THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE by Michael A. Syndell LORI LA CIVITA, Ph.D.
, Faculty Mentor and Chair BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Committee Member JOSEPH DAMIANI, Ph.D., Committee Member Garvey House, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University August 2008
3320725 Copyright 2008 by Syndell, Michael A. All rights reserved
© Michael A. Syndell, 2008
The purpose of this cross-sectional. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style.000 billion annually.Abstract The U. In addition. and healthcare professions.033. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 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. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. there will be approximately 10. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.S. education.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.
. Department of Labor. predicts that by 2010. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study.
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. .
. who laid the cornerstone of my being.
To my original mentor. 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. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . Dr. Bruce Gillies. . . . to Dr. . 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 . . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . and to my long time partner and good friend John Reardon who has supported me throughout the years helping to make living life a pleasure . thank you sincerely. . and your respected members who participated. . I love you all!
. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all.Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . for making this research possible. . . . And to my family and friends who have . and to Dr. . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . for the most part (smile!) . Joseph Damiani. . . who helped me start this journey. Lori La Civita. you my friend have been a gift from God. understood and supported my absence throughout this process .
Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Nature of the Study Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical Orientation of the Study History of Leadership: An Overview Origins of Transformational Leadership Current State of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Defined Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) v iv viii 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 19 20 22 33
Gender and Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence Defining EI EI Controversies The Development of EI Characteristics of EI Gender and EI Race/Ethnicity and EI Measuring EI EI and Leadership Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection EI, Leadership, and Gender Conclusion CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Variables Measures Procedures Research Questions Research Hypotheses vi
35 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 60 60 60 61 61 63 66 67 68
Data Collection and Storage Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Expected Findings Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Discussion of the Results Discussion of the Conclusions Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
69 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 116 116 116 119 120 129 136 138 140 142 156
Group Norms vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. Comparison of Low. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6.List of Tables Table 1. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components viii 76 80 81 82 84 86 88 91 92 93 95 96 96 98 99 101 103 104
.S. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. TLS Component Scores: U. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Group Sample Table 5.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2.
Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components
108 110 111 115
. Comparison of Low.Table 19.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21.
The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 2005). higher group performance levels (Keller. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 1998). Specifically. Drucker.S. 2000. 1999). Herman. 1995). and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. and retain the best talent. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. education. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 1
. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. & Olivo. 1988). 1997. Department of Labor.373 billion (Herman. Leadership research suggests that securing and retaining appropriate personnel will remain an issue and that transformational leadership may be key in developing a social architecture capable of generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21stcentury organizational challenges (Bass. 1997. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1999. attract. develop. The U. 2003. companies must compete to find. Department of Labor.033. Gioia.CHAPTER 1.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. U.S. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Hitt. Ireland & Hitt. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. 1990).
Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. 2000. Furthermore. 2003. & Salovey. Goleman. given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. Ogilvie & Carsky. Caruso. 2000.. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. Mandell & Pherwani. Hay/McBer. Therefore. and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. and the need to effectively identify. select and retain such personnel. 1998). Sala. 2001). 1998). conflict resolution styles (Malek. 2000). Mayer. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. 1999. 1999).
Background of the Study A review of the literature suggests that leadership has been one of the domains to which Emotional Intelligence has been applied most frequently. Mandell & Pherwani. 1997. 2002. 2
. 2003).S. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. Goleman. Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. 1998.
1998. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed. Mandell & Pherwani. The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. if any. and the extent to which. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. job profiling.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. selection and management development. In addition. 2003). while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. recruitment interviewing. Hay/McBer.
Rationale Existing research on whether. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. 3
.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. 2000. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes.
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. 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. 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. 3.
. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. if a relationship is found to exist. In addition. 4.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study.
Stress Management and Mood. independence and assertiveness. reality testing and problem solving. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. understand. understand. and express oneself. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. Adaptability. including the ability to be aware of. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. social responsibility and interpersonal relations.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. In 5
. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. Executive Management. 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. self-actualization. making major corporate decisions. and relate to others. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. the ability to deal with strong emotions. Interpersonal. 2002). whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. 1998). 2002). the ability to be aware of. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. Emotional Intelligence (EI). A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi).
2000). Middle Management. are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management by monitoring the activities of subordinates and making tactical decisions on subordinates performance.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. Chief Information Officer. Chief Operating Officer. expertise. Leadership Style. Chief Marketing Officer. how it can be done effectively. mission.
. 2002). Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. and the Director of Human Resources. Leadership.d. 2002). The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. and energy available within organizations members. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. which are generally shortterm ones.). each of which has specific functional responsibilities. n. & Osborn.). Hunt. n. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management. Intellectual Capital (IC). This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. and strategies (Schermerhorn. which may enhance organizational outputs. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer.d. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. The sum total of knowledge.
have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Group. mathematical. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. 2004). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. (c) Inspirational Motivation. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). 1998). Senior Management. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. and (e) Individualized Consideration. environmental. 2000). Retention. intentions. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). spatial.Multiple Intelligences. including verbal. movement oriented. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. as they generally work as a team in conjunction with executive management in which strategic decisions are reviewed or drafted and implemented into organizational
. and three outcome constructs. and Organizational Effectiveness. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.. (b) Individual. three constructs of transactional leadership. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. one nontransactional leadership construct. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). 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. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. musical.
EQi. (d) participants
. and to be led. and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. n. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. to improve.operations that are generally of a long-term nature. Social Intelligence. cooperation). and the Demographic Questionnaire. which involves motivating individual/organizational change. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. Social Skills. (c) Intellectual Stimulation. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. The ability to get people to want to change. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman.
Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study.d. 1998). nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate).). 1997). (b) Inspirational Motivation. 1998). and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations.
participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. 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. such as linear regression will 9
. Since data will be collected at one time point.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. Univariate statistical techniques. Finally. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments.
Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. interest or motivation to respond. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. such as correlational analyses. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. and multivariate procedures. 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. That is. Secondly. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. thus skewing the pattern of responses. First.
or outcome. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. variable. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. statistical analysis.be used. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage.
. Transformational Leadership. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. The dependent. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style.
(b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. 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). ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global.CHAPTER 2. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. and a synthesis of research findings. and (e) gender and EQI. Emotional Intelligence. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. A summary concludes the chapter. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. transformational leadership style (TLS). PsycARTICLES. 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. PsycINFO. using numerous multiple key word searches. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. and gender. EQi. Business Source Premier. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. their relationship. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. and Transformational Leadership Style and
. Academic Search Premier. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. and gender. and psychology journals. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. EI. (b) leadership.
Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass. In addition. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 1985. 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. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles.gender. 1988). 2006. and dissertations. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. Goleman. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. Specifically. books. 1995). 12
. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 22 articles were relevant to this study. along with several books and dissertations. In total. higher group performance (Keller. Bass & Avolio. 1995. 1999). researchers in this area of leadership research have proposed that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence because they are elements considered critical to inspiring organizational/employee adaptation/retention.
The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. or traits. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. energetic. 2002).History of Leadership: An Overview Multiple leadership theories are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory that seeks to explain leadership in terms of leader and follower traits and behavior theories found to manifest from situational/contingent leadership studies. Task-related 13
. and diplomatic. tactful. of leaders such as personality. adaptable. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. However. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. Personality traits include being self-confident. and emotionally stable. Social characteristics include being charismatic. These early leadership theories were content theories. social. tall. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. motives. 1990). and skills (Yukl. not on “how” to effectively lead. values. 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). assertive. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. cooperative. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. popular. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. and handsome. charming.
and cultures. and being results-oriented. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion.
. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. leading to the concept of situational leadership. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. accepting of responsibility. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. having initiative. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. intelligence. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). desire to lead. and the nature of the external environment. 2002). and job-relevant knowledge) yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and education. No two leaders are alike. the type of organization. Yukl (1989. the characteristics of the followers. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Furthermore. no leader possesses all of the traits. integrity.characteristics include being driven to excel. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. Thus. levels of management. Research conducted under the situational approach can be generally categorized into one of two subcategories: (a) an attempt to discover the extent to which the leadership processes are the same or unique across different types of organizations. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. self-confidence.
and student leaders. termed consideration and initiating structure. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. manufacturing companies. mental. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. 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). The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. consistently appeared. considerate and initiating structure.The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. Two factors. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. or emotional traits. Initiating structure. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. 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. 2002). The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. college administrators. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).
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. being supportive. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.involves planning. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey
. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. Like trait research. and providing for subordinates welfare. and coordinating the work of subordinates. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. organizing. 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. Unfortunately. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. an employee orientation and a production orientation. As a result. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations.
The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. and position power. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. 17
. task structure. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. and those that are motivated by relationship. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. 2002). Together. 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. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. leader-member relations. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. 1967). Fiedler offers two leadership styles. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. those that are motivated by task.
The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. and D4). and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). and weak leader position power. Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. D2. and strong leader position power. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). S2. Furthermore. unstructured tasks. S3. Four leadership styles (S1. D3. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. 2002). However. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18
. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates.defined tasks. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. 1993). empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard.
recognizing followers accomplishments. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. and outcomes. work standards. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. 1993). and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19
. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. behavior. Specifically. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. influence processes. Finally. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. low-directive style (S3). 2002). However. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4.
Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership.and directivity (S2). Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. either transactional or transformational. Hersey & Blanchard. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. such as trait. and situational variables (Yukl. and providing for their welfare. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. being supportive.
or disciplinary actions. and individualized consideration (Bass. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. intellectual stimulation. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. threats. Or they are corrected by negative feedback.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). reproof. and reward. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. praise. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. 2004). In contingent rewarding behavior. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. 1990). Bass & Avolio. 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. inspirational motivation. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. 1985. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. In contrast. 1990. Transformational leadership contains four components. 1997. 20
Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985.
Bass expands the theoretical concept of Burns by stressing the importance of including more than one type of leadership variable in research involving leaders and leadership when he stated. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. 2003. Furthermore. 76). the integrative theory of leadership research. Sanders. However. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. p. 2004. as these multiple leadership theories
.g. unlike Burns. behavior.. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. behavioral. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. 1989). Hopkins & Geroy. In addition. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). and situational/contingency variables. 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. “cognitive. Yukl. in Bass’s view. 2003. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. Judge & Piccolo. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. 52). The transactional leader may clarify the task structure with the “right” way to do things in a way that maintains dependence on the leader for preferred problem solutions.
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.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. Followers accept leadership decisions as the best under the circumstances even if it means some individual members interests may have to be sacrificed to meet common objectives. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. 22
. However. Bennis. 1990. 2000). 1985. and comparative advantages. Leithwood & Jantzi. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. the organization’s strengths.
Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. focusing on a common purpose. weaknesses. 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. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization.
& D’hoore. idealized influence (attributed). 2000). The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. present their most important values. idealized influence (behavior). and the ethical consequences of decisions. intellectual stimulation. take stands on difficult issues. 1993). confidence. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. while at the same time winning their respect. transformational. Transformational leadership. As well as accomplishing tasks through others.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. transactional. and individualized consideration. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. respect. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. 1992). commitment. 1993). and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. inspirational motivation. Over time. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23
. loyalty. transformational leaders inspire the confidence. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. and willing cooperation (Plunkett. emphasize trust. and emphasize the importance of purpose. Vandenberghe. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. cooperation. 1999).
abilities and aspirations. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. 1999). Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. further their development. consider their individual needs. awareness of internal and external customer needs. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). challenge followers with high standards. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. Cannella and Monroe 24
. and beliefs. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. 2004). will-do attitude. and advise and coach. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. meticulousness. Second. listen attentively. The authors suggested that the MLQ could help to reduce the cost of manager selection and increase the chances of selecting appropriate top managers able to make followers aware of the importance and value of desired organizational outcomes because it focuses on the perception of subordinates. and creativity (Dixon). Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. traditions. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. expert resources. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. Further.(Bass & Avolio. followed by action planning.
Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. are absent when needed. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. 1995). Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. exchange promises and resources. and management-by-exception (passive). laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. negotiate for resources. management-by-exception (active). and provide commendations for successful follower performance. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. and 25
. Transactional leadership. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. clarify expectations. reports. laissez-faire. conferences. fail to follow up requests for assistance. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. Laissez-faire leadership. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. Although they may not be close by.proposed that charisma may be less important to the decision making process and more important in terms of its effect on subordinates because having a charismatic relationship with subordinates enables the leader to implement decisions with less resistance (Canella & Monroe). Management-by-Exception (passive) leaders are leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious and wait to take action until mistakes are brought to their attention. exchange assistance for effort. contingent reward. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes.
Avolio.. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. Bryant. Wade. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. Jung. and commercial organizations. & Sivasubramaniam.productivity records. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. & Berson. 1992). 2003. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. Jolson. 2008). Douthitt. 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. The 26
. Ellis.e. In addition. using the MLQ-360 assessment. 2001. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. Snodgrass. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. health care. it does have its place under the right circumstances. subordinates reported about their managers. A research study by Dubinsky. Yammarino. Bass. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. Bass & Avolio. Avolio. 2003. 2003. Gellis. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. 2004. & Plemons. educational.
Fifth. Second. and its effect on job satisfaction. the sample size must have been reported. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27
. 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. Jones. Lowe. 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. 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. First. Fourth. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. using a sample of 275 nurses. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. leader/unit perception. 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. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Kroeck. Third. organizational perception. and job satisfaction. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. The results of a study by Morrison.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate.
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
and vision. In total.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. Comer. & Jolson. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31
. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. 1994. and 1 unpublished data set). communication and team performance. Yammarino. Bass. & Atwater. and laissez-faire leadership. dissertations. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. the more effective the team will be. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. 1996. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. 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. charismatic leadership. Dubinsky. transactional. book chapters. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. 1998. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. Similarly. Avolio. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. Findings suggest that transformational leadership contributes to the prediction of subordinates’ self-reported empowerment and that the more a team’s members experience team empowerment. 18 dissertations. Carless.
The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). home appliances.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. A survey study by Zhu. and electronics industries). divergent. and criterion validity of two instruments. transactional. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. the convergent. These 32
. electrical equipment. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). food. financial services. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. administered a total of 1. Chew. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. automotive parts. and organizational outcomes. pharmaceutical. 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. absenteeism.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. textile and clothing. computer services. chemical. More specifically. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. pulp and paper. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. was explored.
doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. The latest version of the MLQ. are defined as follows: 1. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. trust. and faith 33
.g. satisfaction) as well as objective (e. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects..g. Leadership types. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader. over and above transactional leadership. 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.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. subjective (e. Form 5X. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. transactional leadership and nonleadership. as measured on the MLQ..e. With regard to criterion validity. has been used in more than 200 research programs.. Moreover. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership.
74 to . Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction
The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. b. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. d. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio.
Idealized Influence (Behaviors): living your ideals Inspirational Motivation: inspiring others Intellectual Stimulation: stimulating others Individualized Consideration: coaching and development
Transactional Leadership: Transactional leaders display behaviors associated with the following measured leadership scale scores: a. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others.94.b. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive)
3. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . c. c. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating.
Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. b. 2. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. c. e.
Kouzes & Posner. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. 1995). transactional leadership and nonleadership. Carless. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work.) The MLQ has individual subtests. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. with four questions for each scale.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 2004). Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35
. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. Wearing. Transactional leadership has three scales. 1995). Transformational leadership has five individual scales. 1990. & Mann.
Gender and Leadership Style Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found no statistically significant differences between the leadership scores of men and women managers as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio. Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. Bass & Avolio. However. 2000). where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. (The researcher only used the self-rating form.
However. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. On the other hand.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. which is what
. 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.g. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. such as participatory decision making. praising individual and team contributions. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. 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. 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. and attention to individual needs. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors.
and to read and direct them in other people. On the other hand. 2004a). and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. exist. numerous definitions. 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. Carless reasoned. & Caruso.
Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. Salovey. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI.
. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. Indeed. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. 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. some of which are contradictory. 2003). However.
sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions.. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. 2. Vitello-Cicciu. but interrelated. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. 2000. 2000.. & McCarthy.
From these characteristics. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. to distinguish among them. which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. or repressed within others. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. Barone.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. Sojka.
. 2003). argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. 1997. Mayer & Salovey. mental processes: 1. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. Mayer et al. 3. These two definitions. 2004a. 2000). 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. Tucker et al. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions.
and the multiple social science fields on the other. 39
. These issues are explored next. not of empirically validated. culminating in the formation. In particular.
EI Controversies Mathews. they hold that EI escapes definition. Gohm. 2004. cohesive. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive.Although this is a clear definition. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. is problematic. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. Mathews et al. conceptually coherent. 2004a. and empirically valid definitions. 2004b). popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. (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. 2004. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. Mayer et al. Mathews et al. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. they claimed. Thus. For this reason. Roberts. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. and psychologically based definitions of EI.. emotional intelligence. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term.
During the 6 million years of human evolution. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain..’s (2004) argument. physiologically evidenced. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. Mayer et al. The denial of emotions. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. and measurable construct.Reflecting on Mathews et al. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40
. in these writers view. 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. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. 2002). concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. others (Gohm. However. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. in Gohm’s view. Rather. 2004.
The Development of EI The idea of EI as an innate and/or learnable ability arose from the field of anthropology and has been hypothesized to have developed with progressive evolution of human society from the primitive to the more complex (Massey. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. immaterial. Massey argued. emotion is a scientifically valid. In this view. Oatley.
While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. The need to maintain group cohesion and to implement social structure and governance created evolutionary pressures that motivated the development of the emotive center of the brain. 1986. 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. Massey. In this view.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 2002). 2004b) reported. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. 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
Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. (2004a. 1986. For example. but they do not expand or increase them. Massey). its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. noted. 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. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. In contrast. Mayer et al. though an inherent capacity. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. Indeed. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. it a learnable skill.
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
African American participants scored lower on interpersonal.(2000) theory of human values. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J.
Measuring EI Schutte et al. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. These are the test of EI 45
. Van Rooy. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. Alonso. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. In a study by J. Schutte et al. Smith (2002). and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. 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). E.
Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. Results of these studies. although inconsistent. In contrast. intrapersonal. E. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. Smith).
& Beers. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. 1998) which focuses on ability. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals.competencies. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. According to Goleman. currently in its second revised version. self-awareness. Mayer. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. Carlsmith. the ability to 46
. 2007). the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. 2002) test. Boyatzis. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. & Chabot. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. Côté. social awareness. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. Bar-On. Salovey. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. self-management. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. collected from superiors. according to the publisher.). 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). These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. For these reasons. colleagues. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. In addition. 2008). Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. and peers. the most important are the second and third competencies. However. and social skills. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. 2005).
& Taylor. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. 2005). 2002). Petrides & Furnham. discriminant. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes.. with r’s ranging from . Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. and convergent validity as well. (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. Wood. Total EI score. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. It yields 15 main scores. Saklofske. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability.). 2007). and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. The five composite 47
. Mayer et al.91 (Mayer. That definition is sufficiently narrow in focus to avoid including too many variables but is broad enough to assess important factors identified as significant in influencing or exposing EI (Parker et al.79–. The test has excellent reliability (r = . As noted by Parker et al.93). The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. 2001).understand the meaning of different types of emotions. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies.. Consequently. Eastabrook.. four Branch scores. Bar-On. two Area scores. other measurement instruments. however.
Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the
.] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. understand and accept oneself [b. and Watkin (2000). 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Adaptability (change management) [a.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c. these are [1.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4. p. stress management. (2005).] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a. others and life in general.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001). Specifically. (Bar-On. adaptability. 2006. Parker et al.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. 2001).] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.
Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. Wong & Song.” EI has been identified as an important 49
. the nature of EI and its development over time. Moreover. 2003. or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. 2003). like many self-report inventories. Colbert.import of each set and subset in it. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. and understanding of. 2004.
EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. C. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. a situational judgment test. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. research has also indicated that. honest and faking good. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. 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. 2003). 2001. Mandell & Pherwani. However. Law. & Ilies. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. Kobe. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. Judge.
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.). p. 155). Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women.. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. According to Mandell and Pherwani. Judge et al. 2003). the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike.. Law et al. 2003). relationships.. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. 2003. as cited in Kobe et al.. 2003). social intelligence further embraces the ability 50
. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. Mandell & Pherwani. Mandell & Pherwani. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable.ingredient of leadership. 2004.. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. From the sociological perspective. In addition. 2001. and mutual benefits. 2001. 2004.). There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. Kobe et al. As a social phenomenon. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others.
(2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. However. Rather. (2004). EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. Judge 51
. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. According to Judge et al. As Law et al. trust. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. leaders are created by followers. (2004) argued. This is an important distinction. 2003. Kobe et al. as further contended by Law and colleagues. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. they argue. loyalty. Thus.
Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential.to inspire the support.
. 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. Law et al. and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). 2003). arouse similar feelings in team members.. Mandell & Pherwani. such as anger and pessimism. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). enthusiasm. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience.. Kobe et al. Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2003) argue that the dynamics of leader and subordinate relationships support the claim that successful leaders are able to transfer their emotions to others. In short. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. they have emotional intelligence).. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. 2002). They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. such as support. In other words. 2001. leaders who display negative emotions. On the other hand. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient. and optimism.et al. 2004. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others.
According to Antonakis (2003). 2002) argued. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. Bass & Avolio. & Buckley. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Prati. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness.g. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. Douglas. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53
. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. as Prati et al. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. Ammeter. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. 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. Costa. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. For example. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. However. 2003a.. & McRae. and others (Dearborn. leadership style. Ferris. 2002) was used to measure EI. However.. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. 2003b).
internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters.. Mandell & Pherwani. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. 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. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54
. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence. 2001. That is. Specifically. However. Indeed. 2003).. (2003a) point out. Kobe et al. transformational leadership. 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. Judge et al. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. 2003. 2004. 2004. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. Law et al.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. as Prati et al. 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. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report..
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. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. 2003). 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. coping (Purkable. Position. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. Specifically. contingent reward leadership. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. and manager success (Hopkins. 2003). subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks.
EI.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. 2003). and management tenure 55
. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. These are reviewed as follows. Leadership. 2005). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. 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. Using performance ratings and demographic data. with mixed results. contingent reward leadership. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. title. gender.
Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. In each of these areas. leadership practices. In addition to the MSCEIT. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. Emotional Self-Control. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56
. and coping mechanisms. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. MSCEIT subscore 4. and coping mechanisms. Inspirational Leadership. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level. Specifically. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. leadership practices. and SelfConfidence. Influence. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index.
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. The study used self and other ratings of EI.avoidance coping. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. Specifically. Hopkins (2005) conducted research on the EI competencies and styles underlying successful leadership by examining the competencies and leadership styles of 105 successful women and men leaders in one financial services institution. and success. but not male. 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. 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. As noted previously.
. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. leadership styles. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior.
1988).. Goleman. However. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. 2004. 2001. results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. 58
. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. 1998)... Judge et al. 1998). 2003.. 1990. Law et al.g. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different.g. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. Women leaders. 1998. On the other hand. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.
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. Schutte et al. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). must behave more androgynously. on the other hand.. Kobe et al. Hater & Bass. 1997. Mandell & Pherwani. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. In addition.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.. 2003. 2004.
2000. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. However. Thus. 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. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. To summarize. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. 1998. Hay/McBer. Further.’s (2005) studies. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al.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. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. The latter findings are supported by J. 2007). 2003).. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups. 1999.. Schutte et al. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. Petrides & Furnham. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. and (a) if so. Moreover. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. 2004).
..e. as with transformational leadership style. 2000.. Mandell & Pherwani. E. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al.
and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). using e-mail communications.
Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions.. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. if any. METHODOLOGY
Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. recruiters. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS.CHAPTER 3. procedures used in addressing the research questions. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. 1999). data analysis. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. sample selection. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. data collection instruments and study variables. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60
and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. legal services. advertising and marketing. Executives.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. and the use of U. Senior. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. food and beverage. health care. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop.
Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ). and a host of other business and service providers. e-mail. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. three constructs of transactional leadership.
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. nonprofit. 2004). phone.S. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. market. ranging in size from small to large. financial services. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. For the purpose of this research 61
These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). 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). 2002). and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). (d) Stress Management. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS.study. (b) Interpersonal. In brief. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. as well as their ethnicity and income level. and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. (c) Adaptability.
Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63
. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals.85. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired.53 to . Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). mentoring and growth opportunities.
5.81 to . principles. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. 2004) and was based on data from 2. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership.
3. respected and trusted. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations.
2.96. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from .
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and values. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . 2004): 1. and display a sense of power and confidence. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. with a strong sense of purpose.
The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success.73 to . All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. or frequently. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. The coefficients ranged from . rather than performance or success itself. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. fairly often = 3. 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. For example. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. if not always = 4. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. therefore. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. consisting of four items each. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. once in a while = 1. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. sometimes = 2. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. if not always). Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. 2004). and to successfully cope with daily demands.000 respondents from the United 64
. challenges and pressures. 2002).coefficients for each leadership factor.94 (Bass & Avolio). However.
75 (n = 27. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Version 12. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. Social Responsibility. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems.. MHS Inc.85 (n = 44) and . (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control.States and Canada. to obtain a Total EQ. and their associated subcomponents. and Self-Actualization. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. respectively. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. and Interpersonal Relationship. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. 2002). Emotional Self-Awareness. 65
. Flexibility. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 2002). and Problem Solving. 2002). 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. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. were reported as . Bar-On. Independence. 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). (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. 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. Assertiveness.
title best describing the respondent’s current position. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. and number of direct reports under supervision. race/ethnicity. education level. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. the purpose of research. researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. the risk and benefits of participation. the expected time of completion. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general.
Procedures After securing formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to solicit potential participants for research and submitting it to Capella’s Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. years employed by current organization. age.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. the criteria needed to be met for participation. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. industry. In this current study all online survey responses. years held in current position.
and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. 2. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67
. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. individual data were not made available.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). the MLQ assessment. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent.
Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.
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. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 4. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.3. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.
a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. 69
. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. the MLQ. 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. 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. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. All e-mail addresses submitted by gatekeepers were put into an Excel file with a 2 header row consisting of e-mail addresses and the other assigning a unique ID Code. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. and the Bar-On EQi). Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file.. and pen/paper copies were shredded. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation.
Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i.e.
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). before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. In addition. 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. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well.
. The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. 2006) ethical standards. after submitting consent. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA. and required. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. naked to the participants eye. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. All data collected were pooled for analysis.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site.
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. 72). 571). Errors in scoring/data entry. 667). When necessary. 2005. p.Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. Finally. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. as appropriate. This was followed by univariate analyses. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. p. 2005. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field.. 94). outliers. Analyses examining group differences (e. 65). Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. 2005. missing and out-of. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71
. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. p. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). p. p.g.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed.
. 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. p.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. p. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. as well as to control for the effects of gender. 2005. 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. if so. In addition. 160). 170). the nature and strength of that association. and.
suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. 2. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was
. while not substantial. 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. As previous research.CHAPTER 4.
Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1.
4. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.
Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS.
. and if so. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. the nature and strength of that association. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 3. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 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. 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.
94).g.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.
. 65). as appropriate.. Errors in scoring/data entry. or scaled variables. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. If necessary. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. missing and out-of. p. 72). 2005. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 2005. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. p. outliers. 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. p.
1 10.2 12.5 45.Table 1.1 22.6 16.4 3.2 5.0 11.4 24.7 5.1 39.7 5.1 25.2 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 60.6
.3 8.8 5.9 6.9 12.5 5.2 55.1 11.4 19.7 10.7 7.7 29.8 2.8 1.9 3.7 20.5 4.8 3.
East Asian. N = 158. American Indian.000 23 14.9 12.7 2.000 15 9.9 65.
.000 17 10.000 44 27. Arabic or other.5 __________________________________________________________
Note. **Includes Pacific Islander.1 9.6 Between $100–150.3 20.7 34.Table 1.8 More than $150.9 10.25 85. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.1 32.70.0 2. Minimum age 24.9 1.8 Between $70–100. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables (continued)
__________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Level of education High school and technical/trade school AA degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree PhD Number of direct reports 3–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 16+ Race/Ethnicity** African American Asian Caucasian Latino *Age (N = 150) 21–27 28–34 35–42 43–50 51–58 59+ 52 16 51 33 3 103 16 15 3 20 4 4 135 14 3 4 25 52 47 19 32.2 10.3 12. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. maximum age 67.5 1.20).7
Current income Less than $40.4 8.8 Between $40–70.7 16.7 31.9 2.000 55 34. SD = 8.5 4.
n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. Addressing racial diversity.4%.6%. n = 135) male (60. for-profit organization.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. 78
. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.6%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. Most respondents earned from $40. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). or mean of 3. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. 25.2%. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. from between 3–6 to more than 16.32 subordinates. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. n = 72). the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. n = 121) in a private. The sample of the population in this study has an average. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. n = 103).000–$100. n = 106).7%. In terms of supervision responsibilities.15 direct reports.95 years of college education. Notably. However.4%. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). and a median of 5.1%.000 per annum (49. n = 78). The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.
Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.01). Total EQi Score.41). Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.02 (SD = 13. 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. 105. 102. 105.63 (SD = 12.05). 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. The mean age of the subjects is 48. in descending order. EQi component scores were. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.00). 107. with a nearly identical median of 48.77 years. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Interpersonal.02 (SD = 13. 79
.86 (SD = 13.730.900 and the median was $54. the mean income was $68. Adaptability. and General Mood Components.49 (SD = 14. Summed TLS Score. 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. For the income this is going to be most apparent. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.49). Intrapersonal.85).65 years.97 (SD = 13. Stress Management. 103. As far as income.
41 12.73 12.21 105.49 13.04 12.52 103.60 14.86 12.62 13.97 13.67 13.4 ____________________________________________________
Note.74 13.66 101.17 104.36
Total EQi Score 105.70 13.86 106.63 103.64 107.
This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.28 103.66 14.Table 2.01 13.54 103.49 103.93 13.19 13.02 102.00 12.45 13.63 103.
.85 12.05 14. N = 157.61 105.41 106. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi
____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.61 102.46 102.44 13. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.02 105.31 103.
57).99 (SD = 0.63 0.95 (SD = 0.26 (SD = 0.59 0.58).S. Inspirational Motivation.35 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed).58 0.04 (SD = 0.59
Note. Individualized Consideration. 3. 3.57 0.57 0.16 (SD = 0. 2004).26 3. 2. Inspirational Motivation.09 3. and Intellectual Stimulation. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. in descending order.08 (SD = 0. Intellectual Stimulation.59). 3.63).59). 3.18 SD 0.53). Idealized Influence (Attributed).52). 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. TLS component scores were.Table 3. 3.59). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).59).18 (SD = 0. 2.
.08 3. 3.52. 2.13 (SD = 0. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. which are as follows. Mind Garden.
Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.09 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 157.57). Individualized Consideration. 3.35 3.96 (SD = 0.13 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).
or symmetry.58 0. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. **N = 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.375.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.99 3.e.52 0.96 3. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. Group Sample
Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration
*N = 157.18 3. 2001).57
Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). of a distribution (i.. Group Norms vs.04 2.57 0.59 0.08 3.55 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.S.63 0.59 0.09 3.
Norm group** M 3.Table 4. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.02 2.52
M 3. TLS Component Scores: U.95 2. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.59 0. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82
. or scaled variables.13 3.59 0.26 3.35
SD 0.53 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. Skew represents the even-ness.16 SD 0.
Intellectual Stimulation = –. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .67. and (c) 9. (b) Interpersonal = .18.
. but normally distributed.40. respectively.0. and not individual MLQ items. 2001). (b) MLQ 23 = –184.108.40.206.06. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Inspirational Motivation = –.09. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . (b) 6.64.49. with skew > +/–2. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.63.24. (c) Stress Management = . (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . and Individualized Consideration = –1.83. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.0. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. (d) Adaptability = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. and (e) General Mood = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . 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.220.127.116.11.76. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.61.73.66.
This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.30* .29* .48* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components
TLS component EQ component 1. To address the first research question.44* .Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi components predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses I—correlations between the five EQi and five TLS components.52* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.
Note. Pearson’s r was obtained.33* . Intrapersonal 2. Adaptability 5. IM = Inspirational Motivation.37* .40* .37* .40* .05).23* . Stress Management 4.25* .31* . *p < .59* IS . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.37* IIB .46* IM . a p < .05. Interpersonal 3. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.36* .44* .
.19 a . The significance level was set at (α = .37* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). IS = Intellectual Stimulation. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 158. General Mood IIA . and IC = Individualized Consideration.28* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.32* IC .35* .41* .01.
representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). p < .05). which was still significant at p < .23 or higher.001). p < . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . (b) Happiness (r = . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .59. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. EQi component scores also increased.45.20 and . with (α = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.001) and Inspirational Motivation. using the same Procedure Correlations. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Results are shown in Table 6. Inspirational Motivation (r = .05). (c) Self-Actualization (r = . p < . With one exception.001).19. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.51. All correlations were in the positive direction.50. p < . 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. Most of the correlations ranged between .16.
.05.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. at r = .
37* .15 (ns) .31* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.25* IC . and IC = Individualized Consideration.38* . N = 157.05).30* . Self-Regard 2.39* IM .36* .12 (ns) .38* . p ≥ .34* .24* .21* .45* .40* .39* .26* .30* .15 (ns) .35* .43* .34* .51* IS . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).26* .32* .37* .30* .32* .25* . Happiness IIA . Self-Actualization 6.32* .40* . Empathy 7.50* .33* . Stress Tolerance 10.43* .31* IIB .59* .33* .45* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Independence 5. Impulse Control 11. IM = Inspirational Motivation.17 a .38* . Problem Solving 14.23* .36* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).24* .24* .16 (ns) .29* . Self-Awareness 3.31* .36* .46* .Table 6.
All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.28* .23* .44* .37* .27* .37* . Social Responsibility 8.37* .40* .33* .28* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents
TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.33* .33* .48* .36*
Note.16 a .01.43* . Flexibility 13.13 (ns) .11 (ns) .37* .33* . Optimism 15. Assertiveness 4. ap < .35* .40* .19 a . *p < .44* . 86
.03 (ns) .05 (ns = nonsignificant.24* . Reality Testing 12.
which can occur when variables are too highly correlated.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. p < .26.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .001). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased.30. 2005. 170). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. 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. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.001). and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . Correlations 87
. All correlations were in the positive direction. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. In summary. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = .24. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. 2001). a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. EQi component scores also increased. p < . all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. p < . p. This is a potentially serious issue.001).
The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. this intercorrelation is to be expected.64.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . Therefore. p < .82. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. However. based on the . 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. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). p < .01).01).72. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .
. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. p < . p < .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .71. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.90.
41* .62* . Self-Regard
2.66* .74* .51* 1.59* .60* .39* .37* . Self Awareness
3.24* .00 1.00 .26* .43* .32* .53* 15 .42* .00 1.00 1.15* . Self-Actualization
. Stress Tolerance
13. Interpersonal Relationship
.65* .56* .37* .00
.60* .28* .53* .50* . Impulse Control
.38* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .20* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents
1 1. Empathy
7.59* .60* . Reality Testing
10.47* .47* .51* . Flexibility
11.58* .00 1. Assertiveness
.32* . Social Responsibility
.40* .49* .50* .58* .39* .15* .36*
1.52* .39* .50* .42* .41* .36* .00 .27* .25* .61* .00
.38* .23* .61* .41* .Table 7.61* .56* .33* .42* .33* .32* .72* .43*
.00 1.50* .25* .53* 1.42* .52* . Problem Solving
12.47* .47* 1.50* 1.37* .55* .66* .00 1.50* .35* .60* .40* . Independence
9.55* .42* .16* .64* .54* .40* .42* .55* .50* .82* .60* .52* .43* .51* .43* .51* .00
bns = nonsignificant. Optimism
15. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.01.
. *p < .64* 1. a p < . N = 157. Happiness
14.00 15 .Table 7.05.
Intellectual Stimulation 5. Overall.00
5 . Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.54* . and. followed by General Mood (R2change = . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.01. Stress Management at Step 3. N = 157. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.72* 1.58* 1. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.019). Inspirational Motivation 4. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ
TLS components 1.55* . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .287).Table 8.64* 1. Results are shown in Table 9. *p < . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Results are shown in Table 9. to a minimal extent.00
The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. General Mood and 91
4 .61* . the Interpersonal component (R2change = .59* .57* 1. Stress Management at Step 3. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Individualized Consideration
Note.62* . 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.
1 1.60* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.015).
R2 = .07 . † TLS Summed = D.019
Note. R2 = . R2 = .32 .04*
62.301 at Steps 3 and 4.162
. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).66 3. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.069 2.728 –0.301 at Step 2.000 .
In summary.316 –0. 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. the EQi Intrapersonal. N = 157.287 . Neither Stress Management.015 .
.25 .000 .V.073 –.87 .000 . R2 = . entered at Step 4.287 at Step 1.24 .008 .Interpersonal components.033 –.01.
Table 9. entered at Step 3.320 at Step 5. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. nor Adaptability. *p < .034 4.05.85 .25
2. **p < . F change
. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.66** .04
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
67 2. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.
An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.14 __________________________________________________________
n = 95. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components
EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.44 2.21 14. *p < .05.97 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ
TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3. *p < .01* __________________________________________________________________
n = 95.05. a difference which was significant at p < .75 12. 96
.16 0. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. bn = 62.Table 12.48 104.50 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.
Table 13.05. bn = 62.
Males scored a mean of 0.
Descriptive statistics. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. 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. SD = 14.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender.
. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15.64.77. SD = 14. females: M = 106. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent.08. Interestingly. These data are presented in Table 14. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. respectively.
.01 103.61 104.41 11.97 15.40 14.33 105.17 103.92 13.18 14.
As a group.06 102.34 102.23 13.74 11.99 107.78 13.77 102.80 102.92 102.67 103.57 13.75 13.62 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.26 103. *n = 95.50 109.70 13.37 14.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11)
Happiness 102.09 109.19 12.50 12.21 105. 13).63 13. 11).27 11.16 103. 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 104.68 14.43 11.28 (14) 100.53 12.89 103.93 13.74 15.14 15.24 104.Table 14.55 13.08 11. **n = 62.48 13.37 105.84 11.76 106. Self-Actualization (9 vs.72 101.64 109.07 14.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________
Note.56 102.80 14.80 106.37 12.47 104. Empathy (4 vs.34 12. N = 157.
74 t 2. 10). Females. *p < . Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).05.07* 3.80 11.(5 vs. p = .07 14.67 SD 11. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. They also scored higher on the 99
Males scored a mean of 7. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. among others.99 M 99. n = 62.97 109. Independent-samples t test. 15). males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.26 Females SD 13.74 15.01 102.01. n = 95.11 107.86 11. 12). 10).57 12. and Flexibility (6 vs. a difference which was significant at p < .21 105. a Marginally significant.42*
Note. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 13). 12).18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.01.05. Assertiveness. Males. 15). and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.80 102. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents
Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. Self-Regard (8 vs. As a group.91a 2.
Table 15. **p < . (2 vs.18 14.39 109. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.
TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.08). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. all of which were significant at p < . scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. They also scored 4. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. As a follow-up. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. Specifically. but did not predict TLS for males. or combination. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one.11) than did females (M = 105. Regression analyses. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. regression analyses were performed separately for males and females using as the set of predictors the four EQi subcomponents on which significant gender differences had been identified.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. Further. and independence (R2 change =. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. were important predictors of TLS in females.05. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100
.13).17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.41) subcomponents. To summarize.
–. R2 (adj) = .01.63**
. R2 (adj) = .55
Note.99** .81 1. cFor females: R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.002 .269 ..
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.131
. Summary of Regression Analyses of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females
EQi Subcomponents Step 1 Self-Regard Malesb Femalesc Step 2 Assertiveness Males Females Step 3 Independence Males Females Step 4 Stress Tolerance Males Females Beta a ta Fchange
Sig.255 at Step 2.167 1.73 .04
2.261 at Step 1.010
.21 –. R2 (adj) = .67 –1. **p < .253 at Step 2. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).098 12.378 at Step 3.24 14.18
.41 .02 .248 at Step 3.263 at Step 4.19
. It was thus decided that using
. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . F change
.379 at Step 4.000
. R2 (adj) = .190
.097 .176 at Step 1.45
.669 3.001 .12
2.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.606 .268 7.000 . N = 157.08
the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed)..7%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.0%.7%. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i..and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. The highest percentages of males (53. (b) Idealized Influence 102
. categorical variables (low.e. Categorical variables. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. To do this. 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. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.e. and exactly one half of females (50. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. the three highest TLS component scores). statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. 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. 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. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. More than one half of males (53.
7 51.1 45. N = 157. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.3 46. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103
.2 56.4 54.4 50.1 50.7 53.5 40.3
n 51 51 45 48 51 51
% 53.3 48.
n 44 44 50 47 44 44
The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).3 46.7 53. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow. the highest percentage of females (54.3 52. *n = 95.
Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.6 49.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components
Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total
Note.4 50.8%. Comparison of Low. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.5 46. The highest percentage of females (59. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.5 59. The highest percentage of males (52.(Behavior).6%. **n = 62.8 43.7 47.5 53.
92 111. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.98 111.00 9. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.55 114. First. 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 111.12 110.14 11.51 111.83 111.15 10.68 12.91).00 112.66 114.76 110. Once this subsample was selected.93
Idealized Influence (Behavior)
.75 9.28 11. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.11 113.09 10.29 SD 14.30 10. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.88 11. Secondly. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.
Table 18.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.04 16.66 11.75 10.85 12. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.24 111.45 112.11 11.50 114.64 112.
55 11.39 M 110.15 108.68 10.50 11.15 104.26 112.86 105. 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.Table 18.18 109.12 10.13 111.39 9.23 108.71 106.25 104.84 11.56 SD 10.41 8.07 14.36 13.50 11.28 107.90 103.28 108.55 12.64 9.50 107.17 9.38 14.22 108.13 107.28 110.53 109.22 13.40 12.51 7.55 12.92 105.73 9.42 109.21 11.62 107.51 107.9
Idealized Influence (Behavior)
.03 7.44 9.23 106.20 9.
27 14.06 13.81 17.26 105.09 104. (c) Independence.65 103.12 10.56 105.96 105.4 102.43 11.20 11.79 105.82 105.59 14. 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 102.63 12.90 12.33 M 104.77 101.03 102.86 12.50 SD 10.66 104.75 104.50 105.42 9.78 103.67 10.35 103.01 8.85 14.41 10.73 10.57 104.47 12.81
Idealized Influence (Behavior)
Descriptive statistics. (b) Assertiveness.89 11.06 12. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106
.Table 18.66 10.14 105.68 106. 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.00 103.
33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Assertiveness.05. Males scored a mean of 5. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. (d) Empathy. (d) Problem Solving.05. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. Independent subsamples t test.across the five TLS components. (b) Social Responsibility. (c) Social Responsibility. While males scored 5. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (b) Independence. 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. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. a difference which was significant at p < . (b) Happiness. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. 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. Males scored 107
. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. however. Females scored a mean of 4. In summary.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.
To do this. n = 51. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents
Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.
Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Females. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.and high-scoring) 108
.78 8. a Marginally significant. p = .significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.09 108.16 Females SD 13. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Males.05.61 106. EQi. Categorical variables. 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. *p < .94a –2. n = 31.43 104.57 M 107.04*
Note.96 10.00 14.05. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).
Table 19.33 111. Subsample N = 82. 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.05 10.e.01* 2.43 t 1. categorical variables (low.80 SD 10. however..
The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.0%.5% (n = 35) of females did so.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control.
. However. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.97). Interestingly. followed by 59. The highest percentages of males (61. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. Then. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. Once the subsample was selected.5%. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.6%. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest percentage of females (61. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.3%. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. The highest percentage of males (50. again based on each EQi subcomponent. More than one half of males (53. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. n = 32). Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.1%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.
4 45.8 50.0 45.2 41.8 45.2 61.6 54.1 54.Table 20. **n = 62.5 40.8 38.0 54.3 55.7 54.9 45.2 56.1 55.0
.2 50.5 43.6 46.5 53.1 55.8 38.4 53.0
45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43
% 46.3 48.9 44.1 56.2 61.5 46.1 56.3 52.5 59.2 55. Comparison of Low.8 50.2 45.2 51.0 47.5 53.3 45.9 44.8 42.2 55.9 43.2 50.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents
Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total
*n = 95.5 54.8 44.5 45.7 44.5 46.0 51.9 43.
Female** High Low % 53.0 48.8 58.8 High % 38.8 49.0 52.5 56.8 54.7 47.8 43.7 51.2
51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52
24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28
38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34
% 61.2 57.
55 3.53 0.5 3.47 0.43
Table 21.51 0.52 0.52 3.57 0.61 3.49 0.52 3.47 3.55 SD 0. followed by the lowest mean.37 3.48 0.49 3.37 0.48 3.49 0.47 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.51 3.60 0.49 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.54 0.55 3.55 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi
Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.47 0.58 3.
55 3.6 M 3.37 0.49 0.35
.44 0.Table 21.30 0.41 3.45 3.34 0.37 3.44 3.42 3.40 0.45 0.38 3.36 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued)
Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.51 3.39 0.46 3.42 0.37 3.51 3.37 0.39 0.45 0.36 0.35 3.42 3.37 0.40 0.21 0.22 3.43 SD 0.
24 3.6 0.53 0.58 0.5 0.53 M 3.22 3.21 3.52 0.61 0.45
.18 3.15 3.57 0.2 3.57 0.2 3.2 3.58 0.51 0.19 3.28 3.22 3.08 3.61 0.57 0.24 SD 0.1 3.Table 21.25 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued)
Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.14 0.24 3.51 0.43 0.59 0.
where they scored highest on Inspirational 114
.21 3.6 0. Optimism and Happiness.58 0.16 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.55 0.67 0.Table 21.11 3.02 3.49 0.08 SD 0.13 3.05 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.14 3.57
Descriptive statistics.68 0.06 2.63 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. Empathy. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.95 3. with the exceptions of Independence.62 0.11 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 0.63 0.
Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.04*
M 111. 115
Table 22. n = 54. p = . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. n = 33. 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.80
Males scored 0. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components
Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior)
Note.Motivation. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Idealized Influence (Behavior). only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.05.05. Females. Independent subsamples t test.
Females SD 10. *p < .43 t 2. a Marginally significant.57 M 106.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. a difference which was significant at p < .16 SD 14. Males. In summary. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.
The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction In this final chapter. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. Goleman. These findings are discussed. Goleman. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). RESULTS. 1990.. Schutte et al.
Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. Hater & Bass. 1998). 1998. and findings of data analysis. including research methodology. 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. 1997. 1988). Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed.CHAPTER 5. 116
. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. 1998. 2000. 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. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized.
80% of the U. 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. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. Mandell & Pherwani.S. with women currently representing 50.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. professional. and related occupations (U.6% of the 48 million employees in management. In 2007. 2008). The women 117
. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman.S. 30% of women earned medical degrees. Over the next decade. 2007). fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. women held 15. down from 16. 2003). 1999). executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. However. 47% law degrees. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. In fact.S Department of Labor.2% last year (Hymowitz. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. Hay/McBer. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. 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. In 2001. However. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.4% in 2005. workforce is growing in its diversity. 2000. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.Sosik & Megerian. 2003). The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men.
Not surprisingly. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118
. 2007). businesses owned by women. In the overall U. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.S. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term.5 million people and generate $1. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS.3 trillion in annual sales. In addition. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. 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. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.S. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. As a result of this ambiguity. Identifying how gender differences in EI. 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. the chance to pursue an opportunity. nearly $2. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. 2007).3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. if they exist.
2001. job profiling. 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. In addition to filling this research gap.
Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. selection. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Ball. & Stacey.. these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. 2005). The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. Van Rooy et al. 119
. nonexperimental. 62 female). 2004. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. 2004. As scores on the TLS components increased. recruitment interviewing. 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). to a minimal extent. Schaie.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. Perry. followed by General Mood and. all correlations were in the positive direction. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. EQi component scores also increased. Taken together. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. Interpersonal.
No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. and Stress Tolerance. Self-Regard. Assertiveness. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Assertiveness. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. Stress Tolerance.
Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r. and Social Responsibility. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120
.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components.
who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio.23 or higher.23) to moderate (r = . Burgess. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Palmer. Law et al.. 2000.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. Judge et al. Mandell & Pherwani. 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.21) to moderate (r 121
. 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 = . Thus. Kobe et al. 2004.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Hay/McBer. Walls. Further. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 2003).. 2004. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). 2003. 2001).. & Stough. 2002).” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. In addition. 2001. 1998. Mandell & Pherwani.. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al.
the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Based on Bar-On’s description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. As well. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.” 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. Mandell & Pherwani.= . 2002). 2003). 2000. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . Stress Tolerance. Impulse Control. However.03 to . drive.
. Thus. Hay/McBer.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. or temptation to act. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents.16. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. For example. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. 1998.
the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123
. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.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. Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. BarOn. Thus. Males scored a mean of 4. thinking and behavior to new situations.Reality Testing. Nevertheless. entails adjusting our feelings. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. 2002).62 (p < . thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.19 (p < . unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. Males scored a mean of 0.
skills and talents. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass.19 (p < . 2002. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. 1990). Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.” was rejected. with males scoring a higher mean of . 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. as well as those of the leader and the organization. 2007).05) as well.62 (p < . 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. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses.05) and is consistent with BarOn and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) who found through their research that successful senior leaders have a significantly higher intrapersonal capacity and this attribute is generally found in male leaders. and challenge their own beliefs and values. try new approaches. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124
. As a result.
with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts.41).18). 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. 2000).05. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. Petrides & Furnham. While this current study supports previous research findings.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. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.17).”
. which this current study used. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. all of which were significant at p < .10. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. 1995. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles.
and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. and should not come as a great surprise. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. n = 31) scored above
.18).0%. are independent. “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. According to Dr. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. 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 better at handling stress. 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). Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. Steven Stein. ¶ 1). To do this.7%. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. President of MHS.
2007). p < .” was rejected. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. p < . In addition.33. who analyzed the scores on over 7.28. Stress Tolerance. the null hypotheses proposed for this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. p < .700 administrations of the EQi. Thus. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. and Social Responsibility.05). Assertiveness. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.05).the mean across all of the TLS components.64. self-assuredness. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127
. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. 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. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. inner strength. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).
and. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. and Assertiveness. and they are able to outwardly express their feelings (often directly) without being aggressive or abusive. However. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. 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. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. 1993). Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating.
. for the leader. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. In essence.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility.
In other words. they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS. 2004).015). The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. particularly three of its major components. this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. and. appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. 2003). 2000. When these three components were combined. Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. Interpersonal (R2 change = . However. followed by General Mood (R2change = .287). it is not a sole predictor. coping mechanisms (Purkable. and nonverbal emotional 129
. although EI as measured by the EQi. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. For example.019).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. 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. Mandell & Pherwani. to a minimal degree.
. 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. 2005. unlike the present results. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. Van Rooy et al.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2003) may be related to leadership ability.7) (p. 2005. men scored a mean of 4. 2005). as well as higher on all five components than males. women scored higher overall.21 vs. in the present research. 63. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 1998. 101.31). 2000). unlike findings of previous research.decoding (Byron. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Schutte et al. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. However. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.
. Butler. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.7 vs. 98.58 vs.2).31) and TLS (65. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 104.8 vs.. 92).
Mandell and Pherwani. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131
. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. and does so with consideration for their welfare. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. 399). a somewhat different picture emerged. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts. in the present study.It is important to note. but did not predict TLS for males. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. Further. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. Likewise. The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future. both individually and collectively (Bass. however. p. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. 1990). For example. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females.
Eagly. beliefs.. management-by-exception (active). 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. the critical distinction he made was that. 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. & Johnson. Carless et al. 1994.). Carless.oriented. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. 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. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. 132
. caring. Heilman. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. 1994. Karau. 2000. Rosener. & Martell. 1995. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. Miner. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. Block. Assertiveness. 1998. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. and sensitive. In a study by Bass et al. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. 1990). as women tend to be more nurturing.
That is. Nevertheless. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. Driskell. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. 2001). In addition. in 133
. In addition. 1995. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 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. 1989. 1989).Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. 2001. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. Copeland. expressing disagreement. 2001). or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. Bass et al. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. Generally. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. 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. 1989. Rudman. 1998). & Salas.
. 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. the fear of failure. 1997). and Stress Tolerance. 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. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. could also attribute to lower scores. in the worst case. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings.studies that report significant differences between females and males the effect sizes are very small and it is therefore argued that there is no practical differences between female and male leaders (Yammarino et al. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. inner strength. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. beliefs and thoughts. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness. Self-Regard. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134
. In addition. and their negative connotations in. 2002).
¶ 1). Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. ¶ 1). However. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Furthermore. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. and Stress Tolerance. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. 1994). This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. 1997). this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity.Psychiatric Association. but the effects are small for the most part. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. However. Social Responsibility. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. who suggested that “statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. Assertiveness. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. while not significant. 135
. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women.
More specifically. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. . men appear to have better selfregard. (Bar-On. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. . no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. 2003). First. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. 2007. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. 2007. Mandell & Pherwani. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational.
Limitations The current study has several limitations. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. 1998. demonstrate more empathy. transactional. both are equally transformational in leadership style. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. are more flexible. solve problems better. and passive/avoidant). cope better with stress. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. when compared with women. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136
. are more self-reliant. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. and are more optimistic than women. 1994). ¶ 1) “To summarize . For purposes of this study. On the other hand.
1991). Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. more specifically transactional. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. 2000). and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. attitudes. 2003). whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. 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. However. 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.. 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. That is. 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. 137
. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. rather than polar constructs.scores. 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. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. One of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response (SDR) in the case of men and women who may be affected by gender role expectations. Further.
and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. thereby reducing the potential for bias. peers. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. Service Orientation. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. a measure 138
. and subordinates.
Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. Alternatively. and Communication. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. It is possible that. Developing Others.peers. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Conscientiousness. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. where superiors. 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. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. different results would have been obtained. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza.
Butcher. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. Therefore. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. As a result. 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. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. Concerning the narrowing of industries. education. Future researchers. the U. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. workforce. Graham. & Kaemmer. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. as well as the industries they represent. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. Tellegen. and 139
.S. 1989). In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. as stated previously. Dahlstrom.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded.033. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures.
implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. Likewise. This research also suggests that. both are equally transformational in leadership style.. and (b) if so. In view of this projection. 140
. The EQi Intrapersonal. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. 2003). no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Based on the results of this study. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS.
Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS). Gender. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style.healthcare professions (Herman et al. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style.
In conclusion. job profiling. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership.
. recruitment interviewing. selection. This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning.
(2000). P. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. P.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association.pdf Antonakis. Emerging leadership vistas (pp.org/ethics/code2002. doi: 10. (2005. D. A. M. Lexington.. Ferris. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Atlanta.). A.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. DC: Author. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. 261–295. In J. R. (2006). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. doi: 10. (2003).). M. (1988). & Bass. 79(1). Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference.. (2003). & Stough. & Hakstian. B. (2004).. Bar-On.. M. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Douglas. Avolio. Educational and Psychological Measurement. J. M.. J. 14(3). R. J. Schriesheim (Eds.apa. Avolio. GA. B. H. R. Baliga. Handbook of emotional intelligence.. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. Atkins. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds. American Psychological Association. 18– 22. (1994). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. CA: Mind Garden. Redwood City. Leadership Quarterly.). B. J. Hunt. 64(3). J. K. & Sivasubramaniam. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. P. Washington. doi: 10. A. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. G. (2003). H. In R. B. 29–50). & Dasborough. C. N. 142
. Journal of Education for Business. N. A. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). Retrieved from http://www.. 437–462. Ontario. Avolio.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. (2002). MA: Lexington Books. April).). (2004). Toronto. B. charisma and beyond. Dachler. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. 11(4). 355–361. & C. Transformational leadership. Barchard. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. & Bass.
R. (2006). B. Bass. B. J.org/bar-on-model/essay. J. (1990). (1993). Menlo Park. Leadership and performance beyond expectations..130 Bass. (1985). New Braunfels. B. (1999).84. doi: 10. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.. Psicothema. R. B..52. M. CA: Mind Garden.2. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). B. J.1037/0003-066X. & Avolio. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Leadership Quarterly. B.uaemex.pdf Bar-On. Public Administration Quarterly. B. (1994). Redwood City.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. M. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. & Avolio. 18(3).). M. Retrieved from http://205. B. M. R. Organizational Dynamics. Bass.htm Bass. M.Bar-On. 18(Suppl. 4(3). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. (2004). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. New York: The Free Press. R. B. & Handley. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. 52(2). B. 17(3/4). Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. (1995). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. & Avolio. Retrieved from http://www. & Avolio. 130–139. B. TX: Pro-Philes Press. & Avolio. (2007). 541–554. B. 19–31. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. J. CA: Mind Garden. 375–377.242/demo/intro/tformlead. B. doi: 10. J.net/tc3/TC019239. M. M. 112–121. doi: 10.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. B. International Journal of Public Administration. (1997).reuvenbaron.231.. J.html Bass. B. M. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 143
. Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Retrieved from http://redalyc. (1990). Bass. B... 17(1). 13–25. (1999). The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Bass. M. (1993). & Avolio. M.php?i=25 Bar-On.
. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women.2224/ sbp. (2003). Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. J. R. M. (2007). (1990). 5–34. Leadership. J. (1978). J.. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.1037/0021-9010. (2000). doi: 10. Y. & Atwater.library . S. New York: Harper & Row.Bass. University of Nebraska. & Wheeler. R. 15(3).2. Jung. & Berson. 32–44. J. 27(5)..com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. doi: 10.haygroup. 41–50. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression.. 86(1). D. Social Behavior and Personality. A.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. D. E. (2003). Psychological Reports. L.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge.35. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. W.. Retrieved from http://ei.htm Burns. (2007).. M. 207–218. Murphy. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. B.207 Bennis.eiconsortium. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). N. Hafetz. (2004). E. (2003). M. K.pdf Boyatzis. doi: 10. M. 88(2). J. 234–238.edu/login?url=http://search. doi: 10.2007. Retrieved from http://www..eiconsortium. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. (2004). Applied Psychology: An International Review. Journal of Applied Psychology.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Doctoral dissertation. I.. (1996). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. E. Bass.ebscohost. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. E. Psychological Inquiry. Avolio. B. L. 44–46.capella. Lincoln.pdf Brody. 45(1). 9(4). 47–64. A. Retrieved from http://www. 35(1).1.41 144
. B.haygroup. J. Burton. & Henninger. B. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http:// www. South Carolina State University..htm Bryant.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks.88. Avolio.com/login.
213–237. J.Butcher. A. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. & Mann. 887–902. October).. doi: 10.eiconsortium . 56(4). 39(11/12). 23(3). Retrieved from http://www. W.aspx Cherniss. 565–76. A. Colorado State University. & Brienza.57 ..eiconsortium .. G. L. B. Sex Roles.1177/014920639702300302 Carless.htm 145
. & Goleman. Wearing. (1998. D.. A. doi: 10. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved August 10. (2000). Graham. May). leader. D. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. 725– 741. 14(3). Journal of Management. A. J. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers..eiconsortium. L. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. & Kaemmer.1111/0022-4537. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. S.. doi: 10. (1998). C.. (2005). 389–405. (2003). N. K. K. (2002).964 Carli. 2008. Retrieved from http//www.htm Cannella..00238 Cavallo. Dahlstrom.. Retrieved from http://www.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. A short measure of transformational leadership. J. Journal of Business and Psychology. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. R. (2008.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. (1997). Doctoral dissertation. L. Retrieved from http://www. M. Fort Collins. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. 57(4). (2001). Butler. Tellegen.org/-report. J. L. L. C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. S. Gender and social influence. L. Byron.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. (1989). doi: 10. (1989).6.ccl. Journal of Social Issues. Georgia State University. & Monroe.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. A. and subordinate perspectives.
doi: 10.d. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 55(6).. Dubinsky.. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. & Salas. L. (1999). Journal of Business Research.233 Eagly. from Answers. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. D. Driskell. Eagly. Mayfield. (2002). 45(4). H. Avolio. A theory of leadership effectiveness. M. V. E. (1995). B.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. & Swerdlik. 31(4). B. Copeland. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Retrieved from ProQuest database.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. J. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. F.. D. & Higgs.. 5(2). D. J. Management challenges for the 21st century. 523–530.108. J. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. 108(2). Gender and reactions to dominance. Eden. E (1999). Mountain View. 2008. Leadership Quarterly. P. & Johnson. & Spangler. T. W. Jolson..Chief executive officer. (1995). 10(6). R. 29(12). J. B. D. New York: HarperCollins. 735–744. Achieving results through transformational leadership. Dearborn. A. 233–256. CA. Dixon. A. A. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. Dulewicz. 17–21. Karau. (2002). (1999)... B..1037/0033-2909. & Johnson. doi: 10. E.. Retrieved August 31..). 17–29.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen.. Journal of Nursing Administration. doi: 10. 467–480. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Miner.com Web site: http://www. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Yammarino. B. (2000).. J. Psychological Bulletin.answers. 15(2). M. A. J. New York: Hill. K. Public Personnel Management. 53–68. M. J. Academy of Management Journal. 135–159. (2002). doi: 10.. & Shamir.2. F. (n. 341–372. S. (1994). (1967). 146
. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management.. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. 15(4). Drucker. H. C.
4. C. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. L. Gohm. CA: Sage. (2004).gov.). & Rawles. O.library. W. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). D. R. & Bass. M. 237–252. 10(3). Psychological Inquiry..doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147
. Hater. Furnham. New York: Basic Books. J.73. doi: 10. A. C. O.dfee. (2000). & Martell. Frankel. London: Routledge. ECI fact card. A. D.. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved from http://www. P.. 222–227. Retrieved from http://psycnet. doi: 10. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. M.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. Block. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract].Field. 741–748.uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. (1995).org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. Saunders. New York: Bantam. Social Work Research.1037/0021-9010. (1995). R. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. F.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. Doctoral dissertation. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. (1988). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. (1983). (1998). 695–702. Retrieved from http://www. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. Working with emotional intelligence.eiconsortium. Grubb.apa. Social skills in interpersonal communication. (2001).edu/login?url http://search. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. C. E. 10(6). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Thousand Oaks. 25(1).695 Hay Group. H.ebscohost. Gellis. Z. 73(4). (2008).com/login. B.pdf Hay/McBer. J. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.org/?fa=main. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.htm Hargie.haygroup. J. (1995).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.. L. (2004). (2005). New York: Warner Business Books. 15(3). 17–25. & Dickson.. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.. L.capella.
85(5). Impending crisis: Too many jobs. (1999). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium..edu/login?url=http://search . London: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. J.htm Hymowitz. Organizational Dynamics. T. Case Western Reserve University. Hersey. & Bono. J.. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. (1997). P.1037t/00219010. (1998).1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. C. doi: 10. On diversity.. R. (2005).capella. HR Focus. 751–765.751 148
. D. Upper Saddle River.. Boston: Irwin. too few people. A. & Matteson.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Blanchard. M. 75(9). & Olivo. R. J.wsj. (2000). You’ve got to change to retain. K. Judge.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland.). H. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.com/login. doi: I0. (2003). Englewood Cliffs.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. and styles on leadership success [Abstract].com/ login. M. emotional intelligence competencies.Herman. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. 28(3). M. 74(6). A. & Hitt. VA: Oakhill Press. The impact of gender. February 25).. (1993). HR Focus. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman.. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. (2008. H. Retrieved from http://online.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . T. Hopkins. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. P. Journal of Applied Psychology. Hitt. NJ: Prentice Hall. 43–57.capella.ebscohost.5. (1993). T.library. H. 15– 16.85. R.library. (1997). (2000). Wall Street Journal. Academy of Management Executives. R. M. Winchester. (1977). S1–S4.ebscohost. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is.aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. 6–18. G. NJ: Prentice Hall.edu/login?url=http://search. 13(1). A. Doctoral dissertation. & Blanchard. E. Hersey. K. Ivancevich. Gioia.).
3.. 385–425. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Johnson.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. F. 755–768. K. B. Colbert.pdf Law. doi: 10. doi: 10. S. & Posner. (2004).. A. 7(3).. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. & Jantzi.89. 173–180. Journal of Research and Technology Management. J.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. B. Noack. Wong.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149
.. P.483 Leithwood. S. T. (1996). (2004)..capella. (2005). Salovey. 89(3).library. Current Psychology. L..15304. Transformational leaders make a difference. (2004). R. N. (2007).1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. 12(3). C. R. R.113 Lowe. & Ilies. (2000.5.. B. 20(2).1037/0021-9010. D.1037/0021-9010. Journal of Educational Administration.. Côté. Retrieved from http://basepath. doi: 10.ebsco host. 38(2). R.. 483–496. A.755 Kaufhold. 41–44. J. 615–626. P. (2000). R. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.00. 38(3). Reiter-Palmon. 112–129. Emotion.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. doi: 10. G. M.. K. T. & Song. (1995). M. doi: 10. A.1037/0021-9010... N. L. A.89. & Sivasubramaniam. Education. L. doi: 10. 89(5).. (2005).com/login.. P..89. doi: 10. & Piccolo. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 113–118.1037/15283542.edu/login?url=http://search. A. K. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. (2001). Kirkcaldy. J. Kroeck.com/cda/media/ 0.. M. 125(4).. K. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.. & Siefen.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89(3).5.1. S. Leadership Quarterly.3. June). 154–163.Judge. D. 5(1). J. G. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. & Rickers. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Furnham. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. European Psychologist.542 Judge. & Beers. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. Z. doi: 10. 542–552.wiley.
K. F. (2004a).library. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. & Salovey. 15(2). J. (2003). D. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. findings.. R.library.an.1146/annurev. Toronto. 32(3). Journal of Business and Psychology. (1986). Intelligence. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Sluytrer (Eds. (2007). doi: 10.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site
. (2002). (UMI No.Lutz. 05B.capella. (1999). Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. 67(1). 1–29. 9970564) Mandell. G.15. 179–196. J.sciencedirect. S. 253–296. P.ebscohost.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. 27(4)..edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. D. (2000).. 15(3). & Pherwani. D.. American Sociological Review. Mathews. R.. Salovey & D. doi: 10. Salovey. J. (2002). M.unh. M. Caruso. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. R. Dissertation Abstracts International. 387–404. 267–298.capella.. P. 197–215. D. P.. Emotional intelligence: Theory..com . Carlsmith. D. H.ebscohost. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. & Chabot. (2004).capella. Retrieved from http://www. Roberts. M..com/ login. Retrieved from http://www. J. Journal of Research in Personality. 61. C. Salovey. Retrieved from ProQuest database..100186. D.002201 Malek. Psychological Inquiry. (1998).edu/login?url=http://search. Ontario. (1997).)... & White. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. P. D. B. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. What is emotional intelligence? In P. & Caruso..com/login. J.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. & Salovey. R. New York: Basic Books.edu/login?url=http://search. D.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. G. Mayer. & Caruso. 71). J. & Zeidner. The anthropology of emotions.library. About the MSCEIT. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry. 405–436. D. D. 15(3). 17(3). D. doi: 10. and implications. S. Mayer. Annual Review of Anthropology. J. M.
doi: 10. Shaver. R.html 151
.. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence.Mayer. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. B. & Taylor.library. 381–400. Parker. Robinson. 13(4).d.edu/login?url=http://search. MLQ international norms. 17–59). 15(3). R. Salovey.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. 2008.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. Inc.org. L. K..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. D. H. Journal of Individual Differences..capella. & Stacey. 335–344. Burgess. J. L.au/iier14/perry. Eastabrook. M. Measurement and control of response bias.library.). N. Retrieved from http://www. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. L. 22(1).. Wrightsman (Eds. (1991)..... Journal of Nursing Administration. (2003). The International Journal of Conflict Management. 26(2). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. C.ebscohost. A. M. & L. Issues in Educational Research.capella.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. 29–43. Retrieved August 31. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. from Answers.pdf Morrison. (2001). M. (2002). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2005). Walls. I. L. & Fuller. & Stough. Wood. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness.com/login.paid.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. Psychological Inquiry. R. D. D.com/login . J. R. doi: 10.com Web site: http://www. 249–255. 15(3). Retrieved from http://www. (1997). 24(6). Jones. Z. 27–34. Saklofske. 216–238. & Carsky. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.ebscohost.04. S. P. (2004). (2004b). Oatley. J. Ball. S. (n. N. doi: 10. 5–10.. (2004). B. 27(5). Perry. (2004). Leadership & Organization Development Journal.. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. M. P.. C. E.1016 /j. & Caruso.. D. San Diego. 14(1).answers.022 Paulhus.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. J. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database.mind garden. D. Psychological Inquiry.2006.. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. CA: Academic Press..edu/login? url=http://search. In J. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. 100–106.).iier.
42(5/6)..2007. L. & Buckley.003
.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.eiconsortium.capella. (2003b). Supervision (6th ed. pp. J. R. 121–133. 15(6). doi: 10. (1991).1016/j. Ferris. Retrieved from http://www.. V. R. Plunkett (Ed. Douglas. Catholic University of America. 425–448. B. Emotional intelligence. P. R. A.. & McRae. 119–125. 323–351). R. Ferris.. K. In W. Leadership Quarterly. doi: 10. V. Harvard Business Review.. & Buckley. 11(1). M. G. 41–62..leaqua. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. R. Emotional intelligence..edu/login?url=http://search. J. 18(2). R. R. 11(4). Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://www.ebsco host. C. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. A. and team outcomes. R. L. (2000). M. M. Ways women lead. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library. L. W.Petrides.630 Plunkett.). (2007).. C. P. 60(4). & Furnham.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .1037/0022-3514.60.. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. 449–461. (2004). (1990). 68(6). R..htm Rivera Cruz. Prati. K. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. Douglas. Ammeter. Prati. (2001). Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. B. leadership effectiveness. P. doi: 10. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. T. K. T.. A. Costa. & Furnham. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. (1992). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. G... L. 744–755.416 Piedmont. & Heinitz.01.4.. 363–369. V.1002/per. Leadership and management styles. Purkable. Retrieved from ProQuest database. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. European Journal of Personality.eiconsortium. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Case Western Reserve University.htm Rosener. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Ammeter.com/login. Sex Roles. M. A. (2003a). Petrides. (2003). Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Retrieved from ProQuest database.com..243 Schermerhorn. B.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. Retrieved from http:// www.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Malouff.3. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. and Personality. J.3.eiconsortium. & Mayer. Retrieved from http://www. (2000). L. D. J. J. & Bass. Hall. Imagination. Retrieved August 31. W. doi: 10. (n.com Web site: http://www. M.capella. J.). (2002). E. 25(2). et al. F. 629–645.ebscohost. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. D. Race. Our Lady of the Lake University.unh.).library. A.. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.Rudman. T. E. (1990). Golden.com/topic/senior-management Smith. 9(4). and Matthews (2001).629 Sala..74. 2008. K. M.pdf Sanders. Retrieved from http:// www.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. J. J. J.com/login. 74(3)..1037/0022-3514. 16(4). L.capella. 9(4). and socialization. Emotion.edu/login?url=http://search . Retrieved from http://www.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.d. doi: 10. R. 21–31.sciencedirect. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Schulte. from Answers. & Geroy. Hunt. Hopkins. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Cognition..htm Schutte. Cooper. J.. Doctoral dissertation..1037/1528-3542. (1998).1. Comment on Roberts. C. & Osborn.answers. S. 1(3). D.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153
. 167–177.. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Haggerty. 185–211. 94– 110. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.eiconsortium. Emotional intelligence. (2003). doi: 10. P. N. W. E. Gender & Class. (1990). Organizational behavior (7th ed.. emotions. J. G. (1998). M. Journal of Management.. 9(3). J. (2003).library. 243–248.org/ Salovey. Race. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Zeidner. Schaie. 693–703. E. (2001)... (2001).. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. New York: Wiley.
L. Retrieved from http://www.. & Megerian. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. 689–700. (2008).library.. M. 18–14.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. & Fidell. Census Bureau of Labor. J. 24(3). (2003). G. Journal of Education for Business. L.2004. Ellis. & McDaniel.siop. Journal of Allied Health. Alonso. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. Z. J. (2005). L.se/default. J.edu/spb/ovidweb. S. 38(3).). 75(6).% 20&%20McDaniel. Sosik.org/Search. (1998. Wade.Smith. Nursing Research. & Viswesvaran.J. (2002). (2000). F. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.ovid. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications.Needham Heights. Retrieved from http://www.bls. S. Vandenberghe. L.C. 37–43.tx. MA: Allyn and Bacon.S.%20M. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1999).bls. doi: 10.com. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates..1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. A. (2001). & D’hoore. C..capella. 37(1).%20K. Bureau of Labor Statistics.pdf U.paid.aspx?search=Smith. doi: 10. April). J.. (2005). (2000). 49(1). Retrieved from ProQuest database. 2002. S..gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. M. J.kandidata.. K.. Sojka. TX..1016/j. C.%20(1998) Snodgrass. Retrieved from http://www.S. S .. W. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.. M. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. U. Barone.. J. & McCarthy. Department of Labor. 367–390. Douthitt.A. Dallas. R. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Group & Organization Management. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. 331–338. C. B. A.05.023
.cgi Tabachnick. E. D.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Tucker.. Personality and Individual Differences. A. & Plemons. S.
(2005). E. (2007). L. The Leadership Quarterly. A. L. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. Retrieved from ProQuest database. doi: 10.06. Developing emotional intelligence.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu.eiconsortium.2004.capella. B. Retrieved from http://www .edu/login?url=http://search. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis.. doi: 10. J.library.ebscohost. 43(10).1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. University of Minnesota.com/login. D.1016/j. (2000). M.001 155
.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.com/login. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. doi: 10. Nursing Management. M.. J. Academy of Management Journal. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. 39–52. K. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. 975–995. & Spangler. (1997). (2003). Yukl. G. 205–222.library .ebscohost. 34(10). The perfect labor storm 2. Doctoral dissertation. W. (1989). I. Yammarino. (2003). 15(2).. 16(1). 15(2). 99–125. R. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. (2001).capella. W. (1998). Dubinsky. leaqua... (1990). Upper Saddle River.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. A. B. & Bass. NJ: Prentice Hall. Lancaster. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.edu/login?url=http://search.edu/ login?url=http://search.). 251–289. Human Relations. 40(1). 8(2). G. Wolfe. J. Chew. H. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Journal of Information Systems. H.com/login. J. F. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.library. S. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 89–92. Emotional intelligence at work. Comer.ebscohost. C.capella. I. Zhu.htm Weisinger.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. 28–32.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. F. & Jolson. Journal of Management. (2002).Viator. A. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. M.
What level of management do you currently hold in your organization?
Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner
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
. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.APPENDIX.
Level of Education?
High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s Degree PhD
Number of direct reports under your supervision?
3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More
Race / Ethnicity (optional)
Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander
00 Between $100.000.000.000.00 and $100.00 Between $70.Your Age?
21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over
Less than $40.000.000.000.000.000.00 and $150.00 and $70.00 Between $40.00 More than $150.00