonverbal emotional 129 . However. 2003). this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. When these three components were combined. it is not a sole predictor. the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. Interpersonal (R2 change = . and.015). 2000. followed by General Mood (R2change = . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . 2003). Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. coping mechanisms (Purkable. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS.Discussion of the Conclusions Predictive Relationship of the five EQi Components and TLS Results of this study provide evidence to support the idea that EI is positively related to TLS. to a minimal degree. Mandell & Pherwani. In other words. as the association found between EI and TLS provides empirical support to previous research that theorized a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer.287). Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. For example. 2004).
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. 104. 92). 63. unlike findings of previous research..31) and TLS (65. in the present research. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. 1998.58 vs. 2005.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. Van Rooy et al.21 vs. 98.8 vs. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 2005. unlike the present results. 130 . The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003).2). or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. women scored higher overall. 101. Schutte et al. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. as well as higher on all five components than males.7 vs. 2005).decoding (Byron. 2000).7) (p. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.31). However. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. Butler. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. men scored a mean of 4. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.
both individually and collectively (Bass. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. in the present study. Further. 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. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. For example. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. Mandell and Pherwani. 1990). and does so with consideration for their welfare. Likewise. 399). p. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003.It is important to note. but did not predict TLS for males. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. a somewhat different picture emerged. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 . however.
Heilman. 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. management-by-exception (active). 1994. 132 . and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. 1995. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. Assertiveness. Karau. Block. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible.. Eagly. the critical distinction he made was that. as women tend to be more nurturing. Miner. caring. & Johnson. 2000. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. In a study by Bass et al. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. and sensitive. 1998. 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.). These characteristics are more aligned with transformational leadership and attribute this to the socialization process by which individuals learn to conform to cultural expectations in accordance with societal expectations about their gender role (Bass & Avolio. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. 1990). (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. 1994. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. beliefs. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. Carless. & Martell. Carless et al. Rosener.oriented. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components.
1995. 1989. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. That is.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. Driskell. In addition. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. & Salas. 2001. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. 1998). In this current study self estimates were used in data collection in which Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested a common problem is that supervisors actually say and believe they are giving feedback to direct reports. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. In addition. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. Generally. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. 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. Bass et al. Rudman. Copeland. Nevertheless. 2001). The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. expressing disagreement. in 133 . 1989). 2001). 1989.
Assertiveness. 2002).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. could also attribute to lower scores. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. 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 . inner strength. in the worst case. Self-Regard. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 1997). the fear of failure. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. beliefs and thoughts. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. In addition. According to BarOn and Handley (1999).. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. 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. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. and Stress Tolerance. and their negative connotations in. 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.
Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS.Psychiatric Association. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. 1994). in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. However. 1997). ¶ 1). and Stress Tolerance. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. However. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. but the effects are small for the most part. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. Social Responsibility. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Furthermore. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. while not significant. 135 . ¶ 1). but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. Assertiveness.
First. On the other hand. Limitations The current study has several limitations. and are more optimistic than women. which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. men appear to have better selfregard. . It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . are more flexible. For purposes of this study. transactional. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. 1994). implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. 2007. solve problems better. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. 1998. demonstrate more empathy. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. cope better with stress. ¶ 1) “To summarize . are more self-reliant.More specifically. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. 2003). both are equally transformational in leadership style. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. when compared with women. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. . only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. and passive/avoidant). ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. 2007. (Bar-On. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational.
1991). as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. attitudes. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. To overcome the limitations of self-report. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. 2000). because. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. rather than polar constructs.. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. However.scores. That is. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. Further. 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. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. 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. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. 137 . researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. more specifically transactional. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. 2003).
and Communication. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. Alternatively. peers. It is possible that. different results would have been obtained. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. where superiors. Conscientiousness. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. thereby reducing the potential for bias. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. and subordinates. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. Developing Others. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Service Orientation. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. 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.peers. a measure 138 .
S.033.S. the U. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. education. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. 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. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. as well as the industries they represent. Tellegen. Graham. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. Concerning the narrowing of industries. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. 1989). This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. & Kaemmer. Butcher. workforce. Dahlstrom. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Future researchers. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. As a result. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. and 139 .designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. Therefore. as stated previously.
Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. both are equally transformational in leadership style. 140 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Likewise. 2003). there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. Gender. In view of this projection. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. The EQi Intrapersonal. This research also suggests that. Based on the results of this study.. and (b) if so. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS). if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS.healthcare professions (Herman et al. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style.
and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. selection. 141 . This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. recruitment interviewing.In conclusion. job profiling. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS.
charisma and beyond.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. Dachler. R. A. Baliga. (2002). Redwood City. & Hakstian. R. Parker (Eds. April).. Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. 11(4).). DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www. B. 261–295. Bar-On. doi: 10. A. N. B. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. J. 64(3). & Bass. Avolio. B. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. Avolio. & C. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X.pdf Antonakis. (2006). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. (1994). Educational and Psychological Measurement. Ontario. Schriesheim (Eds. (2003). 142 . P. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Toronto. Ferris. (2004). Leadership Quarterly. J.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. N. 18– 22. CA: Mind Garden. 14(3).. B. A. M. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. & Dasborough.). & Bass. 437–462. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. (2005. Transformational leadership. Atkins... Canada: Multi-Health Systems.). (2003). J. C. doi: 10. MA: Lexington Books. K. Bar-On & J.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. Washington. M. Barchard. 29–50).. M. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). B. P. In J. In R. J. M. Atlanta. G. H. H. D. J. R. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. 355–361. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. GA. (2003). Douglas. (2000). Emerging leadership vistas (pp. Journal of Education for Business. (1988)..org/ethics/code2002. 79(1). Handbook of emotional intelligence. Avolio.apa. Hunt. doi: 10. Lexington. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). P. A. & Sivasubramaniam.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. & Stough. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2004).)..
B. 18(Suppl. B. (1999). Psicothema. 112–121. doi: 10. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. J. B. B.). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. (1993).242/demo/intro/tformlead. Retrieved from http://redalyc. M.Bar-On. M. New Braunfels. (1995). TX: Pro-Philes Press. J.html Bass.1037/0003-066X. 52(2). 375–377.52. Retrieved from http://www. 130–139.2. doi: 10. (1993).pdf Bar-On. M. & Avolio. M. M. 18(3). & Avolio. (2006). Menlo Park. 19–31. & Avolio. B.net/tc3/TC019239. Bass. 541–554. 17(1). CA: Mind Garden. (1994). B. B. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.org/bar-on-model/essay. Organizational Dynamics. M. Bass.htm Bass. B. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. B. & Avolio. (1997).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. (1999). Leadership Quarterly. R. 13–25.84. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. M. (2004). B. R. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. & Handley.uaemex. 143 .. J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). R. R. B. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). B. B. B. (1990). M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Bass. (1985). M. B. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Public Administration Quarterly. (1990). New York: The Free Press.. 17(3/4). B. Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Redwood City. CA: Mind Garden. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae...mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.. & Avolio.reuvenbaron. Retrieved from http://205. & Avolio.php?i=25 Bar-On.231. M..130 Bass. International Journal of Public Administration. (2007). J. J. 4(3). J.
M. & Berson.eiconsortium. 88(2). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2007). The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). doi: 10.41 144 . Lincoln. & Atwater.htm Burns. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]..org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J..2224/ sbp.library .Bass. 5–34. 9(4). (1996). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. E. (2004).ebscohost.88... E. Psychological Reports. & Wheeler. A. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. 44–46. D. Retrieved from http://ei. B. (2003). Leadership. doi: 10.207 Bennis. B. J. B.. K. Retrieved from http:// www.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. (2003). M. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.pdf Boyatzis. Murphy. L. Retrieved from http://www..com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. University of Nebraska.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. J. N. 47–64. E. M. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior.1. (2004).haygroup. R. 234–238. 45(1). Y. B.. Doctoral dissertation. Jung. 15(3). Doctoral dissertation. (2007). doi: 10. Journal of Applied Psychology. 27(5). J. R. L. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. J. doi: 10. Bass. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. South Carolina State University.. Retrieved from http://www.2007. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.35. S.com/login.. & Henninger. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. E. W.capella. Avolio. I.eiconsortium. Psychological Inquiry. M. Applied Psychology: An International Review.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis.2. (1990).htm Bryant. (2003).haygroup.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. (2000). J. A.pdf Brody. Avolio. Social Behavior and Personality. J. (1978). Hafetz.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. 32–44. New York: Harper & Row. 41–50.1037/0021-9010. Burton. 35(1). 86(1). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. D.edu/login?url=http://search. 207–218.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.. leader. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved August 10. C..org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. L. (1997). doi: 10... Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.57 . Retrieved from http//www. & Brienza. L. (2000). S.6.1111/0022-4537. 14(3). L. & Monroe. W. G. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Georgia State University. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Business and Psychology.Butcher. & Kaemmer. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. Dahlstrom.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. (1989). from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. A. 213–237. (2001). 389–405. A. (1998. A.ccl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wearing. M. 23(3). D. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. A. & Goleman. doi: 10. A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Social Issues.eiconsortium . 887–902.. A. Fort Collins. May). Colorado State University. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.964 Carli.org/-report. 39(11/12). Retrieved from http://www. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. doi: 10. 57(4). Butler. (2008. (2002). October).. J.aspx Cherniss. 725– 741..htm 145 .1037/0022-3514. doi: 10. Byron. K.00238 Cavallo. C. L. (2005). J. J. doi: 10. N.eiconsortium. Graham. (2003). Gender differences in interaction style and influence.htm Cannella. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Journal of Management. & Mann. D. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. L..eiconsortium . R. Retrieved from http://www. 56(4). L. B. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. Gender and social influence. 2008. S. J. (1989). Sex Roles. 565–76. Doctoral dissertation.. and subordinate perspectives. Tellegen. K.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs.
J.. R.answers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. D. doi: 10. Yammarino. B. (1967). A. K. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. & Johnson. E (1999). 523–530. J. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. D. J. & Johnson. (1990). (1994). (1999). 2008. M. & Salas. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. D. F. (2000).. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. & Spangler. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 233–256. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Gender and reactions to dominance. Public Personnel Management.com Web site: http://www.. Drucker. (2002).. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.108. H. Avolio. 10(6). Mountain View. 108(2). (1995). 735–744. Dulewicz.. Jolson. doi: 10. 53–68. Journal of Nursing Administration.. P. V. Eagly.d. 341–372.. Leadership Quarterly. 17–21. E. Psychological Bulletin. J. Miner. (2002). (1999).. (n.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler.). (1995). 467–480. 15(4).. New York: HarperCollins.. B.Chief executive officer. 29(12). Journal of Business Research. J. B.. D. A. 45(4). M. Driskell. 55(6). Karau. doi: 10. B. F. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. 31(4). & Higgs. Mayfield. 146 . 135–159. (2002). & Swerdlik. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. from Answers. J. Dearborn. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis.. 5(2). A. doi: 10. Eden. B. A. E.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. 15(2). M.1037/0033-2909.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. C.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. Academy of Management Journal.2. Dubinsky. S. J. CA. L. Dixon. T.. Copeland. Retrieved August 31. H. 17–29. W. & Shamir.. Management challenges for the 21st century. Achieving results through transformational leadership. New York: Hill.233 Eagly.
Nice girls don’t get the corner office.695 Hay Group. 73(4). Journal of Applied Psychology. R.com/login. Gohm. Gellis. (2000). R.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w.. L. Block. F. 10(6). A. (1998). CA: Sage. 10(3).4. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. (1995). Thousand Oaks. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.org/?fa=main.apa.. Furnham. 15(3). doi: 10.htm Hargie.1037/0021-9010.ebscohost. (2004). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. New York: Bantam.pdf Hay/McBer.haygroup. E. Retrieved from http://www. Social skills in interpersonal communication. London: Routledge.. & Martell. (2008). P.. Social Work Research. Z. L. 17–25. D. Doctoral dissertation. C. Virginia Commonwealth University. Hater. doi: 10.library.73. A. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment).edu/login?url http://search. J. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.. (2003). (2001). C. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.Field. Psychological Inquiry. (1995). (1983). (2005).gov. Saunders. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. New York: Warner Business Books.dfee. O. (1995). & Bass. M. M. (2004). C. 695–702. O. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. H. & Rawles. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 222–227. Grubb.capella.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. Frankel. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.). 741–748. Retrieved from http://www.. J. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. B. D. New York: Basic Books.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. & Dickson. W. Working with emotional intelligence.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http://psycnet. 25(1). 237–252.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. L. ECI fact card.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 .com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. (1988).
too few people. G.edu/login?url=http://search .. Retrieved from http://online. T.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 .com/login. NJ: Prentice Hall.aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. & Hitt. emotional intelligence competencies. J. The impact of gender. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. T. M. HR Focus. Judge.. Academy of Management Executives. VA: Oakhill Press. M. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1037t/00219010.ebscohost. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed.edu/login?url=http://search. 74(6).ebscohost. P.eiconsortium. R.).Herman. M. D. A. H. 6–18.com/ login.. R. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. Hitt. (2003). HR Focus. H..capella. (1993). Retrieved from http://www. (2000). H. Case Western Reserve University. February 25). M. London: McGraw Hill. Wall Street Journal.. (1993). Englewood Cliffs. & Olivo. Hersey. K. Organizational Dynamics. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.5. NJ: Prentice Hall. (1977). (1997). R.751 148 . 43–57.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. C. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. doi: 10. Hersey. (2005). P. (2000). J. 85(5). 13(1). Boston: Irwin.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. doi: I0. Journal of Applied Psychology. T. 751–765. Hopkins. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A. Winchester. & Blanchard.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. On diversity. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.wsj.).capella. You’ve got to change to retain. J. M.library. & Blanchard. 28(3). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. 75(9). Ivancevich. R..htm Hymowitz.). (2008.85. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. & Matteson. Doctoral dissertation. Upper Saddle River. A.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman.. & Bono. (1997). S1–S4. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. K. (1998). America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. E. Gioia. 15– 16. (1999).library.
. & Johnson.1037/0021-9010. C. (2004). & Sivasubramaniam. (2004). 385–425. (2000. B. L. G. Kroeck. (1996). 89(3). S. A. doi: 10. (2001). & Posner.89. Journal of Research and Technology Management. & Rickers.1037/0021-9010.. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.5.3. J.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. doi: 10. (1995). P. (2005). & Ilies. Wong.. 89(5). Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. M... Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology..1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . Furnham. E.com/login.com/cda/media/ 0.. Journal of Educational Administration. doi: 10.89. D. Z.. & Beers.. L. Leadership Quarterly. Emotion.. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 41–44. 173–180.. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. L.. P.1. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.00. M. G. Colbert. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. 112–129. 113–118. T. Education.ebsco host.. doi: 10. T.capella.89. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.5. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. 755–768.Judge. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.542 Judge. A.1037/15283542. Current Psychology.edu/login?url=http://search. A. 483–496. N.library. B. K.. Salovey. June). European Psychologist. doi: 10.3. R. & Piccolo. R. 38(3). & Jantzi. & Song. K. (2007). J. R. doi: 10. 154–163.. (2005).. 89(3). K. (2004). P. 7(3). S. M. R. F. 5(1).1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. 125(4). Reiter-Palmon. Kirkcaldy. J. 38(2). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.wiley.113 Lowe. J. A. & Siefen.15304. N.. Transformational leaders make a difference. R.1037/0021-9010. doi: 10.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Retrieved from http://basepath. Noack. A. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. S.pdf Law. 615–626.483 Leithwood. (2000).755 Kaufhold. 542–552. Côté. doi: 10. D.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. K. 20(2).. 12(3).
Intelligence. (1998). 267–298. D. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).100186.unh. J. H.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. 05B.com .capella. & Pherwani. 179–196. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. (2004a). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. findings. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. 405–436. Salovey. J. (2000). doi: 10.com/ login. About the MSCEIT. doi: 10. Retrieved from ProQuest database. P.. D..library. (UMI No. M. K. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. Retrieved from http://www. B. R.)..edu/login?url=http://search. Mayer. D. The anthropology of emotions. P. 9970564) Mandell. P. (2004). 253–296. American Sociological Review. (2002)..library.sciencedirect. R. G.. Journal of Research in Personality. D. Sluytrer (Eds. & Caruso. and implications. M. 67(1).edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer.capella. 27(4). D.an. G. J. D. D. J. Journal of Business and Psychology. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. 15(3). R. & Zeidner. Mayer.. P. 197–215. M. F. Ontario. (2003). & Chabot. 17(3).edu/login?url=http://search.Lutz. J.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. (1986). Carlsmith. Mathews. 71).. & Salovey. Psychological Inquiry. J.. & Caruso.. Psychological Inquiry. Emotional intelligence: Theory. 15(2). M. 387–404. S. doi: 10. Toronto. R. D. 61.capella. 1–29. (2007). & White. Caruso.ebscohost. (1997). S. D.. C. 15(3). Retrieved from http://www. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles.15. Salovey & D.002201 Malek. Annual Review of Anthropology. (2002). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.ebscohost. Roberts. What is emotional intelligence? In P. 32(3). & Salovey. New York: Basic Books... (1999).1146/annurev.com/login.library. Dissertation Abstracts International. J. D. Salovey. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence.. D.
Psychological Inquiry. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership.pdf Morrison. & Taylor. Inc. Eastabrook. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. CA: Academic Press. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp..1016 /j. Z. M. 26(2). Issues in Educational Research. H. (2005).. Walls.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. 100–106. J. B. Retrieved from http://www. 27–34. N. The International Journal of Conflict Management. 17–59). 381–400. (2001). & Caruso. D. Perry. I. R. Ball.d. M. 29–43.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. Measurement and control of response bias. 15(3). Journal of Individual Differences.org. J. 335–344.).ebscohost. MLQ international norms.. Oatley..com Web site: http://www. D. Parker. K. Wrightsman (Eds.). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. B..com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. Saklofske. 5–10. (n. 22(1). D. Salovey.022 Paulhus. (2002).2006.Mayer. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood.paid. N. & Carsky. & Stacey. 14(1). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. D. Retrieved from http://www. R. (2004). In J.iier. E.library. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.edu/login? url=http://search.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. from Answers.edu/login?url=http://search. Wood.capella. (2003). 24(6). Burgess.html 151 . (2004).com/login . P. 15(3). Retrieved August 31. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. L. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. (2004b). C. & Fuller. 27(5). M.ebscohost. (1991). Robinson.. Jones. R.. (2004). J.. doi: 10. L.library. 216–238. L.mind garden. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.capella. (1997). A.. Psychological Inquiry. doi: 10.. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. doi: 10.com/login.. D. San Diego. 249–255. S. M. & Stough.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Shaver. & L. J.. L.04. C. 13(4). R.answers.au/iier14/perry. 2008... R. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. Journal of Nursing Administration. P. S.
(2003b). Ferris.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold.. P. Plunkett (Ed. Costa. P. L. L. C. Doctoral dissertation.416 Piedmont. doi: 10..01. R. 11(4). Boston: Allyn Bacon.. B.eiconsortium. Douglas. L. & Furnham. (2001).eiconsortium. 18(2). Leadership and management styles. T.. W. M.edu/login?url=http://search. Ways women lead. leadership effectiveness. Harvard Business Review. R. Emotional intelligence. M. M. K.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .1002/per.capella. 68(6).2007. 121–133. 60(4).. 323–351).htm Rivera Cruz. V. Doctoral dissertation. Douglas. Catholic University of America.1016/j. Case Western Reserve University.4. & Heinitz. R. doi: 10. V. & McRae.com/login.. Ammeter. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Purkable. 41–62. 15(6). & Buckley.003 152 . R... K.1037/0022-3514. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Prati.. 119–125. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. (2007).Petrides. 449–461. doi: 10. B. A. Supervision (6th ed. G. (2003a). (2003). & Buckley.. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. 11(1).. and team outcomes. (2000). 363–369. Ammeter. J. R.ebsco host. Retrieved from ProQuest database.htm Rosener. (1990). Retrieved from http://www.library. 425–448. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Sex Roles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.). C. R. V. (2004)..630 Plunkett. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. (1991). A. In W. European Journal of Personality. Leadership Quarterly.leaqua. P. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. 744–755. A. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. R. Petrides. L.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. M. Ferris.60. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 42(5/6). Retrieved from http://www. J. G. Prati. T.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1992). A. R. K. Emotional intelligence.. R. pp. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. & Furnham.
W..com/topic/senior-management Smith.. Retrieved from ProQuest database.3. 2008. doi: 10.Rudman. & Geroy. Race. 9(4). W..1037/0022-3514.eiconsortium.sciencedirect. K. Schaie. J. J. 25(2). & Bass. and Matthews (2001). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved August 31.). Zeidner. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . doi: 10.. emotions. J. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. et al. Comment on Roberts. Hopkins. D.1037/1528-3542. E. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. (2000). Retrieved from http:// www. Gender & Class.unh. Imagination. Cognition. Hall.. Schulte.capella. J. Golden.. (1998). 1(3).. (1990). J.. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. F. P. M. R.. 94– 110. doi: 10. (2003). 629–645. (2001). L. (2002).library. & Osborn. New York: Wiley. (1998). S.capella. Haggerty. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. E. J. Journal of Management. J. 16(4). and Personality. J. C.243 Schermerhorn. M.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. & Mayer.629 Sala.answers. Malouff. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. J.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. J. M. B..74. Race. 167–177.com Web site: http://www.). Retrieved from http://www.. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. 74(3). 243–248.edu/login?url=http://search . Cooper. Hunt. Our Lady of the Lake University.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.com/login. T. A. from Answers.org/ Salovey.eiconsortium. 9(3). 693–703. and socialization.htm Schutte. Emotion. 9(4). E.. Emotional intelligence. D. (n. (1990). E. Retrieved from http:// www..d. (2003). (2001). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. 21–31. Organizational behavior (7th ed.pdf Sanders.3.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. D.library. 185–211. J. G. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com.1. L. N.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer.
). R. L. Bureau of Labor Statistics. J. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. Sosik.bls. W. S. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.pdf U. Journal of Education for Business.. S. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. F. J. 49(1). L. 24(3). & D’hoore. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. Journal of Allied Health.S. S. E. A.J.se/default. & Fidell.. A... Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. 367–390. 689–700.aspx?search=Smith. U. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved from http://www. M. L. C..1016/j. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. (2005). C. April).. Dallas.library.kandidata.C. 37–43. 2002. & Plemons. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2005). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Bureau of Labor Statistics. MA: Allyn and Bacon. (2000).A. & Viswesvaran. Wade. (2000). Ellis.tx.paid. J.. TX.%20(1998) Snodgrass. & McDaniel. Z.com.cgi Tabachnick. 18–14.05. 37(1). Retrieved from http://www. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. (1998. J. doi: 10. & Megerian. G. C. M. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance..023 154 . (2008). Sojka.. D. L. Barone.S. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. J. 75(6).bls.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. (2001).capella. Census Bureau of Labor..ovid... Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. doi: 10.Smith. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. Alonso.2004.siop..asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. M. Douthitt.edu/spb/ovidweb. S. & McCarthy..%20K. 38(3). Retrieved from http://www. B.% 20&%20McDaniel. Nursing Research. A.org/Search. Tucker. S . J. Retrieved from http://www. (1999).%20M. Vandenberghe. K.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. (2002). Group & Organization Management. 331–338.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. Department of Labor. (2003).Needham Heights.
capella.ebscohost. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. (1990)..001 155 . J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . M. I. University of Minnesota.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. 205–222.com/login. F. & Bass.com/login. M.edu/ login?url=http://search. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.ebscohost. Upper Saddle River. Dubinsky.com/login. L. 28–32. Yammarino. C. doi: 10. (1998). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.capella. (2001).htm Weisinger. (2003). A.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. (2002). 39–52. doi: 10.capella. L. Lancaster. NJ: Prentice Hall. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. M. Developing emotional intelligence.edu/login?url=http://search. Zhu. R.. J.1016/j.. H. D. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Academy of Management Journal. (1989). J. 15(2). PA: Poised for the Future Company. H. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. & Spangler.. leaqua.Viator. A. Yukl. Emotional intelligence at work.2004.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin.ebscohost. 43(10). Doctoral dissertation. The perfect labor storm 2. G.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. & Jolson.library . Chew.. B. 89–92. (1997).library.eiconsortium. (2007). G. 8(2). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. (2000). 975–995. 99–125. J. The Leadership Quarterly. W. Comer. Human Relations. 15(2). W. doi: 10.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. Wolfe.edu/login?url=http://search. E.. I. K. S. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. 16(1).library. B. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Retrieved from http://www . (2005). Journal of Information Systems.). Nursing Management. Journal of Management. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 251–289. F.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. 34(10). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.06. (2003). A. 40(1).
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. What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 .APPENDIX.
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 $100.000.000.00 Between $70.00 Between $40.00 and $70.00 and $150.00 Between $100.000.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.00 158 .000.000.000.00 More than $150.