This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, Faculty Mentor and Chair BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Committee Member JOSEPH DAMIANI, Ph.D., Committee Member Garvey House, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University August 2008
3320725 Copyright 2008 by Syndell, Michael A. All rights reserved
© Michael A. Syndell, 2008
Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study.000 billion annually. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. . Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.033.S. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. and healthcare professions. predicts that by 2010. The purpose of this cross-sectional. education. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. In addition. there will be approximately 10. 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. Department of Labor.
.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.
. . And to my family and friends who have . . . . for making this research possible. . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . I love you all! iv . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . . to Dr. . . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). Joseph Damiani. . and to Dr. To my original mentor. It is my strong belief that the results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in human resource development focused on workforce retention and growth of its human capital . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . Bruce Gillies. . who helped me start this journey. and to my long time partner and good friend John Reardon who has supported me throughout the years helping to make living life a pleasure . for the most part (smile!) . Lori La Civita. . . Dr. thank you sincerely. .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . and your respected members who participated. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. you my friend have been a gift from God.
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
Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Group Norms vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12.S.List of Tables Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. 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 .and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. 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 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Group Sample Table 5. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. TLS Component Scores: U. Comparison of Low.
Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Comparison of Low.
1999. Gioia. 1997. 2000. Herman. U. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. 1995).CHAPTER 1. 1999). Ireland & Hitt.S. 1998). companies must compete to find. 1988). Drucker. & Olivo. 2005). attract. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. 1997. 1990). the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (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. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. Hitt. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. education. The U. develop.373 billion (Herman. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. 1 . and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. and retain the best talent. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. Department of Labor. higher group performance levels (Keller. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 2003.033. Specifically.
more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. Mandell & Pherwani. 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. Ogilvie & Carsky. and the need to effectively identify.S. Goleman. 1999). 1998). select and retain such personnel. 2000. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. Sala. Caruso. 2001). Therefore.. conflict resolution styles (Malek. 2000. 1999. & Salovey. 1998. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. 2000). 2002. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. Furthermore. 2 . 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. Goleman. Hay/McBer. Mayer. 1997. 2003. and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. 1998).
Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. if any. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. 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. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. selection and management development. 2000. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. 1998. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). and the extent to which. Hay/McBer. In addition. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. recruitment interviewing. 3 . Rationale Existing research on whether. job profiling. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop.
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. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 3. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. 4. 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. 2. 4 . In addition.
The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. Executive Management. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. 2002). The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. Emotional Intelligence (EI). and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. 2002). whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). In 5 . Interpersonal. making major corporate decisions. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. self-regard. 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. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. the ability to deal with strong emotions. social responsibility and interpersonal relations. and express oneself. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. self-actualization. understand. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. the ability to be aware of. independence and assertiveness. 1998). reality testing and problem solving. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. Stress Management and Mood. understand. and relate to others. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. Adaptability. including the ability to be aware of.
2002). Leadership. & Osborn. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. 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. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. Middle Management. Intellectual Capital (IC). expertise. The sum total of knowledge. which are generally shortterm ones.). Hunt.d. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. each of which has specific functional responsibilities. mission.).carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. 2000). Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. Leadership Style. Chief Operating Officer. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. how it can be done effectively.d. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. 2002). n. 6 . and energy available within organizations members. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. Chief Marketing Officer. Chief Information Officer. which may enhance organizational outputs. and the Director of Human Resources. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. n. and strategies (Schermerhorn.
including verbal. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). (d) Intellectual Stimulation. Group. 1998). (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. and (e) Individualized Consideration. three constructs of transactional leadership. musical. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. 2000). Retention. 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 .Multiple Intelligences. (b) Individual. intentions. movement oriented. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. mathematical. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. Senior Management. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward.. 2004). and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. (c) Inspirational Motivation. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). environmental. and three outcome constructs. and Organizational Effectiveness. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). one nontransactional leadership construct. spatial. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. 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.
(b) Inspirational Motivation. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. 1998). listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). Social Intelligence. and to be led. Social Skills. The ability to get people to want to change. and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. to improve. cooperation).). (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study.d. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. 1998). 1997). nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management.operations that are generally of a long-term nature. which involves motivating individual/organizational change. EQi. and the Demographic Questionnaire. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. (d) participants 8 . There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. n. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations.
Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. thus skewing the pattern of responses. Secondly. and multivariate procedures. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. such as correlational analyses. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. First. 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. interest or motivation to respond. such as linear regression will 9 . Since data will be collected at one time point. That is. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. Finally. 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. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. 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. Univariate statistical techniques. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability.
The dependent. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. variable. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. 10 . Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications.be used. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. or outcome. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. Transformational Leadership. statistical analysis.
(b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. using numerous multiple key word searches. and gender. PsycARTICLES. and (e) gender and EQI. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. transformational leadership style (TLS). This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. A summary concludes the chapter. and (c) whether there are any significant differences in EI attributes that are gender-specific in the relationship between men’s and women’s use of EI and TLS. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. Business Source Premier. EI. and psychology journals. and a synthesis of research findings. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine (a) whether a significant predictive relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. Academic Search Premier. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. and gender. (b) leadership. EQi. their relationship.CHAPTER 2. PsycINFO. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . (c) Transformational Leadership Style. Emotional Intelligence.
1985. 12 . books. 1988). to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 1995). 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. Bass & Avolio. Goleman. 22 articles were relevant to this study. In addition. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1995.gender. 1999). Specifically. 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. 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. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. along with several books and dissertations. and dissertations. In total. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 2006.
and skills (Yukl. tall. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. cooperative. Social characteristics include being charismatic.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. and handsome. popular. or traits. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. 2002). social. 1990). tactful. and emotionally stable. Task-related 13 . energetic. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. However. 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). not on “how” to effectively lead. adaptable. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. Personality traits include being self-confident. values. and diplomatic. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. of leaders such as personality. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. motives. These early leadership theories were content theories. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. assertive. charming.
traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from 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. no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. leading to the concept of situational leadership. desire to lead. Furthermore. Yukl (1989. 2002). The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. the type of organization. the characteristics of the followers. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. self-confidence. and cultures.characteristics include being driven to excel. No two leaders are alike. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. integrity. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. and being results-oriented. levels of management. accepting of responsibility. 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. Thus. having initiative. and the nature of the external environment. 14 . intelligence.
Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl.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 Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. termed consideration and initiating structure. consistently appeared. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. 15 . Studies conducted at the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan identified two leadership styles and two types of leader behaviors (two-factor theory). mental. 2002). or emotional traits. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. Initiating structure. and student leaders. considerate and initiating structure. college administrators. As a result. Two of the most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. Two factors. manufacturing companies. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).
an employee orientation and a production orientation. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. and coordinating the work of subordinates. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. and providing for subordinates welfare. 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. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Unfortunately. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. being supportive. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. 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. Like trait research.involves planning. As a result. organizing.
those that are motivated by task. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. and those that are motivated by relationship. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Together. and position power. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. 17 . The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. 1967). task structure. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. leader-member relations. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. 2002). contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations.
2002). Four leadership styles (S1. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. and strong leader position power. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. S3. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. D2. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. 1993). An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. unstructured tasks. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. S2. Furthermore. D3. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. and D4). Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). and weak leader position power.defined tasks. However. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates.
Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. behavior.and directivity (S2). Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. work standards. and providing for their welfare. 2002). low-directive style (S3). The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. Hersey & Blanchard. and outcomes. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. being supportive. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. either transactional or transformational. Finally. Specifically. Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. 1993). influence processes. recognizing followers accomplishments. such as trait. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. and situational variables (Yukl. However.
Transformational leadership contains four components. inspirational motivation. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). 1985. Or they are corrected by negative feedback.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. 20 . Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. praise. threats. In contingent rewarding behavior. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. or disciplinary actions. 1997. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. 2004). Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. In contrast. 1990). leaders either make assignments or they may consult with followers about what is to be done in exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. and reward. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. reproof. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. Bass & Avolio. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. intellectual stimulation. and individualized consideration (Bass. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. 1990.
and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. 2003. unlike Burns. behavior. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. 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. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. 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. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. 2004. Hopkins & Geroy. 52). Judge & Piccolo. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. in Bass’s view. the integrative theory of leadership research. However. behavioral. and situational/contingency variables. Sanders.. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. p. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. Yukl. 76).1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. “cognitive. Furthermore. 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. 1989). In addition. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies).g. 2003.
focusing on a common purpose. 1985. 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. and comparative advantages. Bennis. the organization’s strengths. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. 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. 1990. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. 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. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. weaknesses. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 2000). However. 22 . addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Leithwood & Jantzi.
Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. transactional. inspirational motivation. respect. and the ethical consequences of decisions. Transformational leadership. 1993). commitment. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. and emphasize the importance of purpose.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. idealized influence (behavior). and individualized consideration. while at the same time winning their respect. 1992). and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. loyalty. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . present their most important values. 1993). & D’hoore. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. emphasize trust. transformational leaders inspire the confidence. idealized influence (attributed). Vandenberghe. and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). intellectual stimulation. 2000). As well as accomplishing tasks through others. transformational. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. Over time. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. 1999). take stands on difficult issues. cooperation. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. confidence.
and beliefs.(Bass & Avolio. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. will-do attitude. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. 1999). meticulousness. further their development. and creativity (Dixon). 2004). listen attentively. followed by action planning. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. abilities and aspirations. awareness of internal and external customer needs. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. consider their individual needs. Second. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. expert resources. and advise and coach. challenge followers with high standards. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. traditions. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Further. Cannella and Monroe 24 . 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 management-by-exception (passive). Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. 1995). laissez-faire. reports. Laissez-faire leadership. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes.proposed that charisma may be less important to the decision making process and more important in terms of its effect on subordinates because having a charismatic relationship with subordinates enables the leader to implement decisions with less resistance (Canella & Monroe). fail to follow up requests for assistance. 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. management-by-exception (active). exchange promises and resources. are absent when needed. Although they may not be close by. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. clarify expectations. Transactional leadership. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. and 25 . contingent reward. exchange assistance for effort. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. negotiate for resources. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. conferences. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. Management-by-Exception (passive) leaders are leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious and wait to take action until mistakes are brought to their attention. and provide commendations for successful follower performance.
The 26 . Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. Bryant. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. educational. Douthitt. Jolson. & Sivasubramaniam. 2003. using the MLQ-360 assessment.e. Bass & Avolio. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. Jung. 2001. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. A research study by Dubinsky. it does have its place under the right circumstances. 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. 1992). Wade.productivity records. 2003. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. Bass. 2004. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. & Berson. Ellis. Snodgrass. 2008).. In addition. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. Gellis. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. and commercial organizations. 2003. & Plemons. health care. Avolio. Yammarino. subordinates reported about their managers. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. Avolio.
Kroeck. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. 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. 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. Third. and its effect on job satisfaction. using a sample of 275 nurses. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. the sample size must have been reported. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Fourth. and job satisfaction. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . leader/unit perception. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. First. organizational perception. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Fifth. Lowe. Jones. Second. The results of a study by Morrison. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment.
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
book chapters. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. Dubinsky. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. dissertations. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. Bass. the more effective the team will be.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. In total. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Yammarino. Similarly. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. and 1 unpublished data set). Carless. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. communication and team performance. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. Avolio. Comer. 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. 1998. & Atwater. and vision. & Jolson. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. transactional. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. 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. 18 dissertations. and laissez-faire leadership. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . 1996. charismatic leadership. 1994.
electrical equipment. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. pharmaceutical. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. chemical. absenteeism.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. divergent. financial services. administered a total of 1. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). computer services. and electronics industries). A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. home appliances. These 32 . Chew. the convergent. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. and criterion validity of two instruments. and organizational outcomes. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. was explored.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). textile and clothing. A survey study by Zhu. automotive parts. More specifically. pulp and paper. food. transactional. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership.
Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. Form 5X. trust. Leadership types. 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. 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.g. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. over and above transactional leadership. With regard to criterion validity. as measured on the MLQ. subjective (e. The latest version of the MLQ.g..e. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. transactional leadership and nonleadership.. has been used in more than 200 research programs. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. and faith 33 . The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. are defined as follows: 1. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches.. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. Moreover.
Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. c. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating.74 to . Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. 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. d. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. 34 . e. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. b. 2004). c.b. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .94. 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. b. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a.
& Mann. Carless. 1995). it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Bass & Avolio. However. Kouzes & Posner. Transactional leadership has three scales. 2000). which could lead to a possible total score of 20.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. 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). 2004). Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . Transformational leadership has five individual scales. 1995). Wearing. 1990. 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. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style.) The MLQ has individual subtests. with four questions for each scale.
. 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. 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. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. On the other hand. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. such as participatory decision making. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. praising individual and team contributions.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. However. and attention to individual needs.g. which is what 36 . Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers.
Indeed. numerous definitions. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. & Caruso. Carless reasoned.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). exist. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. However. and to read and direct them in other people. 2004a). some of which are contradictory. 37 . 2003). On the other hand. 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. Salovey. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. 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. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer.
to distinguish among them. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. or repressed within others. 3. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. Tucker et al. Barone. Mayer et al. mental processes: 1. 38 . Sojka. 2. 2000. These two definitions. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. 2004a. & McCarthy. 2000. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. 2003). 2000). but interrelated. Vitello-Cicciu. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. 1997. Mayer & Salovey. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others... From these characteristics. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. 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.
Mathews et al. Roberts. 39 . is problematic. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. they hold that EI escapes definition. 2004b). These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. and empirically valid definitions. Mayer et al. 2004a. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. culminating in the formation. and psychologically based definitions of EI. conceptually coherent. Gohm. These issues are explored next. emotional intelligence. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. and the multiple social science fields on the other.Although this is a clear definition. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. not of empirically validated. For this reason. 2004. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. Mathews et al. cohesive. they claimed. Thus.. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. EI Controversies Mathews. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. In particular. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. 2004.
During the 6 million years of human evolution. Massey argued. in these writers view. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. Oatley. and measurable construct. However. physiologically evidenced. In this view. Rather. The denial of emotions. 2004. Mayer et al. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. immaterial.’s (2004) argument. others (Gohm. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing.. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. emotion is a scientifically valid. 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. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. 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. 2002). in Gohm’s view. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions.Reflecting on Mathews et al.
1986. Massey. 2000). In contrast. but they do not expand or increase them. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. (2004a. though an inherent capacity. 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. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. Indeed. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. 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. noted. 2002). Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. For example. In this view. 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.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 2004b) reported. 1986. it a learnable skill. Massey). 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 . the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. Mayer et al.
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
Measuring EI Schutte et al. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. Smith). In contrast. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Results of these studies. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. Van Rooy. These are the test of EI 45 . imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. and are in accord with the cultural differences found to be associated with women’s differential display of EI across contexts noted by Rivera Cruz (2004). many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. 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 (2002). with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. E. Schutte et al. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. Alonso. intrapersonal.(2000) theory of human values. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. In a study by J. although inconsistent. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. E.
2005). These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. & Chabot. colleagues. Côté. the most important are the second and third competencies. Boyatzis. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. the ability to 46 . and peers. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. currently in its second revised version. self-awareness. Salovey. self-management. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. & Beers. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. collected from superiors. the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. For these reasons. 2008). the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS.). the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. according to the publisher. 2007). social awareness. 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). According to Goleman. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. 2002) test. Bar-On. and social skills. In addition. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. However. Mayer.competencies. 1998) which focuses on ability. Carlsmith. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI.
The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. That definition is sufficiently narrow in focus to avoid including too many variables but is broad enough to assess important factors identified as significant in influencing or exposing EI (Parker et al. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. Bar-On. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. Mayer et al. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. Eastabrook. discriminant.). two Area scores. As noted by Parker et al. The five composite 47 . four Branch scores. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. & Taylor. and convergent validity as well.. Wood. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales.79–. with r’s ranging from . Petrides & Furnham. Saklofske.91 (Mayer. It yields 15 main scores. 2002).understand the meaning of different types of emotions. 2001).. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. 2007).. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. Total EI score. however. 2005). other measurement instruments. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies.93). based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. Consequently. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. The test has excellent reliability (r = .
] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. 2001).] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. and Watkin (2000). (2005). Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 . Specifically. understand and accept oneself [b. stress management.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b. Parker et al.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. p. (Bar-On.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal. these are [1. adaptability.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a. others and life in general.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b. 2006.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.
and understanding of. like many self-report inventories. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. C. the nature of EI and its development over time. Mandell & Pherwani. Judge.import of each set and subset in it. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. 2004. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. However. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. research has also indicated that. Colbert. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. Law. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . Kobe. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. a situational judgment test. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. 2004.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. 2003). Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. 2001. Wong & Song. & Ilies. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. honest and faking good. Moreover. 2003. 2003).
).. leading others takes place via the communication of the leader’s enthusiasm and moods to others while persuading them that the enthusiasm they express for a policy or a project is spontaneously self-generated and not imposed upon them. In addition. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. 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. According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2003). Judge et al.ingredient of leadership. Law et al. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. 2004. 2001. as cited in Kobe et al. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. 2003. Mandell & Pherwani. and mutual benefits... 155). others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani.). Mandell & Pherwani.. 2003). relationships. p. 2004. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. Kobe et al. From the sociological perspective.. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. 2003). As a social phenomenon.
EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. Judge 51 . they argue. Rather. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. As Law et al. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. 2003. Kobe et al. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. This is an important distinction. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. as further contended by Law and colleagues. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence.to inspire the support. However. Thus. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. (2004). trust. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. (2004) argued. leaders are created by followers. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. According to Judge et al. loyalty.
Kobe et al. Mandell & Pherwani.et al. such as anger and pessimism. On the other hand. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. they have emotional intelligence). In short. such as support. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates.. arouse similar feelings in team members. 2003). 52 . cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. and optimism. enthusiasm. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. 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. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. 2002). 2004. Law et al. leaders who display negative emotions. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2003) argue that the dynamics of leader and subordinate relationships support the claim that successful leaders are able to transfer their emotions to others. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Dearborn.. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient.. 2001. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. In other words. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions.
Bass & Avolio. 2003b). Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. However. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. & McRae. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont.. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. However.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. 2002) argued. Douglas. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. and others (Dearborn. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality.g.. 2002) was used to measure EI. Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. Ammeter. leadership style. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. as Prati et al. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. Prati. Ferris. 2003a. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. & Buckley. For example. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . According to Antonakis (2003). Costa.
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.. (2003a) point out. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. 2003. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. 2001. However. 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. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. as Prati et al. Indeed. transformational leadership.. Law et al. 2004. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. 2003).of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence.. Kobe et al. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. 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. That is. Specifically. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. 2004. Judge et al. Mandell & Pherwani.
title. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. coping (Purkable. 2003). and manager success (Hopkins. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. 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. 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. Leadership. 2005). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. with mixed results. contingent reward leadership. Using performance ratings and demographic data. Regarding raters perceptions. Brooks (2003) examined whether a sample of 57 effective managers in one financial organization scored higher in EI than managers with lower performance ratings and compared EI levels and demographic characteristics of the sample. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. EI. gender.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. Specifically. 2003). Position. These are reviewed as follows. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. 2003). Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. and management tenure 55 . contingent reward leadership.
measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. Inspirational Leadership. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. and coping mechanisms. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. and coping mechanisms. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. leadership practices. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. MSCEIT subscore 4. leadership practices. 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. In each of these areas. Influence. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. Emotional Self-Control.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. In addition to the MSCEIT. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. and SelfConfidence. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level. Specifically.
No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures.avoidance coping. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. Results showed a strong pattern of significant differences between men and women leaders such that gender influences not only the idea of successful leadership for men and women but also produces distinctly different routes to success for male and female leaders. Specifically. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. Hopkins (2005) conducted research on the EI competencies and styles underlying successful leadership by examining the competencies and leadership styles of 105 successful women and men leaders in one financial services institution. and success. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. As noted previously. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. leadership styles. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. 57 . The study used self and other ratings of EI. 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.
Kobe et al. Women leaders. 2003. Goleman. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Judge et al.. 1998)... On the other hand.. 58 .g. 2001. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. In addition. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 1997. Hater & Bass..Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). must behave more androgynously. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998. on the other hand. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e.g. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass.. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. However. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. 1990. 1988). 1998). 2004. Conclusion This review of the literature on leadership research indicates that the Transformational Leadership Style has results in greater manager effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction than other leadership styles. to be successful. 2003. 2004. Law et al. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. Schutte et al. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless.
there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership.. The latter findings are supported by J. Mandell & Pherwani. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups.e.. However. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. E. Hay/McBer. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al.. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. Further. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question. 2003). are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. 2000. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. 2004). and (a) if so.’s (2005) studies. 2000. 2007). Petrides & Furnham. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. personal or business) may interact with gender role and cultural expectations to influence the ways in which men and women managers exhibit EI behavior (Rivera Cruz. Does EI predict transformational leadership style.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. Mandell & Pherwani. 59 . Schutte et al. Thus. Moreover. 1998. To summarize. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i.. 1999. as with transformational leadership style.
an online business contact marketplace where marketers.. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. 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). The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. data collection instruments and study variables. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. sample selection. using e-mail communications. recruiters. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. data analysis. if any. 1999).CHAPTER 3.
Organizations targeted were organizations that develop.S. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. and a host of other business and service providers.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. Senior. advertising and marketing. market. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. 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. Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ). and the use of U. e-mail. three constructs of transactional leadership. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. ranging in size from small to large. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. For the purpose of this research 61 . nonprofit. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. food and beverage. 2004). phone. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. Executives. legal services. health care. financial services.
study. 2002). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. (c) Adaptability. 62 . only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. 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 demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. as well as their ethnicity and income level. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. In brief. (b) Interpersonal. (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). (d) Stress Management. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS).
and values. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.96. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . and display a sense of power and confidence. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. respected and trusted.53 to . Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. 4. 2004) and was based on data from 2. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. 2. mentoring and growth opportunities. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). 2004): 1. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 5. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . principles.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. The testretest reliabilities ranged from .81 to . with a strong sense of purpose.85. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. 3. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him.
rather than performance or success itself. to understand and relate well with others. 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. if not always = 4. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. consisting of four items each. sometimes = 2. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently.000 respondents from the United 64 . therefore. The coefficients ranged from .73 to . including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.94 (Bass & Avolio). 2002). or frequently. if not always). 2004). and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. and to successfully cope with daily demands. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. fairly often = 3. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. For example. once in a while = 1. However.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. challenges and pressures.coefficients for each leadership factor. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier.
The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. 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. 65 . and their associated subcomponents. Independence. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. respectively. 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).0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. and Interpersonal Relationship. 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. 2002). MHS Inc. Bar-On.85 (n = 44) and . and Self-Actualization. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. Emotional Self-Awareness. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. 2002). to obtain a Total EQ. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. Social Responsibility.. 2002). (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. Flexibility. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Version 12. were reported as .75 (n = 27. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. and Problem Solving. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness.States and Canada. Assertiveness.
title best describing the respondent’s current position. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. education level.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. years held in current position. 66 . age. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. the risk and benefits of participation. 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. Procedures After securing formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to solicit potential participants for research and submitting it to Capella’s Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. race/ethnicity. the expected time of completion. industry. the purpose of research. the criteria needed to be met for participation. In this current study all online survey responses. years employed by current organization. and number of direct reports under supervision. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site.
Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. 2. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. the MLQ assessment. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.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).” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. 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 . individual data were not made available.
H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.3. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 4. 68 . H03: There will be no 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 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.
Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. 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. These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. 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. the MLQ. and pen/paper copies were shredded. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. 69 . a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file.e. researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access.. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. and the Bar-On EQi).
70 . after submitting consent. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. In addition. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. All data collected were pooled for analysis. naked to the participants eye. 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). 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.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. 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. and required. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. 2006) ethical standards. before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. and was used to launch e-mail campaigns using the “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” which had been designed and written as an html file using a hidden field assigning potential participants their Unique Numeric ID and Passwords.
log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. 94). using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. p. 571).Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. 72). p. p. 2005.g. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. p. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field. as appropriate. 667). These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . This was followed by univariate analyses.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field.. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. Finally. Analyses examining group differences (e. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. 65). 2005. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. outliers. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). 2005. p. When necessary. missing and out-of. Errors in scoring/data entry.
160). age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. p. Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. 170). 2005. the nature and strength of that association. if so. as well as to control for the effects of gender.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. In addition. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. 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. p. 72 .
As previous research. while not substantial. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well.CHAPTER 4. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . 2. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1.
the nature and strength of that association. 74 . 3. and if so. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 4. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.
75 .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. 65). If necessary. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. p. as appropriate. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables.g. p. outliers. 72). Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 94). Errors in scoring/data entry. 2005. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field.. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. or scaled variables. 2005. missing and out-of.
2 12.2 2. 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.Table 1.9 3.7 20.7 5.5 45.7 7.8 2.9 6.7 10.1 11.1 25.5 5.8 5.1 22.4 24.9 12.2 55.2 5.0 11.6 76 .8 3.7 29.8 1.5 4.1 10.4 3.7 5.1 39.3 8.6 16.4 19.
American Indian.6 Between $100–150.0 2.8 More than $150.5 4.2 10. East Asian.Table 1.20).7 16. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.9 10.70.3 12.7 Current income Less than $40.000 15 9.1 32.8 Between $70–100.000 17 10.9 65.9 12. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables (continued) __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Level of education High school and technical/trade school AA degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree PhD Number of direct reports 3–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 16+ Race/Ethnicity** African American Asian Caucasian Latino *Age (N = 150) 21–27 28–34 35–42 43–50 51–58 59+ 52 16 51 33 3 103 16 15 3 20 4 4 135 14 3 4 25 52 47 19 32.7 2.5 1. Arabic or other. **Includes Pacific Islander.7 34. Minimum age 24.000 55 34.25 85. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.000 44 27.9 2.3 20.5 __________________________________________________________ Note. N = 158. maximum age 67. 77 .8 Between $40–70.9 1.4 8.000 23 14. SD = 8.7 31.1 9.
However. or mean of 3.32 subordinates. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. In terms of supervision responsibilities. Notably. from between 3–6 to more than 16. n = 103). n = 121) in a private. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). and a median of 5. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.6%.000 per annum (49. n = 72). The sample of the population in this study has an average.2%.4%. Addressing racial diversity. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.15 direct reports.000–$100. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. 78 .4%. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. n = 106). this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. for-profit organization. Most respondents earned from $40. n = 78). n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. n = 135) male (60.7%. 25. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.1%.95 years of college education.6%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.
05). Intrapersonal. with a nearly identical median of 48. Interpersonal. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. 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 2.02 (SD = 13. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.63 (SD = 12. and General Mood Components. As far as income.85). Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.00).77 years.730.65 years. 107. Stress Management.49 (SD = 14. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Adaptability. For the income this is going to be most apparent. 105. Descriptive Statistics—The Five TLS Components of the MLQ Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the five TLS components of the MLQ are displayed in Table 3. 103. EQi component scores were. 102. 79 .01). 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. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. 105.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. the mean income was $68.02 (SD = 13. The mean age of the subjects is 48.86 (SD = 13.49).900 and the median was $54.97 (SD = 13. Summed TLS Score. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. in descending order. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. Total EQi Score.41).
85 12. N = 157.73 12.28 103.05 14.93 13.52 103.86 106.61 102.31 103.17 104.97 13.41 12.36 Total EQi Score 105.01 13. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.04 12.44 13.67 13.60 14.Table 2.49 103.54 103.41 106.02 102.02 105.63 103.86 12.00 12.49 13.21 105. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi ____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.66 101.70 13.19 13.66 14.45 13. 80 .74 13.61 105.46 102.64 107. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.62 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.63 103.
52).13 (SD = 0. 3.57 0.96 (SD = 0.99 (SD = 0.59). Intellectual Stimulation. 2.59).Table 3.09 3.53). Individualized Consideration. 2.63 0.57).09 (SD = 0. 3. which are as follows.08 3.18 (SD = 0. Mind Garden.35 3.57). Idealized Influence (Attributed). Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3.59 Note.16 (SD = 0. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.59). 3.58). 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 157.59). Inspirational Motivation. 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. 3. 2. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. and Intellectual Stimulation.08 (SD = 0. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.04 (SD = 0.95 (SD = 0. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). 3. Inspirational Motivation. 81 .59 0.63). in descending order.13 3.52.58 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 2004).57 0.26 3.26 (SD = 0.18 SD 0. TLS component scores were.S. Individualized Consideration.35 (SD = 0.
Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.59 0.53 0.55 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.13 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.63 0.59 0. TLS Component Scores: U.26 3.16 SD 0. Group Norms vs. or scaled variables. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).52 M 3.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. or symmetry..35 SD 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. **N = 3. of a distribution (i. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.08 3.02 2.52 0.58 0.09 3.e.375. Norm group** M 3. 2001).59 0. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.59 0.04 2.99 3.S.95 2.Table 4.57 0.18 3. Skew represents the even-ness.96 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .
Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . 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.40.70.49. (b) Interpersonal = . and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.24.06. with skew > +/–2.67. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.83. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.63.78. and Individualized Consideration = –1.64. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.09. (c) Stress Management = . all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. (b) 6. Inspirational Motivation = –.0. and (e) General Mood = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. 2001). Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .61. but normally distributed. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.67.85. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. and (c) 9.0. respectively. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. 83 . and (e) Individualized Consideration = .16. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . and not individual MLQ items. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.76.66.18. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .83. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. Intellectual Stimulation = –. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.73.80. (d) Adaptability = . (b) MLQ 23 = –2.
37* .40* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.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).30* . N = 158.44* .37* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. IM = Inspirational Motivation.52* . Stress Management 4. a p < . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). General Mood IIA . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.31* .37* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).19 a .01. *p < .59* IS . 84 .35* . The significance level was set at (α = .41* .33* . Intrapersonal 2.25* . To address the first research question.36* .46* IM .40* . Pearson’s r was obtained. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.44* . Table 5.37* IIB . Interpersonal 3.23* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.32* IC . Adaptability 5.43* Note.28* .48* .29* .05. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.
using the same Procedure Correlations.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).05). all of the Pearson’s r’s were .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.23 or higher. (b) Happiness (r = . p < . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. Inspirational Motivation (r = .51. with (α = .05. With one exception.001).50. which was still significant at p < .59. p < . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. p < . at r = . (c) Self-Actualization (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation.45. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . Results are shown in Table 6. EQi component scores also increased. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.20 and . p < . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. All correlations were in the positive direction.16.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.05).19. 85 .001). Most of the correlations ranged between .
and IC = Individualized Consideration.15 (ns) .15 (ns) .28* .37* .27* .48* . Independence 5.40* .32* .32* .24* . Social Responsibility 8. Empathy 7.34* .32* .37* .33* .38* .33* .11 (ns) .39* IM .59* .37* . Impulse Control 11.33* .36* Note. Self-Awareness 3.12 (ns) .35* .24* .40* .01.13 (ns) .43* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 157. Reality Testing 12.39* .28* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.37* .37* .40* . Assertiveness 4.38* .25* IC .31* IIB .30* .30* .33* .40* .31* . Stress Tolerance 10. Happiness IIA .43* .51* IS . p ≥ .50* .19 a .24* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant. ap < .43* .29* . Flexibility 13.05).46* .31* .44* .23* .33* . Optimism 15. *p < .44* .34* .03 (ns) .24* .37* . Problem Solving 14.45* .45* .36* .16 (ns) .38* . Self-Regard 2.26* .05 (ns = nonsignificant. 86 .16 a .25* .17 a .36* . Self-Actualization 6.23* .26* .33* .35* . IM = Inspirational Motivation. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Interpersonal Relationships 9.30* .Table 6.21* .36* .
no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. EQi component scores also increased.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = .24. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . In summary. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Correlations 87 . This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. p < . 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. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.001).26. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret.001). which can occur when variables are too highly correlated.001). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. 2005. p < . p. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . This is a potentially serious issue. 170).90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. 2001). Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. p < . All correlations were in the positive direction. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis.30. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi.
01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . 88 . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. 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.71. based on the . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.64. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.72. Therefore. p < .01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. However. p < . p < .90.82. this intercorrelation is to be expected.01). p < . Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.01).
39* .52* .00 . Empathy 89 7.40* .60* .42* . Impulse Control . Flexibility 11.50* .36* 9.60* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.66* .59* .32* .33* .55* .52* .49* .25* .62* . Social Responsibility 8.71* .50* .60* .82* . Stress Tolerance 13.50* .42* .24* .00 1.16* .43* .53* .56* .38* .74* .00 1.39* .Table 7.64* .40* .47* 1.60* .42* .00 .00 .32* .59* .50* .54* .36* .27* .56* .51* .15* .55* . Reality Testing 10.61* .36* .61* .72* .25* .43* .41* .35* .00 . Interpersonal Relationship .37* .50* .28* .43* .43* .47* .51* 1. Independence 5.00 1.60* .40* .00 1. Assertiveness 4.50* .40* .51* .58* .39* .61* .33* .00 .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .51* .61* .50* 1.52* .65* .58* . Problem Solving 12.55* .55* .20* . Self-Actualization 6.43* 1.41* .47* .38* .32* Subcomponent 1.53* 1.00 1.23* .40* .55* .45* 1. Self Awareness 3.42* .42* .26* .00 .42* . Self-Regard 2.32* .23* .00 1.37* .30* .53* 15 .66* .47* .37* .41* .15* .00 .
01. 90 .05. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. bns = nonsignificant.64* 1.00 15 . Optimism 15.Table 7. Happiness Note. N = 157.00 Subcomponent 14. a p < . *p < .
1 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.60* . *p < . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.00 5 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.287). Overall.015). Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.54* . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. Stress Management at Step 3. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Stress Management at Step 3.55* . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.58* 1.59* . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. N = 157.00 2 . Inspirational Motivation 4.019).72* 1. to a minimal extent.57* 1.Table 8. Intellectual Stimulation 5.01.00 3 . and. Results are shown in Table 9.61* . Results are shown in Table 9. General Mood and 91 . Individualized Consideration Note. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. 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.62* . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.64* 1.00 4 . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.
*p < .287 .66 3.000 .069 2.01. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).V. **p < . entered at Step 3. R2 = . entered at Step 4.320 at Step 5.Interpersonal components. Table 9.000 . In summary.033 –. F change R2change . R2 = . R2 = .728 –0.05.073 –.019 Note. the EQi Intrapersonal.24 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. Neither Stress Management.85 .66** .316 –0. N = 157. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.301 at Step 2.04 . † TLS Summed = D.301 at Steps 3 and 4.000 .25 . 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. nor Adaptability.034 4.87 .008 .07 . R2 = . 92 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.25 2.287 at Step 1.162 .04* 62.32 .015 .
Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.
Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)
M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25
SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94
Males in the sample ranked highest on the Intrapersonal EQi component (M = 108.74, SD = 12.47), and they ranked lowest on the Interpersonal component (M = 102.71, SD = 14.53). The second-highest rankings for males were on both Stress Management and Adaptability. Females in the sample ranked highest on the Adaptability component (M = 105.08, SD = 12.08), and they ranked lowest on the General Mood component (M = 101.38, SD = 12.63). The second-highest ranking for females was on the Interpersonal component. As a group, females (2) ranked higher than males (4) on the EQi Interpersonal component. Females (1) also ranked higher than males (2) on the Adaptability component. Males ranked higher than females on the remaining three EQi components, Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and General Mood. Descripitive statistics (Means, SD) were then obtained for males and females on the five TLS components. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify those TLS components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are shown in Table 11. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the TLS Individualized Consideration component as seen in the rankings in Table 12, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 3.36, SD = 0.59; females: M = 3.31, SD = 0.53) compared to the remaining four components. Both males and females ranked second on the Inspirational Motivation component. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for males and the lowest-ranking for females was on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Males ranked lowest on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) component, while females, as previously noted, ranked lowest on Intellectual Stimulation. 94
Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* TLS component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.
Female** Rank -(5) (3) (2) (4) (1) M 3.10 3.04 3.03 3.19 2.97 3.31 SD 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.53 Rank -(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)
M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36
SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59
As a group, females (3) ranked higher than males (5) on only one TLS component, Idealized Influence (Attributed). As a group, males ranked higher (3) than females (4) on Idealized Influence (Behavior) and on Intellectual Stimulation (4 vs. 5). Independent samples t tests. First, an independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components. This is the appropriate statistical test to use when comparing two independent (i.e., unrelated) groups such as male and female on one or more continuous (scaled) variables, such as the five EQi components. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 12. Males scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 95
bn = 62. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. 96 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.44 2. *p < . An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.50 2. a difference which was significant at p < .16 0.21 14.67 2. *p < .48 104. Table 13. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. bn = 62.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.05.05.75 12.Table 12. Males scored a mean of 0.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.97 0.
68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. SD = 14. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15.64. 97 . females: M = 106. These data are presented in Table 14. Descriptive statistics.77.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. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. SD = 14. 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. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS.08. respectively. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. Interestingly.
27 11.08 11.14 15.06 102.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.01 103. As a group.21 105.76 106. 13).41 11.37 105.37 14.97 15.40 14.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.77 102. 11).93 13. N = 157.64 109.48 13.34 12.63 13.18 14.43 11.62 103.80 106.61 104.17 103.24 104.37 12.23 13.34 102.80 102. 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 104.74 15.53 12. *n = 95. Social Responsibility 98 .07 14.80 14.70 13.16 103.92 102.55 13.50 12.19 12.99 107.75 13.56 102. **n = 62.26 103.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. Empathy (4 vs.Table 14.09 109.33 105.47 104. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.78 13.57 13.50 109.67 103.84 11.92 13.89 103. Self-Actualization (9 vs.72 101.68 14.74 11.28 (14) 100.
(5 vs.21 105.36** 1.97 109. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.67 SD 11. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. p = . Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 12).05.05. 15).07 14. **p < . 10). 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. They also scored higher on the 99 . 12). a difference which was significant at p < .26 Females SD 13. *p < .11 107. As a group. and Flexibility (6 vs. 10).86 11.18 14. Table 15. a Marginally significant.57 12. Males. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. Self-Regard (8 vs.01 102.80 11.01. Females. n = 62. (2 vs. 15).18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. n = 95.39 109.07* 3.80 102. Independent-samples t test. among others. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.74 15. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.99 M 99.91a 2. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. Assertiveness.01. 13).74 t 2. Males scored a mean of 7.42* Note.
Further. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. As a follow-up. were important predictors of TLS in females. all of which were significant at p < . Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. or combination.08). Both assertiveness (R2 change = . stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Specifically. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.11) than did females (M = 105. Regression analyses. and independence (R2 change =. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one.05. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. 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. but did not predict TLS for males. To summarize. 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. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. They also scored 4.41) subcomponents.13).
e.098 12.263 at Step 4.088 –. cFor females: R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .011 Note. R2 (adj) = .989 34.261 at Step 1.302 .131 .268 7. It was thus decided that using 101 .67 –1. Summary of Regression Analyses of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females EQi Subcomponents Step 1 Self-Regard Malesb Femalesc Step 2 Assertiveness Males Females Step 3 Independence Males Females Step 4 Stress Tolerance Males Females Beta a ta Fchange Sig. N = 157.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.176 at Step 1.19 . bFor males: R2 (adj) = .606 . R2 (adj) = .378 at Step 3. F change R2change .379 at Step 4.81 1.010 .24 14.000 . R2 (adj) = .05 .000 . Table 16. R2 (adj) = . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).248 at Step 3.85 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.02 .73 .04 2.45 .001 .73 1.41 .99** .55 –.12 2.097 .755 .001 .167 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. R2 (adj) = .18 .253 at Step 2.190 .255 at Step 2.269 .01.022 . **p < .21 –.63** .08 ..669 3.002 .
The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the five TLS components.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.e. (b) Idealized Influence 102 .7%. Finally..and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. 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. The highest percentages of males (53. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).e. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.7%. the three highest TLS component scores). categorical variables (low. Categorical variables.. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. and exactly one half of females (50. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components.0%. To do this. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. More than one half of males (53.
**n = 62. Comparison of Low. The highest percentage of females (59.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.2 56.5 46.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. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.4 54.6%.3 48.5 53.1 50.8 43.3 52.7 47.(Behavior). This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.1 45. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.4 50. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.7%.6 49.3 46.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). N = 157. The highest percentage of males (52.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.7 53.7 53.5 59.5 40. Table 17.3 46.8%.4 50. *n = 95.7 51. the highest percentage of females (54. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.
93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 . means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.75 9.00 9.75 10.91).55 114.68 12.51 111. Table 18.76 110.28 11. Secondly.15 10.66 114. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen. followed by the three lowest means for males and females. First.98 111.66 11.24 111.83 111.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.45 112.88 11.30 10. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Once this subsample was selected. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.14 11.11 113.09 10.00 112.29 SD 14.12 110.64 112.11 11.85 12. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.92 111.50 114.04 16.
41 8. 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 104.03 7.13 107.17 9.38 14.56 SD 10.90 103.23 108.51 7.28 108.20 9.36 13.25 104.40 12.Table 18.28 107.18 109.84 11.86 105.64 9.22 108.62 107.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .55 11.12 10.39 M 110.55 12.13 111.07 14.39 9.23 106.21 11.51 107.22 13.26 112.50 107.71 106.50 11.28 110.92 105.42 109.15 104.44 9.50 11.73 9.15 108.53 109.55 12.68 10.
and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .68 106.35 103. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.89 11.90 12. (b) Assertiveness.12 10.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.96 105.00 103.63 12.09 104.66 10. (c) Independence.79 105.27 14.06 12.41 10.06 13.42 9.78 103.57 104.33 M 104.77 101.43 11.59 14.75 104.82 105.01 8.56 105.03 102.65 103. 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 102.50 105.66 104.4 102.81 17.14 105.73 10.47 12.20 11.Table 18.26 105.50 SD 10.85 14.67 10.86 12.
No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (d) Empathy. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. Males scored a mean of 5. Assertiveness. (b) Social Responsibility. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent.05. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance.05. (c) Social Responsibility. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (b) Happiness. 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. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males.across the five TLS components. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (b) Independence. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. While males scored 5. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. however. (d) Problem Solving. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. Independent subsamples t test. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control. Males scored 107 . which was also significant as shown in Table 19. a difference which was significant at p < . Females scored a mean of 4. In summary.
78 8.01* 2. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.05. *p < .33 111. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). categorical variables (low. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. Table 19.96 10. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents.04* Note.57 M 107.16 Females SD 13. p = .43 t 1.and high-scoring) 108 . To do this. 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.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. however. Subsample N = 82. Males.05 10. Females. EQi. a Marginally significant. n = 31. Categorical variables.43 104.00 14.61 106. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.09 108.05.80 SD 10.e. n = 51.94a –2.
97). Descriptive data (N and %) for low.6%. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.1%. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Then. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. The highest percentage of females (61. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. Once the subsample was selected. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.5% (n = 35) of females did so.0%.3%. The highest percentages of males (61. 109 . n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Interestingly. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. followed by 59.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 32).and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. However. More than one half of males (53. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. The highest percentage of males (50. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.5%.
0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.7 54.0 51.1 56.5 54.2 51.6 54.5 40.5 43.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.9 44.5 45.8 45.5 46.2 55.8 43.8 49.1 56.5 53.2 61.5 59.8 42.7 51.9 45.0 52.7 44.9 44.Table 20. Comparison of Low.5 56. Female** High Low % 53.9 43.2 41.9 43.2 57.3 52.0 54.7 47.0 47.8 54.4 45.6 46.3 45.1 55.8 38.2 50.8 38.2 45.2 55.8 44.8 58.8 50.1 54.2 61.3 55.2 50.2 56.8 50. **n = 62.4 53.0 48.8 High % 38.5 46.1 55.0 45.3 48.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 = 95.5 53.0 110 .
48 0.47 0.52 3.47 3.47 0.54 0.37 0.58 3.51 3.5 3.55 3.47 0.51 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.60 0.52 3.49 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.55 3.49 0.48 3. Table 21.52 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.49 3.57 0. followed by the lowest mean.37 3.61 3.54 0.55 SD 0.55 3.49 3.53 0.43 111 .
37 3.39 0.42 3.37 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.37 0.21 0.43 SD 0.36 0.40 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 3.36 3.49 0.35 3.6 M 3.30 0.51 3.46 3.45 0.45 3.37 3.51 3.34 0.41 3.37 0.38 3.Table 21.40 0.39 0.44 3.35 112 .55 3.42 3.
1 3.45 113 .18 3.Table 21.14 0.61 0.08 3.2 3.58 0.53 0.51 0.59 0.2 3.58 0.19 3.22 3.5 0.2 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.24 SD 0.51 0.22 3.24 3.53 M 3.43 0.25 3.28 3.21 3.57 0.6 0.52 0.15 3.57 0.24 3.57 0.61 0.
63 0.05 3.55 0.57 Descriptive statistics.06 2.63 0.95 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3.59 0.Table 21.21 3.58 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 . The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.49 0.67 0.16 3.68 0.08 SD 0. Empathy. Optimism and Happiness.11 3. with the exceptions of Independence.13 3.11 3.02 3.6 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.62 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.14 3.
Independent subsamples t test. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.80 Males scored 0. Table 22.57 M 106. a Marginally significant. 115 . Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. In summary. p = . *p < . only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.16 SD 14.43 t 2. a difference which was significant at p < . Idealized Influence (Behavior). Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure.05. n = 54. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Females SD 10. Females.04* M 111. 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. n = 33.Motivation.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Males.05.
1988). 1990. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. including research methodology. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. 1998). 1998. 116 . 2000. Goleman. 1998. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. 1997. These findings are discussed. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology.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. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed.. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. Goleman. RESULTS. Hater & Bass. Schutte et al. and findings of data analysis. CONCLUSIONS. as previous research investigating TLS and EI suggests that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Bass. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek.
Hay/McBer. In 2007. 2007). When asked to provide a ranking of factors.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 47% law degrees. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.S Department of Labor. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. with women currently representing 50. 2003). 1999). 30% of women earned medical degrees. Mandell & Pherwani. 2000. However. The women 117 . 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. 80% of the U. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men.Sosik & Megerian. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. and related occupations (U. Over the next decade.4% in 2005. 2003).6% of the 48 million employees in management. down from 16. 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. workforce is growing in its diversity.S. 2008). However. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. In fact. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. professional. women held 15.S.2% last year (Hymowitz. In 2001.
5 million people and generate $1. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. In the overall U. 2007).3 trillion in annual sales. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.S. In addition. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. Identifying how gender differences in EI.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . nearly $2. the chance to pursue an opportunity. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.S. 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. if they exist. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. businesses owned by women. 2007). As a result of this ambiguity. Not surprisingly. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men.
EQi component scores also increased. job profiling. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. all correlations were in the positive direction. 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. 2004. Schaie. nonexperimental. Ball. Interpersonal. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. 2004. selection. followed by General Mood and. 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). The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. to a minimal extent. In addition to filling this research gap. 2001. Taken together. 119 . & Stacey. Perry. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance 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.. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. 62 female). 2005). As scores on the TLS components increased. recruitment interviewing. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative.
males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. 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. 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. Assertiveness. and Social Responsibility. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Self-Regard. and Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. Stress Tolerance.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components.
. Thus. 1998. 2003. Law et al. & Stough. Kobe et al. 2001. 2001).59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS.. 2003).” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.21) to moderate (r 121 . the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). 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.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Mandell & Pherwani. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2004. 2000. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = . who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio.. Further. Judge et al.. 2002). Walls. Burgess.23 or higher. In addition. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.23) to moderate (r = . Palmer. 2004. Hay/McBer. Mandell & Pherwani.
= . is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. Stress Tolerance. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Impulse Control. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. However. 2002). 122 . which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from .” The significance of this research finding is that it further supports empirical studies that demonstrate there is a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs (Goleman. or temptation to act. 2003). it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. Hay/McBer. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Thus. As well. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress.16. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 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. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. For example. 2000. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. drive. Mandell & Pherwani.03 to . 1998.
19 (p < . thinking and behavior to new situations. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 .” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. entails adjusting our feelings. 2002). Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. BarOn. Thus. Nevertheless.Reality Testing. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. Males scored a mean of 4. Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. 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. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.62 (p < . defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Males scored a mean of 0.
2007).relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. As a result.19 (p < .62 (p < . Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she orients followers to an awareness of problems and support followers to be creative and innovative. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 .05) as well. and challenge their own beliefs and values. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. 2002. with males scoring a higher mean of .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. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies.” was rejected. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. try new approaches. as well as those of the leader and the organization. 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. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. 1990). skills and talents.
numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. 1995. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. which this current study used. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.17). 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.41). 2000). Petrides & Furnham. While this current study supports previous research findings. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.18). The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.10.” 125 .On and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) suggesting their research has consistently found male leaders to have significantly higher intrapersonal capacity than do their female counterparts. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. all of which were significant at p < .05. thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.
n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. “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. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. n = 31) scored above 126 . the publisher of the EQi test used in this study.0%. It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component. are independent.7%. More than one half of males (53.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). and should not come as a great surprise. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. To do this. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. According to Dr. are better at handling stress. President of MHS. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. Steven Stein.18). ¶ 1).
and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered.the mean across all of the TLS components. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. p < .05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. self-assuredness. inner strength. 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.28.05). Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Stress Tolerance.05). 2007). and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. Thus. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5.” was rejected. p < . Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted.700 administrations of the EQi. who analyzed the scores on over 7. In addition. The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security.64. and Social Responsibility.33. p < . These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 .
However. 1993). Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. 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. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. 128 . the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. for the leader. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. In essence. and.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. 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 males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. and Assertiveness. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating.
to a minimal degree. When these three components were combined. followed by General Mood (R2change = .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. and nonverbal emotional 129 . 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. and. coping mechanisms (Purkable. 2003).019). particularly three of its major components. However. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. Interpersonal (R2 change = . For example. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . In other words. 2004). they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. although EI as measured by the EQi. this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer.015). Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. appears to be a strong predictor of 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.287). the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. it is not a sole predictor.
58 vs. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003).31) and TLS (65. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. women scored higher overall. 92). 2005).31). It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.21 vs. men scored a mean of 4. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough.7) (p. unlike the present results.8 vs. Van Rooy et al. 101. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. unlike findings of previous research. However. in the present research.decoding (Byron. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. Butler. 2000). 130 .. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research. 104. 98. 63.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. Schutte et al.. as well as higher on all five components than males. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that.2). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 2005. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. 2005. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham.7 vs. 1998. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.
399). in the present study. however. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future. Further. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. both individually and collectively (Bass. p. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females.It is important to note. 1990). a somewhat different picture emerged. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts. Likewise. For example. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. and does so with consideration for their welfare. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. but did not predict TLS for males. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. Mandell and Pherwani. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 .
In a study by Bass et al. but reported the closest difference was on intellectual stimulation and attributed it to men being better at intervening to correct followers’ mistakes (Bass et al. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders.. and sensitive. Assertiveness.oriented. 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. beliefs. & Martell. & Johnson. the critical distinction he made was that. Carless et al. 2000. management-by-exception (active). 1995. 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. 132 . Rosener.). Carless. caring. 1994. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. Block. 1990). Eagly. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. 1994. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. Karau. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. 1998. Miner. as women tend to be more nurturing. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. Heilman.
2001). That is. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. 1998). Nevertheless. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. Bass et al. Driskell. Rudman. 2001). 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. 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. Generally. In addition. expressing disagreement.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. in 133 . Copeland. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 1989. & Salas. In addition. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. 1989). as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 2001. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. 1995. 1989. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli.
Assertiveness. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. and their negative connotations in. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. beliefs and thoughts. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. the fear of failure. 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. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. Having low self-regard as previously discussed.. in the worst case. 1997). Self-Regard. 2002). In addition. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS.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. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. and Stress Tolerance. could also attribute to lower scores. inner strength. and Stress Tolerance— surrendering to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness which often leads to anxiety when this component of emotional-social intelligence is not functioning adequately (BarOn.
and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. 1994). Assertiveness. and Stress Tolerance. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. while not significant. 135 . but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. 1997). Social Responsibility. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. but the effects are small for the most part. who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. ¶ 1). However. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. Furthermore. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. ¶ 1). Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. However.Psychiatric Association. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women.
. 2003). which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. when compared with women. For purposes of this study. and passive/avoidant). relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. men appear to have better selfregard. (Bar-On. 1994). the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . First. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. cope better with stress. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. transactional. . 2007. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. 2007. demonstrate more empathy. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. both are equally transformational in leadership style. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. are more flexible. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. Mandell & Pherwani. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. are more self-reliant. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. Limitations The current study has several limitations. and are more optimistic than women. 1998. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. ¶ 1) “To summarize . solve problems better.More specifically. On the other hand. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational.
. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. 1991). 137 . as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. more specifically transactional. 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. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. That is. rather than polar constructs. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. 2000). researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. To overcome the limitations of self-report. Further. 2003). Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. because.scores. 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. However.
Alternatively. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. It is possible that. Developing Others. thereby reducing the potential for bias. a measure 138 .peers. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. where superiors. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. different results would have been obtained. Service Orientation. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. Conscientiousness. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. 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. and Communication. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. and subordinates. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. peers.
S. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. 1989). and 139 . In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U.S. Future researchers. Tellegen. Concerning the narrowing of industries. as stated previously. Graham. 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. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. & Kaemmer. Dahlstrom.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns.033. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. workforce. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. Butcher. education. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. as well as the industries they represent. the U. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. Therefore. As a result. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions.
if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies.healthcare professions (Herman et al. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. This research also suggests that. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. In view of this projection. Based on the results of this study. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. Likewise. 140 . and (b) if so. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. Gender. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. 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). 2003). gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. both 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. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. The EQi Intrapersonal..
In conclusion. recruitment interviewing. 141 . and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. selection. job profiling. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.pdf Antonakis. K. Ontario. 261–295. R. M. & C. American Psychological Association. (2002). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. Washington. CA: Mind Garden. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. (2004). Leadership Quarterly. DC: Author. & Stough. Avolio. J. P. GA. C. doi: 10. J. P. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. H. N.). G. M. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. charisma and beyond.. April). Ammeter and Buckley (2003). 79(1). 355–361. D. Bar-On. (2004). B. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). A. (2003). (2005. & Sivasubramaniam. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 29–50)..). J. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Barchard. Parker (Eds. J. 64(3). Handbook of emotional intelligence. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. In R. J. (2003). Journal of Education for Business.org/ethics/code2002. B. R.. Retrieved from http://www. 11(4). Dachler. (2003). Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. doi: 10. A. & Hakstian. (2000). & Dasborough. A. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.). Atlanta. M. M. (1994). In J.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. B.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. Atkins. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. (1988). A. 14(3). Transformational leadership. R. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Toronto. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. Hunt. B. Baliga.apa. Schriesheim (Eds. N. P. (2006). doi: 10. Ferris.). Avolio. Douglas. Redwood City. H.. MA: Lexington Books. 18– 22. B. 437–462. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. 142 . & Bass. Avolio. Lexington.. Bar-On & J. & Bass...
From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. New Braunfels. (1995). doi: 10. Menlo Park.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Bass.. Redwood City.htm Bass. Psicothema. CA: Mind Garden. M. B. M. 17(1).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Retrieved from http://205. M. Public Administration Quarterly. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual..html Bass. R. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. & Avolio.84.reuvenbaron. B.130 Bass. 4(3). 18(3).pdf Bar-On. & Avolio. Organizational Dynamics. 541–554. CA: Mind Garden. Retrieved from http://www. Bass. & Avolio. Bass.242/demo/intro/tformlead. doi: 10. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae.1037/0003-066X. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. J. 52(2).net/tc3/TC019239. 112–121. 130–139. (1993). International Journal of Public Administration. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. Bass. (1999). J. J. 13–25. (2007). (1994). 143 . B. (2006). TX: Pro-Philes Press. (1999). (1993). B. B. 19–31. B.. B. R. M. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). B. B. M.). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. M. B. & Avolio. & Avolio. (1990). & Avolio.52.org/bar-on-model/essay. B. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.. J. Bass. B.Bar-On. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. B. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. J. M. 375–377.. (2004). & Handley. M. R. M. 18(Suppl. New York: The Free Press. (1990). R. Retrieved from http://redalyc. B. B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). J. Leadership Quarterly. M. 17(3/4). (1985).2. (1997).php?i=25 Bar-On.231. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass.uaemex.
N. E. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. L.haygroup. J.eiconsortium. doi: 10. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. & Atwater. 5–34. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.capella. 47–64... E. South Carolina State University.htm Burns. 27(5). & Wheeler. Burton. S. 86(1). Psychological Reports.library .207 Bennis. 41–50. K. D. R. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Retrieved from http://www. 234–238. (2000). R. J. E. University of Nebraska. doi: 10. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. (2004).edu/login?url=http://search. & Berson.eiconsortium. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).1.41 144 . Psychological Inquiry. B. & Henninger. Doctoral dissertation.. (2003). Murphy.. doi: 10. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract].35. 35(1). W. Retrieved from http:// www.88. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. 9(4).1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. A. J.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. (2007). Social Behavior and Personality. doi: 10. M.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m.haygroup.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://www.com/login. (2007). M. B. (1978). D.htm Bryant. 88(2). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. 44–46. 15(3). Hafetz. Doctoral dissertation...pdf Brody. Applied Psychology: An International Review. B. Y.2. M. Leadership. 207–218..1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis.Bass. Lincoln. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. B. New York: Harper & Row. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. I.1037/0021-9010. (1990). (2003). A. 45(1).2007.. (2003). (2004).2224/ sbp. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. (1996). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Jung. J. M.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. 32–44. J. L. Avolio. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women.pdf Boyatzis.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. Avolio. Bass. E.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J.. Retrieved from http://ei. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.
(1989). L. Retrieved from http://www. J. Retrieved from http//www. doi: 10. (2005).1111/0022-4537. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Graham. D. doi: 10. L. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. leader. (1997). 887–902.eiconsortium .org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Doctoral dissertation. R. Doctoral dissertation.Butcher. Sex Roles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 565–76.1037/0022-3514. (2002). (1998. A. Colorado State University. Gender and social influence. doi: 10. (2003). 389–405. May). A. Journal of Management. 56(4). Fort Collins.6. Gender differences in interaction style and influence.ccl. & Goleman.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. (2008. K. 2008.org/-report. S.. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. N. (1989). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. J. A..1177/014920639702300302 Carless. 213–237... 57(4). L. Dahlstrom.. D. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Retrieved from http://www. J. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. K.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. L. J. Wearing. & Mann. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. B. 725– 741. (1998). & Kaemmer. doi: 10. C. and subordinate perspectives. L. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. A short measure of transformational leadership. Byron. Butler.htm Cannella.. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).eiconsortium . Tellegen. C.00238 Cavallo.. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Georgia State University. 23(3). (2000). (2001). Journal of Social Issues. & Brienza. Retrieved from http://www.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. A. M.eiconsortium. 39(11/12). October). A. W.aspx Cherniss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.57 . & Monroe. G. Journal of Business and Psychology.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. doi: 10.htm 145 .. 14(3). L..964 Carli. Retrieved August 10. S.
108(2). (1995). J. (n.233 Eagly.com Web site: http://www. V. & Higgs. CA. (2002). & Swerdlik. E.. D. D. 31(4). D. (1990).. Mayfield. J. Yammarino. Dixon. Journal of Business Research. Karau. & Johnson. M. B...2. J.. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. W. R. 53–68. A theory of leadership effectiveness.). 15(4). & Salas. Dearborn.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir.. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Academy of Management Journal. 17–29.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. A. J. K. M. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Mountain View. 5(2). A. Gender and reactions to dominance. M.. H. J. 233–256.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. Management challenges for the 21st century. Psychological Bulletin. F.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. F. (2000). New York: Hill. Miner. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. B. 467–480. New York: HarperCollins.108.. P. Public Personnel Management. Dubinsky. 135–159. B. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Jolson. (2002). A. S. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. 29(12). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. doi: 10. C. Drucker.1037/0033-2909. doi: 10... (1999). Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. & Shamir. 10(6). Journal of Managerial Psychology. Achieving results through transformational leadership. 55(6). Retrieved from ProQuest database. E (1999). B. & Spangler. doi: 10. J.Chief executive officer. doi: 10. (1967). L. 45(4). 146 . H. (1995). D. 2008. E. 523–530. Eden. Leadership Quarterly. Copeland. J. from Answers. Retrieved August 31. (1994)... B. 341–372. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Driskell. 15(2).. Eagly. 735–744..d. Avolio. Dulewicz.answers. 17–21. A. T. (1999). Journal of Nursing Administration. & Johnson.
Frankel. 741–748. W.695 Hay Group. Gellis. Virginia Commonwealth University. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. A.).capella. H.. 222–227. P. R. (1983). (2008). J. & Rawles. Grubb. doi: 10. New York: Basic Books. M.eiconsortium. R. L. J. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. C. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Social skills in interpersonal communication. Block.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . 237–252. Retrieved from http://www.. 10(3). Doctoral dissertation. E. Furnham. D. Journal of Applied Psychology.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman.Field. B.htm Hargie. 10(6). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. F. & Dickson. Hater. Z.. A. Gohm. & Bass. (2003). (1995).. (1995). Nice girls don’t get the corner office. L. Retrieved from http://www. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. 695–702.library. L. J. New York: Bantam. Retrieved from http://psycnet.4. (2001). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. (2000). M. 15(3). 73(4). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Routledge.gov.haygroup.apa.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. (1995). Thousand Oaks. C. (2005). & Martell. D. 25(1). 17–25. Social Work Research. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). doi: 10. CA: Sage. (1988).com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. New York: Warner Business Books. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. (2004).. O.org/?fa=main. O. Retrieved from http://www. ECI fact card.com/login. C. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.dfee.1037/0021-9010. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. (1998). Saunders. (2004). Psychological Inquiry..73.ebscohost.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.edu/login?url http://search.pdf Hay/McBer.
htm Hymowitz. VA: Oakhill Press. HR Focus. D. Englewood Cliffs. Gioia. J. R. Academy of Management Executives. Organizational Dynamics. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. E.. (1993).aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. 74(6). Retrieved from http://online. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.5. 13(1).).. emotional intelligence competencies.edu/login?url=http://search.1037t/00219010. Case Western Reserve University. R. Wall Street Journal.85. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. H.com/ login. K. (1977). T.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m.eiconsortium. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. (2003). doi: I0. (2005). Impending crisis: Too many jobs. 751–765. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. J. T.. & Blanchard. A. Upper Saddle River.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. NJ: Prentice Hall. P. K. M. & Bono.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . Hopkins. 15– 16. & Matteson.com/login. NJ: Prentice Hall.).. (1997). M. & Blanchard. 28(3). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. London: McGraw Hill. 75(9).ebscohost.).. The impact of gender. (2000). (2000). (1998).. T. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover.wsj.751 148 . (2008. J. doi: 10. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. R.. Judge.library. 43–57. and styles on leadership success [Abstract].1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. Retrieved from http://www. M. C. (1997). Hersey. P. H.capella. HR Focus. You’ve got to change to retain.Herman. A. M. Doctoral dissertation. R. Boston: Irwin. Ivancevich. 85(5). H. & Olivo. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Journal of Applied Psychology. S1–S4. February 25). A. & Hitt. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. Hitt.edu/login?url=http://search .aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. On diversity. too few people. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 6–18. G.ebscohost. Winchester. Hersey. (1993).capella.library. (1999).
C. 615–626. (1995).pdf Law. A.. Education.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. doi: 10.00.89. doi: 10. European Psychologist. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. R. R.755 Kaufhold. 5(1). F. L. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.. L. L.89. M.. (2005). Retrieved from http://basepath.. Wong. 89(5).edu/login?url=http://search.483 Leithwood.. June). Journal of Applied Psychology. T. (2000). 20(2).1. B. & Johnson. A. Leadership Quarterly. doi: 10. B. & Siefen.1037/15283542. Furnham. 41–44. S.3. P. A. T. Côté.113 Lowe. K. & Rickers. Emotion. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 113–118. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. G. Colbert.ebsco host. J. R. J. Noack. (2005). (1996). 542–552. 38(2). 112–129.. Journal of Educational Administration. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Transformational leaders make a difference.3. 7(3).89. 38(3).1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. Kirkcaldy..5... 12(3). G. N. (2004). doi: 10. Z. 173–180. Salovey. S.library.. K. & Posner. doi: 10. (2000. & Jantzi. 385–425..15304. S. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. J... 154–163. M. (2004). 89(3). doi: 10.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. E. M.capella. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2001).1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. R. & Beers. 483–496. (2004).. 755–768. Kroeck. K. A... Reiter-Palmon. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.. Current Psychology.com/login. Journal of Research and Technology Management. N.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. & Ilies. & Sivasubramaniam. 125(4). P. A. & Song.1037/0021-9010.5. B.. doi: 10. 89(3).wiley. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. (2007). doi: 10. R.com/cda/media/ 0. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. P. D. D.1037/0021-9010..Judge.1037/0021-9010. K. & Piccolo.542 Judge.
American Sociological Review.Lutz. (1997). M. G. Retrieved from http://www. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. and implications. J. doi: 10. C. The anthropology of emotions. 32(3). (2004a). (2004). Salovey & D. 15(2). 27(4). 61.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. & Salovey.002201 Malek. & White. (UMI No.. D. H. (1986). What is emotional intelligence? In P. S. (2002). Salovey. & Zeidner.edu/login?url=http://search. 1–29. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Mayer. 197–215. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).sciencedirect. 253–296. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. P. (1999). P. D. 05B. Caruso. D. Journal of Business and Psychology. M.library. doi: 10. J. 9970564) Mandell. 71). J. D. D. Seven myths about emotional intelligence.. Ontario. Sluytrer (Eds. D. Intelligence.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. P.. R. & Caruso...capella. About the MSCEIT. P. M. Psychological Inquiry. S. & Chabot. Psychological Inquiry. Annual Review of Anthropology. Carlsmith. F.. D. & Pherwani. Mathews.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer.com/login.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. G. doi: 10. New York: Basic Books. Roberts. D. J. 15(3). D.. findings.15. 17(3). (1998). Dissertation Abstracts International.library. J.ebscohost. 15(3). Retrieved from ProQuest database. 179–196.100186.. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. R.capella. 387–404.com/ login. (2000). & Salovey. Toronto.. D. B. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. 67(1).. J. Salovey. K. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. 405–436.an. R. D.). (2003)..unh. M.ebscohost. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. J. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. (2007). (2002).1146/annurev.library. Mayer. Journal of Research in Personality. 267–298. & Caruso.capella. Retrieved from http://www.. Emotional intelligence: Theory.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . R.com .edu/login?url=http://search.
Psychological Inquiry.Mayer. L. Measurement and control of response bias. I. 26(2). Retrieved from ProQuest database. L.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management.04. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. from Answers. Retrieved from http://www. D. Journal of Nursing Administration.iier. & Carsky.mind garden. 14(1). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. R. J.. 22(1).html 151 .com/login. (2004b). 17–59).library.answers. L. E. CA: Academic Press. R. 335–344.. San Diego. doi: 10. J. Perry. Saklofske.. M. D. D. M. H. (2005). 100–106. R. L.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. S. C. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 15(3). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. B. (2004). & Fuller. The International Journal of Conflict Management.2006.ebscohost. (2004).com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. (2002). Retrieved August 31. (2003). Jones. Psychological Inquiry.. (n. N. Ball. & Stough. & Taylor.1016 /j. 15(3). 2008.. (2001). M. Journal of Individual Differences. C. J. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. N. 13(4). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. & Stacey. & Caruso. J. D. Z.com Web site: http://www. A. 29–43.ebscohost. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. (2004).au/iier14/perry. Wrightsman (Eds. Walls.capella.. B. Parker.. P... Oatley.022 Paulhus. & L.library. P. M.edu/login?url=http://search. 216–238. 27–34. R. D. 5–10. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. In J.pdf Morrison.. 381–400. 249–255. Issues in Educational Research. MLQ international norms. K. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Shaver.org. (1991)..paid. R.. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. Burgess.). Wood.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. Retrieved from http://www. Eastabrook.. Salovey.). S. 24(6).d.capella.edu/login? url=http://search. Robinson. Inc. 27(5). (1997).1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.com/login . doi: 10. doi: 10.
Sex Roles. Emotional intelligence. A. Case Western Reserve University.). doi: 10. J. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract].. M. & Furnham.. W. R. 363–369. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. B. Ammeter. R. Retrieved from http://www. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Ferris. and team outcomes.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . 744–755. M. (1991). 11(4). 60(4).Petrides. A. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Petrides.htm Rivera Cruz. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Supervision (6th ed. (1992). 11(1). (2003b). Retrieved from ProQuest database. & McRae. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from http://www. International Journal of Organizational Analysis..htm Rosener. Doctoral dissertation.003 152 .01.60. 449–461. doi: 10. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. (2000). M.1016/j. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Plunkett (Ed. Prati. L. K.2007. C.. R.library.capella.416 Piedmont. (2003a). Ferris.. A... 425–448. (2001). Leadership and management styles. Boston: Allyn Bacon.leaqua.eiconsortium. V. G. Ammeter.. R. T. & Heinitz. Doctoral dissertation. 18(2). 68(6).1002/per. Purkable. (2003).aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold.edu/login?url=http://search.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.. L. leadership effectiveness. V. Prati. K. L.ebsco host. V. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. R. Emotional intelligence. Douglas.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 323–351). Costa.. 42(5/6). L. & Buckley.. M. P. R.com/login. Leadership Quarterly. 119–125. T. R. 41–62. (2007). European Journal of Personality. In W.1037/0022-3514. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. G. Douglas.630 Plunkett. 121–133.. Catholic University of America. K. Harvard Business Review.4. B. Ways women lead. R... (2004). A. doi: 10. R. pp. & Furnham. (1990). J. C. P. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. & Buckley. P. 15(6).
. S. Doctoral dissertation. Hunt. C.1. Journal of Management. K. 693–703. (2001). Organizational behavior (7th ed. W... M. Hopkins.answers. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract].Rudman.629 Sala.library.. E. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.eiconsortium. J.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .3. E. L.243 Schermerhorn. Race.com/topic/senior-management Smith. 167–177. (2003).74. Cognition.1037/1528-3542. 185–211. and Matthews (2001). F. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics..ebscohost. 9(4). (1998). and socialization. J. G. and Personality. 243–248. N. 16(4). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10. 1(3). J. (1990). (2002). Our Lady of the Lake University. J. Schulte. & Osborn.htm Schutte. (1990).3. Retrieved from http:// www. J. 9(4).d.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer.. J. Hall. Retrieved from http://www. E. doi: 10.capella.. 629–645. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. W.edu/login?url=http://search .). et al. 74(3).. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. L. R. 94– 110. (2000).org/ Salovey. Retrieved August 31.pdf Sanders.. Retrieved from http://www. M.sciencedirect.library..).unh. 21–31. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. (2001).. & Mayer. 9(3). J. T. Schaie. M. Golden. Malouff. Haggerty. E. from Answers.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. doi: 10. 25(2). Emotional intelligence. Comment on Roberts. A. P. J.capella. (n. B. Imagination. Cooper..edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints.1037/0022-3514.eiconsortium. D.com Web site: http://www. J. D. Zeidner.. Race..com. Emotion. Retrieved from http:// www.com/login. & Bass.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Gender & Class. & Geroy. D. 2008. emotions. New York: Wiley. J.
1016/j.%20M. J...gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. A. Wade. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Group & Organization Management.%20(1998) Snodgrass.. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. L. Retrieved from http://www. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. doi: 10.A. J.org/Search. Alonso. Bureau of Labor Statistics.kandidata. & D’hoore.Needham Heights. MA: Allyn and Bacon.023 154 . 2002. C. 38(3). (2003).. D.capella. L. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. & McDaniel. Sosik. Barone. Journal of Education for Business. Dallas. & Fidell. (1998.com. W. B. 49(1). 331–338. Nursing Research.% 20&%20McDaniel. 689–700. Vandenberghe.cgi Tabachnick. M. M. A..S.library. April).). Retrieved from ProQuest database.. Retrieved from http://www.Smith. & Plemons.tx. Census Bureau of Labor. J.pdf U. 37(1). L. F. J. A.. (2001). Z. & McCarthy. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data.. (2000). Retrieved from http://ovidsp. & Viswesvaran.%20K... Ellis.bls. (2000). Douthitt. S. doi: 10.S.edu/spb/ovidweb. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. 367–390. S. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from http://www. (2008).bls. U. (2005). S. C.se/default. Department of Labor. 37–43. Personality and Individual Differences. 75(6). Tucker. S .siop. M.. G. Journal of Allied Health. (2002). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. 24(3).. C.05. Sojka. J. E.2004. J.ovid.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. (2005).aspx?search=Smith. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.C.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. TX. R. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. S. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment.J.paid. & Megerian. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. L. 18–14. (1999). Bureau of Labor Statistics.. K.
htm Weisinger. J. Emotional intelligence at work. B. doi: 10. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. J. F. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective..1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. Yukl. G. (1989). R. W.capella. J. M. Retrieved from http://www .com/login.Viator. Academy of Management Journal.library. 99–125. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. & Bass. Yammarino. 28–32. Lancaster. K. Human Relations.. Journal of Management. Comer.06.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. NJ: Prentice Hall.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. A. 89–92. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. F. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.com/login. (2001). PA: Poised for the Future Company.ebscohost. C. (1990).aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Dubinsky.ebscohost. 16(1). & Jolson. Zhu. (2003).. 34(10). M.capella. (2000).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. Chew. (1998). Journal of Information Systems. 975–995.. J. Wolfe. (2005). 39–52.capella. B.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.com/login. Leadership in organizations (5th ed..2004.1016/j. 251–289. E.library . H. I. 205–222.edu/login?url=http://search. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . doi: 10.ebscohost. The perfect labor storm 2. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. L. H. The Leadership Quarterly.edu/login?url=http://search. M. University of Minnesota. W. Nursing Management. (2002).library. D.eiconsortium. & Spangler. L.. (2003). (1997). 8(2). Upper Saddle River. 15(2). 40(1). leaqua. (2007). S. 15(2). Retrieved from ProQuest database. I. A.edu/ login?url=http://search. G. Developing emotional intelligence. Doctoral dissertation.001 155 . 43(10).
What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 .APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.
Level of Education? High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s Degree PhD Number of direct reports under your supervision? 3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More Gender? Male Female Race / Ethnicity (optional) Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander 157 .
000.000.000.000.00 and $100.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 Between $40.000.00 and $70.00 Between $70.000.00 More than $150.00 158 .00 and $150.00 Between $100.000.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.