THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE by Michael A. Syndell LORI LA CIVITA, Ph.D.

, Faculty Mentor and Chair BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Committee Member JOSEPH DAMIANI, Ph.D., Committee Member Garvey House, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University August 2008

3320725 Copyright 2008 by Syndell, Michael A. All rights reserved

2008

3320725

© Michael A. Syndell, 2008

S. . education. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. 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. and healthcare professions. In addition.033. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. there will be approximately 10. The purpose of this cross-sectional. 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.Abstract The U. 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. Department of Labor. predicts that by 2010. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12.000 billion annually.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.

Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . and to my Grandparents. iii . . . who laid the cornerstone of my being.

you my friend have been a gift from God. and to Dr. . With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . And to my family and friends who have . . for the most part (smile!) . I love you all! iv . To my original mentor. who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . . . . Lori La Civita. . . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . Joseph Damiani. Bruce Gillies. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. . . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . Dr. . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . 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 . 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 . who helped me start this journey. . and your respected members who participated. for making this research possible. thank you sincerely. to Dr. . . . . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Nature of the Study Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical Orientation of the Study History of Leadership: An Overview Origins of Transformational Leadership Current State of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Defined Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) v iv viii 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 19 20 22 33

Gender and Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence Defining EI EI Controversies The Development of EI Characteristics of EI Gender and EI Race/Ethnicity and EI Measuring EI EI and Leadership Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection EI, Leadership, and Gender Conclusion CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Variables Measures Procedures Research Questions Research Hypotheses vi

35 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 60 60 60 61 61 63 66 67 68

Data Collection and Storage Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Expected Findings Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Discussion of the Results Discussion of the Conclusions Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

69 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 116 116 116 119 120 129 136 138 140 142 156

vii

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

Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.Table 19.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Comparison of Low. 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 .

Herman. & Olivo. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Gioia. Ireland & Hitt. 1997.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. 1998). U. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. 1997.033. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 1999. Hitt. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. attract.CHAPTER 1. 1995). Drucker. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 1990). education. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).S. 1 . 1988).S.373 billion (Herman. 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. Specifically. Department of Labor. 2000. develop. The U. companies must compete to find. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. higher group performance levels (Keller. Department of Labor. 2005). and retain the best talent. 2003. 1999).

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

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

Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. In addition. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. if a relationship is found to exist. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. 4 . 2. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 3. 4.

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

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

including verbal. 2000). and Organizational Effectiveness. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. movement oriented. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. 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. Senior Management. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). musical. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership.Multiple Intelligences. Group. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). mathematical. (c) Inspirational Motivation. three constructs of transactional leadership. as they generally work as a team in conjunction with executive management in which strategic decisions are reviewed or drafted and implemented into organizational 7 . 2004). intentions. one nontransactional leadership construct. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. spatial. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). and (e) Individualized Consideration. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. (b) Individual.. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. 1998). Retention. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). environmental. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. and three outcome constructs. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active).

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

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

Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. statistical analysis.be used. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. 10 . variable. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. The dependent. Transformational Leadership. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. or outcome. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi.

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

In total. this study’s theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. 1985. 2006. 1999). 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. 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. 22 articles were relevant to this study. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. 1995). Goleman. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. higher group performance (Keller. Bass & Avolio. 1988). and dissertations. books. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. In addition. Specifically. 1995. 12 .gender. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. along with several books and dissertations.

Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. these studies failed to create a list of traits that would guarantee leadership success as different studies found different traits associated with leaders that became too long to be of practical significance (Yukl). and handsome. not on “how” to effectively lead. of leaders such as personality. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. assertive. These early leadership theories were content theories. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. energetic. adaptable. 2002). cooperative. and emotionally stable. and diplomatic. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess.History of Leadership: An Overview Multiple leadership theories are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory that seeks to explain leadership in terms of leader and follower traits and behavior theories found to manifest from situational/contingent leadership studies. Task-related 13 . Social characteristics include being charismatic. popular. Personality traits include being self-confident. values. tall. charming. social. tactful. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. and skills (Yukl. motives. 1990). However. or traits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bennis. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. 22 . Another departure Bass takes from Burns’s concept of Transformational Leadership style is his assertion that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of attending to positive moral values and brings up leaders such as Adolf Hitler and others of similar character. 1985. 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. 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. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. weaknesses. However. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. focusing on a common purpose. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. and comparative advantages. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. the organization’s strengths. 1990. Leithwood & Jantzi. 2000). using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron.

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

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

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

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

organizational perception. and its effect on job satisfaction. leader/unit perception. Kroeck. First. The results of a study by Morrison. demonstrated high statistical correlations that were significant in supporting the theory that transformational leadership does have positive effects on the financial bottom-line and that leadership can be measured with statistical accuracy when being able to establish appropriate benchmarks. Fifth. Third. Lowe. 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. Second. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. 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. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Jones. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). using a sample of 275 nurses. the sample size must have been reported. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Fourth. and job satisfaction. 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.

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

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

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

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

c.b. d. b. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. 34 . Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. b. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. c. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. c.74 to . e. 2. 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.94. 2004).

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

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

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

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

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

However. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. 2004. Oatley (2004) noted that Van Brakel listed 22 different definitions for the concept as a way of showing the inherent difficulties involved in the task of defining emotions. physiologically evidenced. Oatley. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. Mayer et al. Rather. The Development of EI The idea of EI as an innate and/or learnable ability arose from the field of anthropology and has been hypothesized to have developed with progressive evolution of human society from the primitive to the more complex (Massey. in these writers view. During the 6 million years of human evolution. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. and measurable construct. emotion is a scientifically valid. Massey argued. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain.. In this view.Reflecting on Mathews et al. The denial of emotions. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. 2002). the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . others (Gohm.’s (2004) argument. immaterial. in Gohm’s view. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group.

Indeed. 1986. (2004a. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. but they do not expand or increase them. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Massey. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. Massey). 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. For example. Mayer et al. though an inherent capacity. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. 2004b) reported. 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. 1986. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. noted. 2000). 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 . 2002). In this view. 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. it a learnable skill. In contrast.

they could manage and direct their emotional reactions and energies as well as those of others. In so doing, Kaufhold and Johnson argue individuals in high-stress occupations would be able to maintain a productive and psychologically healthy work environment. Tucker et al. (2000) provided a similar idea, contending that research has shown that EI consists of a learnable set of emotional and cognitive skills. According to their theory, the ability to comprehend emotions in oneself and in others, and to manage and harness emotions in ways that help attain one’s goals, is learnable. That is, individuals can be trained in the reading and management of emotions and, more importantly, can be taught to manage others through a cognitive approach to relationships and tasks that is sensitive to emotions (Tucker et al.). However, such theoretical assumptions have not yet been supported with empirical evidence, though some educational institutions, presupposing both the validity of the theory and the learnability of EI, have integrated EI learning and skill development into their curricula (Kaufhold & Johnson, 2005; Tucker et al.).

Gender and EI Evidence supporting gender differences in EI is mixed. Early studies found that women were more socially skillful than men (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1995) and that they scored higher on existing EI tests (Mayer et al., 1999; Schutte et al., 1998). Mandell and Pherwani (2003) also found that women managers were more skilled in managing the emotions of themselves and others. Petrides and Furnham (2000) studied the self-estimated and actual EI levels in 260 participants, equally divided between male and female, in order to examine whether gender functions as a significant independent 42

variable as it relates to EI levels. The EI measure they used was the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al.). Petrides and Furnham questioned whether the empirically proven female tendency towards self-effacement and the male preference for self-enhancement, repeatedly upheld in self-estimated IQ levels, held true for EI as well. Results showed that it did, with male self-estimations of EI levels higher than female estimations. Further analysis of whether self-estimated EI levels corresponded to actual levels showed that the men’s and women’s self-estimations were equivocal. Petrides and Furnham’s results did not show a significant gender difference in total measured EI. However, they did show a significant difference on the social skills factor, with women scoring higher than men. This result was in the opposite direction from the difference in self-estimated EI, in which men’s self-estimates were higher than women’s. In other words, the process of self-estimation is biased, though, as Petrides and Furnham suggested, the nature and source of this bias is not clear (Petrides & Furnham). However, Petrides and Furnham (2000) noted some limitations of the study, one of which was that the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al., 1998) “has certain problems and the four factors we have derived have not been sufficiently validated” (Petrides & Furnham, p. 453). They stated that with regard to measured trait EI, the results of their research were inconclusive and it needs to be replicated with a better measure of EI. In a study of parents estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences, Kirkcaldy, Noack, Furnham, and Siefen (2007) found that mothers gave lower self-estimates than fathers of their own mathematical (logical) and spatial intelligence. Both parents rated their sons as having higher intrapersonal intelligence than 43

daughters. Intrapersonal intelligence is an individual’s ability to assess one’s own moods, feelings, mental states, and to use this information adaptively. It is one of Gardner’s (1983) personal intelligences, the other being interpersonal intelligence, and is similar to the concept of EI. Burton, Hafetz, and Henninger (2007) conducted a study of gender differences in relational and physical aggression using the Bar-On EQi as the measure of EI. They found that women scored higher on the Bar-On Interpersonal overall factor. This included higher scores for women for the components Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship subscales than men. Rivera Cruz (2004) examined gender-based differences in EI in two contexts, work and home. Her study was based on the theory that gender role dynamics influence the ways in which men and women display EI behavior, and that the extent and characteristics of that difference is driven primarily by cultural factors. Results of the study showed there was a difference in EI behavior between the two contexts of work and the personal, with increases when gender is included as a factor. Specifically, women showed significant differences in 7 of the 21 competencies of the EI framework used in the study, and men showed differences in 6 of these competencies. Moreover, women were found to display higher levels of EI competencies at home, than men did at work. These results support the theory that gender role dynamics and cultural characteristics influence the way women and men behave. Further correlation analysis found that differences in women’s behavior were associated with Hofstede’s (1997) masculinity/femininity dimension of culture and Boyatzis, Murphy, and Wheeler’s

44

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

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

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

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

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

. leading others takes place via the communication of the leader’s enthusiasm and moods to others while persuading them that the enthusiasm they express for a policy or a project is spontaneously self-generated and not imposed upon them.ingredient of leadership. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. 2003). boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. 2001. From the sociological perspective.). Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women.. Mandell & Pherwani. and mutual benefits.. 155). The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. relationships. 2003).. As a social phenomenon. In addition. Mandell & Pherwani.). 2003. 2001.. Law et al. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. as cited in Kobe et al. According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2004. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. Judge et al. 2004. Kobe et al. 2003). p. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al.

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

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

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

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

Using performance ratings and demographic data. and management tenure 55 . Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. Specifically. gender. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. 2003). contingent reward leadership. Regarding raters perceptions. Leadership.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. coping (Purkable. EI. 2005). contingent reward leadership. title. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. 2003). 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. with mixed results. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. Position. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. 2003). with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. and manager success (Hopkins. These are reviewed as follows. and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership.

and coping mechanisms. Specifically. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level. and coping mechanisms. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. Emotional Self-Control. leadership practices. In each of these areas. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. MSCEIT subscore 4. leadership practices. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Inspirational Leadership. In addition to the MSCEIT. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. Influence. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. and SelfConfidence. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving.

one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Results showed a strong pattern of significant differences between men and women leaders such that gender influences not only the idea of successful leadership for men and women but also produces distinctly different routes to success for male and female leaders. and success. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female. Specifically. 57 . Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. The study used self and other ratings of EI. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. leadership styles. Hopkins found that the intersection of gender roles and organizational roles influenced the leadership behaviors and styles of both women and men in leadership positions. but not male. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. managerial and nonmanagerial employees.avoidance coping. As noted previously. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. 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.

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

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

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

2004). and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. Executives. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. e-mail. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. three constructs of transactional leadership. and a host of other business and service providers. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. health care. food and beverage. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. ranging in size from small to large. financial services. For the purpose of this research 61 . Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ).S. phone. legal services. Senior. market. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. and the use of U. nonprofit.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. 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. advertising and marketing. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development.

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

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

All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. However. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. or frequently.94 (Bass & Avolio). if not always). The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. The coefficients ranged from .000 respondents from the United 64 . sometimes = 2. 2004). rather than performance or success itself. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. 2002). and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. if not always = 4. 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. consisting of four items each. once in a while = 1.73 to . and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. For example. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. fairly often = 3. challenges and pressures.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. to understand and relate well with others. and to successfully cope with daily demands.coefficients for each leadership factor. therefore. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational.

Independence. MHS Inc. 2002). similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. 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). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. to obtain a Total EQ. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. were reported as .75 (n = 27.. 2002). to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. 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. Emotional Self-Awareness. respectively.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. Version 12. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 65 . 2002). Flexibility. Social Responsibility. In this current study all survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. and their associated subcomponents. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. Bar-On. and Interpersonal Relationship. and Self-Actualization. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. Assertiveness. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. and Problem Solving.States and Canada. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years.85 (n = 44) and .

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

” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.Consent was implied by participants who after reading the “Waiver of Signed Consent” (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy). 2. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . 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. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. individual data were not made available. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. the MLQ assessment. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.

HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 .3.

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

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

This was followed by univariate analyses. Analyses examining group differences (e. 571). as appropriate. 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. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 72). p. 667). gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). missing and out-of. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. p. 2005. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. Errors in scoring/data entry. 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. 94).range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 2005. p. p. outliers. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. When necessary. 65). using SPSS Procedure Frequencies.g. 2005.. Finally.

as well as to control for the effects of gender. Expected Findings The results of this research was to indicate whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. and. 170). it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. the nature and strength of that association. 72 . Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. 2005. 160). In addition. if so.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. p. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. p.

could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention.CHAPTER 4. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . 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. 2. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. 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. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. As previous research.

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. the nature and strength of that association.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. and if so. 74 . 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. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. 4. 3. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS.

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

1 22.8 3.4 3.8 5.Table 1.2 12.2 5.7 20.3 8.5 4.8 1.6 16.0 11.8 2.7 7.1 39.7 5.9 6.2 2.1 25.5 45.7 29.4 19.7 5. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.1 10.6 76 .9 12.1 11.2 55.9 3.7 10.5 5.4 24.

7 2. East Asian. Arabic or other.5 1.0 2.20).8 More than $150.000 23 14.1 9.8 Between $70–100. American Indian. 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 32.2 10. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.000 15 9.9 10.7 34.1 32. Minimum age 24. N = 158.Table 1.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.70. maximum age 67.000 17 10.3 12.4 8.000 44 27.7 31.7 Current income Less than $40.6 Between $100–150.3 20.000 55 34.9 65.9 12.25 85.7 16. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.8 Between $40–70.9 1. 77 .9 2. **Includes Pacific Islander.5 4. SD = 8.

Addressing racial diversity. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.000–$100.1%. n = 106). 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. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.6%. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. 25.4%. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. n = 103).Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.95 years of college education. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.32 subordinates. Most respondents earned from $40. n = 72). The sample of the population in this study has an average.7%. n = 121) in a private. However.6%. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. or mean of 3. n = 78). 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 (76.15 direct reports. for-profit organization. 78 . the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 135) male (60. Notably. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.2%.000 per annum (49. and a median of 5.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.4%. In terms of supervision responsibilities.

02 (SD = 13.00). Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.730.86 (SD = 13. Intrapersonal. the mean income was $68. 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 mean age of the subjects is 48. 102. 79 .49). because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.65 years. Summed TLS Score. Total EQi Score.49 (SD = 14.05).77 years. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. with a nearly identical median of 48. 105. 103.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. Stress Management. Adaptability. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. 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 2.85). EQi component scores were. 105.01). Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. 107.41). 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.63 (SD = 12. in descending order. Interpersonal. As far as income. and General Mood Components. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.02 (SD = 13.900 and the median was $54. For the income this is going to be most apparent.97 (SD = 13.

44 13.Table 2.60 14.02 105.85 12.97 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.28 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.31 103.62 13.00 12.61 102.05 14.86 12.52 103.86 106. N = 157.02 102.19 13.74 13.61 105.63 103.01 13.64 107.45 13.73 12.41 12.49 103.49 13.46 102.54 103.63 103.66 101. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.21 105.93 13.36 Total EQi Score 105.17 104.70 13.66 14. 80 .67 13.41 106. 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 107.04 12.

3. which are as follows. 3. 3.57 0.57 0. in descending order.09 (SD = 0. Intellectual Stimulation. 81 .18 (SD = 0.57).09 3.63 0. and Intellectual Stimulation. 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 3.26 3.52.Table 3.59). Idealized Influence (Attributed).52).08 3. 2.59). 3. TLS component scores were. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.08 (SD = 0. 2.04 (SD = 0. 3.57).96 (SD = 0.13 3. Mind Garden. 3.63).26 (SD = 0.59).59 0. 3.58 0. Individualized Consideration. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.53). Idealized Influence (Behavior).16 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.S. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Inspirational Motivation.59 Note.18 SD 0. Individualized Consideration.13 (SD = 0.95 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 2004).35 3.58). N = 157. Inspirational Motivation.99 (SD = 0. 2.35 (SD = 0. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).59).

Norm group** M 3. 2001).16 SD 0.52 M 3.59 0.55 0.. Group Norms vs.Table 4. Skew represents the even-ness.18 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.63 0. TLS Component Scores: U.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.e.09 3.26 3.59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.08 3.95 2. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.99 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.02 2. or symmetry.52 0. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). **N = 3.04 2.35 SD 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.53 0.59 0.13 3. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.58 0.96 3.57 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.375.S. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . of a distribution (i.59 0. or scaled variables.

and not individual MLQ items. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary.24. (d) Adaptability = .06.80. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.64.85. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .83. (b) Interpersonal = .73. 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. but normally distributed. with skew > +/–2.67. and Individualized Consideration = –1.66.63. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .09. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . Inspirational Motivation = –. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . (b) MLQ 23 = –2. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.83. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.18.16. (c) Stress Management = .40.70. (b) 6. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. and (e) General Mood = .67. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.0.78. 2001). (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .76. respectively.61.0. 83 . Intellectual Stimulation = –.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.49. and (c) 9. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.

40* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.32* IC . Intrapersonal 2.41* .30* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.29* .19 a .23* .37* . General Mood IIA . a p < . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.46* IM . 84 .59* IS .33* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.44* .28* . Pearson’s r was obtained.43* Note. The significance level was set at (α = . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. N = 158.37* IIB .36* .31* .05. Table 5. *p < . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.44* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).05).01.37* . Adaptability 5.25* .37* . To address the first research question.40* .52* .48* .35* . Interpersonal 3. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). IM = Inspirational Motivation. Stress Management 4.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.

05. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. p < .45. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . 85 . p < . p < .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .59. (b) Happiness (r = . Inspirational Motivation (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Most of the correlations ranged between .001).23 or higher. with (α = . p < .16. 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. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . With one exception.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.20 and . EQi component scores also increased. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. using the same Procedure Correlations. which was still significant at p < .05). (c) Self-Actualization (r = .19.05).001).50. Results are shown in Table 6. at r = .51. All correlations were in the positive direction.001) and Inspirational Motivation. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.

45* .37* .44* . N = 157.30* .16 a . Social Responsibility 8. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).43* .33* .37* .33* .39* .34* .24* .35* .37* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.38* .15 (ns) .40* . Self-Actualization 6. ap < . Reality Testing 12.59* .36* Note. Problem Solving 14.01.28* .28* .12 (ns) .43* .23* .33* .37* .46* .24* . 86 .37* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.48* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).03 (ns) .50* .40* .36* .13 (ns) . Assertiveness 4. Happiness IIA .37* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.39* IM .43* . Optimism 15.32* .26* .38* .44* .11 (ns) . Flexibility 13.38* .36* .33* .36* .34* .51* IS . Interpersonal Relationships 9. Impulse Control 11.33* . *p < .32* .30* .33* .27* . Empathy 7.16 (ns) .19 a .21* .17 a . Self-Awareness 3.35* .Table 6.05 (ns = nonsignificant. IM = Inspirational Motivation. and IC = Individualized Consideration.31* .29* .31* IIB .30* .25* IC .32* .40* . Stress Tolerance 10.31* .45* .24* .40* .23* . p ≥ . Self-Regard 2. Independence 5.05).15 (ns) .26* .25* .24* .

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

The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.64. 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. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.71.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. this intercorrelation is to be expected. 88 . p < . since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .90. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.01). p < . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. p < . However. Therefore. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.01).01).72. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .82. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. p < . based on the .

60* .37* . Assertiveness 4.40* . Self-Regard 2.61* .20* .00 .00 1.33* .52* .42* .51* 1.50* .49* .61* .60* . Interpersonal Relationship .50* .52* . Empathy 89 7.28* .53* 15 .36* .23* .40* .53* . Self Awareness 3.39* .58* .38* .00 .65* .66* .00 .47* .30* .27* .24* .60* .42* .41* .26* .55* .39* .41* .74* .55* .50* .47* .62* .60* .54* .32* .32* .16* .61* .38* .37* .71* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.53* 1. Problem Solving 12.47* .00 1.64* .51* . Impulse Control .00 .43* 1.00 1.00 .25* .36* 9.51* .50* .43* .37* .58* .40* . Reality Testing 10.55* .43* .50* .61* .00 1.72* .15* .00 .59* .40* .51* .82* .Table 7.66* . Independence 5.47* 1.36* .00 1.33* .32* Subcomponent 1.50* .39* . Flexibility 11.35* .25* .43* .41* .40* .00 .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .60* .55* . Self-Actualization 6.52* .56* .42* .15* .32* .42* .56* . Stress Tolerance 13.42* .50* 1.23* .59* .43* .55* .00 1.45* 1. Social Responsibility 8.42* .

a p < . 90 .Table 7. Optimism 15.00 Subcomponent 14.05. *p < . bns = nonsignificant. N = 157.01.64* 1.00 15 . Happiness Note. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.

60* . Overall.019).59* . Individualized Consideration Note.55* .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Stress Management at Step 3. Results are shown in Table 9. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.Table 8. General Mood and 91 .00 2 .57* 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. 1 1. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.72* 1.64* 1. and. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.58* 1. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .01.015).62* . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.54* . Inspirational Motivation 4.00 5 . to a minimal extent. 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. Results are shown in Table 9. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.00 3 . *p < . N = 157.287). Stress Management at Step 3.00 4 . Intellectual Stimulation 5.61* .

66 3.000 .069 2.301 at Steps 3 and 4.000 .000 .034 4. *p < .66** . F change R2change . nor Adaptability.033 –.V.Interpersonal components.04* 62.32 .25 2. Neither Stress Management. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).320 at Step 5. the EQi Intrapersonal.04 . Table 9.287 . † TLS Summed = D.728 –0. In summary.07 .019 Note.87 .008 . N = 157.25 . **p < .073 –. R2 = . Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig. entered at Step 4.85 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.316 –0.287 at Step 1. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.162 .05. R2 = . 92 . entered at Step 3.301 at Step 2. R2 = .01. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.015 . R2 = .24 .

Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)

M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25

SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94

93

Males in the sample ranked highest on the Intrapersonal EQi component (M = 108.74, SD = 12.47), and they ranked lowest on the Interpersonal component (M = 102.71, SD = 14.53). The second-highest rankings for males were on both Stress Management and Adaptability. Females in the sample ranked highest on the Adaptability component (M = 105.08, SD = 12.08), and they ranked lowest on the General Mood component (M = 101.38, SD = 12.63). The second-highest ranking for females was on the Interpersonal component. As a group, females (2) ranked higher than males (4) on the EQi Interpersonal component. Females (1) also ranked higher than males (2) on the Adaptability component. Males ranked higher than females on the remaining three EQi components, Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and General Mood. Descripitive statistics (Means, SD) were then obtained for males and females on the five TLS components. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify those TLS components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are shown in Table 11. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the TLS Individualized Consideration component as seen in the rankings in Table 12, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 3.36, SD = 0.59; females: M = 3.31, SD = 0.53) compared to the remaining four components. Both males and females ranked second on the Inspirational Motivation component. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for males and the lowest-ranking for females was on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Males ranked lowest on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) component, while females, as previously noted, ranked lowest on Intellectual Stimulation. 94

Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* TLS component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(5) (3) (2) (4) (1) M 3.10 3.04 3.03 3.19 2.97 3.31 SD 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.53 Rank -(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)

M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36

SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59

As a group, females (3) ranked higher than males (5) on only one TLS component, Idealized Influence (Attributed). As a group, males ranked higher (3) than females (4) on Idealized Influence (Behavior) and on Intellectual Stimulation (4 vs. 5). Independent samples t tests. First, an independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components. This is the appropriate statistical test to use when comparing two independent (i.e., unrelated) groups such as male and female on one or more continuous (scaled) variables, such as the five EQi components. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 12. Males scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 95

*p < .75 12.05.97 0.05.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. 96 . bn = 62. Table 13.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.21 14.05.67 2. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.Table 12. a difference which was significant at p < .50 2. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. Males scored a mean of 0.16 0.48 104. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. *p < .44 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. bn = 62.

08. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. These data are presented in Table 14. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. SD = 14. Descriptive statistics. Interestingly. 97 . achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. females: M = 106. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. SD = 14. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).64.77. respectively.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents.

80 106.43 11.07 14.92 13.37 105.78 13.37 14.40 14.62 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents. 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 104.53 12.24 104.19 12.09 109.17 103.33 105.34 102.50 109.06 102.80 102.16 103. 11).63 13. Self-Actualization (9 vs.70 13.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.77 102.76 106.67 103.56 102.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.89 103.34 12.72 101.48 13.57 13.92 102. Social Responsibility 98 .23 13.84 11.26 103. **n = 62.64 109.28 (14) 100.01 103.68 14.74 15.41 11.08 11.74 11. 13).55 13.18 14.99 107. Empathy (4 vs.14 15.50 12.93 13.Table 14.37 12.75 13.61 104.21 105. As a group.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.97 15. N = 157.47 104.27 11.80 14. *n = 95.

05.07 14. Independent-samples t test.57 12. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.67 SD 11. a Marginally significant.80 11. and Flexibility (6 vs. As a group. (2 vs.74 t 2.80 102. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. among others. 10). 12). 10).36** 1.01.07* 3. 13). Stress Tolerance (4 vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.86 11.01 102. **p < .05. Table 15. a difference which was significant at p < .11 107. n = 95. p = .97 109.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.74 15. 15).99 M 99. 12). 15).26 Females SD 13. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. Self-Regard (8 vs.39 109. n = 62.91a 2. Males scored a mean of 7. Assertiveness. Females. *p < . An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.42* Note.21 105.18 14.01. Males. They also scored higher on the 99 .(5 vs.

males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.08). TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. but did not predict TLS for males. Both assertiveness (R2 change = .10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. were important predictors of TLS in females. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. 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.05. Further.41) subcomponents.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.11) than did females (M = 105. and independence (R2 change =.13). or combination. Specifically. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. They also scored 4. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. Regression analyses. all of which were significant at p < . As a follow-up. To summarize. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.

001 . R2 (adj) = .73 .99** .268 7.022 .190 .088 –.669 3.41 . N = 157.18 . Table 16.e.21 –. R2 (adj) = ..on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i. R2 (adj) = .05 .67 –1.263 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .000 .269 .606 .81 1.989 34. **p < .002 . It was thus decided that using 101 .24 14. R2 (adj) = .255 at Step 2. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).02 .131 .12 2.755 .01.45 .000 .176 at Step 1.248 at Step 3.010 . R2 (adj) = .04 2. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .261 at Step 1.63** .55 –.08 .19 . 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.85 . bFor males: R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2.378 at Step 3.001 .011 Note.097 .73 1. The 15 EQi subcomponents were chosen for the analysis rather than the five components because significant gender differences were found on four EQi subcomponents compared to only one of the components. F change R2change .302 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.167 1.098 12.379 at Step 4.

statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females..0%. the three highest TLS component scores). n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.7%. categorical variables (low.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. and exactly one half of females (50.7%. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . 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. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).e. More than one half of males (53.. Finally.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. Categorical variables. To do this.e. The highest percentages of males (53.

The highest percentage of males (52. Table 17.(Behavior).5 40. N = 157. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.3 46.5 46.4 50. the highest percentage of females (54.5 53.8 43.6 49.5 59.7 51. *n = 95. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.6%. The highest percentage of females (59. Comparison of Low.2 56.7 47. **n = 62. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.4 54.3 46.8%. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.3 48.1 45.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note.7 53.1 50.7 53.7%.3 52.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.4 50.

66 114. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.12 110. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.83 111.04 16. Table 18.29 SD 14. Once this subsample was selected. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.14 11.28 11.75 10.85 12.55 114.45 112.92 111.66 11.75 9. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.11 113.09 10.00 9. Secondly.98 111.76 110.68 12.50 114.00 112. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.24 111. First. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.51 111.30 10.91). the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.64 112. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .15 10.11 11.88 11.

92 105.26 112.71 106.68 10.28 108.50 11.07 14.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .64 9.13 107.55 12.42 109.36 13.39 9.51 107.22 108.44 9.38 14.84 11.50 107.15 104.55 12.39 M 110.53 109.21 11.13 111.Table 18.56 SD 10.20 9. 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 104.41 8.86 105.55 11.73 9.40 12.28 107.90 103.03 7.50 11.22 13.17 9.12 10.28 110.15 108.62 107.18 109.23 106.23 108.25 104.51 7.

33 M 104.67 10.89 11.75 104.81 17.09 104.63 12.Table 18.78 103.06 13.86 12.96 105.79 105.27 14.06 12.12 10.41 10. (b) Assertiveness.56 105. (c) Independence. 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.47 12.03 102.66 104.68 106.82 105.4 102. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .66 10.20 11.50 SD 10.00 103.42 9.90 12.43 11.35 103.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics. 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 102.14 105.26 105.65 103.50 105.59 14.57 104.73 10.01 8.77 101.85 14.

this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .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. Males scored a mean of 5. While males scored 5. Independent subsamples t test.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. a difference which was significant at p < . however. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (b) Happiness. (c) Social Responsibility. Assertiveness. 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. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. Males scored 107 . and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (d) Problem Solving. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (TLS) males and females (n = 82) to determine whether their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly from one another. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (d) Empathy.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19.05. (b) Social Responsibility. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.across the five TLS components. Females scored a mean of 4.05. (b) Independence.

43 t 1.78 8.43 104. however.01* 2. n = 31.80 SD 10. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).57 M 107. p = .and high-scoring) 108 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112..96 10.94a –2. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. 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. a Marginally significant.33 111. n = 51. Females. Categorical variables. EQi. categorical variables (low. *p < . Subsample N = 82.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.04* Note.05. Males. Table 19. 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.00 14.05.16 Females SD 13. To do this.e.05 10.61 106.09 108. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.

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

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 % 61.0 47.8 43.5 46.2 50. Comparison of Low.1 55.1 55.2 50.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 = 95.3 45.7 51.0 45.6 46.2 41.0 52.5 40.8 54.9 45.7 47.5 45.1 56.4 53.Table 20.0 110 .2 56.8 38.7 54.8 38.8 50.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.7 44.2 51.0 48.8 50.8 44.5 53.8 45.2 55.2 57.3 52.4 45.5 53.1 56.2 61.2 55.0 54.3 48.5 59. **n = 62.6 54.8 58.2 61.8 High % 38.0 51.9 44. Female** High Low % 53.1 54.2 45.9 43.5 43.8 49.5 56.5 54.9 44.5 46.3 55.8 42.9 43.

47 0.52 3.55 3. Table 21. followed by the lowest mean.47 0.47 0.55 SD 0.61 3.47 3.48 3.57 0.51 0.54 0.37 3.52 0.51 3.48 0.43 111 . 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 3.60 0.49 0.49 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.53 0.52 3.55 3.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.58 3.49 3.55 3.49 0.54 0.37 0.5 3.

Table 21.35 112 .44 0.37 3.6 M 3.42 3.39 0.49 0.21 0.40 0.51 3.44 3.43 SD 0.37 3.37 0.39 0.36 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.22 3.45 0.40 0.36 3.45 3.55 3.51 3.42 3.45 0.37 0.42 0.38 3.35 3.46 3.41 3.34 0.37 0.30 0.

5 0.1 3.59 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.51 0.21 3.53 M 3.6 0.53 0.15 3.24 3.24 3.22 3.25 3.43 0.58 0.57 0.2 3.51 0.Table 21.19 3.57 0.58 0.22 3.57 0.28 3.24 SD 0.52 0.18 3.2 3.14 0.08 3.2 3.45 113 .61 0.61 0.

58 0.68 0.11 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .06 2.16 3.08 SD 0.59 0.6 0.62 0.49 0.57 Descriptive statistics. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents. 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 3.02 3.05 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.95 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.Table 21. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.63 0.21 3.67 0.14 3. Empathy. with the exceptions of Independence. Optimism and Happiness.13 3.55 0.11 3.63 0.

Motivation. 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. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Males. a Marginally significant. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.04* M 111.57 M 106. p = .05. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (EQi) males and females (N = 87) to determine whether their scores on the five TLS components differed significantly.16 SD 14. Table 22.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females.05. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.05. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.80 Males scored 0. In summary. *p < . Females. 115 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Idealized Influence (Behavior). a difference which was significant at p < . n = 54. Females SD 10. Independent subsamples t test.43 t 2. n = 33.

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

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. In fact. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. 80% of the U.S Department of Labor. 2003). The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U.Sosik & Megerian. Hay/McBer. 30% of women earned medical degrees. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. However. down from 16. workforce is growing in its diversity. 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. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. Mandell & Pherwani. and related occupations (U.6% of the 48 million employees in management.S. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries.S. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college.2% last year (Hymowitz.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 47% law degrees. Over the next decade. professional. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. 2008). with women currently representing 50. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. women held 15. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. In 2007.4% in 2005. However. 2003). The women 117 . The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. 1999). In 2001. 2000. 2007). research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman.

3 trillion in annual sales. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. In the overall U. businesses owned by women. nearly $2. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9.S. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. Not surprisingly. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . women are a crucial part of the talent equation. 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. In addition. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men.S. 2007). while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U.5 million people and generate $1. the chance to pursue an opportunity. Identifying how gender differences in EI. if they exist.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. 2007). The Center for Creative Leadership’s (2008) Sara King suggested that engaging and retaining senior women executives is not only critical to the competitiveness of individual organizations but also for entire industries. As a result of this ambiguity.

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

Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. Self-Regard. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . and Social Responsibility. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. Stress Tolerance. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness. Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components.

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

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

05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. Nevertheless. entails adjusting our feelings. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. 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. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. Males scored a mean of 4. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS 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. Males scored a mean of 0. BarOn.Reality Testing. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component.62 (p < . Thus.19 (p < . 2002). thinking and behavior to new situations.

Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. skills and talents.05) as well.” was rejected. 1990). 2002. 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. as well as those of the leader and the organization. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. try new approaches. As a result.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.19 (p < . with males scoring a higher mean of 4.62 (p < . the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . 2007). with males scoring a higher mean of . and challenge their own beliefs and values. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies.

thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. all of which were significant at p < . The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.18).” 125 . Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. While this current study supports previous research findings. Petrides & Furnham. which this current study used. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. 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.05.41). and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.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. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. 2000). 1995. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.17). with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts.10. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature.

To do this. 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. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4.7%. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. According to Dr. 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. ¶ 1). and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. and should not come as a great surprise. President of MHS.0%. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study.18). Steven Stein. More than one half of males (53. are better at handling stress. n = 31) scored above 126 . n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002.The research findings of this current study are consistent with Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2002) where research indicated men tend to be stronger in Intrapersonal capacity (Assertiveness subcomponent). “Are 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.

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

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

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

similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108.58 vs. Van Rooy et al. as well as higher on all five components than males. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.31) and TLS (65. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. women scored higher overall.decoding (Byron.. unlike the present results. 2000). unlike findings of previous research. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough.2).7 vs. Schutte et al. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 2005.31). 104. 1998. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. Butler. men scored a mean of 4. 2005.8 vs. in the present research. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. 63. 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. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that.7) (p. 92). 98.. 101. 2005).21 vs. 130 . a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. However. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2000). as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. because.scores. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. The sample used in this study included a diverse cross section of participants from a wide range of industries and levels of management representing the current work force. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. However. That is.. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. 1991). females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. To overcome the limitations of self-report. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. 2003). rather than polar constructs. Further. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. 137 . Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. One of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response (SDR) in the case of men and women who may be affected by gender role expectations. attitudes. more specifically transactional. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures.

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

in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. and 139 . Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. Future researchers. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Therefore. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. & Kaemmer. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. as stated previously.033. As a result. Butcher.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. education. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. the U.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Dahlstrom. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. workforce. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. 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. Graham.S. Concerning the narrowing of industries. 1989). as well as the industries they represent. Tellegen. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders.

both are equally transformational in leadership style. Gender. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. The EQi Intrapersonal. In view of this projection. 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. 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. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. Likewise. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Based on the results of this study. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS).. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. and (b) if so. 140 . This research also suggests that. 2003).healthcare professions (Herman et al.

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

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

231.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. J. Bass. Retrieved from ProQuest database. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. M. (1993). B. 13–25. 541–554. B. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. M.pdf Bar-On. M. B. 18(Suppl. Menlo Park. Retrieved from http://www.reuvenbaron. (1999).uaemex. Bass. M. B. 112–121. (1994). 375–377. CA: Mind Garden. B.84. & Avolio. (1999). R. J. B. B. B. B.. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. doi: 10. (2007). 19–31. M. doi: 10.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. M. (2004).Bar-On. Bass. (1990). M. & Avolio. (1985).130 Bass.htm Bass. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. Bass. Public Administration Quarterly. R.52. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. J. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. CA: Mind Garden. Psicothema. J.2.. Retrieved from http://redalyc.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. New Braunfels. & Handley.php?i=25 Bar-On.org/bar-on-model/essay. M. J. (1997). M. B. (1995). Organizational Dynamics.242/demo/intro/tformlead.. B. B. R.html Bass. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. B. 17(3/4). 4(3). International Journal of Public Administration. 18(3). R. Retrieved from http://205.. B.1037/0003-066X. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. doi: 10.. 143 . 52(2). & Avolio. 130–139. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). 17(1). TX: Pro-Philes Press. B. New York: The Free Press. Bass. M..). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). J. Redwood City. B. (1993). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. & Avolio. Leadership Quarterly. (1990).net/tc3/TC019239. (2006). & Avolio. & Avolio.

doi: 10. D.eiconsortium. South Carolina State University. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2007). Hafetz. Psychological Inquiry. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. (2000).org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. M. doi: 10. Lincoln.. 32–44.1037/0021-9010. New York: Harper & Row.pdf Boyatzis. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.htm Bryant. 234–238.. J. Burton.1. I. 15(3). 27(5). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. E. M. M. 207–218. B. N. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. 9(4).. (1978). & Wheeler. doi: 10. Avolio. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract].haygroup. Retrieved from http:// www.41 144 . K. J. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression.htm Burns. A. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium. L.capella..88.2224/ sbp. B. Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http://www. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). W. Doctoral dissertation. E. Murphy. J.haygroup. 88(2). (2003). Retrieved from http://ei.. J. J. M. Leadership.35. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. E.pdf Brody. Avolio. doi: 10. & Atwater. D.edu/login?url=http://search. Psychological Reports. & Berson. R. University of Nebraska.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. 41–50. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior.. & Henninger. L. (2004). 86(1). Bass. Y.. 35(1). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. (1996).com/login.ebscohost. Jung. B.207 Bennis. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. 47–64.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. (2004).com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.library . E. (1990)..1177/107179190300900403 Burbach.2007. 45(1). (2003). A. S. 44–46. (2007). Applied Psychology: An International Review. R. J.2. Doctoral dissertation.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. 5–34.Bass.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis.. B. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.964 Carli. Doctoral dissertation. 56(4). (1998.. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Byron. Tellegen.. L. R.Butcher. (2000). Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. (2001). doi: 10. & Brienza.ccl. Butler. L. C. 39(11/12). 213–237. 725– 741. Georgia State University. C.1037/0022-3514. A.htm 145 . D. and subordinate perspectives. (2008.eiconsortium . Retrieved from http://www. (1989). L. Journal of Management. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). J. 2008. Fort Collins.1177/014920639702300302 Carless.. Retrieved from http://www. J.org/-report. (1998). Wearing. M. doi: 10. A short measure of transformational leadership.6. D.. S..eiconsortium . & Kaemmer.aspx Cherniss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. B. (2002). K.00238 Cavallo.57 . Journal of Social Issues. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Retrieved from http//www.. (2005). leader. 565–76. (1997). Colorado State University..org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs.. 23(3). J. 887–902. (1989). A. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.htm Cannella. Doctoral dissertation. (2003).1111/0022-4537. 14(3). Sex Roles. K. 57(4). 389–405.eiconsortium.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. doi: 10.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. N.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. A. A. L. J. A. W. Gender and social influence. L. October). doi: 10. May). Journal of Business and Psychology. & Mann. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. S. Dahlstrom. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi: 10. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. & Monroe. G. Graham.. & Goleman. Retrieved August 10. Retrieved from http://www.

V. J. J. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. P. & Salas. B. 523–530. Gender and reactions to dominance. & Johnson. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909. (2002).. S. 17–29. Leadership Quarterly. & Johnson. 29(12).1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.answers.. Karau. 735–744. from Answers.. Driskell. 341–372. Retrieved August 31. (1999). Dulewicz. Dixon. Miner. doi: 10. M. Eagly.d.com Web site: http://www. Journal of Business Research. A. (1990). Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. B.108. D. D. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. W. 45(4). L. 31(4). A.. doi: 10. E. Mayfield. H. (1994). Yammarino.. 17–21. J.).com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. 108(2). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. (1995). 467–480. 15(4). M. Achieving results through transformational leadership. A.. Dubinsky. C. New York: Hill. Copeland. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Psychological Bulletin. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.. 55(6).Chief executive officer.2. Jolson.. Eden. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Dearborn. Management challenges for the 21st century. 146 . D. E. (n. CA. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. (2000). Drucker. & Higgs.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. H. B. (1999). A. (1995). J. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. K. B. F. & Swerdlik. E (1999). Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. Journal of Managerial Psychology. M.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. 2008. 53–68. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. & Spangler. doi: 10. 233–256.. Journal of Nursing Administration. J. Academy of Management Journal. Avolio.. (2002).. B. 135–159. T. R. 15(2). & Shamir.. 5(2)..233 Eagly. New York: HarperCollins.. 10(6). J. D. Public Personnel Management. J. F. Mountain View.

edu/login?url http://search. (2003). B.dfee. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Doctoral dissertation. R.eiconsortium. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). Retrieved from http://www. D. 17–25. M. A. 15(3). Journal of Applied Psychology. 237–252. J. Retrieved from http://psycnet. F. L.org/?fa=main. New York: Bantam.Field. ECI fact card. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. H.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. Z. Social skills in interpersonal communication. Working with emotional intelligence. Block.. 222–227. E. Psychological Inquiry. Frankel. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. (2005)..). M.. J.gov.4.haygroup. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Furnham.1037/0021-9010.ebscohost. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (1983).1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. & Bass. W. doi: 10.library. 25(1). London: Routledge. (1988). & Dickson. 741–748. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. C. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. A.pdf Hay/McBer.capella. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. Saunders.. 695–702. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved from http://www. C. R. (2001).uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman.. 10(3)..com/login. L. & Rawles. (2004). D.htm Hargie. (1995). (1998). O. (1995). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Gellis. doi: 10. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. (2000). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. CA: Sage.apa.695 Hay Group. & Martell. C. New York: Warner Business Books. O. 73(4). Grubb. (2008). Hater. Thousand Oaks.73. J. L. (1995). 10(6). New York: Basic Books.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. (2004). Retrieved from http://www. Social Work Research. Gohm. P.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 .com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard.

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

K.89.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. & Beers. 38(2). R. June). Emotion. A. S.. 38(3).89. 12(3). 615–626.. 125(4). K.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes..Judge.. European Psychologist.15304. (2001). N.. doi: 10. Wong. Reiter-Palmon. L. J..capella.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. 385–425. A. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. & Ilies. 173–180.483 Leithwood. M. F. 41–44. K. B. & Song. Kroeck. Journal of Research and Technology Management. G.00. Z. B. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.542 Judge. (2004). C. Journal of Educational Administration. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school.89.. J. & Siefen. P. Education.library. (2005). N.. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. 154–163. (1996).1037/0021-9010. Leadership Quarterly. doi: 10. R. Transformational leaders make a difference.. Journal of Applied Psychology. M.. 483–496.. & Posner. E. doi: 10. Colbert. (2005). T. R. 89(3). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. D. Current Psychology. J. J. 89(5). Côté. L. 542–552. A. A. 7(3). (2004). 89(3). D. doi: 10. & Jantzi. T.. Furnham. (2007). & Rickers.1037/0021-9010.3. R.755 Kaufhold. 5(1).. & Johnson.1.1037/0021-9010. doi: 10. & Sivasubramaniam. S.3. (1995).5.pdf Law. M. doi: 10. K.5. (2000. Kirkcaldy. P. Salovey.113 Lowe. S.com/cda/media/ 0. (2004). (2000).1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Retrieved from http://basepath.com/login. L. 112–129.edu/login?url=http://search. B. P. A... Noack. 113–118.1037/15283542. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.wiley.. 755–768. R. doi: 10. 20(2).ebsco host..1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . G. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. doi: 10. Journal of Applied Psychology. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.. & Piccolo. Journal of Applied Psychology.

.ebscohost.Lutz. 71).. About the MSCEIT.15. J. G. Retrieved from http://www.edu/login?url=http://search. 253–296. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Roberts.edu/login?url=http://search. 27(4). & Chabot. Journal of Business and Psychology. D. H. Salovey. 267–298.com/ login. K. M. M. Caruso. & White. D. The anthropology of emotions. 1–29. (1997). & Salovey. 61. Journal of Research in Personality.. (2007). D.). Mathews..an. (2000). & Zeidner. & Caruso. Intelligence. J.library. 15(3). 05B. F. Emotional intelligence: Theory. J. R. (2004a). G. (UMI No. 32(3). findings. M. P. D. 387–404. D. Toronto. Ontario. D. doi: 10.. Salovey & D. J.library. D. & Pherwani. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. American Sociological Review.100186. Retrieved from ProQuest database.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. 15(2). 197–215. (1998). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. D.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.002201 Malek. & Salovey. Retrieved from http://ez proxy.com/login. 15(3). 67(1). B. Mayer. D. D.com . (1999).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . Salovey. J. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. R.. R. and implications. Psychological Inquiry. (2002). Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. R. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). (2002). Psychological Inquiry. What is emotional intelligence? In P.1146/annurev. Dissertation Abstracts International.. & Caruso. D.. C.capella. Annual Review of Anthropology. P. (1986).. 405–436. New York: Basic Books. doi: 10.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. 17(3). Carlsmith. J. 9970564) Mandell. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. doi: 10. Sluytrer (Eds. (2004). 179–196. M... Retrieved from http://www. P. J...1023/A:1022816409059 Massey.unh.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. P.capella. Mayer. (2003).capella. S. S.library.sciencedirect.

& Carsky. & Taylor. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. Salovey.html 151 .ebscohost. (2004). doi: 10. 15(3).edu/login? url=http://search.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. 27(5). In J. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. P. (1997). 22(1). J. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.. & Caruso. Inc. (n. R.). Robinson.com Web site: http://www.com/login . Ball. Retrieved August 31. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.).capella.. D. 249–255. Retrieved from http://www. 15(3).. & Stough. Psychological Inquiry.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. M.paid. R. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. N.org. Z. M. 27–34. & L.com/login. A. Psychological Inquiry.2006. (2004). Retrieved from http://www. L. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. doi: 10. B. Shaver.. D.. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. B.pdf Morrison. 100–106. C. S. N... L. & Stacey. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. (2005). M. from Answers. R. Journal of Nursing Administration.mind garden. Eastabrook. (2002). 29–43. The International Journal of Conflict Management.capella.. Measurement and control of response bias..ebscohost. Issues in Educational Research. 14(1). R.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. H. D. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Oatley.edu/login?url=http://search. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. I. E. M.library. MLQ international norms.library. J. Burgess. L. K.. Saklofske. 381–400. 26(2). 17–59). Walls.d. Parker.04. doi: 10. Jones. 335–344. Wood. San Diego. C. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. P.Mayer.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management.. Journal of Individual Differences.1016 /j. (2004b).answers. (1991).au/iier14/perry. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. D. L.. Perry. (2003). Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 216–238.iier. (2004). 13(4).com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. S. J. (2001). 2008. 5–10. J. 24(6). & Fuller.022 Paulhus.. Wrightsman (Eds.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. CA: Academic Press. D. R.

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

J. J. Organizational behavior (7th ed. B.d.com/topic/senior-management Smith. E.ebscohost. W. E. S.. J.. T. & Bass. & Osborn. Journal of Management.. & Geroy.com/login. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. J. 629–645.sciencedirect. J.). Hunt. Retrieved from http:// www. E. F. et al. & Mayer. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. (1998).com Web site: http://www. M. Hall.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . (1998). 243–248.243 Schermerhorn.pdf Sanders. 9(4). Emotion.. D.629 Sala.3. Gender & Class. Doctoral dissertation. (2000). R. 9(4).. emotions. A. and Personality. (2001). 185–211. J. Race.Rudman. Golden.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence.1037/0022-3514. E. Zeidner. K. Retrieved from http://www.1. Comment on Roberts. J..eiconsortium. W.eiconsortium. 74(3). Retrieved from http:// www.). M. L.. from Answers. J. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Cooper.capella. L.edu/login?url=http://search . Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. Schaie.library. G..edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. doi: 10. (1990).. doi: 10.74. (2003). doi: 10. P.org/ Salovey. N. Race.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. C. 16(4). (2001). Malouff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. M. Personality and Individual Differences.capella.unh. 25(2). J. (1990). New York: Wiley. Retrieved from ProQuest database.com. 2008.answers.. D. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Emotional intelligence. and Matthews (2001). Our Lady of the Lake University.library. J. Hopkins. and socialization. 94– 110. 1(3). Schulte. Haggerty. 9(3). 693–703.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. (2003).. Retrieved August 31.htm Schutte. (2002).1037/1528-3542.3. D.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. (n. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Retrieved from http://www. 21–31. Imagination. Cognition. 167–177.. J.

Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Nursing Research. & Viswesvaran.kandidata.se/default. G.S. 37(1).. J. 2002. MA: Allyn and Bacon. C.. Z.. & McDaniel.. B. April).capella. (2001).paid. M. doi: 10. S.%20K.. L. (2000). C. Dallas.. 331–338. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment.Needham Heights.ovid. Personality and Individual Differences. S.cgi Tabachnick..05. F.. R.C. U. D.A.S.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. S.aspx?search=Smith. & D’hoore. L. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.023 154 . 49(1). Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Retrieved from http://www.bls.2004. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database. S.pdf U. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. (1999).%20M. L. J.% 20&%20McDaniel.com. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.org/Search. 24(3). 75(6). K.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full.. Barone. Journal of Allied Health. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A. (2000). (2005). TX. & Fidell.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur.Smith. 18–14. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. Journal of Education for Business. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.siop.).gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. (2002). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.J. 367–390. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. (2003). M. Group & Organization Management.bls. & McCarthy. Tucker. S .library. E. Ellis.1016/j.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Plemons. J. & Megerian. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. 689–700. Department of Labor. L.edu/spb/ovidweb. J. Wade. 37–43. J. Douthitt.tx. W. Retrieved from http://www. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Sojka.. A..%20(1998) Snodgrass. Sosik. Retrieved from http://www. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www.. M. A. C. Alonso. (1998. (2005). Vandenberghe. Census Bureau of Labor.. 38(3).

NJ: Prentice Hall. 39–52.htm Weisinger. Yammarino. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. B.). I.. doi: 10. Academy of Management Journal.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino.eiconsortium. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nursing Management. Retrieved from http://ezproxy .06. Journal of Information Systems. L.ebscohost. University of Minnesota.library.com/login. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.com/login.capella. Emotional intelligence at work. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. 205–222. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Bass.ebscohost. (1989). 89–92.2004..0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. (1998).capella. C. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. 43(10). doi: 10. The Leadership Quarterly. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. J. & Spangler. leaqua. A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. H. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting.ebscohost.com/login. 28–32. G. 16(1).edu/ login?url=http://search. Chew. M.edu/login?url=http://search. B. G. (2002).1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. & Jolson.library . (1997).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. (2003).library. 251–289.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. L. 40(1). Comer. Wolfe. 34(10).001 155 . 8(2). doi: 10. 975–995... 15(2). Retrieved from http://www . J. F. (2005).capella. S. F. 15(2). PA: Poised for the Future Company. Developing emotional intelligence. Zhu. J. (2001). E. (2003). Human Relations. D. K. A. I. Journal of Management. R. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. H. Doctoral dissertation.. Lancaster. Upper Saddle River. (2007). W. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis.1016/j. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. A. 99–125. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. (1990). W.. (2000). M. M. J. The perfect labor storm 2.edu/login?url=http://search. Yukl.Viator. Dubinsky.

What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 . DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.APPENDIX.

Level of Education? High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s Degree PhD Number of direct reports under your supervision? 3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More Gender? Male Female Race / Ethnicity (optional) Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander 157 .

00 and $150.000.00 and $100.000.00 More than $150.000.00 158 .00 Between $100.000.000.00 Between $70.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.000.00 and $70.000.00 Between $40.